Reminds me of that $300 check I got from Bush, a bribe to go along with his big tax cut for the rich.

Sorry, Hillary, my vote's not for sale.

Has she been getting advice from Dick Morris? Or perhaps one of her pollsters is owned by Karl Rove.

Who's idea is this. Fire him/her.

I don't know, everyone seems to think this is foolish pandering, but a whole lot of working class Americans don't have anyone to save for them -- or yearly expenses have gotten too high for many people's parents to really try.

Maybe this will further depress individual savings in this country, or maybe it will push tuition inflation even higher but, in an era of obscenely high college debt and record mortgage foreclosures, isn't there something fundamentally sensible about helping people save for either tuition or a down payment in advance?

Why should interest be something that only benefits the rich while burdening the poor?

(And I write this as someone who's very unlikely to vote for Hillary in my state's primary.)

When we already arguably have issues with over-population, this seems to be a heck of an incentive for people to start procreating like mad, UNLESS there is some sort of a clause which makes it actually impossible for the child's parents to touch the cash.

Even then, Evan makes some valid points. Especially in areas where the real estate market went haywire, it is very hard to save for college, etc.

But I think there are measures that are both more useful, and less politically ham-handed, than this one. Expansion of existing programs, for example.

Hillary the Hypocrite, Pander in Chief. And before the "Clinton Hater" charges start flying, I want to quote from Frank Rich's penetrating analysis of Hillary's campaign in the NYT 09-30-07. He is far from being a Hillary Hater, gives her credit where it is due, but calls it like it is:

"So far her post-first-lady record suggests a follower rather than a leader. She still can't offer a credible explanation of why she gave President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq (or why she voted against the Levin amendment that would have put on some diplomatic brakes). That's because her votes had more to do with hedging her political bets than with principle. Nor has she explained why it took her two years of the war going south to start speaking up against it. She was similarly tardy with her new health care plan, waiting to see what heat Mr. Edwards and Senator Obama took with theirs. She has lagged behind the Democratic curve on issues ranging from the profound (calling for an unequivocal ban on torture) to the trivial (formulating a response to the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad)."

And Frank Rich continues:
"…Now Mrs. Clinton is erupting in a laugh with all the spontaneity of an alarm clock buzzer… [t]he Clinton campaign's method for heeding the perennial complaints that its candidate comes across as too calculating and controlled."

All too too funny, and oh so TRUE!

When are we going to hear from Howie Kurtz about Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama giving 'brazen' political assistance to their spouses?

In this day and age you rarely get to this level of politics unless you are part of a team.

I'm really surprised at some of these responses. Frankly, I think this idea -- a $5000 grant to every newborn -- is brilliant.

It's been put forward before, so it's not original. And it's quite simple. But it's a great investment in the future generation.

$5000 in an interest-bearing account tax-deferred account -- like a Roth or 529 (college savings) IRA -- with reasonable restrictions around how it can be spent when it matures (i.e., for the child's educational expenses or as a down-payment on the child's home) -- could help pave the way for so many middle and working class kids to get an education and a home. And at $20 billion per year, it's a bargain compared to ... oh, I don't know... the Iraq war at hundreds of billions per year.

Whether you consider the idea pandering or political, I'd encourage you to at least consider the idea on the merits. This simple investment is the type that every parent ought to put into their child -- 18 years of growth on a modest investment would yield a fantastic nest egg for most any child. Unfortunately, most people can't afford it. Many of those who could afford it don't understand the implications of starting a savings plan at such an early stage of their child's life.

Bottom line - I think this would be an excellent use of the federal budget, far exceeding in positive return on investment -- positive impact on both the individual children recipients and on the society as a whole -- than many other uses. Bravo to any candidate who puts forth this idea.

whaleshaman,

Say what you will. Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd are keen analysts and truth speakers with big followings. And they both gave it to Hillary between the eyes. I bet she "cackled" with her machine gun laugh for an hour.

No one is trying to restrict Bill Clinton's freedom of speech, or his libido. He can say whatever he wants and do whatever is allowed under the law and in his "agreement" with Hillary. (He my have trouble with both of those restrictions) In my opinion, the line he has crossed (in criticizing Obama rather than just advocating for Hillary), is that he has become a shameless campaign operative. It's ok to do that. His choice. No law against it. But for many, Bill now forfeits his voice as a senior statesman. Now every word Bill speaks should be understood as an effort to spin for Hillary. And every network appearence on any topic (Meet the Press,9-30-07, for example), should be calculated with a demand for equal time from the other campaigns.

According to the U.S. Constitution, any child born in this country is automatically a U.S. citizen. Doesn't this this extend even to children of those who are here illegally? If so, then every child born, even of illegal immigrants, is going to get a $5,000 bond.

Lou Dobbs will have a fit.

"Reminds me of that $300 check I got from Bush, a bribe to go along with his big tax cut for the rich."

-- Several points here: 1) I don't remember Bush promising that $300 check until AFTER the election -- after the inauguration I believe; he made a generic promise to "cut taxes" during the campaign. 2) He did not ONLY cut taxes for the rich; if you were in the same middle-class tax bracket in both 2000 and 2004, in which year did you pay a higher tax percentage? 3) While I agree that those $300 checks constituted a de facto bribe, in that case we were being bribed with our own money (everybody paid at least $300 too much in taxes during the 90's); $20 billion per year (equal to the entire budgets of the Interior Dept, Commerce Dept, and the Legislative Branch of Gov't COMBINED!) isn't going to come from the ether, it's going to come from us in the form of higher taxes.

Today, Bill Clinton (in calling it a mistake for the top 4 GOP candidates to skip the debate last week) said this on Meet The Press: "As African-Americans become more and more prosperous, you have to believe that more of them are at least open to the idea of voting Republican."

-- Why is that, Bill? Is it because prosperous people tend to be politically conservative? Or, is it because they come to realize that the welfare state helps perpetuate a cycle of poverty?