When birth control is supposed to be a stimulus

There is so much to reject in the Democrats' $825 billion spending plan. Nancy Pelosi defended the $87 million for family planning services by saying that it would reduce costs. Somehow, she believes that having fewer children would reduce our nation's costs. The Wall Street Journal ridicules her Malthusian approach to improving the economy.

The notion that a larger population will produce a lower standard of living can be traced to the 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus. But during Malthus's own lifetime, his prediction was proved false, as he later acknowledged. Population and living standards rose simultaneously, and have continued to do so.

Ms. Pelosi's remarks ignore the importance of human capital, which is the ultimate resource. Fewer babies would move the U.S. in the demographic direction of Europe and Asia. On the Continent, birth rates already are effectively zero, and economists are predicting labor shortages in the years ahead. In Japan, where the population is aging very fast, workers are now encouraged to go home early to procreate. Japan is projected to lose 21% of its population by 2050.

Who does Pelosi think is going to be working to pay for all those benefits that we give the retired and elderly in America?

Of course, this was just something she said to pretend that this expense needed to be in the emergency spending package. Americans are eager to see government do something to address our economic problems and the Democrats want to take advantage of this feeling of emergency to pass a whole lot of other spending that they would want to pass even if the economy was humming along at a prosperous pace. They plan on rushing this all through without hearings or much debate. They wouldn't want to, as Rahm Emanuel said, "waste a crisis." That is why they're sending money to the states for contraceptives. That might be something worth doing, but there is no reason why it should be done outside the normal appropriations process. The only reason is that they want to get all their desired spending in under the umbrella of an "emergency stimulus."

The ridiculousness of her position is perhaps why the White House is backing away from her position on stimulating the economy through aid for contraception.