The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

93° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mail Bag

    Baby bonds a ‘silly idea’

    I didn’t read any real rebuttals of Hillary Clinton’s silly idea in yesterday’s WildCard (“”Money in the bank – at birth””). So here are a few reasons not to attempt a baby bond: (1)

    Hillary Clinton institutes a program that she does not have to pay for during her years in office, if she gets elected. This bond idea sounds suspiciously like Social Security, where there are no funds accumulating. The taxpayers in 18 years will have to shoulder this burden. Headline: “”Hillary buys votes on credit!”” (2) Eighteen years is actually a bit optimistic. Eight years is more realistic, because in a few years teens and parents will realize what a raw deal they are getting and demand the government give them money as well. (3) The whole program breeds government dependence, which is a Hillary hallmark. (4) There are people in the U.S. who do not and will not have kids. Hillary’s America makes people very much like petulant little girls in shopping malls who say, “”Buy me something, daddy!”” The government can afford anything, right?

    Matthew Harwood
    nutrition junior

    ‘Focus’ on population control

    In January, the group Focus the Nation plans to hold a national teach-in on global warming.

    I suspect that in January, we’ll hear a lot about hybrid cars and carbon taxes and solar energy, and hardly a word about population. Yet population growth is a critical factor in the greenhouse gas equation.

    The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that by 2050, our country’s population will reach 420 million. That means that we’ll have to reduce the average person’s carbon emissions by 30 percent just to stay at the current unsustainable level.

    If we’re serious about fighting global warming, we can’t continue to ignore the population factor. Nor can we count on people voluntarily limiting their reproduction for the sake of the environment. Just as we need to tax fossil fuels and subsidize renewable energy, we need to devise disincentives for procreation and rewards for remaining child-free.

    A minimal start would be the elimination of policies that have the opposite effect. Right now, we provide incentives to reproduce: income tax credits for dependent children, welfare programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, child care subsidies, etc.

    We need to scrap these policies and programs and replace them with new ones designed to discourage reproduction. If we refuse to take serious action on population growth, then the battle against global warming is already lost.

    William Flack
    alumnus

    More to Discover
    Activate Search