---

The CEOs of the Increasingly Small Three auto makers return to Washington to resume pleading for a bailout, this time telling Congress that if they can reach an agreement that day, they will throw in the undercoating, the satellite-radio package AND a set of floor mats. ''We're actually LOSING MONEY on this deal!'' they assure Congress. Finally they reach a $13.4 billion agreement under which the car companies will continue to provide jobs, medical insurance and pension benefits, but will cease producing actual cars. The agreement will be overseen by the federal government, using its legendary ability to keep things on budget. ~Dave Barry~

---

Last night, I found an article written by none other than Dave Barry on the condition of 2008. Despite his off-the-wall humor and zany ideas, I pull some meaning from his paper. (click here for the article) This post is my incredible insight into the year of 2008... Ok, so maybe not. However, I'm just gonna say what I think about the year that many see as the beginning of a new era and others see as the low point in American history.

So, in terms of the good/bad scale, where did 2008 fall? Was it really the worst year in American history as most of the news media is portraying it, (Minus the election of Obama)? Was there anything we could take away from this year that was actually something good? I think there was:

• Despite all the miscarriages of justice we've seen since Everson v. Board of Education, O.J. actually was convicted of something. Imagine that. No, I'm not talking about the fruit juice.



• Elliot Spitzer had to resign á la Bill Clinton.



• (my favorite) Proposition 8 was passed in California. Bummer to the liberal judges who are trying to pervert the law.

I think the main thing that this year goes to show you is the fact that our hope can't be in men, whether they are OJ, or Spitzer, or even in Obama. Men will fail you over and over again. The irony is that we continue to place great hope in the "leaders" in this world, and yet again they fail. Welcome to reality, kids. Let's try not to screw this up too much.

-Cheers

Read more!

---

"Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." ~Nancy Pelosi~

---

Well, it seems that Nancy Pelosi has finally shown her true colors. In an interview with ABC's Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning, she made this comment, "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." Basically, she is saying that kids cost money (which they do), but then she is also inferring that they are a complete waste for the government to be spending money on, (which is not true). From a completely fiscal viewpoint, is the next generation worth the cost?

According to an online calculator(1) for the costs of raising a child born in 2009, including paying for their college tuition is roughly around $250,000 a child. Now, to be fair, we will take away the college tuition, as it comes further down the road, and the parents might win the lottery before then, so with the average tuition of a public university from the '06-'07 school year being around $12,000, this brings our total down to about $238,000.

Now, the question arises, how much of this 238k does the government have to dish out to its citizens to pay for the kids? Well, as long as Obama doesn't start "bailing" out everybody in the US, NOTHING. I know there are families with special needs children that will receive subsidies from the government; and there are families that will be receiving welfare checks; but for the most part, all of the money spent of a child is from the private sector. Thus, actually having children is stimulating to the economy in the way that it helps the circulation of the money supply. It keeps things "liquid" (there's your economic term for the day so you feel like you got your money's worth).

Now, what are the benefits for the government to promote contraception? Well, the only one I can think of is that there are less people to feed, and thus less food is required overall, which frees up more food to be consumed by each individual. (It's no surprise that the obesity rate in America is headed out the roof) Other than that, I really can't think of any benefits for the government to promote contraception.

What are the costs of not having children? They are a lot more than what you would imagine. For example, when you have less people, you will receive less taxes. The total federal budget for fiscal year 2008 was roughly $2.9 Billion (data taken from the Federal Budget Office(2)). Divide this among the 138 million citizens counted in 2007(3), and you get about $21,000 per person. Now, what would the cost be if had been no abortions in the United States? What would happen if we virtually reverse Roe v Wade?

An estimated 50 million babies have been murdered through RvW, but we'll only take half of that number so that we're sure to only get the kids that would be of tax-paying age. Thus, adding 25 million people onto the 138 million taxpayers, we get 163 million people for the government to suck money from. Diving the entire Federal Budget among these citizens, we get the amount of $17,700 per person. This is a savings of $3,300 per person, what a tax break! I know that taxes don't pay for all of the government's budget, but we're going by the KISS principle here for the sake of argument.

Tax breaks are great, and would stimulate the economy in and of itself, but the real benefit to having kids is to help solve the disaster that is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. It's estimated that in 50-75 years, the total cost for just these programs will total the entire current federal budget. Why are we losing money through this program? Because there's not enough kids to pay for the older people going into retirement. It's also affected by the retirement age declining and some other factors, but we won't get into that here. The point is, if the government were smart, it would not promote contraception, but it would rather encourage its citizens to procreate.

So, why is Pelosi saying that it's cost effective for Americans not to have kids? It stems from a worldview, not from a political position. She's fallen into the same trap that the rest of politically correct America has stepped in, and now it's finally coming out of the closet. To paraphrase John McCain on the stimulus package, "it needs some work". I say we forgo the stimulus package all together and stimulate the economy through the means of the FairTax and balancing international trade... However, that's a different topic.

Look ahead to the future America, look to see where your past ideas will take you. Learn from your mistakes that you might not repeat them again.

-Cheers Read more!