Socialist Clinton: $5,000 for every Baby

[Aggrad02]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

Clinton: $5,000 for Every U.S. Baby

Sep 28 01:09 PM US/Eastern

By DEVLIN BARRETT

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

(more)

[Chris Grieb]

In 1972 George McGovern was attacked because he proposed giving every American $1,000. The Democrats just increase the amount but make the group that gets the grant smaller.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Alfonso Jones]

In 1972 George McGovern was attacked because he proposed giving every American $1,000. The Democrats just increase the amount but make the group that gets the grant smaller.

If someone made up this sort of stuff and put it into a novel, they would be told that was absurd.

Wait a minute - that happened!

Alfonso

[tjohnson]

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.

(more)

They could get the money from Bill Gates

[studiodekadent]

Why not just slash taxes on consumer goods? And why not deregulate the education market? This will make children cheaper to raise and college cheaper to attend. Would also allow the firing of a heap of bureaucrats.

Really, all these government programs arent even needed. All you need is a negative income tax system (which provides a minimum level of income). That would replace every social service and allow people to spend their money on what THEY think is good.

[tjohnson]

Why not just slash taxes on consumer goods? And why not deregulate the education market? This will make children cheaper to raise and college cheaper to attend. Would also allow the firing of a heap of bureaucrats.

Really, all these government programs arent even needed. All you need is a negative income tax system (which provides a minimum level of income). That would replace every social service and allow people to spend their money on what THEY think is good.

Very true.

[Steve Gagne]

In 1972 George McGovern was attacked because he proposed giving every American $1,000. The Democrats just increase the amount but make the group that gets the grant smaller.

Why not just slash taxes on consumer goods? And why not deregulate the education market? This will make children cheaper to raise and college cheaper to attend. Would also allow the firing of a heap of bureaucrats.

Really, all these government programs arent even needed. All you need is a negative income tax system (which provides a minimum level of income). That would replace every social service and allow people to spend their money on what THEY think is good.

Richard Nixon proposed both in 1969, but everyone was too busy criticizing the war to notice. So the democrat congress sliced & diced his proposals till all we got was Social Security taking over all the local welfare rolls for the aged, blind, and disabled. (the "AABD Conversion"), which doubled the paperwork and the number of bureaucrats needed to run the programs.

Also provided some nifty cover for the bureaucrats to fleece the system. As a welfare bureaucrat in my county (early-mid 70's), I took part in an investigation that uncovered $10's of millions of welfare fraud -- more than the entire yearly county budget. Turns out that 84% of the fraud was by welfare department employees opening & certifying their own cases. Talk about a blank check. Of course, my boss had to stifle the investigation when he found it was going to interfere with his political ambitions.

[Laure]

I'd turn the proposal around. Yes, every child ought to start out life with a $5000 account towards college or a house. So... let's require every prospective parent to set up such an account. Anyone who has a baby without such an account will have her wages garnished to set one up. Would the Democrats call that "unfair"? Isn't it more unfair to have the non-parents pay for other people's children? Do we want to encourage poor people to have babies they can't support, or do we want to encourage responsibility?

[tjohnson]

I'd turn the proposal around. Yes, every child ought to start out life with a $5000 account towards college or a house. So... let's require every prospective parent to set up such an account. Anyone who has a baby without such an account will have her wages garnished to set one up. Would the Democrats call that "unfair"? Isn't it more unfair to have the non-parents pay for other people's children? Do we want to encourage poor people to have babies they can't support, or do we want to encourage responsibility?

Agreed, giving people handouts is not a good way to combat poverty.

[studiodekadent]

Agreed, giving people handouts is not a good way to combat poverty.

Well, I think that monetary assistance is better than providing actual public services. It usually ends up cheaper since one does not have to employ as many bureaucrats. But yes, its effectiveness at combating poverty pales in comparison to capital accumulation and innovation, etc.

[BaalChatzaf]

In 1972 George McGovern was attacked because he proposed giving every American $1,000. The Democrats just increase the amount but make the group that gets the grant smaller.

How about Milton Friedman's proposal for a negative income tax?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

In 1972 George McGovern was attacked because he proposed giving every American $1,000. The Democrats just increase the amount but make the group that gets the grant smaller.

How about Milton Friedman's proposal for a negative income tax?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Another bad idea.

Alfonso

[Chris Grieb]

Alfonso;

The negative income tax was one of the reasons Ayn Rand hated Milton Friedman as did Von Mises and Rothbard.

The negative income tax has been enacted in EIT which has been described as one of the biggest frauds in the government.

[Alfonso Jones]

Alfonso;

The negative income tax was one of the reasons Ayn Rand hated Milton Friedman as did Von Mises and Rothbard.

The negative income tax has been enacted in EIT which has been described as one of the biggest frauds in the government.

Agreed. I agree with Rand on this - which is why I said the negative income tax was a bad idea.

In The Ayn Rand Letter, Rand says:

"...escalation of controls has been the policy of conservatives in regard to antitrust laws, labor legistlation, the military draft, taxation, the "negative income tax," etc." (ARL - 319)

The rough equivalent of the negative income tax would have been for Ragnar to show up on the doorstep of those with little or no income with bars of gold.

