I found this in the Economist.

The War on Baby Girls: Gendercide

IMAGINE you are one half of a young couple expecting your first child in a fast-growing, poor country. You are part of the new middle class; your income is rising; you want a small family. But traditional mores hold sway around you, most important in the preference for sons over daughters. Perhaps hard physical labour is still needed for the family to make its living. Perhaps only sons may inherit land. Perhaps a daughter is deemed to join another family on marriage and you want someone to care for you when you are old. Perhaps she needs a dowry.

Now imagine that you have had an ultrasound scan; it costs $12, but you can afford that. The scan says the unborn child is a girl. You yourself would prefer a boy; the rest of your family clamours for one. You would never dream of killing a baby daughter, as they do out in the villages. But an abortion seems different. What do you do?

For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son. In China and northern India more than 120 boys are being born for every 100 girls. Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.

For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase), a lot depends on the circumstances, but the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic. China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—“bare branches”, as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America. In any country rootless young males spell trouble; in Asian societies, where marriage and children are the recognised routes into society, single men are almost like outlaws. Crime rates, bride trafficking, sexual violence, even female suicide rates are all rising and will rise further as the lopsided generations reach their maturity.


Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday. Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year, just as it did for the first time in 2008. The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year’s report.[1]

Government programs, like Social Security and Medicare, that help people (i.e. retirees, disabled or folk with other needs) are supposed to be funded by those people who are currently working.  However, what happens if there are fewer people who are entering the workforce?

* Since 1973, when abortion became legal, there have been about 49,500,000 abortions.[2]

* The U.S. birthrate is about 2.1.

The average American woman has 2.1 children in her lifetime, the most since the early 1970s, with women of Hispanic origin having the highest rate – almost three children per woman.

America’s birthrate has left behind those of its rich peers, staying above two children per woman since the late 1980s. Rates in Italy, Germany and Japan have hovered around 1.3 over a decade, while the UK rate has revived somewhat after falling below 1.7 around the turn of the millennium.[3]

When a country doesn’t replenish its population, it naturally is going to have problems — maybe not right away, but it will happen. We are now seeing what some of the consequences of statism are.

If the U.S. had 50,000,000 more people entering the workforce and/or had a larger birthrate, it would be less of a burden for the country to help and care for the people who are retirees, disabled, etc.

Another problem is that as the population ages, there will be an ever decreasing number of people who will be able to fill the positions needed in the workforce.

The Italians, et al. are essentially going to die off if they continue on their current trajectory. It’s merely a matter of time.  Another real possibility is that other people groups (i.e. Muslims) will become the majority in these countries.  If this happens, the new majority will certainly change the laws and societies.  It goes without saying that the new minority (which embraced statism and western ideas) isn’t going to fare too well.

China has a different problem.

China will have 30 million more men of marriageable age than women in less than 15 years as a gender imbalance resulting from the country’s tough one-child policy becomes more pronounced, state media reported Friday.

The tens of millions of men who will not be able to find a wife could also lead to social instability problems, the China Daily said in a front-page report.

China imposed strict population controls in the 1970s to limit growth of its huge population, but one side effect has been a jump in gender selection of babies. Traditional preferences for a son mean some women abort their baby if an early term sonogram shows it is a girl.[4]

Other than the problems already discussed, China has another whopper of a problem. Chinese men numbering in the tens of millions simply will not be able to find wives all because the State imposed its will upon the people and tens of millions of girls were killed.  Nobody knows what this will mean to China or the world.  Will China be even more aggressive towards the rest of the world since they will have millions of single men.  What will China do to obtain women for their men?

It should be abundantly how self-destructive Statism is.

1. “Feds warn Social Security may go broke 4 years sooner,” Houston Chronicle, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6420758.html.

Go back to quote

2. “Abortion in the United States,” National Right to Life, http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html.

Go back to quote

3. Dan Glaister, “Number of babies born in the US reaches record levels” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/18/birth-rate-us-baby-boomers.

Go back to quote

4. “China facing major gender imbalance,” Jan. 12, 2007, MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593301/.

Go back to quote

Here is a Ronald Reagan speech from 1964. It’s good to remember those who travelled the same roads before us. They can teach us so much. Incredibly, Americans are facing the same issues today as Ronald Reagan talked about over 45 years ago.

I will just name a few, so as you can look for them as you watch the speech.

  • Individual freedom consistent with law and order vs a society heading towards totalitarianism
  • And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

    This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

    You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

  • Massive Inefficiencies whenever government does something
  • Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

  • Programs that those on the left institute very often harm the very people the programs are intended to help.
  • But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

  • Conservatives are accused of being hard-hearted and not caring about those whom are in need. Conservatism is accused of being all about saying “NO”, always against something. Conservatism is never for anything.
  • Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.

I thought it would be a good time to remember what past presidents have said.

Here is President John F. Kennedy calling for an across the board tax cut to stimulate the economy. You read that correctly. JFK, a Democrat, wanted to lower everyone’s taxes.

Whoa, Ronald Reagan sounds more like John F. Kennedy than President Obama sounds like JFK. In fact, President Obama sounds like he has flipped everything JFK had said on the economy on its head.

Part 1

Part 2

I found this music video this morning. Economic theory set to music? Oh yeah!

How exciting is that???

As the whole election season starts to come screaming in, we wanted to have our own little spot on the web to discuss U.S. politics.  Welcome to Common Sense Politics USA.