 |
|
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
His mother must have dropped him on his head as a baby.
this IS satire, right?
End immigration.
We are overcrowded enough.
Conservatives need to have larger families liberals need to take his advice.
If this guy is an economist, he should no children are an asset, not a liability. The present value of a child born in the U.S. is about $750,000.
I don't have a problem with the immigration, if legal, but the U.S. will be destroying itself if it stops having children. If children are such a disruption, why was the U.S. so successful during the "Baby Boom" era?
Or it could be a partial birth abortion...
so wha t is the birthrate in Mexico?
The alternative is Europa moribunda.
They do. And they wonder why they get called commies and extremists.
bttt
A difference of "one notch" is a small difference of degree, and therefore not one of kind. Furthermore, the nature of a living thing does not change until it dies, even if it's a caterpillar. When a caterpillar has become a butterfly it reproduces, thereby making... more caterpillars. Cats make kittens, dogs puppies, and humans children, all reproducing "after their kind". It follows that if children differ from domesticated animals only by degree, not nature, all adults are also bestial.
So why, exactly, should anyone care what someone who, by his own necessarily implied admission, has nature of a domesticated animal thinks?
I agree with you about population & economics. How long does our country have to rely on disproven theories. I wonder if our lack of reproduction invites increased immigration by making it a necessity.
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... 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.
A "new approach" which is societal, which it turns out means taking very young children away from the care and instruction of their parents on a regular basis in order to put them under the care and instruction of an institution. But less of the family and more of other stuff is the problem.
If he came on the thread to defend himself I'd guess here he'd say it's better than TV. But this would miss the point: the problem is parental abdication.
Cooperation, etc., is already pretty much what they teach in preschool. Morton doesn't like what we're getting, but he calls for more of the same. But what habits does he expect children to learn if you make their primary source of interaction their "peers", who are as untrained as they are, and at ever earlier ages?
Amen
bttt
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.