Pops wrote:Cool, found this right off
The United Nations estimates that it would cost an additional $3.5 billion per year to provide contraceptive information and services to the more than 220 million women in the developing world who want to avoid a pregnancy but who are not using a modern method of contraception. (That’s less than 4 percent of what Americans spend on beer each year.)
To me, that kind of money is money VERY WELL SPENT, given all the problems overpopulation and unwanted children cause in the modern world. (And NO, I'm not blaming the children).
Now here's the interesting challenge. Politics as usual would say to just spend the money since it is a "good" idea for government to do (if you could get the majority on Capitol Hill to agree) -- likely not exactly endorsed by the GOP, so IMO not a sure thing.
But to do it intelligently, what other program(s) should be cut as "less of a good thing" to pay for it (going under the theory that endless government growth isn't automatically good) -- pardon me for leaning right on fiscal issues.
The military? (Will work for the far left). Inefficient social programs? (Will work for the far right). Something else? This is the one consideration so many good ideas for new government spending apparently fail COMPLETELY to consider.
Personally, I'd start with eliminating a weapon or three that THE PENTAGON DOESN'T EVEN WANT. Given that the defense industry is constructed to have as many states as possible involved in the construction of major weapon systems, I didn't say it was realistic to get congress to vote that way -- just that it would make sense to me.