State Sponsored Baby Showers

Posted by Joshua White on 03.07.2007

Californian government to new mother: Congratulations on the birth of your baby. Here, have $500!


One of the stereotypes of the Left is that they don't mind spending other's money (some might even claim that they love it). The Left claims what they are trying to do is bring the poorest of our society to have the most opportunities to achieve the American dream. Now, I've never been one to doubt this. I believe that people are good, but mistaken. I don't believe that the Democrats are evil, godless, America-haters. I just think that they have certain values and they honestly believe that performing certain actions will bring them closer to their goals.

So let's look at a particular value: children. Children are one of the groups that everyone wants to be behind (five years ago, I would have inserted a Catholic priest joke here). Everyone wants to be seen as supporting them. But the question is how to do this best? Well, traditionally we give them education. We give them free medicine. We make rules that protect them. And if they are in danger we come to their aid. But now, one California congressman wants to start off every child's life with a $500 nest egg.

California congressman Darrel Steinberg thinks that children need to be shown that they are worthy of investment. He says, "Every child ought to grow up knowing that they are worth investing in, from birth on." So to show them this, he has proposed California bill SB 752. This bill would grant every child born in California an account in their name. The government of California would dole out $500 per child and as it would be affected by interest this amount would go up with the next 18 years. Finally, the child could only withdraw the money after she became a legal adult.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for investing in children. I plan on starting a 529 for my children. I want them to know that their worth investing in. I want them to know that if they want to go to college, there will be money ready for them so that they can focus on educating themselves and not on struggling to work and go to class. The difference between Congressman Steinberg and me is that I don't think it is appropriate to force taxpayers to invest in my kids.

(Quick poll: how many of you readers think that Steinberg is a Republican?)

And now we come back to my initial paragraph. We all value children, and we all want them to feel good about themselves, but is it moral or legitimate to give taxpayer money to every child born in the state? Remember, it doesn't matter how much the parents make. It doesn't matter if the parents are legal citizens. And after reading the bill, it isn't clear that the parents even have to live in California. The money is given to every child born in California.

Children whose parents make $5,000,000 a year. $500.

Tom Cruise's next kid. $500.

Children of illegal immigrants. $500.

The child whose parent's current state of residency is NY. $500.


This bill is already flawed in my mind, but let's move on. Maybe California really does want to show this investing spirit to all children no matter what state or country they are from or what income their parents make.

The purpose of this bill is to build a nestegg of sorts for the children. The account is designed to help the 18 year olds pay for a house, college, or fund their retirement. That does certainly sound like a nice idea. Among my adult followers is there anyone reading who wouldn't want some help paying for college or a home? Especially in California, with house prices as they are, this money could help. So how much will this new adult be pulling out of their investment account after 18 years of interest? For you, my followers, I did the math (with the help of an online calculator. Admittedly, I know nothing about how these types of accounts work, and I know the same amount about interest and compounding interest. However, here is what I found. With a starting amount of $500, with 18 years to grow, an interest rate of 12%, and compounded four times a year, the Californian 18 year old would receive $4200.01. Now, any amount of money given to me would be appreciated, but this $4200 is nothing. As of 2004, the median house in California cost about $450,000. Wow, government, thanks for the 1%! Granted, there are cheaper houses, but even then, is $4000 really going to go that far towards a house? I don't think so. Further, with even a state university tuition running more than $40,000, the amount the child will be given won't help much here either. By spreading out the money so thin, Steinberg and his bill will really be helping everyone just a tiny bit. And what, pray tell, would be the cost of this investment in the future be?

$285 million dollars a year! People that is 285 with six zeros. Here look: 285,000,000.

Now, some of you socialists out there might be whining that 285 million dollars is a drop in the bucket for one of the largest economies in the world. Maybe you are right. But California is possibly about to face a $726 million deficit this year. (Hooray!) The money used for what I think is a pretty useless cause could pay off one third of this debt. Another option is to invest that same $285 million in the same way that they would have with the child's $500. Using the same parameters after 18 years, that $285 million would be worth a little over $2.29 billion. That is billion with a B, Jack! Who's up for no debt in 18 years? Anyone in? I'm not saying that I think that California should collect the $285 million to invest it. I'm just saying that if I had a choice between forcing me to pay for someone else's house, tuition, or retirement or keeping my state out of debt, I'd pick the latter.

Think about it, when does the government not pay for you in California?

Birth - $500 investment account

K-12th grade - free education

College years- subsidized grants, loans, and scholarships

Adulthood- Medicaid, First time home owner reduced rate loans, subsidized prices for certain fruits and vegetables

Retirement - Social Security, Medicare


Good Lord, you aren't fully responsible for many of the biggest life changing times in your life. Steinberg wants to show kids that they're worth investing in, but they're apparently not responsible enough to take care of themselves from then on. Hell, and some people want even more than this! Seriously people, why don't we just give in and let the government do everything for us? Why don't we just admit that we're not capable or handling the responsibility that is life? Here is my money Government. Please do everything for me.

I think that Congressman Steinberg is probably a great man...a nice man. I think that he cares about the future of California and kids specifically (and he probably loves the idea of running his re-election after passing this bill). But I also think that this is another time when the government need not dip into it's populace's pocket.

It is enough that we have government insist on being a part of so much of our lives. I don't think that it is appropriate that the government gives our babies "gifts" paid for by the tax payers. Or as one of my friends said recently, "It isn't the government's responsibility to throw my baby shower." She's absolutely right.


Wanna read more?

For an Ugly Un-American Mr. Church sure can write a lot. He comes so close to being right. He agrees with me that IEDs are moral. But slow down there poncho. I don't think that everything in war is moral no matter who wins. I don't think that gassing Jews would have been moral had the Germans won. I don't think that the "comfort women" were moral even though the Japanese (arguably) won the Japanese-China war. Oh, and Glen Beck didn't say anything that bad. He was making a point.

Dan Labbe is totally correct that Hannity is the master of forcing guests to answer yes or no questions. I suggest a dose of Dennis Prager. He is extremely intelligent and very entertaining. But unlike others (especially Hannity) he is very polite to his callers. He gives them time to talk, asks for explanations, and responds with sincerity and class.

Brandon Crow wrote a column that even he can read in one sitting. It is full of pretty pictures, attempts at humor, and not many words. Crow like.


Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.