Remember Hillary Clinton, or HRC, as she she's often called, (I can't help reading it as "Her Royal Clintonness") saying that she wanted to give $5,000 to every child born in America? Well, after taking that off the table, she came up with another grant idea that would cost more than the baby one. And then there's this one: "No child should have to leave his or her hometown to get a good job".
The problems with this are legion. The first one to strike me? "Children" don't leaving town for jobs. Adults do. How old do you have to be before HRC considers you a free-acting adult instead of a victim? 25? 30? 40?
The second problem? Let's look at this whole idea mathematically, shall we? According to HRC, you should never have to leave your hometown, right? Well, say you come from a small town like my hometown, North Pole, Alaska (or any town, really. Just take North Pole for an example). There are probably about 5,000 people in the area. Now, according to HRC's assertion, thee good people of North Pole have two options: they can either A) breed at EXACTLY the replacement rate, and hope that there's a one-to-one correlation between workers, stay-at-home Moms, and unemployed people, or B) create one new job for EVERY child born, and deal with the unfilled jobs that will be created when people choose not to work... somehow. But heaven forbid that new people should come in and fill those open jobs, because they would have had to leave their hometown. Oh, never mind. You can always use illegal immigrants for those jobs, according to HRC. Not leaving your hometown is only for Americans. (This option also involves every hamlet, village, town and city in America growing at the birth rate, melting into each other and sinking into urban chaos, forever and ever amen.)
Brilliant, Hillary. Just brilliant. Would you, please, stop telling different groups of people exactly what that particular group wants to hear? The cognitive dissonance is starting to make my ears ring.