 |
|
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
Yeh, let's look at FRANCE. Real nice situation there, importing people, no babies. What a dolt.
Take away their welfare benefits, their right to put children in the public schools, their right to use the hospitals, and require them to pay taxes like the rest of us, and I might agree that it's close.
I'm hoping this is just a 21st century update of Swift's Modest Proposal, but I doubt it.
I sure hope this guy doesn't have children, because they're ruined if he does, poor kids.
He looks like Al Franken with a rather large fat suit!
And the Netherlands, and Germany...and so on and so forth...
He doesn't like children, huh?
On the link, it gives his email address
I hope I won't be the only one giving this man a piece of my mind!
What is he going to do, import eunichs? Immigrants have far higher birthrates than native born Americans.
It's a parody folks.
Yep. And a good one.
Its in an editorial with a bunch of straight-faced columns on standard small town issues, so I don't think it is one
Maybe he got an advanced copy of Hillary's Inauguration Speech?
Apparently he has forgotten the one thing that would give him any credibility at all...Hard work! Think about what a 15-20 year old was doing 50, 60 years ago. probably not playing organized soccer and getting ready for party town campus to find themselves. They were probably learning a productive trade.
His argument is asking US to commit suicide. Conservatives need to have larger families liberals need to take his advice.
Of course, he is being sarcastic.
We need to get involved in our children's lives and mold them to become good citizens.
He needed to develop that little statement a little more, I think....
What?
Allowing the abortion of 40 million future citizens over the last 30 plus years isn't enough "progress" for the cabal thats seeks to destroy this nation thru any means possible?
Thanks for the post.
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.