I’m for more humans. Call me a speciesist. In normal circumstances,* humans produce a surplus of benefit for other humans. Nothing contributes more to my prosperity more than other people. The more, the better.

I especially feel this way given that the US population currently only grows (in net) through immigration, and the world population will begin to decline some time in the next 50 years or so. I doubt this program would actually increase the birth rate to the point that it flips shrinking population to growing population, since many forms of welfare already have the same effect, and this would simply be replacing them.

Max

* Ignoring the fairly unusual situations where they are paid to do nothing, where incentives lead to a birth rate that greatly exceeds the rate of capital formation, etc.

Handling special needs and non-special needs through the exact same…whatever…seems like a problem to be fixed.

Maybe a tax-deferred child care savings account.

You write, It could leave the assessment of special household needs to state and local governments as well as charities.

And you continue State and local governments would be able to contribute to these accounts, based on their assessment of household needs.

I live in Washington state, the land of Software, and the land of Biotechnology, and the land of Aerospace, and the Land of Seaports, where Public Housing, Medicaid, Food Stamps, flows like as a River of Wealth, funded by the Blue State Voters.

Thank God, I don’t live is Mississippi, Alabama, or Georgia, where the states and local governments have no desire to provide social funding.

Your fiscal cutbacks are coming soon as a Minsky Moment is coming very soon out of the failure of speculative leverage investing.