Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hillary Clinton: Let's Add A $20 Billion Entitlement
Captain's Quarters ^ | September 28, 2007 | Ed Morrissey

Posted on 09/29/2007 7:49:24 AM PDT by jdm

Fresh off of pushing for an expansion of S-CHIP into the middle class and adding tens of billions of dollars on insurance subsidies, Hillary Clinton decided to create another entitlement program for her cradle-to-grave nanny state vision. In her address to the Congressional Black Caucus, Hillary said she'd like to spend $20 billion each year on checks to newborn infants:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

The US has had over 4 million births per year since 2000. The calculation is easy. In 2004, with 4,121,000 births, that would mean $20,605,000,000 dollars ... for just one year.

Where does Hillary plan to get that money? It's easy to talk about writing checks, but the federal budget already runs in the red, especially on entitlements. If we talk about spending even more money that we don't have, why stop at $5,000? John McCain wondered aloud in his blogger conference call whether $100,000 wouldn't sound more compassionate, as long as we didn't talk about how we plan to pay for the program.

This represents pandering politics at its worst. Want to get votes for an election? Promise to buy people off with free money! It takes the worst instincts of Norman Hsu to suggest yet another entitlement Ponzi scheme to get elected to office. The company Hillary keeps has started to rub off on her. Read Philip Klein for more.

UPDATE & BUMP, 3:40 PM: Teresa in the comments claims that Clinton's remarks were taken out of context. "Clinton was responding to a program suggested by Time Magazine in which the gov't would set up this program, but kids could only withdraw the money IF they served in the military or some other national service organization first."

Unfortunately, to take advantage of the 18 years of compounded interest Hillary thinks will pay for a college education or a new home, the government has to buy the bonds at birth -- which means the money gets outlaid right from the start, and we're paying $20 billion a year for this entitlement. Either that, or the government has to calculate the compounded interest for 18 years at the point of that decision and write a check -- which makes this an unfunded mandate, a liability that won't even get accounting until the lump sums start getting paid. Either way, it's an irresponsible fiscal disaster.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2008; 20b; babybond; cattlefutures; clinton; clintons; democratparty; entitlements; hillary; illegalalienbabies; schip
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: jdm
Yeah! Free Money! Start buying off voters from the time they are born!


21 posted on 09/29/2007 8:31:07 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
I'm just amazed Hitlery beat the GOP to this fabulous fabulous idea.

And here I thought Teddy Kennedy was working for our side now. We can't trust him to be a loyal Republican even after we let him write No Child Left Behind and Shamnesty I, Shamnesty II, Shamnesty III, etc. What an ingrate he is after we let him drown that girl and get away with it.
22 posted on 09/29/2007 8:32:36 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Apres moi, le deluge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shankbear

This is How the Democrats get Votes...They make “Pie In The Sky” promises, then when they are in Power...fail to produce, and Blame the republicans for “Blocking” legislation that give out these freebies.


23 posted on 09/29/2007 8:35:07 AM PDT by LtKerst (Lt Kerst)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shankbear

This is How the Democrats get Votes...They make “Pie In The Sky” promises, then when they are in Power...fail to produce, and Blame the republicans for “Blocking” legislation that give out these freebies.


24 posted on 09/29/2007 8:35:28 AM PDT by LtKerst (Lt Kerst)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Actually, I heard someone speculate that the increase taxes to finance this will probably go to the general fund. This will end up like Social Security. When these new borns hit 18, there will be no money there.


25 posted on 09/29/2007 8:36:19 AM PDT by JimmyMc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

sure, AND while we’re paying for all the babies they HAVE, we can also pay for all the babies they DON’T have via abortion!

VOTE HILLARY!


26 posted on 09/29/2007 8:50:45 AM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jdm
The US has had over 4 million births per year

And who gives birth to these children...the gov't?

27 posted on 09/29/2007 8:51:12 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

“She argued that wealthy people “get to have all kinds of tax incentives to save, but most people can’t afford to do that.”

“but most people can’t afford to do that”.....That is just a lie. Most people who don’t save money are WORKING people. They live above their means. Want and get more than they can afford. The bigger than needed home, newest cars, electronic gizmos etc.

But I wouldn’t write this idea off too soon.

