NY Times = The Onion
by Joe Pulcinella
I can no longer distinguish between news and parody. I always thought that France's welfare state was messed up but I'm starting to see that Australia has got them beat.
The government -- responding to a falling birth rate, looming labor market shortage and shrinking tax base -- had offered to give mothers $2,319 for each baby born after July 1 last year.
In announcing the payments in May 2004, Treasurer Peter Costello told the country: "You go home and do your patriotic duty tonight."
Talk about your ireversible, government boondoggles. A short read so you'll probably want to read it twice to make sure it's not a joke. When I got done, I checked my calendar twice, too, to make sure it wasn't April Fool's Day.
Comments
We have already done this. The "Earned Income Tax Credit" functions in just this manner. Before the big welfare "reform" crackdown, we used to pay unwed mothers an economically significant bonus for unwed mothers to have unlimited numbers of children. This was changed due to political outrage, but the practice of subsidizing births is still ongoing here in the US, and by definition, the susidy is going to work its marginal effect among the very poorest, who value the subsidy the highest, as any economic analysis will show. And before you scoff at a $2300.00 subsidy having a behavior-altering effect, consider some of the other subsidies on offer to those on the poor end of the socio-economic scale - AFDC, Food Stamps, Section 8 and Public Housing, Medicaid, Child Care Assistance, not to mention live-in drug dealer boyfriends. People who learn how to work this system have lifestyles as comfortable to them as they could ever achieve by working hard 50-60 hours per week. All of these things add up to a successful, self-perpetuating poverty industry in this country. All of the subsidies stack up to inducing the very least socially valuable individuals to reproduce more than they would if they were limited to having only as many children as they can afford, with the result that middle-class people are taxed to pay for it so much that they actually have fewer children than they could otherwise afford. The net result is a shrinking middle class and a growing underclass. This is patriotic?
True, change always happens at the margins. However, as I have been finding out, Australia is a huge welfare state. And however small the effect, this does have some influence in overall dependency on government. It also goes to show just how desperate their politicians are in showing "compassion" through largess. If for no other reason, we here in the US should see this as a future step that our own elected (or not) officials may spring on us in times of panic (on their part, of course).
How many Australian women do you reckon are on the reproductive fence saying "I would love to have another baby, but I have crunched the numbers and the cost benefits come up short by $2,319?" Some on the margins might be induced to reproduce, but I suspect that the women who have babies wwould have done so without the subsidy. On the other hand, this may have more value as a symbolic gesture that increases the symbolic value of parenthood by attaching the parenthood meme to the patriotism meme.
Post a Repsonse
