New at Reason
David Weigel asks if an idea-less GOP passed up an opportunity when Hillary Clinton proposed asset-building for kids and the party pounced on her.
Comments to "New at Reason":
sage | December 18, 2007, 12:13pm | #
In 1962 the libertarian economist Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax, under which welfare bureaucracies would disappear and the government would simply send checks to people under a certain income level.If we're going to have a welfare state, that would be the way to go. Rather than have all those bureaucrats in the system, they too would just get a check each month.
KipEsquire | December 18, 2007, 12:26pm | #
The idea behind typical "conservative" variants of baby bonds was that each competent (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc.) citizen would receive a very large one-time lump sum payment, perhaps at age 18, but with the understanding that there would be no subsequent access to any form of public assistance after that. If you squandered the money or otherwise screwed up your life, then too bad so sad -- rely on private charity.That was hardly Clinton's proposal.
I was wondering if anyone else was going to notice that she copped that idea from the libertarians.
joe | December 18, 2007, 12:49pm | #
KipEsquire,1. Any "let's give people money" policy is, by definition, going to be a compromise on the part of conservatives.
2. From the liberal P.O.V., dependency on public assistance is a function of a lack of economic opportunity. By providing people which such bonds, they will have said opportunity, and this will drastically reduce the number of people who will require public assistance. Which is to say, the liberal and conservative positions on this are starkly different on the level of principle, but not so very far apart in practice.
I suspect that if we could magically divvy up the country's money supply and capital, take all the money in circulation and value of everything and give each citizen an equal share, within 20 or 40 or 60 years we'd have the same distribution of wealth as we have now.
ed | December 18, 2007, 12:57pm | #
funded by taxpayers and administered by the Treasury DepartmentThis is a "libertarian" idea how?
Is it "libertarian" simply because Friedman or Rothbard mentioned it?
Is it a good idea to compromise on an inherently bad idea?
kingfisher | December 18, 2007, 12:57pm | #
“I’m not familiar with this,” replied Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a prominent conservative. “But I’d say, generally, if Chuck Schumer is introducing it than I’m not going to like it.”with thoughtless, knee-jerk reactions like this, is it any wonder nothing good comes out of Washington?
joe | December 18, 2007, 1:01pm | #
You're probably right, Lamar.But this proposal is not about levelling. It's about providing a baseline and a foundation.
Senator Larry Craig with a straight face | December 18, 2007, 1:01pm | #
"But I’d say, generally, ifjoe, I'm not totally against it. A big GOP slogan is equality of opportunity and not equality of results. It would seem that this type of proposal would fit that slogan.
Episiarch | December 18, 2007, 1:05pm | #
with thoughtless, knee-jerk reactions like this, is it any wonder nothing good comes out of Washington?I thought the same thing, but he is talking about Chuck Schumer.
The Pro Libertate Dancers | December 18, 2007, 1:11pm | #
Shut your mouth!A $5000 bond at birth--to be accessed under fulfillment of certain conditions at age 18 is on e of the best ideas I have heard from anyone in any party. Too bad she didn't follow up.
J sub D | December 18, 2007, 1:13pm | #
with thoughtless, knee-jerk reactions like this, is it any wonder nothing good comes out of Washington?And who didn't feel that way about Jesse Helms?I thought the same thing, but he is talking about Chuck Schumer.
crimethink | December 18, 2007, 1:19pm | #
No one's brought up the question of whether the bond would be backed by gold yet?And I thought this was a pro-Ron Paul forum. ;-)
prolefeed | December 18, 2007, 1:23pm | #
But this proposal is not about levelling. It's about providing a baseline and a foundation.Right. A Democrat proposing a redistribution of wealth targeted to get votes from an audience of poor urban blacks isn't about leveling. Are you really that naive, or are you hoping the some of us are that gullible?
Oh, and calling the negative income tax a "libertarian" idea because it came from Milton Friedman, who made a point of describing himself a conservative Republican, would be like calling George Bush a proponent of ending the WOD because he recently pardoned one dealer.
The AntiHumanist | December 18, 2007, 1:29pm | #
While providing every newborn with tax-financed assets might provide for the common good, is it fair? Should my ADDITIONAL tax dollars fund another person's children at the cost of my own? Or, are only the "wealthiest Americans" supposed to pay for it, thus making it more politically-acceptable to me? I probably sound selfish, but "baby bonds" seem like another coercive government program to social engineer at my expense. Maybe some people aren't meant for college. Maybe some people shouldn't own homes (recent history provides ample evidence for it). Maybe some people should have to struggle and WANT to succeed, rather than expect so because their government promises to hold their hand once more. The reason that we have the leviathan government that we do is because the Founding Fathers, fools that they were, included a spirit of the "common good" in the Constitution. It's this spirit that has plagued us ever since.Cesar | December 18, 2007, 1:33pm | #
You know, in China its tradition to give bars of gold to your kid when he or she is born, followed by a bit more gold every Chinese New Year. Then, the kid gets to own the gold when he or she gets married.If we were smart enough to have this tradition, we wouldn't need to be discussing this.
Lamar | December 18, 2007, 1:36pm | #
"Throw Hillary Clinton out of a plane."Danny DeVito and Billy Crystal, right?
Cesar | December 18, 2007, 1:37pm | #
Danny DeVito and Billy Crystal, right?No, Pinochet really did throw people out of planes.
R C Dean | December 18, 2007, 1:50pm | #
I suspect that if we could magically divvy up the country's money supply and capital, take all the money in circulation and value of everything and give each citizen an equal share, within 20 or 40 or 60 years we'd have the same distribution of wealth as we have now.Isn't this pretty much what Coase's Theorem says? Didn't he win a Nobel for it?
But this proposal is not about levelling. It's about providing a baseline and a foundation.
Well, since the money to fund it will be taken disproportionately from the rich, there will be some element of redistribution/levelling involved. Add in the inevitable means-testing, and it becomes even more levelly!
Taktix, do you have the link handy to Paul's entire quote? I can't watch youtube at work.
How do we make this a "one time only never to be increased and no more welfareof any kind no matter how much the whining" type of thing? If that could be guaranteed, maybe some libertarians would back it just to put the ever-expanding welfare state behind us once and for all. But I dream.
Perhaps it is, RC Dean. I didn't see it that way at first, but perhaps it's Coase with a sociological angle....
Never mind, Taktix, the crack staff here at Reason are on the case...
R C Dean | December 18, 2007, 2:15pm | #
I didn't see it that way at first, but perhaps it's Coase with a sociological angle....I'm no economist, so I'm probably mangling it.
crimethink | December 18, 2007, 2:39pm | #
The thing that bugs me is that whenever Ron Paul is on one of these shows, they only ask him about other candidates.Mo | December 18, 2007, 2:54pm | #
Isn't a baby bond actually pretty fair for a country running a budget deficit? By running a deficit our current overspending or undertaxing leads to higher taxes for the young and unborn. Therefore, we owe them something as long as we run a deficit.Granted, to make these bonds, we're borrowing more, but I'm looking at this from a purely philosophical point of view.
Shannon Love | December 18, 2007, 5:29pm | #
I'm not sure how just giving people money really alters their behavior in positive ways. Trust fund babies do not seem to reliably grow up into productive citizens. Why should we think that a government program will have a better outcome?Modern poverty isn't about a lack of money. Its largely about individual dysfunction and poor choices combined with government interference. Immigrants routinely arrive on our shores with nothing but the shirts on their backs and rise to the middle class with a decade or so while native born recipients of government money languish generation after generation.
Will baby bonds or even a negative income tax do much to provide incentives to people to alter their behavior from short term to long term thinking? I really don't see it.
Chris | December 18, 2007, 7:32pm | #
The author says, "Meanwhile, Democrats called for young Americans to start owning assets instead of depending on handouts . . . "Huh? The proposal was about handing out assets. I think the conclusion misleads.
Paul | December 18, 2007, 7:46pm | #
The recipients of transfer payments can manage that money better than a welfare state can.Isn't that precisely why the welfare bureaucracy will never be abolished?
Paul | December 18, 2007, 7:46pm | #
This legislation would create “KIDS accounts”: an initial endowment of $500 for each American childAlready done in my home. And believe me, I'm broke. So why do I need the government to do this for me?
Juan | December 18, 2007, 8:02pm | #
I thought Videla was the throw-people-out-of-airplanes guy, while Pinochet was the shoot-people-at-stadiums guy...joe | December 18, 2007, 8:51pm | #
prolefeed writes Right. A Democrat proposing a redistribution of wealth targeted to get votes from an audience of poor urban blacks isn't about leveling. Are you really that naive, or are you hoping the some of us are that gullible?I like the way you don't have to know anything about a subject, other than the demographics of the people talking about it, to form an opinion.
What if she'd pitched it to Latvians? Would that be leveling? Please, help me out here, I just too naive to properly match up policy objectives with ethnic groups.
Look, Pinochet would hook Hillary Clinton up to a car battery on the Esmirelda. Happy?
joe | December 18, 2007, 8:57pm | #
RC,As I learned it, leveling was about enforcing economic equality. Not all redistribution is leveling.
Dee | December 19, 2007, 9:16am | #
"They’ll be investors."How will they be investors, more like I will be the investor in this deal. Same song difference dance, take money from x give it to y and z.
Why the fuck not. It's not like they won't already owe a lot more than that to the national debt which just topped 9 trillion.
This idea is so fucking good we should extend it to the rest of the worlds babies as well.
LarryA | December 19, 2007, 10:14am | #
From the liberal P.O.V., dependency on public assistance is a function of a lack of economic opportunity.From the (current U.S.) liberal P.O.V., dependency on public assistance should be universal. “Individuals make bad decisions. They should depend on the government to do everything.”
“I’m not familiar with this,” replied Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a prominent conservative. “But I’d say, generally, if Chuck Schumer is introducing it than I’m not going to like it.”
with thoughtless, knee-jerk reactions like this, is it any wonder nothing good comes out of Washington?
How is this thoughtless? Given that Sen. Schumer has never seen a gun control law he didn’t like, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to be happy with his next proposal on the subject. Of course, Hell could freeze over, so I’ll give it a read. Rep. Pence didn’t rule that out either.
A $5000 bond at birth--to be accessed under fulfillment of certain conditions at age 18 is on e of the best ideas I have heard from anyone in any party. Too bad she didn't follow up.
The fellows from Nigeria have similar offers. I’d bet that the “bond” would be the same IOUs found in “our” Social Security accounts. Note that they won’t mature until long after Hillary is out of office.
Will baby bonds or even a negative income tax do much to provide incentives to people to alter their behavior from short term to long term thinking? I really don't see it.
In the present welfare system the government makes all your decisions for you. Instead of budgeting for food, you get food stamps. If you shop carefully and don’t spend all your stamps, you can’t legally use them anywhere else. Instead of comparing apartments you get approved public housing. Instead of making day care decisions, you get a voucher for the government contractor.
Any system where you have to actually take responsibility is an improvement, even if you merely learn something by screwing up.
Unfortunately Congress will expect recipients to spend the money “responsibly.” Hillary’s proposal, even if adopted, would come to a screeching halt as soon as some of the first cohort used their bonuses to purchase FLRCs. (Fast Little Red Cars)
Dan Barthel | December 19, 2007, 12:08pm | #
While an ownership society is desirable, rewarding people for increasing the population is not the right thing to do in the face of population stress on the planet. The really right thing to do would be to remove the tax deduction beyond the first child to promote population reduction, which would be the best way to reduce green house gases. Fat chance any candidate would have the balls to propose that, though.I heard this idea before and dismissed it out of hand. Last time I drove by a kid's soccer game, I noticed that over half the parents cars consisted of SUVs. Now, if the parental units can afford big vehicles and the pricey gas they drink, they can afford to put $5000 into their own kid's account.
Daniel M. Ryan | December 21, 2007, 10:43pm | #
Call me suspicious, but I have a hunch that wealth-based entitlements are going to pave the way for wealth taxes. That kind of 'balance' seems to appeal to the middle-class liberal who thinks that the alpha and omega of H.L. Mencken's thought is his "comfort the afflicted" maxim.Adam | December 22, 2007, 3:49pm | #
A $5000 baby bond will look cheap compared to the tax payer cost of a baby born under socialized health care. I have to agree with Dan Barthel's proposal, stop with the tax incentives for multiple children. If you can't afford 'em don't have 'em. Subsidize birth control, not babies.