Nanny Bloomberg pays parents to be parents
Putting the “loco” in “in loco parentis,” Nanny Michael Bloomberg’s latest brain fart is to offer up payments to parents for doing what they ought to be doing without any expectation or reward: raising their kids responsibly. The plan launches this month. The idea was first floated in June, where even lib elites panned it. O’Reilly gave it the thumbs down here. Where did Bloomberg adopt this brilliant idea? Mexico. No, really. Newsweek calls it “bold.” I call it insane:
Paying kids for good grades is a popular (if questionable) parenting tactic. But when school starts next week, New York City will try to use the same enticement to get parents in low-income neighborhoods more involved in their children’s education and overall health. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has raised more than $40 million (much of it from his own money and the Rockefeller Foundation) to pay families a modest amount for small tasks—$50 for getting a library card or $100 to take a child to the dentist—that could make a big difference.
Hey, I brushed my kids’ teeth last night. Washed their faces. Read books and tucked them into bed. Where do I send Bloomberg my Good Parent Bill?
Did you take care of your kids today? Ask Nanny Bloomberg where your check is: Contact info here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Michael Bloomberg
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversy
Pundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Riehl World View
» The Three Stooges Now Appearing At HuffPoPatterico
» Democrats Attack the CIATigerHawk
» The Blue Dogs are barkingRiehl World View
» Classless Paid Sarah Palin Assassin Mike Murphy (R)Weekly Standard
» Anchor Men
The liberal mentality doesn’t allow idiots like this to realize that a parent already receives payment for doing the right things for their kids….
It’s called peace of mind and a good child.
If you need to get cash to take care of your own child, make sure they do well in school, and get them medical treatment - you don’t deserve to be a parent.
Another good reason not to trust any politician from New Yawk!
Wow. When my son was born the furthest question from my mind was whether or not I’d benefit from doing what I had to do. I just did it, because he’s MY responsibility and I owe it to him to make sure he’s properly fed, clothed, cleaned, educated and loved. If I thought I would be unable to do that I wouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place.
You know, if the moral relativists out there would realize that discipline is key to raising good children - both parental SELF-DISCIPLINE and parents appropriately disciplining children - this wouldn’t even have to be an idea. Rather, they are focused on having kids do what “feels good” and boosts their self-esteem. Which means we have a generation of kids who don’t know how to read or write, but who are far less happier, safe, and responsible than generations before them.
Seems as if the day is coming when the government will swoop down on hospitals and take your baby away to be raised “properly”…because clearly some parents are incapable of doing so(read: unwilling to).
Sounds like encouragement to have more children. Great plan Mr. Mayor. That’s what we need, more children born into welfare families. Need more money, have more kids.
I don’t know why I didn’t think of that. Oh wait, now I remember, I did think of that right before I told my kids that if they wanted to drive, they had to get a job to pay for their own car and car inusrance.
Silly me. It’s tough getting old
If he’s not using tax money I don’t think we can really fault him. The way I see it no one would complain if he just flat out donated his own money, so if he’s going to donate with a couple of conditions attached I’m ok with it.
However, as soon as he uses one cent of tax money for it my opinion changes.
Darn… just last month I’d have made $450… that would have paid for the sneakers, backpacks, school supplies and coats I just bought.
How about eye doc appointments? All my kids wear glasses too
I wonder if they will get bonus’s for bringing books back on time
Personal Responsiblity Folks… learn it, live it, love it.
“Mom how come I don’t get paid to clean my room? Adam does.”
“Because I’m not going to PAY you to do things that are already your responsiblity.”
Now if my 12yo gets it… how come Bloomburg doesn’t?
I did an evaluation (of the evaluation) of the program that was done in Mexico in Grad School. So I’ll give ya’ll a couple points that are being missed here:
1)This isn’t really even the same program. The Mexico program was used to keep kids in school who would otherwise be out farming to help keep the family afloat. I’m not sure that there are too many kids who are dropping out of school so they can get jobs and provide for their family. So basically, it’s a totally different program; therefore, you can’t make any comparisons about results.
2) The World Bank (mostly)ran the program and did the evaluation on it as well, they concluded it worked quite well (unrealistically well). Unfortunately there were SEVERE problems with the evaluation.
First, the World Bank (WB) put Mexico in charge of site selection. In theory, this selection should have been done at random, but there are no guarantees that Mexico did this. In fact, they have every incentive to not randomize the sample so that it looks like the program is working better than it actually is.
Second, they greatly overestimated the losses that a family incurs each year due to unforeseen circumstances. For example, they calculated the loss a family might incur due to a 100 year flood event, every single year, when there is only a 1% chance that such an event happens.
Fianally, the way they calculated a families spending habits were really screwy. Since most families worked on both cash economy combined with a barter system, the evaluators had to come up with numerical values for things that were bartered, such as livestock and produce. However, when creating numerical values, they didn’t account for any market forces, a pig in an areas with few pigs will sell for more than an area where pigs are plenty. Since this program took place across the entire country, you would need they needed to factor in market forces in calcuting bartered goods. There system did not.
Those are just a few things that, off the top of my head, were wrong with the evaluation.
Thus, Bloomberg is justifying creating a program based on something that is too disimilar to make a comparison from, and even if you could make such a comparison, there is no good evidence that the original Mexico WB program worked anyway. Seems to me like he needs better policy advisers, because a grad student can pick this plan apart.
Hmmmmmm
Bonus Cash for common sense and lawfully not neglecting a child?
Guess that excludes Bloomberg. He gets leftover tacos from the BELL.
The article says “much of it from his own money and the Rockefeller Foundation”, so I gues the MSM definition of “much of it” would determine how we should feel about this.
This kooky liberal thinking makes me think of a totalitarian antithesis where parents would need a “parental permit” demonstrating their ability to provide and support offspring before being able to reproduce.
Oh, spidgy, all you have to do is look at some of the lefty blogger reaction to the Duggar family.
When Mrs. Duggar had #16 back in 2005, I was part of a message board where the woman (most of them liberals) SCREAMED that Mrs. Duggar was “proof” we Americans need a one-child per family policy, and STRICT parental licensing tests before being allowed to have children.
Failure to pass the test would not only result in a denial of parenthood, but the tone of the discussion was such that people should be fixed before given an opportunity to change.
Don’t think there aren’t many out there who salivate at the idea of a “parental permit”.
And, granted, there are some people who DON’T deserve or need to be parents. But my gut tells me these individuals are not the target of such oppressive proposals.
On first read this seems like something I would be completely against. However, Bloomberg has had amazing results with improving NYC test scores so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see how this plan pans out. And it always helps that he is putting his money where his mouth is.
While this is ridiculous, so long as the money comes from charity instead of the government I don’t consider it that objectionable. Private funds can be used as foolishly as the donors would like.
I think the point is ‘not where the money is coming from’ but the ‘moral degradation of parenting’ that the money generates.
In other words, why do/should anyone have to pay/bribe anyone to be a good parent?
When young adults are faced with the decision of having children, monetary condsiderations should be a part of the decision making process. But, ‘how much others will pay me to raise my child’ should ‘not’ be a part of the equation.
The reward for being a good parent is a healthy, honest, well adapted/prepared and loving child
If I walk around my job-site and hand out my own cash to fellow workers for doing good things ( which they are supposed to do anyway ) - I’m sure that the results will be positive.
However, what happens when I no longer want to use my own money? I go to the company and say, “Hey, this works - put it in the budget!”
Suddenly, that extra budget money is taken from other projects, even stock-holder dividends, or raises. All in the name of paying someone extra to do something they already should be doing.
After this ‘project’ goes on for a time - does anyone believe that people will suddenly expect to get cash for doing these things?
Feed the stray dog enough and he keeps coming back….
I haven’t robbed a bank this week. Where’s my reward?
Not only is this completely wrong but Mr. Bloomberg is going to get ripped off. What percentage of these ‘parents’ does he think are actually doing what he is paying them to do. If they are not being responsible parents now what makes him think they won’t be thinking of ways to get the money for doing nothing. These parents have to want to be parents and take care of their kids or it’s just money down a rat hole.
I wouldn’t dream of expecting money for the things Bloomberg is paying parents to do. I’m SUPPOSED to make sure my children get library cards (and give them the opportunity to use them), get them to the dentist and pediatrician on a regular basis, read to them, review their schoolwork, etc. My parents did it for me; I owe it to them to do the same for my children.
Remember the last time the government handed out money to deadbeats?
Katrina Debit Cards ring a bell?
I live in California but have 3 girls. Can I get some of that money?
Seriously this is ridiculous. Maybe they should spend that money training those parents to have better job skills. Then they wouldn’t need it anymore and would actually give more back in the long haul.
Incentives are all great but only when they encourage people to become more hard working or innovative. Both of which would help their children more than a dentist appointment. If they already have skills and are just down on their luck spend the money helping those adults find good jobs.
Children learn the most from parents. Helping the parents set a better example is how you will help those kids for the long haul.
What a country of schmucks we have become.
Personal responsibility and drive, on the part of parent and children, are what we need - not more handouts.
This is just a preview of what you’ll get if Hillary is the new Pres. Nanny state USA. This stuff drives me bananas.
So if I have 4 kids and they each need to see a dentist once a month (at the free clinic of course), that’s a pretty good supplement to the welfare check.
Given the amount of fraud that is inherent with all of our other social programs in this country (food stamps, medicaid etc), does anyone think this isn’t just going to be another massive waste of cash? Sure it will start out as donated funds, but I have no doubt it will be in the city budget after a 1 year “test period” to show how good it works.