Lets look at it closely. First, it sounds like the older idea to allow each worker to invest some of their own SS funds into a PRIVATE ACCOUNT for future use. This plan would allow an immediate ‘nest egg’ for use after say 40 years old. I don’t know, pick an age.
We are talking about $20,000,000,000 a year going into some type of PRIVATE SECTOR financial institutions. What if ALL financial institutions were willing and allowed by the government to take in this $5000 per child FREE OF CHARGE. No fees to the owner of the account. The banks sure should be able to protect the principal and make a small profit off of that kind of money.
$20,000,000,000 is less than 3/4 of 1 % of what the Federal government will spend this year.
Using the ‘rule of 72’, $5000 will double in 14 1/2 years at 5% return. With a 30 year investment, that $5000 will become $20,000. If parents want to add to it to some limit good.
If all financial institutions competed for all those dollars, we may get some good rates. Those deposits could be lent as home mortgages.

Lets not write this idea off too fast.

Lets hear from some financial experts here.


28 posted on 09/29/2007 8:53:42 AM PDT by hophead ( "Enjoy Every Sandwich")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dano1
"Clinton wants people to get back to " the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child"

How is this proposal like the tradition of savings?


More like a liberal tradition of giving away other peoples money.
29 posted on 09/29/2007 9:32:09 AM PDT by divine_moment_of_facts (So, I put on some tangerine lip gloss and answered the door.. I was one lucky woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jdm
the gov't would set up this program, but kids could only withdraw the money IF they served in the military or some other national service organization first."

Wow.....another "lockbox" that would never, ever, ever be pillaged by a money-crazed Congress.

30 posted on 09/29/2007 9:37:56 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

$2500 for a partial birth abortion?


31 posted on 09/29/2007 9:38:59 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen (Aztlan My Azz: La Raza is Spanish for Tan Klan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hophead
SS privatization is about allowing you to keep your own money -- instead of being taxed and redistributed back to you (maybe) later, you invest your money.

So why do you need a government program to take your money (and it has to come from somewhere, either taxes or borrowing), invest it in a bank, and then give it to your kid in 18 years?

You don't.

32 posted on 09/29/2007 11:04:26 AM PDT by RagingBull (Talent does what it can; genius does what it must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc

Yep. That is the year of my birth. You bet. Will take no checks from her; strickly cash. LOL


33 posted on 09/29/2007 11:19:18 AM PDT by freekitty ((May the eagles long fly over our beautiful and free American sky.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005

Its nice to know the economy is so good and the Govrnment has so much money that we can offer this . I suppose Hillary will renig once she is elected giving the excuse that I tried to give every child 5 grand and I never worked so hard but there is just not enough money.
I am not opposed to giving babies or anyone 5 grand as long as if at the end of the year my tax bill is 3 grand I can buy the bond with MY money and deduct it from my income taxes or buy one and deduct it from my social security payment.
Of course that wont work because Hillary cant demonize some group or she cant dip into someones pocket and use their money instead of her own.
Besides ,when she can show me in the Constitution where it says it is the job of the President to give away our money to someone else she can do it


34 posted on 09/29/2007 11:59:27 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005

Its nice to know the economy is so good and the Govrnment has so much money that we can offer this . I suppose Hillary will renig once she is elected giving the excuse that I tried to give every child 5 grand and I never worked so hard but there is just not enough money.
I am not opposed to giving babies or anyone 5 grand as long as if at the end of the year my tax bill is 3 grand I can buy the bond with MY money and deduct it from my income taxes or buy one and deduct it from my social security payment.
Of course that wont work because Hillary cant demonize some group or she cant dip into someones pocket and use their money instead of her own.
Besides ,when she can show me in the Constitution where it says it is the job of the President to give away our money to someone else she can do it


35 posted on 09/29/2007 11:59:37 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hophead

How can the witch be in favor of this when she is not for privatization of social security.
The liberals always complain that people will lose all the money in the stock market. Well Hillary lets privatize social security and all put our money in bonds !!! It will do better than your precious government has done for the past 50 years


36 posted on 09/29/2007 12:06:12 PM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc

Yeah they did make it retroactive to 1947 ,its called social security


37 posted on 09/29/2007 12:09:25 PM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

“What if this $5,000 bounty on every newborn provides the incentive to reduce abortions?”

No it’s not.

It’s called, “buying votes.”


38 posted on 09/29/2007 12:18:46 PM PDT by GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: moreisee
I don’t think this is an original idea. I vaguely remember the same plan discussed up here in the Peoples Republic of California a few years ago although as I recall it was way less than $5000.00.

I remember that too. IIRC, the amount was $500.

39 posted on 09/29/2007 12:22:48 PM PDT by murdoog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jdm

What the hell is 5,000 going to do in 18 years. Especially if it’s under government control! She is such a fraud.


40 posted on 09/29/2007 12:27:39 PM PDT by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson