On Friday, Hillary Clinton made a suggestion to give every baby born in America a “baby bond” of $5,000 from the government to go towards their adult housing or education needs. Baby bonds are not a new idea, but they are a very controversial. Approximately 4 million children are born in the United States every year; that’s $20 billion to the baby bond program, times four years of Hillary’s potential presidency, equaling a total of $80 billion. Where is this money going to come from?
If it comes from tax dollars, our money is going towards the future of other people's children. Millions of parents already can’t afford to put their own children through college; what makes Hillary think we are willing and able to pay increased taxes to support this program?
I’ve got a suggestion; it involves a tried and true method of raising money for businesses and charitable organizations called Leadership Giving. If a board member comes up with a new idea for an organization, sometimes he or she will put money into the program in order to encourage or inspire other members to also contribute money. The more money the original person contributes, the more money the others are likely to donate to the cause. Many admirable organizations such as the National Gallery of Art, the Jimmy Fund of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and the Wellesley Centers for Women (WCW) – supported by Clinton’s alma mater – all raise money through Leadership Giving.
I challenge Hillary Clinton to use the support of her campaign staff and $1 million of her personal money to start a fund for this program. $1 million is enough money to fund 200 children, and encourage all those people who have supported the Clintons in the past to also donate money. From 2001-2006, Clinton’s senate campaign spent $40,828,991 [1], and she has already raised $63,075,927 [2] for her presidential campaign. If she could convince the same donors to match these contributions, then another 20,780 children in need will be funded, for a total of nearly 21,000 children. The program may not be able to cover every child born in this country, but I am confident Clinton could inspire enough contributions to support the children most in need.
Hillary Clinton, put your money where your mouth is. If you are truly passionate about supporting the children of this country, then tell Americans in the only way they know how to listen: by putting up your own money to prove the worth of this program.
References:
[1] The Center for Responsible Politics: Hillary Clinton Senate Campaign Finance
[2] The Center for Responsible Politics: Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign Finance
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Hint: It starts with an "I" and rhymes with "back"
If we end the war with Iraq, right now, we can fund this.
the war on Iraq has nothing to do with us putting our money into other kids futures. I agree with the author when she says that Hillary needs to put her money where her mouth is.......
Lost, yes it does. The money we throw into that pit of scandal, the less is there to pay for education. It's cliche, I know, but its true: why does the government keep throwing money to a missile defense shield or towards Blackwater mercenaries, while schools in my area have to hold bake sales to buy paper. Not fancy intarwebs, but paper.
Your idea is amazing and far more realiztic. You take into consideration the needs of the people and the the ablity of the government with their resources. You even review the possible consequences that come from the actions given. If you ever run for president or office of any for you have my vote.
let be serious, your idea sound realistic and i would supported but there arn't enough rich people out there giving money to provide health care. also, where did you think all the money that go into the war in iraq came from. the rich arn't paying for the war because they got their tax cut, so it is you and me who is paying the war in iraq.
bush is using social security money to pay for the iraq war and he is also borrowing money from other foreign country. all those money that goes to the ceo and shareholder of corporation that are making profit from the invasion of iraq. these money could had gone to health care for the american children.
tony benn once said "if you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help them." i believe that if bush can find money to kill people in iraq, enriching the ceo/shareholder of corporation, cut funding for school, and give tax breaks to the super rich, than surely he can find money to help provide health care for those that don't had it.
beside, these people had to work at minimum wage job so that the rich can live their lifestyle. now, i don't want to go into slavery here, but if slavery still exist today, would you expect the slave owner to pay for their slave health care.
there aren't 'enough' rich people voluntarily giving money that they've earned through their personal success.... so we ought to force them to give money to do what you want to do with their money?
Who are you to have a say over things that don't belong to you?
Governments are there to serve their people, people are not there to serve their Governments.
Forgive my bluntness.
It's a dumb idea, all the way around. The rule of healthy economics is that no one gets anything for nothing. If you hand a kid 5,000 for being born, it doesn't make them a better person, encourage them to do well in school, or think ahead and plan for the future. It doesn't do anything. The have 5,000 bucks as a government loyalty bribe. 5,000 is realistically very little anyways, and provides a false feeling of security to a teenager with an already young understanding of life.
Grandpa never said that working hard and learning to save spoiled his childhood. Hard work and frugality are not only important character traits, but universal ones in truly happy people.
End result... if we really have 80 billion dollars lying around with nothing to do with it (which we don't... we already have a deficit equal to an entire year's budget), that money could be put to significantly more efficient use in anti-poverty programs, rather than stimulating the mentality that puts people there.
---------
"I always knew I wanted to be somebody. I guess I should have been more specific."
~Unknown
Excellent point. I am in total agreement. "Charity" isn't always a good thing.
Oh, I think that Charity is always a good thing, but people twist Charity to mean "Giving away money in exchange for votes."
that is generally called bribery.
Liberals are very 'charitable' with the money of others.