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

Alfonso;

The negative income tax was one of the reasons Ayn Rand hated Milton Friedman as did Von Mises and Rothbard.

The negative income tax has been enacted in EIT which has been described as one of the biggest frauds in the government.

Agreed. I agree with Rand on this - which is why I said the negative income tax was a bad idea.

In The Ayn Rand Letter, Rand says:

"...escalation of controls has been the policy of conservatives in regard to antitrust laws, labor legistlation, the military draft, taxation, the "negative income tax," etc." (ARL - 319)

The rough equivalent of the negative income tax would have been for Ragnar to show up on the doorstep of those with little or no income with bars of gold.

Alfonso

I think many have missed Friedman's point. What he was saying (in effect) is that if we are going to redistribute income, let us do it in the simplest and least expensive way possible. We already have the burocratic machine to do it, to wit, the Internal Revenue (dis)Service. We don't need an additional redistribution burocracy. In his heart of hearts, I do not thing Friedman really liked the idea of stealing from productive Peter to give handouts to lazy Paul.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

I think many have missed Friedman's point. What he was saying (in effect) is that if we are going to redistribute income, let us do it in the simplest and least expensive way possible. We already have the burocratic machine to do it, to wit, the Internal Revenue (dis)Service. We don't need an additional redistribution burocracy. In his heart of hearts, I do not thing Friedman really liked the idea of stealing from productive Peter to give handouts to lazy Paul.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The error is, of course, the proposal to redistribute income. "If we are going to slaughter people selected at random on their 6th birthday, then the best idea is to do in in a painless fashion." NO! One ought not accept the "if" in this case, or that of Friedman's proposal.

Alfonso

'

[studiodekadent]

Also, Earned Income Tax Credits may be similar to Friedman's NIT. HOWEVER, Friedman insisted that the NIT be used as a replacement for welfare rather than an additional supplement to it. Friedman was ignored on this point. It is not correct to say that the Friedman NIT has been implemented because it hasnt.

As for Von Mises, he was a rationalist so he hated everyone that disagreed with him on any point. He stormed out of a Mont Pelerin meeting calling all the participants "socialists"(!). I vastly respect the man's contributions to economic science, but he was not perfect philosophically.

In addition, I differ from most O'ists in that I think, in the absense of a great general improvement in people's moral character, that some form of minimal (and I mean minimal) support is basically inevitable for any viable minarchy. I think that in that specific context, Friedman's NIT is the best way to provide that.

[Alfonso Jones]

Also, Earned Income Tax Credits may be similar to Friedman's NIT. HOWEVER, Friedman insisted that the NIT be used as a replacement for welfare rather than an additional supplement to it. Friedman was ignored on this point. It is not correct to say that the Friedman NIT has been implemented because it hasnt.

As for Von Mises, he was a rationalist so he hated everyone that disagreed with him on any point. He stormed out of a Mont Pelerin meeting calling all the participants "socialists"(!). I vastly respect the man's contributions to economic science, but he was not perfect philosophically.

In addition, I differ from most O'ists in that I think, in the absense of a great general improvement in people's moral character, that some form of minimal (and I mean minimal) support is basically inevitable for any viable minarchy. I think that in that specific context, Friedman's NIT is the best way to provide that.

Your recounting of Friedman's rationale is consistent with my recollection, though I have no specific historic cite on it.

The real question I would pose to you is whether

"in the absence of a great general improvement in people's moral character, that some form of minimal (and I mean minimal) support FUNDED BY FORCE OUT OF THE RECEIPTS WHICH COME FROM CONFISCATING THE MONEY OF OTHERS is basically inevitable for any viable minarchy."

I have added the all caps material, which is IMPLIED by the rest of the sentence but likely to not be noticed if not made explicit. Is it your sense that this is a moral proposal?

Alfonso

[studiodekadent]

The real question I would pose to you is whether

"in the absence of a great general improvement in people's moral character, that some form of minimal (and I mean minimal) support FUNDED BY FORCE OUT OF THE RECEIPTS WHICH COME FROM CONFISCATING THE MONEY OF OTHERS is basically inevitable for any viable minarchy."

I have added the all caps material, which is IMPLIED by the rest of the sentence but likely to not be noticed if not made explicit. Is it your sense that this is a moral proposal?

I would not call it moral per se, since the moral society (i.e. good society) is one without coercion. I simply stated that under current circumstances relating to the moral character of most people, the least coercive society possible is one that yes, will involve some element of coercion, including the existence of coercive taxation, albiet a far lower level of coercion than we are currently subject to.

This is obviously not the optimal situation. However, as stated, I believe that to achieve this optimal situation, people in general need to improve their moral character (i.e. embrace objectivist values). After all, Rand's political theory assumed a society of people with rational values.

So yes, I believe that under current circumstances coercive taxation is a 'necessary evil,' in that the kind of minarchy I advocate is the smallest government could get under these circumstances. Do I consider it the optimal state? No. But its the best state possible in the current context.

