additional workers will also be needed to keep the economyngoing. Already we are hearing calls from Washington tonallow more generous immigration to solve this problem, butnimmigration brings its own problems. Since, for example,nthe success of the Social Security system depends on thenwillingness of young workers to pay for their parents’ andngrandparents’ retirement, immigrants may be unwilling tonpay high taxes to support others’ parents. Thus an immigrantnpopulation large enough to help with the baby boomnand bust problem might be more resistant to transgenerationalnsupport.nWhat is needed is a new baby boom, though many willnoppose this idea. Feminists will argue that such a solutionnputs an unequal burden on women. Some environmentalistsnwill be appalled at the temerity of a suggestion whichnruns counter to the orthodoxy that smaller is better. AnnApril 19, 1991, story in the Wall Street Journal shows justnhow anti-child America has become. The story concerned anthriving Mormon family with 17 children. The mother ofnthe family explains her desire for a large family by citing hernchurch’s belief that children bring joy. Irate letters to theneditor followed. One writer added the cost of lost taxes,n$9,758 from $34,850 worth of exemptions for the children,nand complained about subsidizing this woman’s joy. He alsonrecommended a limit on deductions for “luxury families”nand worried about the effect of such families on a stablenpopulation. Another writer suggested that if this couple hadnwanted such a large family they should have had two naturalnchildren and adopted 15. The only positive letter wasnequally telling, as Jessica R. Jacob, M.D., thanked thenJournal for printing a story that paints large families in angood light. She added that she and her husband “are subjectnto daily expressions of disbelief at what many of ourncolleagues and acquaintances perceive as an excessivennumber of children.” Dr. Jacob and her husband have sixnchildren.nBut neither the original article nor any of the lettersnpoints out the tremendous contributions these children willnlikely make to society, including the taxes they will pay overna lifetime. In fact, the older children in large families nondoubt pay much more in taxes than their parents aren”collecting” in exemptions.nRealists will suggest that women will not go back tonhaving large families when they have tasted the liberationnof small families, and they may be correct. However,nthere are some trends that suggest otherwise. Most womennwho can afford to do so are choosing to stay at home withntheir children, at least when the children are young; andnsome actually enjoy doing so. Women today speak of stayingnat home with their children as a “luxury.” Perhaps if morenpeople could afford this luxury, more children would benborn. Indeed, a national poll in 1987 showed a surprising 88npercent of women claiming that if they could afford to do so,nthey would prefer to stay home with their children.nOne of the wonderful things about Social Security, if younlisten to those who praise it, is that it frees the indigent agednfrom dependence on their own children. Another way ofnsaying this is that it socializes the care of the elderly. Butnsocialism is an inefficient system with gross disincentivesnbuilt into it. The more you separate those who benefit fromn22/CHRONlCLESnnnthose who pay, the more beneficiaries you will have and thenfewer payers. The economic maxim runs thus: the more yountax something the less you have of it, and the more younsubsidize something the more you will get of that commodity.nThe key to saving the Social Security system is to takenadvantage of this maxim and put it to work to benefit thensystem. Providing for future generations is not simplynaltruistic, it is necessary for the continuation of life in ancivilized state. To employ Thomas Hobbes’ felicitousnphrase, without such a provision (among others) life becomesn”solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Thus thenolder generation must provide for the existence and educationnof a younger generation that will ensure the survival ofnthe society. Current efforts toward socializing this responsibilitynhave resulted in many people choosing the option ofnletting others provide the children who will become the nextngeneration. But, unfortunately, there simply are not enoughn”others,” and what “others” there are are staggering undernthe heavy burden of a tax system that has shifted much morenof the tax burden onto their already burdened shoulders.nOne of the incentives that people traditionally had fornraising families was to provide for their own care when theyngrew too old to care for themselves. With Social Security,nthat incentive disappears. The country needs new pronatalistnpolicies and incentives to raise responsible children.nBut what kind of incentives?nWhat I propose is to recognize parenthood for what it is,nthe most significant contribution to the Social Securitynsystem that a person can make, and to increase the financialnbenefits to parents as part of that recognition.nMy first suggestion has already been proposed by AllannCarlson and endorsed by Cary Bauer, chairman of thenFamily Research Council. This is to return the income taxndependent exemption to its former value. Instead of thencurrent $2,150 the exemption would need to be $8,260 tonbe worth what it was when it was originally instituted. Thensecond suggestion is a new one. Upon employment, workersncould designate a certain percentage of their Social Securitynpayments to be assigned directly to a retired parent,ngrandparent, or guardian as a supplement to that person’snretirement income; a kind of child bonus, if you will. Thosenworkers who have spouses who are out of the workforcenbecause they must care for small children or handicappedndependents could be allowed a second supplement thatnwould go to a retired parent, grandparent, or guardian of thenspouse. Additional refinements in the law would no doubtnbe needed, but essentially that is the proposal. Anothernpossibility would be to reduce the primary income-earner’snSocial Security taxes by some percentage for each minorndependent. If the employer’s share were also reduced by ancomparable percentage, then an employer might view anfamily man or woman as a person who could be hired at anlower cost instead of as a person likely to have morendistractions because they have children. This would be anparticulady useful advantage for single parents. Othernvariations to reward parents could be considered instead ofnor in addition to these, such as allowing parents to retirenearlier than nonparents.nThere are several advantages associated with thesenschemes. First, the benefits will go to those who raise then