The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill

[John Dibble]

Sorry, this just screams 'welfare', and I think this oversteps the bounds of the federal government's authority. I doubt this would really help curb abortions, and I think you are underestimating the costs, and I think this bill is poorly planned. How many thousands of new unwed mothers are there a year? Did you even look up this information before going ahead and writing the bill? Good intent without knowledge, forethought, and reason is dangerous.

This is just a rough guess, but I think it is probably reasonable(and I'm guessing low), but say the costs per child is $5,000 per year for these shelters. If just 50,000 children are born to unwed mothers in a year(and I'm pretty sure the number is much larger than this), and they apply for this, you've already spent your $250 million meant for five years in a single year. You also may have spent the other money appropriated if enough people apply.

The likely result of this is spending in the billions if you want to keep the program running, and it is going to be a fiscal nightmare to say the least. Either that or you can have an underfunded, ineffective system. I also shudder at the prospect of the massive beauracracy that would be needed to implement this system - and that must be paid for as well, and it will no doubt be inefficient. Why on earth would you want such a mess?

For the above reasons, I urge all Senators to vote a strong NAY. We don't need the problems this will bring.

[John Dibble]

Ok, I'm going to post this site, and if any information I reference contained within is erroneous or if I have taken it out of context, please tell me:

http://www.yppo.com/stats.html

Important stats:

Almost 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and more than 512,000 give birth. (average, based on 2000 census)

Over 1,000,000 babies were born to unwed mothers in 2002, however only about 300,000 of these were from teenagers. (2002 only)

So, let's assume that just half of these unwed mothers(annual average) apply(only half to take out multiple children and those who just don't apply) - so, 500,000. Let's also use my estimate of the cost to the shelters being $5000 per child annually. Total costs for the first year = $2.5 billion dollars a year on the first year. Oh, but wait, the system continues to pay for the first five years of the child's life, so once this really gets rolling it will cost 12.5 billion dollars annually - and this is only for the shelters, it does not include the costs for the $1000 for child care a year per applicant, $1500 per semester(there can be up to three a year in most places) per applicant that goes to college, and costs of the beauracracy. If you like to bitch about the deficit, pass this bill because it's gonna get bigger.

[John Dibble]

Ok, I'm going to post this site, and if any information I reference contained within is erroneous or if I have taken it out of context, please tell me:

http://www.yppo.com/stats.html

Important stats:

Almost 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and more than 512,000 give birth. (average, based on 2000 census)

Over 1,000,000 babies were born to unwed mothers in 2002, however only about 300,000 of these were from teenagers. (2002 only)

So, let's assume that just half of these unwed mothers(annual average) apply(only half to take out multiple children and those who just don't apply) - so, 500,000. Let's also use my estimate of the cost to the shelters being $5000 per child annually. Total costs for the first year = $2.5 billion dollars a year on the first year. Oh, but wait, the system continues to pay for the first five years of the child's life, so once this really gets rolling it will cost 12.5 billion dollars annually - and this is only for the shelters, it does not include the costs for the $1000 for child care a year per applicant, $1500 per semester(there can be up to three a year in most places) per applicant that goes to college, and costs of the beauracracy. If you like to bitch about the deficit, pass this bill because it's gonna get bigger.

I will seperate the education part and the general social services part then.  Unwed mothers with another form of support, i.e. parents will not apply for the benefits unless their family has an annual income of less than $25,000 per year.

I still say the costs will be too high. Even if these changes cuts the total applicants in half, you still end up spending 6.25 billion a year, not including beauracratic costs. And as I said, my estimates for cost 'per child annually' was a low guess. It is probably more.

There's also the problem of where to build shelters - they need to be close enough to the workplace of the mother to be effective, otherwise the mother may be unable to afford to go to the shelter. Thusly these shelters would need to be all over the place, increasing costs. This also creates a dependency - it's not crazy to assume that most of these women will not go to college, grant or no - so when age 5 comes around they no longer have the money and support they depended on for the last 5 years, leaving them essentially stranded and in poverty.

There are far too many problems with this bill. I can't lend my support to it.

[John Dibble]

As I stated before, I do not think this will cause any serious decrease in the number of abortions, especially among teenagers.

And my concern is not about underfunding - it's about spending a gross amount of money on another beauracratic nightmare that only serves to create a welfare state. Also I believe this far oversteps the bounds in which the federal government should operate, not to mention you are spending other people's money on your moral cause - not everyone believes abortion is murder. You may not like it, but it's the truth. Fight for your cause with your money and that of willing donors, not the taxpayer's money.

If you are really so concerned, my advice to you is to start a private organization run by pro-lifers who sign up worthwhile couples who desire to adopt a child, have representatives stand in front of abortion clinics and ask people if they would instead consider bearing the child and adopting them out. I've heard numerous times from pro-lifers saying that they would adopt the children who are going to get aborted, now I say it is time to prove it. Put up or shut up.

[John Dibble]

I'm leaning toward support - that's right, John Dibble, support - since in principle this matches what I stated in my campaign speech, and damn it, I am a populist, NOT a libertarian. I still think the bill needs a little work - in particular, I have to insist on adding Gabu's birth control promotion amendment to it - one of my campaign planks, after all.

Jake, if you wish to eliminate funding for the UNFPA, then get a senator to propose an amendment to my proposed modification to the Family Planning Act, but don't propose the amendment here unless the amendment is enacted there. I'm sure States will be glad to propose it for you.

There are things that are worth more than a tax cut, and this is one of them. Given the conservative and libertarian nature of my district, this may be unpopular, but I never pretended to be anything other than what I am, and I said I'd support this type of idea during the (admittedly short) campaign. Or in other words, object to my stance if you like - I ain't changing it.

I've given you my reasons against it. I urged you not to support it for those reasons. If you still wish to support it, fine. I still say it will be an ineffective beauracratic nightmare that will create people who are dependent upon the government.

[John Dibble]

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.

[John Dibble]

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.

Since I already do, I fail to see your point.

P.S. And we can now see that the truth comes out.  The argument has finally been reduced to its most basic point.

Oh? You do? Good for you, continue to do so.

And how is this point any different from what I have been arguing? I've been arguing against cost. I'm trying to save the taxpayers money. Is it wrong to wish to save people the money that they earned? Is it wrong to not wish to take it from them and spend it on my own causes?

[John Dibble]

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.

Since I already do, I fail to see your point.

P.S. And we can now see that the truth comes out.  The argument has finally been reduced to its most basic point.

Oh? You do? Good for you, continue to do so.

And how is this point any different from what I have been arguing? I've been arguing against cost. I'm trying to save the taxpayers money. Is it wrong to wish to save people the money that they earned? Is it wrong to not wish to take it from them and spend it on my own causes?

I just have to laugh when people say things like "Do it with your own money".

Yes, it is apparently a laughable concept that people pay for their own causes and not do so off the work of the unwilling.

[John Dibble]

For that matter, we once again see libertarianism reduced to its most basic points: greed and rampid individualism.

1. Greed and self-interest are not necessarily the same. I feel it's in my self-interest that I don't take what isn't mine - I'm not greedy, what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours. I'm more than happy to keep only what I've earned with my labor, not a penny more do I seek. If I start taking what isn't mine for my own causes, it only becomes a matter of time when someone starts taking what's mine for theirs. Don't believe me, well here's a novel concept for you - publicly funded abortions. This works both ways, you know.

2. Apparently individualism is bad now. Collectivism it is then - we live for the whole, the individual doesn't matter. And apparently rampid is a word.

It is laughable when people can't spare a few bucks to help out those who really need it.  Especially in this case.

I give to charity. I give to those whom I feel I need it and deserve it, and I give what I feel is necessary, not a penny more. And it's hardly 'sparing' a few bucks when the money is taken from people forcibly. This bill, like all welfare, is forced charity - which is a contradiction.

Guess you need that other latte, though.

I don't drink latte, don't be a jackass. And can you please sum up your points in a single post.

[John Dibble]

You don't like my ideology, then fine. But apparently you like communism better - heck, you said so.

Never read Ayn Rand, actually. Still, I'll play your game - you think this is important for the community. Well, I think it will damage the community. Here's how:

Your bill, if it's intents are met, will result in more children being born to unwed mothers. It is a statistical fact that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to be criminals. Thusly, it logically follows that there will likely be more criminals, and more murder along with that. Also, it follows that these sorts will get girls pregant and walk out as well, thusly creating a cycle. More crime is bad for the community.

And, since tax cuts will probably have to be roled back to pay for this(or deficits will increase, still bad), the economy will likely suffer some. A bad economy is bad for the community.


And once again I state that by condoning the use of taxpayer money for your personal moral crusade, you do open up the prospect of others using taxpayer money(which includes yours) to projects that you will not approve of - i.e. publicly funded abortion and the like. And guess what, it will be done in the name of the community. It always is done for some 'common good'.

[John Dibble]

It would seem to me that this bill would pretty much pay for itself if it works, in the long run.  All of the women who fit the description of this bill would otherwise have two options: get an abortion, or have the child and not have nearly enough money to raise the child with.  The first option is obviously not one we'd want to promote, although it should be an option, but women who can't bring themselves to abort the child would be stuck with the second option.  Anyone who would do that would likely find it extremely hard to be a functioning, capable member of society and would probably have to go on welfare or other social programs.  Consequently, the child would probably not have a very good upbringing, and would have a much higher probability of turning out as the mother did, and then that child's children would be the same, and so on.

On the other hand, if the taxpayers instead chipped in what will be roughly $6/taxpayer, they could break this vicious cycle and enable this mother and her offspring to be functioning members of society.  This will enable them to get good employment, and thus become tax-paying citizens themselves who give input into the economy, which will benefit everyone in the long run.

No man is an island; there are some cases where it simply does not work to attempt to work purely with the money of those who decide to donate out of their own volition.  It's in everyone's benefit, in the long run, that these mothers not be forced to deal with it purely on their own.

Gabu, you do realize that not all the mothers who enter this program will go to college. I don't see how this will change must as far as their situation. Sure, some might, but I think I can safely say most won't. I think that those who enter will come to depend on the program, and then suddenly get dropped out of it 5 years in, which makes the problem worse.

ADD - 'everyone's benefit'? Thusly it's to my benefit. But how did you determine it's to my benefit? You don't necessarily know my interests, so how can you really determine it is to my benefit? Don't I know what's in my benefit far better than you?

[John Dibble]

You don't like my ideology, then fine. But apparently you like communism better - heck, you said so.

As I said, extremeists see the world in extremes.  Everything social program is communism.  Whatever, I feel sad for you if you really believe that.

YES OR NO. You stated you despise libertarianism over ALL other political ideologies.

If yes, then you despise it over communism, facism, nazism, ect. Don't blame me for your own words.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this more crap about how more teens are going to want to get pregnant because of this, or are you finally admitting that this bill is going to say lives?
[/quote]

I said IF. Simple logic - more people will be born if your bill succeeds in stopping some abortions. That implies nothing more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny, I was born to an unwed mother.  I guess you could say that that is why I am so interested in this topic.  Am I, in your opinion, a criminal.  I must be, if I am trying to take away your money and send it to Washington.
[/quote]

'More likely' does not imply 'all'. Serioulsy, you don't seem to understand basic logic. Statistics show that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to turn to crime - why? Because unwed mothers are more likely to be irresponsible(they got pregnant out of marriage, an irresponsible act), and thusly their kids will not be taught properly. Of course, once again 'more likely' does not imply 'all' as you seem to believe. It's my belief that abortion shows irresponsibility - I imagine you agree - so following this train of thought, it is logical to assume that those whom you might convince to go with this program instead of abortion will have a higher chance of being irresponsible people, and therefore their kids will not get a decent upbringing, and will be more likely to turn to crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I say again, if we need to roll back the tax cut a bit it would equal about 0.001% of the tax cut.  And you once again ignore the fact that this is an investment in the future of this country and will increase the standard of living for these people.
[/quote]

It only increases the standard of living in your mind. I do not believe it does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Laughable.  If you don't believe that human life and dignity are moral principles that trancend all moral fiber, then you are barely fit to live.
[/quote]

Once again - not all people believe that abortion is murder. I don't like abortion, but I don't hold that it is murder. I value human life, but I'm not exactly convinced that a fetus in early development is 'human' in the same sense that I am.

And all that one does not require money to live with dignity. Dignity is attained through acting in a dignified way.

As I said, I respect my fellow man. I don't seek to use what is his when he does not consent. If respecting the rights of my fellow man makes me unfit to live, then so be it.

[John Dibble]

Supersoulty, if you want, respond to my last post, but I will not respond back. I've made my arguments against this bill, you've made yours for it. That's enough. This is not the place to debate ideology.

[John Dibble]

John Dibble,

We don't live in vacuums.  Nearly everything we do affects someone else in some way, and to pretend otherwise is fantasy.  Its also absurd to suggest that Super is on a moral crusade that is any different from any manner of laws that govern morality that you wouldn't object to.  Banning murder governs morality.  Banning theft governs morality.  It just so happens that Super's bill doesn't impose your morality, it imposes his.  So lets be honest about your objections.  You want laws consistent with your morality (based in Objectivism), and Supersoulty wants laws consistent with his morality (based in Catholic social teaching).  All laws impose morality, Super and you have a different morality, and so you disagree on the bill.  That doesn't mean he wants to legislate morality and you don't, it means you both want a different version of morality legislated.  And Supersoulty is not a communist, you know full well it was rude and foolish to say so.

1. As I've said, I have more than one reason to oppose this law. Laws against murder and theft protect my rights - rights to my life and rights to my property. I believe the only purpose of government is to protect our rights - this bill goes beyond that. I realize we don't live in a vacuum, but just because one's actions affects others does not necessarily justify action against those actions, so long as they don't violate the rights of others. As I said, I don't see how this protects my rights in any way. Abortion is a deeply philisophical issue.

2. Also as I've said, I don't think it is the business of the federal government to do this. Why does the Senator not encourage the regions to do this? There's an abortion initiative that the Senator would no doubt approve of in the Southeastern region. One more reason I'm against federal legislation such as this is that it is 'one size fits all', which distributes evenly rather than where it is actually needed. Also, as mentioned, the beauracracy needed for this will be cumbersome and expensive. My reasons to oppose this bill extend to the realm of practicality as well. I appreciate that Supersoulty has good intentions, but good intentions alone are not sufficient - he clearly did not do the proper research on the subject in order to estimate the costs before he proposed the bill, and it would likely have resulted in disaster(and I'm still convinced it will) had this bill gone uncriticized.

3. I never said Supersoulty was a communist. I was merely pointing out a place where he put his foot in his mouth - saying that he despises libertarianism over all other political ideologies, it logically follows that he does not despise communism(or facism, or any of those other ideologies that have absolutely no respect for the individual) over libertarianism(which instead respects the individual almost absolutely). You have to be careful with your words, because people do draw conclusions from them. I know he isn't a communist, he obviously prefers his own brand of conservative/populist(whatever it is) ideology over all others(why else would he be that ideology), but he said something that I could make some logical conclusions from, and I stated them. If I did the same, I expect the same done to me. Words are a means of expressing your beliefs, so picking your words carefully is adviseable.

[John Dibble]

Gabu,

You are a worthy successor to StevenNick.  In this debate you've proven yourself to be a voice of reason and cooperation in the Senate.  Sorry for ever doubting you.

Let me pause from the entertaining populist-libertarian clash for a moment to add my agreement to the above statement. Gabu, you have been a very good Senator and probably the most reasonable person in the entire Senate. Well done!

I agree that I like Gabu as a Senator. He listens and considers all arguments, in my opinion. A good quality to have.

[John Dibble]

I've proposed an alternative idea to this to Supersoulty. If he likes it, he'll post it as a bill. If he does not, I'll post the idea and see what others think. My idea is much different, but the intended end result is the same - less abortions - however it does not contain the nasty side effects of welfare dependency, and it spends less taxpayer money because it is dependent upon user fees.

[John Dibble]

Of course you don't find a compelling state interest, you're not pro-life.  If you believe that protecting fetal life is important, then you think there is a compelling state interest in that case.  If you believe the environment should be protected from pollution, then you believe there is a compelling state interest in that case.  You object to the bill because you disagree with it ideologically, not because you have developed a universal and objective standard for making laws.

You haen't proven that there isn't a compelling interest, you've only proven you're pro-choice.  Therefore, the state interest is not compelling because the fetus has no rights and does not deserve rights.  I disagree, therefore the compelling state interest is the protection of the fetus.

I would like to start by saying how dare you paint as whatever you care to paint me as without either personally knowing me or having seen any sort of declared position on the issue of abortion.

I'm not talking about the programme itself (the one providing the shelters), I believe there is plenty of compelling state interest in that case. I DO NOT OBJECT TO THIS BILL. I STATED SO RATHER CLEARLY EARLIER.

I object to the State interfering in a business's right to provide whatever documentation (which is what I was talking about) to its clients/patients that it likes when it receives no funding from the federal government. There is no compelling state interest that means a business should have to provide documentation about one particular government programme.

The FDA forces companies to supply nutritional infomation on their products.

Well, let me differentiate here. Peter is opposing the idea of forcing a business to provide information on something that is outside of the product they are offering(abortions, in this case). The government service is not the product being offered, it really has nothing to do with the product itself. Since the clinic is not being paid any money from the government, it seems unreasonable to force them to point out an alternative that gains them nothing.

FDA food labels, on the other hand, are directly relevant to the product - it is a way to ensure that the customer knows what is being purchased, protecting the customer against fraud(one of the legitimate functions of government is to protect against fraud, in my view). Now, requiring abortion doctors to truthfully explain the abortion procedure and it's risks to a woman is similar, as it ensures the customer knows what is being purchased and the risks entailed.

[John Dibble]

Since Supersoulty doesn't seem to want to go with my idea, I'll post it for all other Senators and citizens to view. This is the main body of the letter:

"I propose a compromise to the Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill, since it seems it will pass and I’m rather unhappy about that. The intent of your bill is not to create a form of welfare (though, I believe it does do that) but to decrease the number of abortions – I’m not against the intent, but I disagree with the means. My idea is one that would make both the populists and the libertarians happy, because eventually becomes self-sustaining if everything works out as planned since it is funded almost entirely by user fees rather than taxes.

So, my proposition is thus – create a federal service that works with abortion clinics to provide a second option in the form of adoption. The agency created would set up a list of families that wish to adopt a child(or more than one) that might be aborted(families would of course, as all families wanting to adopt, be subject to social services inspection, or inspection by agents of this agency, to ensure they would be fit parents – whichever is cheaper or more workable). These families, upon being told there is a mother willing to bear a child for them to adopt, will be made to pay the adoption fee (I’m thinking somewhere in the realm of $3-3,500, perhaps allowing the agency to set the fee according to it’s needs within a state, but within limitations to ensure average people can afford to pay), which can be paid in installments if necessary (possibly with interest), should they still wish to adopt at that time.

Now, you may ask why abortion clinics would go along with this? It’s rather simple – appeal to their desire for money. A piece of the user fee, $500 I’m thinking, will go to the abortion clinic – this serves them because they get money without even having to perform a procedure, so it is virtually money for nothing. I’d think then that clinics would be more than willing to propose this alternative without much or any coercion. Even though it is a requirement for them, it seems to me to be one they’ll be happy with since they still make money off the alternative. Also, possibly, the mother will be given $500 as well to pay for the birth procedure, though if already willing to pay for an abortion it might be wiser to have them pay for it, to ensure the agency has enough money to keep running, still it is a possible incentive to bear the child. Of course, the mother is allowed to change her mind at the last minute and keep the child if she wishes to do so. Payments of all sorts are only rendered upon completion of the adoption process.

To establish the agency, I would be willing to compromise on $250-500 million (though less would be better, but this system works better than that already proposed because we only need to spend the money once, and after which the system should sustain itself) being spent on initial costs of building offices, infrastructure, and initial pay for employees. It may even be possible for these agencies to make a profit and pay some of the money back to the government eventually, but that could be done in a later bill if the case happens. Any profit made initially will go into improving the agency and advertisement for the program (to find willing parents, the clinics present the option to the mothers). In the end, if the agency proves unworkable, the project can be scrapped, but the taxpayer expense will still have been minimal.

Ok – logistics. Let’s set the initial cost at $350 million to get things going. $200 million goes to paying employees – each is paid $50k a year, probably throw in some vacation time too, but this gives us 4000 employees to work with, or 80 per state (this is only an average, certain states will have need of more and others will need less, varying by population, number of abortion clinics, and other factors, but I think the total is enough). The total number can increase or decrease according to the agency’s policy and need over time – this is just an initial estimate. $100 million will go to constructing/buying/renting buildings for the workers, average $2 million per state. This leaves $50 million to pay for any employee benefits established(keep it minimal to start, simple stuff like dental or vision, work over time to establish better if possible, since the agency is non-profit any extra money made can go to this), advertisement of the program, and other expenses. The last thing may need an increase on the initial cost. Perhaps small amounts can be appropriated later on, but I think this initial estimate is good enough.

I figure that we can probably get at least 100,000 families yearly to participate, and hopefully that many mothers as well. This is how I determined wages and fees and whatnot. If we go with the minimum fee I said, $3k, and we only pay the clinic and not the mother (or raise fee to $3.5k and pay the mother), that means $250 million dollars in revenue a year, provided things go well (and I think it will, since this relies on both the altruism of pro-life families and on the self-interests of abortion clinics to make money) which will pay the annual $200 million in employee salaries, and leaves $50 million to pay for benefits, advertisement, maintenance, ect.  So, if more service than 100,000 is given, profit is made, if less than 100,000 is served we can downsize accordingly.

I think this service would be much more effective than the already proposed idea in decreasing the number of abortions. Though I still think this exceeds the authority of the federal government, it is still far preferable to me than what is already proposed. It spends less taxpayer money, and eventually spends none if things go well. Still, my libertarian self would rather see this established as an entirely private interest."

An unmentioned benefit is to the children adopted - it provides them with a loving family capable of providing for them, and it does it without giving something unearned to the mother, so it's not welfare. Less abortions, many babies are better off, parents get a new bundle of joy, and with minimal taxpayer expense. Practically, I think it is more workable and reliable.

[John Dibble]

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).

[John Dibble]

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).

Saying that some of these women will not utilize this benefit, no matter what the percentage in, does not go very far towards arguing that it should not be in place for those who do want to utilize it.

The shelters are only for the pregnacy and 3-4 months afterwards.

1. You said it would solve the problem. I'm saying that so few will use this part of the service that it will be ineffectual, that your expectations are too high. That's all.

2. But aren't 'living expenses' still provided? That's what I meant when I mentioned the shelters. So, how much will these living expenses be?

[John Dibble]

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).

Saying that some of these women will not utilize this benefit, no matter what the percentage in, does not go very far towards arguing that it should not be in place for those who do want to utilize it.

The shelters are only for the pregnacy and 3-4 months afterwards.

1. You said it would solve the problem. I'm saying that so few will use this part of the service that it will be ineffectual, that your expectations are too high. That's all.

2. But aren't 'living expenses' still provided? That's what I meant when I mentioned the shelters. So, how much will these living expenses be?

Perhapes you don't understand something... the money will be granted mostly to private organizations that are already up and running so that they can expand their facilities and care options.  These will not be government run shelters, or at least 90% of them won't be.

Ok, well, 'operations and opening' in the first section seems to imply these will be government run, at least to me. Consider rewording. I still don't approve, but that makes things slightly better since the burden is no longer entirely on the taxpayer.

Still, you haven't answered my question - how much is the 'necessary living expenses' provided in section 3 of the bill, per year? Defining 'necessary' might also help - that word is often up to interpretation.

[John Dibble]

Even though I still detest the bill, I'd like to suggest some improvements - I want to minimize abuse of the program and minimize the amount of taxpayer money spent.

Section 3, part a - Some spelling errors(rage should be rate, Sandard should be Standard). Now, more importantly, while I would view those as mostly 'necessary', I do want a stipulation placed. The mother needs to find work after some period of time if she is not already working(though, this might apply to a different degree, or perhaps exempt entirely, if the woman is in college using section 5), and must not stay in an unemployed status for too long, otherwise benefits should be taken away. Perhaps make there be a max total time for unemployement rather than time between employment always being the same, so they can't get a job, quit, and then get a job again when their time runs out. Benefits for living expenses given will be dependent upon the income of the job - the benefits basically would add to income, rather than being an absolute amount, so that total income does not exceed $30k a year, which is the limit to exempt the woman from the program. i.e. a person who makes $10k a year will receive more benefits than someone who makes $25k. I ask for this work stipulation because we do not want these women dependent upon the program, because after five years if they are unemployed the child will still need care that costs money, and they will no longer have any income at all. We also don't want people simply mooching off society. So, this stipulation would encourage them to become or productive members of society.

[John Dibble]

Supersoulty - I'd still like a work provision for those women not entering college(or still in high school). If one of the points of this bill is to get them out of poverty, and if they aren't currently in some level of the educational process they need to be employed in order to do that. If they aren't working by the end of the program(or a degree, in the college cases), they are left with a child and no income, and thusly sink back into poverty.

[John Dibble]

Supersoulty - I'd still like a work provision for those women not entering college(or still in high school). If one of the points of this bill is to get them out of poverty, and if they aren't currently in some level of the educational process they need to be employed in order to do that. If they aren't working by the end of the program(or a degree, in the college cases), they are left with a child and no income, and thusly sink back into poverty.

True, but I honestly don't know what to do about that.

Well, I don't see how it would be much different than the requirement that those on welfare have to prove they are searching for work to keep benefits. Basically I'd say that the woman has to prove she's been actively searching in the monthly interviews specified in Section 3e. She must find work, even if it is minimum wage, in some set limit of time or lose benefits. My suggestion is that limit should be somewhere between 6 months to 2 years. If you go with a higher end limit, then any time spent unemployed should tally up(so that the woman couldn't live off the system two years, work one year, quit and then mooch off the system for the remaining two years), as to encourage maintained employment status. Of course, if a mother lands a job that makes over $30k a year, then she loses benefits as per Section 7a.

Also, I hope you will consider the idea of ensuring that benefits are not a fixed rate - they should only serve to bring income up to what is deemed the 'liveable' level. In this case, I would think that level would be $30k a year. So a working mother getting $18k a year would get more in benefits than a working mother making $27k a year - the $27k mother does not need as much, so it wouldn't make sense to give her the same amount as the $18k mother.

[John Dibble]

VETO please

Ditto.