 |
|
Morton Marcus
|
|
Posted on 08/12/2005 7:06:43 PM PDT by Scythian
|
|
This column may seem harsh to some readers; don't say you were not warned.
Could we reduce some of the major costs in our society if we had fewer children and more immigration from abroad? Think about it. Children, particularly those 15 to 19 years of age, are a major disruptive and expensive aspect of our nation. They establish behaviors that lead to lifelong misery for themselves and expenses for the rest of us.
Teens get into all sorts of costly trouble. They lead police on dangerous chases because they will not obey the law. Even when not evading the police, they are a threat to others on the road. They waste our resources by not applying themselves to their studies. Their tastes in clothing, music, movies and TV degrade our cultural standards.
Younger children offer moments of sweetness along with enormous expense in time, energy and resources. Yes, babies are cute, but they probably cause as much emotional anguish as they do joy. Children are insatiable consumers. Our efforts to please them involve vast expenditures on cereals, toys, games and clothes that contribute little to their or our long-term satisfaction or well-being.
There is an alternative to this squandering of our national resources. Encourage Americans to have fewer children and to develop policies of immigration that enhance our national well-being.
First, we would remove the token subsidies now given for parenthood. This means the income-tax exemptions for children would be deleted. Subsidies for child care would be eliminated. Even the current inadequate additions to welfare assistance for children would be dropped.
Second, health insurance would not cover pregnancy. Just as many believe that insurance should not cover medication for erectile dysfunction because it is a lifestyle problem, so too is pregnancy a lifestyle choice. Perhaps abortion or adoption of the child should be forced on any unmarried woman under age 21. Clearly, parental leave would be revoked.
In place of adding to our population with children we produce, we would import college-age adults. Specifically, careful recruitment by universities would bring the most talented and energetic English-speaking students from abroad to study in the United States. If their performance here is acceptable, they would be eligible for citizenship. Their initiative, inventiveness and income would help American businesses and contribute to Social Security. We would be putting our money where it would pay off better than in diapers.
Sentimentalists will oppose this rational solution to strengthening our nation's future. They will argue that it is against family values. But America is not built on families; its building block is the individual. We are a people who characteristically left their families behind and ventured out to somewhere else. Our heroes are celebrated as single persons, not as family members.
Of course, if we do not like this scenario, we could opt to invest in our children. We could consciously and deliberately turn them from liabilities into assets. This means changing how we spend money on young children and reducing the amount of discretionary funds teens have.
Foremost, an investment policy means a new approach to raising children. Our concern should be not just custodial care for the child nor merely satisfying the parents' desires. We would need to recognize that child rearing is an essential societal function.
Immediately, liberals and conservatives bristle at that last sentence. Both fear that government will impose its values on children and that parental control will be lost. The only difference between the liberals and conservatives is which set of values will be imposed by government.
However, as a society we are in agreement already on many aspects of good behavior. If we focused childhood (preschool) education on cooperation, self-control, respect for the rights of others, cleanliness, safety, plus appropriate speech and grammar, parents would not object. Unbending liberals and conservatives will continue to fry in their own juices, but our children would be more valuable to America.
Yes, with sufficient, appropriate child care and early education, we might have young children prepared to learn in school and teens who would not be a danger to themselves and our society.
Indiana economist Morton Marcus has studied and written about the Indiana economy for more than 30 years, during and after his long association with Indiana University. He lives on the north side of Indianapolis and can be reached by e-mail at morton_marcus@yahoo.com
corporate talking points.
I don't even think words can describe how lousy this piece of tripe truly is.
Is this guy trying to be funny or is he just so absurd that he seems funny?
Trade in my kids for a Mexican? Might not be a bad idea, at least the yard will get cut.
What a load of crap. Fewer immigrants (ilegal, at least) and more home-grown kids would help us out. Of course, that would ratify the nuclear family, a concept that is all but lost in contemporary American society.
I can think of several countries trying more immigration/few children strategies...we see how well it's working there!
Unlike some, I read the entire article.
He is quite serious. You see, he's actually saying what he believes unlike most of the libs who are afraid to say it. Shocking it is nonetheless.
I read the entire peace, and basically what this guy is saying that, for the good of America, the government needs to involve itself more in the way children are raised, at least, that's the inference I gleam from it.
Piece, not Peace
Just proves booklarnin' don't make ye smart.
This dude needs to be aborted.
They are sweet, kind and courteous. They are all working, involved in school and community service. What little help they are getting from the taxpayers in schooling is more than off-set by what I pay in taxes now and what they are paying and will pay over a lifetime.
Even though I may think they are the most wonderful kids in the nation who give me and all who know them a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction, if I look at it objectively, they are not so exceptional. They have peers who are (almost) as sweet, nice and ambitious.
It's worked so well for Europe. Why not give it a try? /sarcasm of course
I read the article and saw his picture. I think old, ugly, fat men are more a cost/drag on our society. I vote to keep the kids and shoot all the old, fat, ugly people.
This is a rather clumsy parody. Having said that, the most patriotic and selfless thing adults can do is spend the big bucks to procreate and intelligently raise their issue into productive citizens to replace those that have gone before. And that is a fact. I admire those that choose to be parents, and wise and attentive ones, very much indeed. I really cannot think of a more enobling task off hand.
No kidding, TRIPE.
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.