Topic: Parenting
More Children for Less Money A commentary on subsidizing child-rearing.by Gavin Kitchens
(libertarian)
Monday, October 12, 2009
Some of the more vocal and ostensibly even reasonable arguments for public health care are based on the numbers of children lacking coverage. Even many conservatives concede that publicly funded health care should be provided to children that are otherwise not covered. On its face, this would appear to be the only compassionate opinion. How can we deny this basic safety net to children who cannot provide it on their own? This would seem to me a prime example of the law of unintended consequences. Those consequences, unfortunately, are hidden over long periods of time and ambiguous cause and effect relationships.
Subsidizing the cost of raising children may indeed be resulting in disaster. In the long run, spreading out these costs over the population can only result in parents, not considering costs they do not alone incur, having more children than they otherwise could afford. Other examples of this phenomenon abound, such as public education and welfare programs. Since parents or prospective parents, do not have to consider all costs involved in child development, they do not have to consider these costs when deciding whether or not to have children. It would seem that, with such institutions as public schooling, we have a population that is strongly dependent on government subsidy to keep children out of abject poverty and hopelessness. The schools, unfortunately, offer little better in many communities where people are the most dependent.
Similar consequences may result from public health care spending. Overall, the more we subsidize the raising of children and consequently penalize the childless, the more dependent our child-rearing population becomes. How far will it go? The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 (HR 626 and Senate companion bill S 354) is on its way to broad support in Congress, granting four weeks of paid maternity leave effectively discriminating against childless federal workers. This will likely be an increment to similar discriminatory laws applied to the private sector. It is easy for a politician to point out stories of sick children not receiving care, of failing schools leading kids to failure, and parents who are struggling to put food on the table, and then to use these examples as reasons for the government to take control. Politicians and aspiring politicians and bureaucrats have the uncanny ability to see a problem within the short time frame of their own careers. Is the responsibility for child-rearing increasingly to be deferred to the commons? The inevitable result of rampant neglect and abuse is truly a tragedy of the commons.
Some may think denying public education and health care and other needs to children heartless and barbaric. I would argue the opposite. It is a cycle that can only be repeated onto itself until we print our money into complete worthlessness and create generation after generation of impoverished families. In a society that acknowledges personal responsibility and personal property, charity and voluntary assistance are the primary means to help people who make mistakes or face circumstances out of their control. In a society that diverts responsibility to the collective, these mistakes or circumstances become the norm. The former is certainly the more compassionate society.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 0 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gavin Kitchens only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gavin Kitchens is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
while i would no go to the extreme of denying health care to needy children, the subsidies to childbearing such as tax deductions for dependents, completely free public school, etc. are an invasion of our privacy and our freedom of choice in the reproductive area of our lives. they are also intrusions and subsidies of what employers should have to provide for in the scope of wages, the ability to have a family, go to school if desired, etc. when government provides these services, it is unnecessary for industry to pay a wage that would allow the employee to afford his own, thus eliminating a good part of wage competition amoung employers.
I don't agree with the sever change in policy about children overall, but: it is scandalous to have a "child tax credit" that takes money from the society as a whole, and subsidizes the children of people earning up to around 100k. If we take care of education and basic needs (which pays for itself, ideally), we don't need to give families even more money regardless of need. Note that Republicans push the CTC more than Democrats.
I have to admit that gene has a point, but I wonder how much of the extra money workers would get on average. The owners of resources have even more power now than in the (recent) past.
What you're describing is often referred to as 'moral hazard'. This occurs when a person is able to make decisions while others are responsible for the consequences. The bigger government is, the greater the moral hazard.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
