Don't do it!  Something may happen to the reproductive urges in your brain later on in life and then you'll have to get them reconnected.

I had a vigorous debate over the quesionable wisdom of maintaining communized schools with my dad over the holidays.  He is 82 years old and is developing alzheimers.  I thought that may have diminished his skills of argument a bit at this point.  It has not.

I believe there is this image in his mind and that of many statists of "those" people.  The Bubba image.   They picture a run down ghetto scene someplace or a guy who blew up his trailer cooking meth.  They have this mental image of this large subgroup of idiots for whom wiser society must make decisions by force.  If they do not, these imbeciles will surely metasticize to overun society, harm themselves or others.  The theory then goes that with the application of enough wisely used force to society these people then can be lifted, or at least enabled to survive on their own.

It does not generally occur to the statist that the condition of these "bubbas" may have been created by the force of the welfare system and crappy monopolistic justice system in the first place.  To admit that would be to admit that they have made a horrible mistake and are now responding to it with another horrible mistake.  

In that mindset are you ever very far from taking control over other people's fallopian tubes?  This sounds like the rebirth of the Eugenics movement.  Hitler stained the public perception of human selective breeding.  It sounds like that set-back may be wearing off now. 

If you haven't seen it you should check out the movie Idiocracy.  It's set in the future after many years of "bubba" breeding has completely dumbed down the human race.  Very funny stuff.

Whenever you read articles about Eugenics, the only arguement ever presented against it (within the articles) is slippery slope of discrimination it leads to.  The authority of such an action is never brought up.

This proposal is an attempt to change human behavior under the guise of saving tax dollars.  There is no crime they are addressing.  They want to reduce the number of "Bubbas" by further complicating their own system and increase the number of kids born into the upper-middle class.  Besides the obvious moral problems of using government to control non-criminal behavior, lets look at a program with each side of this.

1.  If you are poor and you know you get a larger welfare check if you have a kid,aren't you incentivizing poor people who are on the fence about having kids to actually have them then get their tubes tied? People are still going to want to have kids, and if they can get $1000 to pay off something, I'm sure thats a big enough incentive.

2.  Upper-middle class people cannot be persuaded into having kids from solely offering tax breaks.  Money is not the issue most of the time; its the carreers, lifestyle, etc.  I can't think of one couple who fits in this bracket who doesn't want kids because of money.

Theres a famous quote about how the children of nobles and those of peasants are only different because of their upbringing, not because of their lineage.  Its not because they were born to a family living in a trailer park or had to wear dresses made of potato sacks(my mother had to wear such things) that they are ignorant, stupid, etc.  For many its because they are satisified with the statis quo and are quite comfortable with it.  And when you make it easier and easier to just squeek by, you end up with more people just squeeking by. 

I'm seeing this with my own family right now; my mother's side of the family, mostly from the hills of Virginia, is pretty pathetic.  I have  cousins in rehab, 14 year olds marrying 32 year olds, divorces before they are even married for a year(not too uncommon), alcoholics, and many other things you'd only expect in some distant redneck sitcom.  There is no one from that entire side of the family with a college degree, and the only one who was pursueing one got killed in a car wreck before he graduated high school.  And the best part is,  I feel no pity.

I remember reading a bill drafted by Thomas Jefferson directing the establishment of a county funded poor house in Virginia and his first attempts at providing a tax funded opportunity for education for children.  I wonder how it is he expected such institutions funded through force to remain in check and not become the engineers of their own indefinite expansion.  I watch the apparent damage to human happiness that comes through divorce and domestic violence and see everybody standing around wringing their hands over how much worse it is than in the good old days.  It's usually looked at as evidence that people suck much more now then they used to, followed by their opinion of just exactly why that is.  Usually not enough Religion.  I have to wonder the role of the state in this.  Could it be that the state is the instrument used to impose somebodies opinion of proper human family behavior on all human beings in contrast to the actual natural role determined for us by our evolutionary past?  Are we locked into that conflict and experiencing the resulting pain, not knowing where it comes from?  Is a divorce court apparatus an invitation to domestic volitility?  If people have a guaranteed assurance of post marital custody or visitation of their offspring, sharing of marital property assets, and monetary support for child rearing, are they not generally more likely to disregard the search for a well adjusted, stable mate, in favor of a callous, hot, narcicistic a-hole with six pack abs?  The state can help you clean the mess up later if it does not work out.  After a few generations of this, it seems like it becomes rather casual and mundane.  I don't think it ever is to the kids, but it seems to be for many adults.