One of the most amazing books I ever read is Poverty and Prosperity by the economist Deepak Lal. In that book, Professor Lal outlines how freeing the economic markets in India and China raised fully one-fourth of the entire world’s population out of crushing poverty and wealth inequality within 40 years. This book is so important and so impressive that I would gladly buy into the coercive LGBT curriculum if, in return, this book were made required study for all high schoolers. Were our students exposed to the benefits, compassion, fairness, and tolerance of free markets, they wouldn’t grow into hateful progressives.
In contrast to Professor Lal, Council Members Will Jawando and Gabe Albornoz have a different idea for combating wealth inequality. They introduced the Child Investment Fund (Bill 5-24). The bill requires the county to deposit into a fund $1,800 for each child born in Montgomery County. Depending on income, wealth, racial, ethnic, and gender eligibility, a native resident between the ages 18–36 can apply for a disbursement from the fund.
In its 2021 vital statistics report (the last available issue), the state Department of Health reported that there were 11,505 births in Montgomery County. Similarly, the Census Department reported the number of county residents for the same period. Both reports break down the numbers by race.
| Race | Number births | Pct births | Number residents | Pct residents |
| White | 3,758 | 32% | 435,770 | 41% |
| Black | 2,535 | 22% | 202,174 | 19% |
| N. American | 6 | 0% | 1,728 | 0% |
| Asian/Pacific | 1,521 | 13% | 167,767 | 16% |
| Multi-race | 205 | 2% | 31,156 | 3% |
| Hispanic | 3,576 | 31% | 213,926 | 20% |
| Total | 11,601 | 100% | 1,052,521 | 100% |
At $1,800/per birth, that’s an annual funding of $21 million. Let’s see who contributes to this fund, who benefits from it, and by how much.
(This analysis isn’t complete, because there is a gender-orientation component that isn’t visible in the raw statistics.)
As the chart shows, this bill is an income transfer mechanism through which straight white males give $8.6 million each year to any other demographic in the county. The wording of this bill and my own analysis contain horrifically divisive and discriminatory language that one day will be considered as shameful as the Jim Crow laws.
Besides its racist foundation, Jawando and Albornoz’s approach includes some assumptions that need to be addressed.
First, we must address poverty, not inequity. If a lesbian Latinx is making $600,000/year as an obstetrician, and her straight white male counterpart is making $700/000 year, both are doing just fine, and there is no need to introduce a transfer mechanism from one to the other. Our objective is to get everyone out of poverty, and not worry about who drives a Tesla and who a Bolt.
Second, we must confirm that coercive wealth transfers such as Jawando and Albornoz’s proposal have ever given anyone access to high incomes. Our county has coercive policies for housing equity (MPDU), coercive public schools with red-lined MCPS boundaries, coercive street maintenance, and defunded police—and for some reason we’re still talking about lack of housing, failing schools that require reparations, dangerous and dumpy streets (have you been to Georgia and Seminary Rd. lately?), and distortions in public safety. Why would more coercion give a different result?
In the 32 bills he was a sponsor or co-sponsor, CM Jawando has focused on rent control, menstrual products, defunding the police, and hair styling. Access to resources and eliminating poverty is not something you associate with Will Jawando. Similarly with CM Albornoz. His emphasis has been establishing commissions and controlling electronic cigarettes. Both of these council members continue to support a school system that denies parents and students an escape route from failing schools, but they are willing to dish out $21 million/year for wealth equity. That’s 0.3% of the county budget; even if this proposal will work (and it won’t), there will be no measureable impact.
