More Poor People in Cities and Counties-More Everywhere

By "redefining" poverty levels, and making it possible for poorer people to move into the suburbs through subsidized housing programs, or government-pushed "low income housing," we're transferring poverty from the cities into the counties. Is that a good thing? More resources from wealthier counties to help more poor people?

Or, by changing their location are we just "spreading the wealth" around?

Are we just continuing to mismanage growing populations of poor because of over-population? Culturally and ethnically, poor families continue to grow in size and numbers of children, disproportionately to better educated and wealthier families. So, to the extent that growing populations of poor families, or single-parent families cause more and more resources to be used in non-productive ways, and which reduce the opportunities for others to increase standards of living-better housing, education and job opportunities-we need solutions that minimize the problem, while at the same time providing positive incentives in the short and long term to manage the situation, and change the outcomes.

Why is this continuing, even growing? We have free or low-cost abortion and family planning programs, so why are more and more children being born to unwed mothers, mothers who already have one or more children, sometimes with different fathers for each? What cultural, societal values, and incentives have become misplaced?

If "everyone" knows that adding more poor children into poor communities only extends the cycle of poverty, then why?

The answer is complex, but mainly deals with the liberal attitude towards bad behavior, and the willingness of society to provide fuel for the fire through social programs that make irresponsible decisions culturally and personally acceptable. When community and political leaders fail to set standards of behavior and don't exercise personal responsibility, this is some of what we get.

Poor and minority mothers refuse to identify potential fathers, yet still collect social benefits, including health care for the children. With no Child Support forthcoming, the state and local governments pay for everything, with no reimbursement, other than tax dollars.

Perhaps we need a China-type policy of one child per family, with free or low cost abortions for single mothers.

Maybe there's a better way.

Requiring a Licensing Fee from prospective parents for each child of $1,000 or $2,000 to cover pre-natal and birth costs would help. Maybe the very act of requiring a License Application from the prospective mother and father would give time for reflecting on whether this might be a good or bad decision. The License Application would set forth the Duties and Responsibilities of each prospective parent, including who pays for what, a decided "cold water" slap of reality to the face of those proposing to act.

And if so, what is the consequence? For starters, each Mother would be required to provide information about the Father and they would collectively be billed for the cost of care, an obligation that would not go away, and would have to be paid before any further Pregnancy Applications would be allowed from either parent. Fee Waivers would be allowed for the first child of legally married Applicants who are poor and who have successfully completed the rest of the community-required process.

How about a Sexual Awareness and Permitting License, to be signed and Sworn by each girl and boy at age thirteen in which Rights and Responsibilities would be determined. Maybe we could offer a Birth Control Awareness Program which would include a $5,000 Bonus for implantation of a five-year device in girls, and a similar procedure for boys, which has been available for awhile. Completing the Procedure, which is easily reversible, would generate a Bonus of $5,000-$1,000 cash to the boy or girl, and $4,000 to a College Fund. In five years, at age 18, the same program would be re-offered, with the same Bonus Program, to all.
Proof of having the process reversed, other than for documented medical reasons, would cause the forfeit of the Bonus.

Cost? Four million (plus) boys and girls reach age 13 each year, so we are talking $20 Billion (that's Billions with a Big "B" folks!) each year, plus the cost of the medical procedures for each, about $400 each, total $640,000,000. A far less cost, cumulatively then the cost of lost productivity, lost educational and employment opportunities, continuing poverty and the crime it surely generates.

A cheap price for this kind of security and benefit to society. Since it's all voluntary, this type of incentive program would very rapidly distance itself from the cost of alternative bad decisions and even those who ignore reality could see living standards improve.

Or, would people ignore any such requirement and outcomes? What is the "cost" to those who ignore the needs and requirements of the community?

A very vigorous legislatively-required effort to manage benefits of any type, absent a declaration of the Mother as to fatherhood, and a notification and acceptance of same by the father, who would then be charged the appropriate child support costs, and tracked unceasingly through the system. Child support systems have become much better at finding support-obligated fathers, keeping track of them and using various methods in the system to encourage compliance.

To those who would argue dignity, state control, discrimination or whatever other excuses are Politically Correct, just reflect on the fact that America and it's society, it's Citizenship Principles, were founded on Personal Responsibility and Opportunity, generated and supported through the operation of the free market system.

When less than 40% of Americans pay ANY taxes, they don't have an investment in the system and don't care much; they have no "skin in the game" so using OPM (Other People's Money) is OK.

Continuing to allow perpetuation of lack of Personal Responsibility puts America on the same path to decline as other systems and societies.

When there is no incentive to be responsible,-culturally, spiritually, or monetarily- it's a "let somebody else worry about it" attitude.

We can't preserve and support American Values with an overly permissive society.

We need new and better ideas and incentives to change behavior and outcomes.
Let's try these, on this problem.