It's Tea Time

Let's cut right to the chase on this one. In my earlier post, "Birth Rates by Income", I delved a little bit into what I feel is a burgeoning problem. Case and point, from that post:

For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women).

So everyone knows it, politicians, you, me...the question is what exactly do we do about it. Lucky for you I have a thought on that matter.

Voluntary sterilization.

Now I know what you're thinking: "But Jim, why would someone want to do such a thing?" The quick and easy answer? We pay them to.

You see, we did cash for clunkers. That was a voluntary program meant to improve living for society as a whole while also improving the lives of the individual trading in the car. Same principle, but I would argue with much better results. It would work something like this:

To start, let's say the figure paid would be $5000 plus cost of the sterilization procedure. So anyone taking part in this plan would receive that amount. Those older than 21 would be eligible for this benefit with or without a child. Anyone younger than 21 must have at least one child, and those younger than 18 must meet the child criteria as well as parental consent.

Worried about a potential hustle? There will be some fraud as there always is, but vasectomy reversal procedures are not cheap, so you don't have to worry about someone getting snipped and then just using some of the cash to "unsnip" and keeping the remainder. For women it would be even more costly, if possible at all.

It is at its core a sound and practical plan. No one is forced into anything. We don't have restrictions on family size like China, but it will help to stem the tide of population growth all the same. Most importantly, it will likely have its biggest impact in the communities making the least and thus least able to provide for a large family. This will allow them to better provide for themselves and increase their own chances of bettering their life situation as well as those around them. It will do so both by decreasing their number of dependents, and giving them a quick financial injection they can use to better themselves.

The truth is that whether we like it or not change will be coming. Why not address that change with practical solutions that preserve some of our core freedoms? We can do it. Yes we can. Yes we can.