|
|
|
|
|
 |
Our neighbor to the south, Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa has a great idea to help give kids a head start in life. The idea — have the federal government create a savings account for every child born in the United States, with an initial $500 deposit. The plan proposed by a task force of the nation’s mayors also calls for the government to match up to $500 a year — until a child turns 18 to help pay for higher education or job training.
Here’s an article about the program:
By Rick Orlov
LA Daily News
Originally Published March 21, 2007
A task force of the nation’s mayors is calling for the federal government to create a lifetime learning savings account for every child born in the country - beginning with a $500 deposit - as part of an overall strategy to ease poverty.
The task force, chaired by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, said the proposal calls for the government to match up to $500 a year in the accounts for 18 years to help pay for higher education or job training.
The program could cost $23 billion a year, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ panel, which also called for increased federal investment in preschool and education to boost the middle class and reduce the number of working poor.
The mayors said the federal government also should make more money available to underserved neighborhoods by offering tax credits and incentives to draw financial institutions to the areas.
And they recommended changes in federal tax policy to increase deductions for the poor and broaden use of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Villaraigosa and mayors from around the country are scheduled to meet Friday in Florida to review the panel’s proposals and others dealing with poverty.
"The United States is the most prosperous, economically competitive nation in the world," the panel said in its report. "Yet as mayors of America’s largest cities, we are observing sweeping changes in this country that pose serious new challenges to the mobility of workers into the middle class as well as to American prosperity in general."
The problems facing the middle class and cities are growing as the number of working poor rises. Complicating the situation is the growing cost of retirement for the baby boomer generation, increasing globalization of jobs and an increase in single-parent households.
But with those problems come opportunities to create a better-skilled work force, officials said.
"We believe the government must work with its private-sector partners to boost upward mobility and grow the middle class," the report said.
- : 2.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I believe that this is a good idea for babies born in the U.S. Unfortunately, nowadays not all children are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and don’t have the financial resources to help them while growing up. If the government can help people here in the U.S., I think it is great. I personally am benefitting from a matched college account from EARN. It was a great incentive to really budget and learn better ways to manage my finances. I am now beyond poverty and double poverty level now but
the programs helped me so much that I am truly greatful. Others will be as well.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Hmm… I think making sure folks are more financially literate and understand the time value of compounding interest/market returns in a better way to spend a portion of dollars - and use the rest (wherever it was going to come from) to make sure debts already owed by state and local governments are funded (like retiree healthcare).
March 29th, 2007 at 8:13 am
yeh dude, it’s called ’social security’…
www.likroper.com
March 29th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
if tax money spent on military and/or secret projects was instead spent on universal health care and/or education, we wouldn’t need those savings accounts…
the problem then would be land use issues (wildlife habitat encroachment etc) as more and more affluent people would inevitably want to develop undeveloped land (then shoot the animals that live on it etc)…
so i guess it’s not about all of us being rich, it’s really about all of us living healthy, happy lives within our means and in a sustainable fashion…
March 30th, 2007 at 9:06 am
While certainly well-intended in concept, legislation such as this generally has unintended negative consequences. Would this encourage higher birth rates, additional illegal immigration, and/or will only those with means be able afford to continue to deposit into this to earn the matching funds? We know that higher birth rates have contributed to global warming, and while it may not specifically be U.S. birth rates that have had the greatest impact, we are all part of the problem and the solution together. I haven’t evaluated this specific proposal in any detail, but I believe unintended consequences such as these are very real possibilities.
Mayor Newsom’s “Care Not Cash” initiative, although I recognize addresses a different issue, is a concept that is broad enough to apply to children and college savings. I am a strong proponent for children, education, and related issues. I believe there are better solutions available than just throwing money at the problem. We need to educate children beyond teaching to the test. We need to teach critical thinking skills, prepare children for the world outside their formal education experience, and this should include some real life financial lessons as part of the curriculum.
I believe it best to first look to fix our public education system before we go off with all sorts of peripheral “fixes.” In fixing our education system (which is very broken at this point), our social services, and our ability to provide all with health care — in tackling the real problem, not just the symptoms — we will achieve the desired end result.
This proposal appears, at least on the surface, to be a Band-Aid (and a costly one at that!) It appears to look at one problem in isolation, not in how it relates to other issues we are facing or by stepping back and looking at the real cause of students who leave school unprepared for the job market and world that awaits them. Perhaps there are specifics to this proposal that I have missed, details that would limit the unintended negative consequences. I am happy to hear more about this before I draw firm conclusions…
March 31st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
is this a bread and circus idea? The accumulated amount would be $20 some thousand more or less, not enough for a year at a UC campus. What happened to individual responsibility? Are parents and family not responsible for this anymore? And why are university costs so high? Has anyone looked at academics retirement and severance plans?