Tuesday, February 10, 2009

2 Steps to Pay for the Stimulus: My Modest Proposal

It is a most gruesome thing to consider the burden that we have placed among those recently stepped from the womb and among those who await existence until some future date which the Lord himself has prescribed. What burden have we placed upon them? How have we endeavored to harm those who have yet to speak for themselves?

Their concern rings through our rhetoric and pierces almost every discourse this great nation experiences. There are yet times in which the consideration of the next generation is not beheld faithfully by those in power as we reach into the distant future and remove a portion of their future earnings from their future pocketbooks to pay for our present needs, concerns, or worse yet, wants.

Not many days from now the Senate will vote upon a bill which will increase the burden on these not-yet-little-ones to the point that they will work until middle-age in order to recover from their loss of wages some twenty or thirty years back.

Nevertheless I have a modest proposal, if I may present it swiftly, to ease the burden upon those future Americans who will pay for our present indiscretions. This solution is not to provide for only the wealthy among them nor the impoverished. It does not seek one race over another nor the promotion of any lifestyle over another. This solution is one that the future generations of Americans can embrace because it is good for the individual as well as the society that sees it through.

The solution I propose is one that we must implement soon in order for it to be effective for our children, thus we cannot hesitate; we must act now.

1. Place a Near Ban on Abortion Among the Wealthy
The fiduciary responsibility of our unpaid debt will undoubtedly fall upon those who are of means. However, we must assure ourselves that the people of means continue to rear offspring that understand the values of hard work and personal responsibility, but more importantly these offspring should be able to fulfill the tax burden that will be necessarily laid upon them when this bill comes due.

Thus I propose an almost complete ban on abortion for women or couples who make in excess of $60,000 annually. The targeted level of abortions in this socioeconomic stratus should not exceed ten per one thousand pregnancies in order to not only maintain, but increase this portion of the population.

2. Enforce Modest Encouragement of Abortion Among Low-Income Women

The somewhat more controversial side of this argument is that we must ensure that the impoverished population of the country cannot increase to the point that it is a burden upon that society in that the future society is already bearing the burden of that which came before it.

The second portion of the proposal is to ensure that the abortion rate among the economically disadvantaged remains high enough so as to counteract in growth rate that might occur. Mind you, the idea is to slow the growth, not reduce the overall number of poverty-stricken individuals in the future. Thus the abortion rate will need to be in excess of four times that of the wealthy.

Objections
Certainly objections will arise, but these are all easily explained from an economic standpoint. The first, and likely most difficult hurdle to leap, is dealing with what seems to be a racial inequality in this proposal as the upper class, which is predominantly white and the lower class, which is predominantly African-American are required to increase and decrease their populations respectively.

Rest assured this is not a problem at all because whites, especially those with higher incomes, tend to be vote republican and profess to be pro-life. This solution certainly does not harm their sensibilities. And with the high income they will be able to easily provide for this next generation of workers.

African-Americans, especially those with lower incomes, tend to vote democrat and profess to be pro-choice. For many, the solution does not defy the sensibilities of this population. And the lower birth-rates will actually serve to increase the standard of living in these households while decreasing the burden these impoverished families place upon the government, thus, serving the needs of the individual as well as the needs of society.

If this proposal were enforced, our society, over the next twelve months would experience the loss of expected growth among whites in the range of 300,000 persons, and in African-Americans of around 200,000 persons, which does represent a slight discrepancy between the races in that it only accounts for about a 10% negative growth rate among whites, but a 25% negative growth rate among African-Americans. This discrepancy is necessary due to economic concerns, however, and race is an incidental casualty.

So the solution is two fold:
  1. Place a near ban on abortions for high-income women

  2. Enforce modest encouragement for abortions among low-income women
Before calls of racism, sexism, or classism ring forth, please examine this proposal carefully and weigh the economic benefits against the social concerns. If we are to pay for this upcoming bill, we must act now, and I believe this proposal is the best way to provide for the future generations of Americans.

If any reader feels these measures are far too drastic, he or she should be aware that the proposed solutions merely reflect the nation's current behavior. Americans already pay for abortions abroad through supporting population control advocacy groups, so why not make our current abortion levels targets for future generations to maintain in order to service the present debt at some later date?

Or is it only acceptable to kill poor black babies in the third world to control populations and resource distribution?

Is that really change we can believe in?

No comments:

Post a Comment