Posted on 09/30/2007 4:57:50 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
During a recent campaign appearance, Hillary Clinton proposed the idea that each and every baby born within the United States be given a $5,000 baby bond in order to help pay for college or pay for a new house. The problems with this idea are too many and too obvious to mention here, but glaring difficulties have never stopped Democrats (or even politicians in general) before. In fact, one could argue that common sense and lack of patronage funds are a greater obstacle to politicians than anything else...but I digress. The question is (to use the Latin), “Qui bono?” That is, “Who benefits?”
The first and most obvious person to benefit from this is Hillary herself. It is very easy to be seen as compassionate when you are busy “feeling someone’s pain.” And it is even easier to do it when you are using other people’s money. Remember, the only reason anyone could stand in the way of this is that they are greedy. (*) So the first person to benefit is Hillary, in the sense of improved political chances.
A second group to benefit are (indirectly) the baby boomers. Although, as we shall see, the benefits may be a double-edged sword. So, how on earth is giving government money AWAY going to help an aging population? First, recall that many of the boomers are approaching retirement age. Businesses, who are generally known for more foresighted policies than the government, have decided to handle the generational change by laying off older workers, offshoring to countries with young (and cheap!) employees, cancelling pension and medical benefits, and the like. This means that many of the boomers – more known for collective narcissism and self-indulgence than for planning – are facing an uncertain retirement. And just at the time when (thanks to their own small family size and encouragement of abortion) there are going to be fewer workers than ever before to support them through Government-based Ponzi schemes Social Security.
So what else can the government do? Goose the birth rate! And the true socialist path for doing this is NOT by increasing the government support for traditional families, increasing the tax deduction for dependents, eliminating the marriage penalty. Oh no! The best way to do this is obviously to increase the not the tax deduction for dependents, but to increase the number of dependents. (Dependents on GOVERNMENT, that is.) And between the illegitimate births, and the number of anchor babies, and (let’s admit it) the increased numbers of both sure to result from what will be seen as “free money from kind Uncle Hillary”, the population will go up quite a bit.(+)
But you know, something else will go up quite a bit, too, speaking of consequences. If the government circulates more money out of thin air, just like that, it may prove to be rather inflationary. And that will be a mixed blessing for the boomers. How? Sure, many of them will be living on fixed incomes. But for those who retired with some debts outstanding, say a McMansion which they could not sell, the inflation may dilute the size of the house payment to the point that they can afford *premium* dog food.
So we have Hillary and her nanny-state cohorts happy; boomers maybe happy; and future anchor families happy. However, there is one group which may NOT be particularly pleased with this plan. How about the militant feminists and the NARAL crowd? Anything which increases the number of live births, anything which gives even transient monetary value to unborn children, is likely to get them all tied up in knots. Think about it. You are part of what has been hitherto the target market for the pro-abortion crowd. You are pregant under the Hillary regime. You face either a bill for $300 or up (maybe up to $2000 for a late term abortion). Or, you can give birth to the baby and have a $5,000 bond from the government. If you are a short sighted young person – but again, I repeat myself – which would you choose?
And a final thought. This may be the first time in recent history that anything a Democrat ever said or did really WAS because "it's for the children."
(*) This illustrates the reasons why so many people were uncomfortable with the term coined by President Bush ’43, “compassionate conservatism”. First, it encouraged the lie that conservatism was in essence NOT compassionate, which is a charge that liberals are always too willing to make. Secondly, it stole a really great name for what should have been the truly compassionate conservative plan of action, which was to teach both the philosophy and the practice of self-reliance. People who need help are grateful for assistance, of course; but those who move beyond gratitude to self-reliance, and those who move beyond self-reliance to helping others in turn, are the most compassionate of all.
(+) The Russians have recently begun encouraging couples to take a day off of work to make whoopie, in the hopes of increasing the Rodina’s population. Given that Putin was head of the KGB, I think the fact that Hillary has come up with such a similar idea is a good indication of her socialst roots.
Cheers!
Hillary and Putin are alot closer in ideology (and idiocy)than just their plans ‘for the children’.
I was impressed with that photo of Putin without his shirt on, but I'd pay a good sum of money to make sure Hillary KEEPS hers on.
Full Disclosure: remember Bill going to Moscow during the height of the Cold War?
Like Kim Philby, the KGB always sought out those with personal weaknesses.
Cheers!
I think the KGB had billy boy by the nuts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.