** UPDATES THROUGH March 2nd **

Our bipartisan state representatives at work: Republican Bob Dutton and Democratic Darrell Steinberg propose giving $500 seed-money for every child born in California... irrespective of legal status. This money, which could be withdrawn only after age 18 for education or housing, might ... might... balloon up to about $17,000 if the children and parents made contributions of $50 a month to add to the $500 seed money.

Now, note: you have to pay the $500 back to the state "government" when you withdraw the money. So, it's kind of like we're not really taking anybody's money and giving it to children as a birthday present.

Imagine the education or housing you could buy for $17,000 (minus $500)! In the year 2025!

Of course, if the kid and the kid's family just bury the 500 bucks in a savings account, it's going to grow to about $700. Pay that "grubstake" back, and you're looking at a cool $200 investment for college or housing. People who think this will make an impact are just the sort who would later run for public office in California, I suppose.

Again: it seems some think that any service available to the public can be improved by letting the state or federal government administer it, but I am hard-pressed to think of many services that become more efficient when handled by the government as opposed to the private sector.

I am willing to bend a little on things like the interstate transport system, the military and border security. Boy — I actually wish the government would focus on those types of things a little more!

"This is the essence of equal opportunity. Every child, every person ought to get a head start,'' said Sen. Steinberg

But

If everyone gets a head start, isn't that the same thing as just saving the money and giving no one a head start? If everyone has a head start, then haven't we just moved the starting line up? Wouldn't it be just as fair to leave people's money be, and let them decide for themselves whether or not sacrifices are worthwhile?

And

If you have to give people money for their savings account, doesn't that mean that these are the type of people who don't put money in savings accounts?

And

Why only give it to people having children?

And

How are we going to track all the monies, for the purposes of penalties for withdrawals, and the like? Are those bureaus in charge of the financial accounting going to be run for free?

And

Why not at least check the citizenship status of the children to at least make sure we are benefitting legal citizens of California and the United States?*

No; I think rather it is the essence of taking the taxpayers' money and turning around and redistributing it willy-nilly to various citizens of the United States, Mexico, Canada, whatever. And mostly to citizens who think that a "free" $500 bucks of tax money is some sort of magical princely sum.

I'll give them this: I bet the banks are going to make some money off of this largess. But I hope that this bill gets stomped on faster — well, no; maybe only slightly slower — than the "anti-spanking" legislation we touched on earlier.

—

*This question, by the way, is seen as insane by some well-meaning Californians, and also as evidence of my pathological jingoist nationalism, not to mention racism. Do not even read the question again, or you may be accused of "re-inforcing racist thought dogmas" by our more enlightened citizens.