Age inequity in the baby bucks bill?
Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento has good intentions (or so I think) in proposing the baby $$ bill, but really, I don’t think it’s the way to go.
California lawmakers are considering giving $500 to every single baby born in the state. The bipartisan bill aims to give babies a financial head start with a savings account.
As a parent of a “not so newborn,” I question why newborns only, and why not any kid in CA under 18? Where do you draw the line? Sounds like propagating inequity based on the year you were born.
The bill would encourage population growth, as well as people traveling over our border just to have the baby–and I mean coming down from Oregon or motoring over from Nevada, not to mention the expectant mothers who are already braving the U.S.-Mexico border for the “gift” of U.S. citizenship. Hey, $500 is a lot of money for some folks.
Here are a few more questions. What happens to the savings account when a child is murdered or dies before the age of majority? Does that mean the State will take the money back, or will it sit until the child would have been 18? Does it go to the next of kin–or does it revert to the State? What happens if a child moves out of California? Who will “make sure” the money is paid back when the child turns 18? Shall we create a whole new government entity to enforce repayment and to untangle the legal snarls of this $300 million dollar plus venture?
Hey, it’s more work for the lawyers, and I guess that makes everyone happy–particularly the lawyers. Mr. Steinberg, I’m thinking you should go back to the drawing board on this one.
Related posts:
In the future, $500 will probably only get you a tank of gasoline.