GEORGE MCGOVERN
SOUTH DAKOTA

QWlnited States Henate

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

February 17, 1970

Professor Joshua Lederberg
Department of Genetics
School of Medicine

Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

Dear Professor Lederberg:

I saw and appreciated your column of February 7 in the
Washington Post. The twin debates over ending poverty and deal-
ing with the population problem will be the critical debates of
the 7O's. Understanding of the relation between the two is of
the highest importance.

I note, from the penciled footnote you have made to your
article, that you share my belief that Congressman Anderson's
"baby bonus" argument is probably misguided. I feel very strongly
that this is in fact the case. Enclosed is a brief sampling of
the lengthy bibliography which has convinced me that a $50 children's
allowance will not increase the birthrate in the United States. The
key facts, I think, are as follows:

1. In the United States the existing income tax exemption
for dependent children is a children’s allowance. It
is actually worth up to $450 per child for the wealthy.
It is worth absolutely nothing to the poor. Yet the
birthrate of the poor exceeds that of the rich.

2. Again in the United States, AFDC provides a substantial
means tested children's allowance to the poor. Because
the size of that allowance varies greatly from state to
state, we have a test situation concerning the effect of
children's allowances on family size. HEW has just pre-
pared a study which shows conclusively that large family
size does not correlate with large AFDC payments for
additional children. In fact, the correlation is pre-
cisely the opposite--the lower the state's per child
payment the larger the average welfare family size.
3. In France, particularly, but in many other countries as
well, avowedly pro-natalist children's allowances which
are coupled with all kinds of maternity and child-rearing
benefits have had no significant effect on birthrate
either as compared with previous birthrate or as com-
pared to the birthrate of other nations.

4, Those who I have consulted or read, people like Alvin
Schorr (Social Policy and Income Maintenance), Arthur
Campbell of HEW (Population Research), Vera Shlakman
(Columbia School of Social Work), Vincent Whitney (Demog-
rapher) and many others are unanimously of the opinion
that children's allowances, like other cash incentives or
disincentives, have virtually nothing to do with the
birthrate. They tell me that this opinion is broadly,
nearly unanimously, shared by their colleagues.

The importance of clearing the political air on the question of
the relation between badly needed assistance for the poor family and
the undesirable "side-effect" of overpopulation cannot be overstated.

I think that your attribution of the problem to the existence of an
underprivileged class goes directly to the point. Throughout history
and in every study I know, extreme deprivation and family breakdown
have correlated superbly with a high birthrate. This correlation exists
in the United States today. It exists despite the well documented fact
that poor women do not choose to have larger families than middle or
upper class women.

Given these facts, I believe that if the country is really serious
about limiting population growth it ought to start by breaking the cycle
of poverty and despair that turns today's poor child into the mother or
father of tomorrow’s large poor family. This longer range strategy
should also be supplemented by a vigorous family planning effort along
the lines suggested by Dr. Beasley in the enclosed testimony. Obviously,
from the results achieved by the Doctor and from the fact that the poor
do not want any more children than the rich, family planning has yet to
realize anything like its full potential.

I fear that you may be right when you say that some sort of
"experiment" in cash birth disincentives may be necessary simply to
demonstrate that such disincentives do not work (except, perhaps, at
astronomical levels). But I hope that every possible effort to educate
people will be made before the choice of penalizing the poor to prove
an already well proven point is made.
One last note on the matter of cost. The $35 billion figure
which I mentioned as the long-term cost of public assistance,
children's allowances, a guaranteed job, and improvements in social
security, should be distinguished from the 8-10 billion initial cost
of the children's allowance. (It would cost 20 billion when fully
operative in 1976.)

I hope that this material will be helpful and that you will con-
tinue to write on the subject of the children's allowance and the
population problem. If I can be of any further assistance, please do
not hesitate to write.

With kind regards,

Sincerely yours, .
Leu fii ~ tAFVEL LE.

George McGovern

~~

Enclosures