David E. Smith channeling 'Chicken Little' on stagnant population growth

---

David E. Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, has sure fallen on hard times with his doomsday scenarios for US population growth (Lombardian Letter, January 19). A decade ago it was gay marriage that was threatening the US economy, claiming that allowing gays to marry would ding the 2.1 replacement birth rate necessary to maintain a thriving economy. Smith spent years railing against gay marriage, imagining its legalization

would inspire all those fertile heterosexuals to forego procreation with an opposite sex person to enjoy their newfound freedom to marry a non-reproducing partner.

Alas, gay marriage finally came to Illinois and the nation; and those fertile heteros have largely forsaken the gay lifestyle to make babies at an increasing rate. Demographers attribute the rise to a rising economy, which tends to influence population rates infinitely more than bizarre theories like legalizing gay marriage. Not to be distracted from tilting against windmills, Mr. Smith has come up with a new theory: a US Dept. of Agriculture report claiming the cost of rising a child to age 17 is $233,610. Somehow this will inhibit sufficient

procreation. Of course, Smith doesn't advise that USDA statistics are affected by education, income and location. A poor Appalachian couple won't earn $233,610 in 17 years, much less spend that amount to raise a child. A billionaire like the current governor can drop a $233,610 donation on a charter school to help get his daughter admitted without blinking an eye.

For Mr. Smith's theory to hold water, the entire population of child bearing couples have to read it to even consider foregoing child bearing to avoid its hyped long term cost? Besides David E. Smith and me, I can't imagine another one in the entire country who will.