Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
Sen. Clinton proposed awarding every newborn American with a $5,000 bond that could be invested and allowed to grow to a sum that could be redeemed for educational or home buying needs when they reached adulthood. It became a point of widespread criticism for the Senator for New York, even among those who are politically sympathetic. The Daily News quotes a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University saying "Oh, what a blunder, big time." Republicans piled on, seeking to paint Clinton as a traditional tax-and-spend Democrat. With approximately four million Americans born every year, Clinton's plan could cost upwards of $20 billion annually.
The mention of a baby bond program didn't appear to be a specific policy proposal by Clinton. She said she liked the idea of such a program during an address to a Congressional Black Caucus forum this week. She was apparently referring to a proposal that appeared in Time magazine earlier this month written by Time's managing editor Richard Stengel. It was one prong of a collection of ideas to encourage national service and invest in the youth of the country. Stengel's plan calls for the investment of $5,000 in private accounts that could be collected by people between 18 and 25, contingent on the funds being put forward to education or other economically positive uses and the completion of a year of voluntary service. Yesterday, Time's Swampland blog noted that Sen. Clinton had proposed a similar plan that would have been limited to $1,000 to the Democratic Leadership Council.
Newsday wrote that Clinton's support of such an idea occurred during an address to black leaders at a time when she is looking to solidify a lead among minority voters while battling Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Rudy Giuliani said that the endorsement of baby bonds was typical of Clinton's politics and accused the Senator of assuming voters were stupid.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Is this money going to comeout of the failing Social Security money?
Sounds like vote purchasing to me.
Rudy is clueless and must think we're stupid if we believe his cellphone parlor tricks are not staged.
What would GOP ''strategists'' think if Hillary suggested a tax credit? This is a good idea that would HELP people. Imagine the gov't helping people out.
What costs taxpayers more a $5,000 bond or months of physical therapy for double amputees?
My goodness, with Hillary and Rudy, we're caught between a rock and a hard place...
BTW does this include adopted newborns...?
Deadbeat freeloading babies. Everyone knows they'll just pawn the $$ off for tits or formula.
Hey Dave Hogarty,
If she didn't propose it (which you state in the second paragraph), why did you say she DID propose it in the first sentence?
This will encourage more illegal residents or visitors to come to US to have babies.
of this doesnt scream, bring your immigrant babies to the US to be born, i dont know what does.
Oh no! A whole generation of children being able to afford college and land via community service?
For shame!
i agree, but are you willing to pay the taxes?
"Oh no! A whole generation of children being able to afford college and land via community service?
For shame!
[9] Posted by: jonathan | September 29, 2007 2:49 PM "
Why not just afford it thru saving and hard work!?!
This is a pathetic gimmick.
[6] Whoops, thanks. There are varying definitions of the word "propose." One relates to when someone raises something for discussion. A different meaning is when someone originates an idea. I wanted to point out that the Time editor had raised the idea in the immediate past and I apparently caused some confusion with the dual meanings when earlier saying that Clinton mentioned the concept. Hope that clarifies things for you.
Why is it fair for some children to reach 18 with huge piles of money (from their parents) and others with none? Wealth differences may be earned by the time you're 30 or 40 (though the actual evidence suggests otherwise; wealth at 40 strongly correlates with parents' wealth), but surely they aren't generally earned by 18. Being able to start your independent life with a college education and a car is a huge advantage, and one that's rarely earned.
Also, if you do the math (try it before calling Clinton stupid!), it comes out to about $50 a year per person, or much less (say, $15, median) assuming that, like everything else, the tax is progressive. Giving children a free education is like giving children free health care -- a moral duty if we can afford it.
(And no, I'm actually not a Clinton supporter, I just like this particular idea.)
20 billion a year! That's like a whole month of war we'd have to sacrifice. Let me ask you Mrs. Clinton, what is more important, killing terrorists or our children's education?
#13, I didn't hear the part where this was tied to income. Aren't plenty of rich kids going to pick up their free chunk of money as well? (I'm sure they'll learn how to find particularly cushy options for community service.)
Actually, being a wannabe academic, I should love this. It's just going to go into my pockets as tuition prices climb higher.
But, no, it's still stupid. The big cultural trend seems to be that the middle-class standard of living is as high as ever, and yet everybody is poor-mouthing it all the time.
@15
Sure, everyone gets the money. What's the problem? The point is to equalize opportunity, and though it would be better (and cheaper) just to give the money to poor children, even giving it to everyone helps equalize, since $5,000 is worth a lot more if you have nothing than if you already have middle-class parents. And obviously giving it to everyone will be much more politically palatable.
And sure, the middle-class standard of living has improved (debatably -- happiness, health, wages, and free time haven't improved much since 1970). But this is a program mainly targeted at the lower 25%, who, regardless if they're better off than they were in 1970, are still pretty badly off. Especially the children, whom no one can argue deserve their plight.
You have to fix the schools first. There's no point in having 18 year old illiterates sitting on a college fund.