[Alfonso Jones]

The real question I would pose to you is whether

"in the absence of a great general improvement in people's moral character, that some form of minimal (and I mean minimal) support FUNDED BY FORCE OUT OF THE RECEIPTS WHICH COME FROM CONFISCATING THE MONEY OF OTHERS is basically inevitable for any viable minarchy."

I have added the all caps material, which is IMPLIED by the rest of the sentence but likely to not be noticed if not made explicit. Is it your sense that this is a moral proposal?

I would not call it moral per se, since the moral society (i.e. good society) is one without coercion. I simply stated that under current circumstances relating to the moral character of most people, the least coercive society possible is one that yes, will involve some element of coercion, including the existence of coercive taxation, albiet a far lower level of coercion than we are currently subject to.

This is obviously not the optimal situation. However, as stated, I believe that to achieve this optimal situation, people in general need to improve their moral character (i.e. embrace objectivist values). After all, Rand's political theory assumed a society of people with rational values.

So yes, I believe that under current circumstances coercive taxation is a 'necessary evil,' in that the kind of minarchy I advocate is the smallest government could get under these circumstances. Do I consider it the optimal state? No. But its the best state possible in the current context.

I think that this chain of reasoning is very dangerous, and likely to lead one to horrible compromises. The adherents of the cult of compromise often find cause to regret the consequences they did not intend.

Alfonso

[studiodekadent]

I think that this chain of reasoning is very dangerous, and likely to lead one to horrible compromises. The adherents of the cult of compromise often find cause to regret the consequences they did not intend.

Alfonso

Of course this chain of reasoning is potentially dangerous. But that is a slippery-slope argument. Of course, I did state that I am in favor of the smallest possible government in the circumstances. I simply think that in the current ones, the smallest possible is a Hayekian-style minarchy (think nightwatchman + NIT + denationalized currency and financial sectors), which is in terms of aggregate size of government no larger than Von Mises (who might get rid of the NIT but will demand some level of government control over money and financial markets). In a context of "people share objectivist values" then we could potentially even move to anarcho-capitalism, but this is unlikely to happen for at least a long time.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think that this chain of reasoning is very dangerous, and likely to lead one to horrible compromises. The adherents of the cult of compromise often find cause to regret the consequences they did not intend.

Alfonso

May I be realistic? If you hold your breath until O'ist thinking becomes the dominant sort in our society, you will turn blue and faint. It ain't going to happen. The American public just -loves- its programs, which is to say each person receiving a benefit which in reality is much smaller than he is being charged for other people's benefits, thinks his benefit is the right and proper thing. It is all those other guys receiving their benefits that are bums. With this kind of dynamic at work, we will never get rid of the Welfare State. Think of all those geezers in the AARP who will literally kill anyone who touches their social security benefits. Never mind that social security sucks lemons. The welfare-redistributionist state will have to collapse from its own internal contradictions. It will not be abolished voluntarily nor will it disappear on its own.

The folk of the AARP amaze me. They are screwing their children and grandchildren but they don't seem to be aware of this or if they are, they are doing The Blank Out.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

I think that this chain of reasoning is very dangerous, and likely to lead one to horrible compromises. The adherents of the cult of compromise often find cause to regret the consequences they did not intend.

Alfonso

Of course this chain of reasoning is potentially dangerous. But that is a slippery-slope argument. Of course, I did state that I am in favor of the smallest possible government in the circumstances. I simply think that in the current ones, the smallest possible is a Hayekian-style minarchy (think nightwatchman + NIT + denationalized currency and financial sectors), which is in terms of aggregate size of government no larger than Von Mises (who might get rid of the NIT but will demand some level of government control over money and financial markets). In a context of "people share objectivist values" then we could potentially even move to anarcho-capitalism, but this is unlikely to happen for at least a long time.

I don't see a slippery-slope argument here. I have said that the negative income tax is WRONG. To point out the argument that gets you to this ETHICALLY WRONG thing is dangerous is not a slippery slope argument. The negative income tax is wrong for the reasons indicated - on which you have agreed.

Alfonso

[studiodekadent]

What you stated was that my argument could lead to worse consequences. That means you called my argument a slippery slope argument.

[Alfonso Jones]

What you stated was that my argument could lead to worse consequences. That means you called my argument a slippery slope argument.

1) Well, I objected to the notion of negative income tax on moral grounds - not slippery-slope grounds.

2) I then commented that the sort of reasoning - that folks were going to redistribute income anyhow, so we may as well propose a method which is perhaps the least bad of the evils and do a negative income tax - could lead to worse consequences.

I don't think that we're talking slippery slope in 1, certainly.

I think that pointing out that something already deemed bad is being argued for based on a flawed form of reasoning, and noting that that flawed form of reasoning could lead to still worse consequences, is hardly a slippery slopw argument. It WOULD be if there were no flaw in #1 - but we both agree that they are. The primary basis for me criticizing the negative income tax is #1.

Alfonso

(Last paragraph just edited to remove an obvious double negative.)

Edited October 10, 2007 by Alfonso