#natalists #babies #children #MothersDay #HavingMoreChildren We just celebrated Mother’s Day. Certain people want more mothers. Or, more accurately, more children. Nedra Rhone, the “Real Life” columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, cites a lot of reasons women don’t have children, or as many children, as some would like. She discussed the issue in her May 8, 2025, column. As Rhone, who happens to be a mother, points out, there are many reasons women don’t have children. She also says that some women may want children, but circumstances haven’t allowed them to have them. In fact, the U.S. population, as is the case with most developed countries, is aging. People are not “replacing themselves” at a rate that keeps the population growing. We want the population to grow for many reasons, including having enough workers to replace those who retire. But this natalist movement appears aimed at creating children that only fit a certain demographic. Immigrants can bolster the work force, and have lots of children, but most don’t match the desired demographic. The elephant in the room, of course, is the cost of children. Rhone points out that it costs about $200,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18. Not everyone has that kind of money, or the ability and opportunity to earn that much. Women are a significant boost to the work force, but the natalists prefer women to stay home and raise children. Again, not every woman has the luxury, opportunity or desire to do that. Then, as Rhone points out, some women don’t really want to bring children into the world as it currently is. What she doesn’t talk about in her column is what happens to children when they become adults. With the cost of living, housing etc. as it is, many young adults cannot afford to live on their own, never mind starting a family. They often live with mom and dad long after age 18. Some are burdened with student debt. Some just can’t find work that pays enough to live independently. The natalist and pro-life movements want children to be born at any cost – even if the mother dies doing so. But, they offer no means to ensure these children are properly fed, clothed, housed, educated and otherwise taken care of. Many other countries do take care of their children. The citizens may pay dearly in taxes for it, but, to them, it’s well worth it. These natalists say they love individual freedom. That is, unless you are a woman of child-bearing age. Would you want to have more children if you live in a place in which your medical providers are severely restricted in how they can care for you during and around your pregnancy? This should not be a matter of debate. People should have the freedom to start and grow families as they see fit – or not. The natalists can do much more to encourage more births by giving women – and men – the resources to be able to work AND tend to families, without unwanted sacrifices. Being pro-life means not only encouraging life’s creation, but also making it easier for both parents and children to sustain a quality of life. Peter
#government #GovernmentCuts #GovernmentEfficiency #GoodGovernment “They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.” That Joni Mitchell lyric rings true as certain government programs that many cherish get chopped. We all think of government as too big, spending too much and we, as citizens, don’t really know what all those people do. But, we learn all too well when we go to a government office for, say, Social Security information, a driver’s license or to mail a package. When staff at those places get cut, the wait is much longer. In some places, you can wait hours to see a Social Security counselor, or to renew a driver’s license. When government affects us, we feel the cuts. MSNBC news anchor Ali Velshi pointed out that some of the government agencies we don’t know much about, or don’t hear about regularly, are working well BECAUSE we don’t hear much about them. In other words, if they were full of fraud and waste, we would know it because a journalist, inspector general or other watchdog would find out and point it out. By the way, oversight personnel are among the priority cuts in this milieu, BECAUSE those doing the cutting do not want people to know what they are doing, or how they are doing it, until it’s too late. The cutting of government agencies and personnel that’s being done today seems haphazard, at best. The chainsaw approach will lead to some mistakes, Elon Musk says, and his Department of Government Efficiency will fix those mistakes as they occur, he said. Everyone wants government to be as efficient as it can be. No one wants government, or those in it, to commit fraud. But, throwing the baby out with the bathwater will lead to a dead, or badly hurt, baby. We may not know that until we actually have to wait hours for badly needed service, or, when benefits we are entitled to suddenly stop coming. Government has a function in all of our lives. We don’t often hear about, or realize, those functions until they stop. As another Joni Mitchell lyric in the same song says: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.” The best way to make government more efficient is to first look for the good that government does, and either let it be or enhance it. If services are duplicated between or among agencies, consolidate those tasks in one place. If tasks can be accomplished with fewer people, or if machines can replace people more efficiently, by all means make those changes. People have said that government should be run like a business. But, government is different from business, in that the process of how things get done can be as important, or even more so, than the result. Not all government work can be easily quantified. The service one might get from a good government employee who meets an individual’s need can be as important as the number of needs that person may meet in a given day, week, month or year. And, if that person meets YOUR need properly, you won’t really care how much that person costs. We all need government. We all need good government. We all should be willing to pay for good government that is as efficient and corruption-free as possible. Peter
