. . . Farmer Clinton is bringin’ the slop to the trough. I heard Larry Kudlow claim on Hugh Hewitt’s show today that this is the kind of thing that is going to ensure the Dems defeat in ’08--no matter who the GOP candidate is. His argument is that the voters saw through the out of control spending of Congress, this explains the defeat of the GOP in ’06, and if the Dems want to go down this path in such an obvious way, they’re only doing themselves a huge disservice and making things easy for us. I haven’t thought deeply about this perspective, but I want to buy it. Of course, that’s why I am suspicious of it. Still, it’s an interesting line of argument to contemplate and there may be something to it . . . But about that $5000--can we make it retro-active? Also, I wonder what Mark Steyn has to say about this? It might pump up our numbers against the jihadis.
By my calculation, $5,000 provided at birth yields only $30,579 and some change by the end of the 18th year ... and that's assuming a constant 10% rate of return. A tidy sum, to be sure ... but a) it hardly represents more than about 1 year of college at a basic state university; and b) where can 10% per year be had because I want a piece of that action.
(A more reasonable 5% yields about $12,600.)
It's pure nonsense. Which means it'll sell. Oprah will praise it and weep over it. The MSM will swoon.
You've guys have missed something.
We can know with rough certainty the number of American newborns decades out. We could easily provide $10,000 for each kid a decade, or even two to three decades BEFORE they're born. We should have done this decades ago. Every single kid should have had enough garnered BEFORE they reached college to provide for their health insurance and whatever collegiate expenses they might have. Those that didn't use those funds for college would have it roll over into a retirement fund.
This avoids socialized medicine, this avoids the Feds taking over college expenses, this avoids the type of fierce class warfare that can result from vast differences between the haves and the have-nots.
The money should be getting invested before the parents are even born. Think of it that way. Investing for a kid 25 to 30 years out means investing for a kid whose parents haven't even met, haven't completed college, nor high school, nor grade school. That's what we should be doing.
That's why Hillary's proposal is so lackluster. As a Dem the LAST thing she wants is an amelioration of the race/class distinctions in this country. For such an erasure would spell the end of the Democrat grievance machine, thus the end of the machine itself.
The Dems want the issue of poverty, they want the issue of government controlled health care. They want EVERY election to have as it's most important issue health care. That's what they have in Europe, and that's why the Left dominates in Europe.
I might want to buy it too.. but I don't. In fact I don't even buy it for a second. Don in AZ is slightly closer to the truth. Heck I remmember threads on this blog with Dain in particular that suggested something similar. But, I don't even have to go back that far...if you look at comment 2, appart from being cynical he completly endorses the idea.
"We could easily provide $10,000 for each kid a decade, or even two to three decades BEFORE they're born. We should have done this decades ago. Every single kid should have had enough garnered BEFORE they reached college to provide for their health insurance and whatever collegiate expenses they might have."...and then he says:"this avoids the feds taking over college expenses"
Wow, maybe I misread...maybe the "we" in the first part is some church or charity and not the federal government?
What a silly idea! Next thing you know, she'll be proposing pre-emptively invading countries that haven't attacked us and aren't connected to the "War on Terror" and keeping our troops there just to have them killed and waste hundreds of billions of dollars. She'll probably come up with some "social welfare" project like bringing democracy to the Iraqis! I predict it will waste many lives and a lot of money, it won't bring democracy to anyone, and it won't make Americans one tiny bit safer! But a LOT of money will be blown on it!
Yes, Sarah, except with Hillary the country in question will be Sudan.
Further reflections:
Color me increasingly skeptical.
Estimate what the government puts out PER ANNUM for each social security recipient. They pay out over 10K usually EACH YEAR of a citizen's retirement. If a person retires at 65, then doesn't cross the river until 85, that's 20 years worth of social security checks. If a person is getting 20K per annum, that's roughly $400,000 for a single retiree.
By investing a fraction of that sum long before that retirement occurs, long before that person is even born, the government treasury would avoid having to pay out that $400,000. My proposal would displace social security, displace medicare and displace medicaid. Retirement, education and health insurance would ALL be taken care of by investment long before a citizen's birth. Just think of the increase in the average American's disposable income. Just think of the effect that would have on an economy, that is already two/thirds consumer driven. Properly run, my suggestion SAVES money in the long term; it doesn't increase governmental expenditures. It's a proposal crafted to stop the growth of government pay-outs for generations to come. Democrats have devised a scheme whereby government naturally grows and expands. My plan is to eviscerate their scheme, reduce the overall take on the GDP and turn health care into a weapon against Democrats. Just like educational vouchers can be used to turn the education issue upon Democrats.
Not to mention it gets rid of health care as an election issue, and it also eliminates the possibility of Democrats running class warfare campaigns. Just imagine that! It eliminates the prospect of Democrats and socialists taking over the American economy. My proposal safeguards American capitalism, safeguards Republican competitiveness, safeguards America itself. It would get all Americans looking at their rising stock portfolio. Instead of listening to Democrats demagogue. And all the while, it wipes off of the table a whole series of issues that Dems have been running on since the start of the industrial age.
But because it's an excellent idea, I've no doubt it will go nowhere.
Some Commenters really get it! Wish you did, Julie.
We're talking W's ownership society, which most Conservatives seem to reject.
Let's all read what Paul O'Neill said 2 years ago.
To 'pre-fund' the needs of old age, a new twist on the idea of private accounts.
https://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05054/461401.stm#
So we have a Democrat proposing an incentive of $5,000 for each new child born in our country versus a Republican who argues for aborting children.
Guess where a good number of Catholics and evangelicals will go in Nov. 2008 if she pursues this initiative and the GOP has no answer to it?
Also, I haven't done a calculation but a $5,000 birth bond ought to be worth an awful lot at age 65!
What we want is a genuine Ownership Society.
That means a family controls the money for a kid's comprehensive health insurance, controls the money for a kid's education, and that when someone reaches maturity, that person controls his retirement account. What we want to see is a health insurance plan that doesn't eradicate private health care, but supports and sustains it. What we want is a plan that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul, that isn't hand-to-mouth, that doesn't place so much pressure upon the American economy that it destroys it.
If we allow the welfare state to continue, it will ruin us. And the Democrats aren't too bothered by the prospect of that. If you noticed the Left doesn't seem awfully worked up about Europe's pathetic economy. But the pressure of health care expenses {and the paperwork too}, is driving people absolutely bonkers. So we need something that provides the funds, but doesn't result in government control thereof. And the answer is LONG-RANGE investment, long before a kid is born.
Dan you are positively insane.
"What we want is a plan that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul, that isn't hand-to-mouth, that doesn't place so much pressure upon the American economy that it destroys it."
"And the answer is LONG-RANGE investment, long before a kid is born."
And this Long-Range investment will be financed by whom? Sounds like you are simply advocating robbing Paul to pay Peter.