A Proposed 29th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America or An Amendment to a State Constitution

Zero Population Growth Amendment


Suggested by Michael P. Garofalo




    Governmental public policy and laws, at federal and state levels in the United States of America, currently support and encourage large family sizes.  There are no limits to tax deductions for dependent children.  Public education is guaranteed for all children in a family.  Publicly funded medical services are provided to all the children in a family.  Welfare recipients are awarded monthly stipends for all the children in a family.  Free and reduced lunch costs at public schools are awarded for all the children in a family for low income families.  All the children of illegal immigrants receive many free public services.  The examples are numerous. 

    Our public policy thinking that encourages large families and increased population is based upon 18th century thinking about the need for large families for agricultural work, the then high death rates for children, and the need to increase the overall population in a largely unpopulated new nation.  However, we have not been a "frontier" country since 1940, and no longer need frontier governmental policies supporting large family sizes.  Also, our public policy thinking about encouraging large family growth has long discriminated in favor of the religious views of many "Pro Life" Christian Churches who are against birth control, family planning and abortion. 

    As we enter the 21st century it is obvious to everyone that increasing our population in the United States reduces the overall quality of our lives, substantially increases government debt, results in higher unemployment and underemployment, increases environmental pollution, results in urban overcrowding, increases crime, and challenges our freshwater and food delivery systems.  

    Our long-term public policy planning needs to heed the numerous reports and obvious signs about the negative impact of increased population in America, and must develop long term strategies for reversing these trends in the United States.  Implementing such a change in our public policy would require a constitutional amendment at the state and/or federal levels. 

    For the sake of discussion, let us call this new constitution amendment the "Zero Population Growth Amendment" or the "ZPG Amendment."  A complete description and legal articulation of this new amendment would require the work of highly qualified public policy planners, lawyers, and legislators.  Passage of this amendment is unlikely because of religious discrimination in America in favor of "Pro-Life" churches and their voting block power, but current and long term social-economic realities and increasing government debt will make some similar public policy limiting population growth and limiting governmental services to large families a necessity in the not too distant future. 



Zero Population Growth Amendment
Some Possible Features and Consequences
An Overview

Some of these features apply to the U. S. Federal government and some to a State government and some to both.


1.  The new "standard" governmentally supported maximum family size would be two children or less, with a long term objective of reducing the percentage of persons under the age of 18 years to below 18% of the total population size. 

    Nothing would prevent parents who could afford to do so to choose to have more than two children, but they will be required to fund the upbringing of their children on their own.  They would not receive additional governmental services for their third or more children without paying more in taxes, or not receiving more services for their children than other citizens who abide by the new Zero Population Growth Amendment and its applicable laws. 

    It is somewhat difficult at times to gather correct information and facts about population sizes.  Frequently, you will see statistics about "family size."  However, the statistics may also include the parents and grandparents in the family size.  A "family size" of 3.44 may mean a single parent and 2.44 children, a mother and father and 1.44 children, or a mother and father and grandparent and .44 children, or four adults and no children under 18.   In California, for example, the 2010 population was 37,253,000 and 25% of the total population were under 18 years of age.  However, how many children does each child bearing adult support?  The term "household" includes households with married couples without children, single persons, senior citizens, or a mother and father and 3 children, etc.  This is a complex and difficult question when studying the statistical information available.  Hopefully, I have not made too many mistakes on this statistical account in the presentation below, and welcome corrections and comments

    It may be best to look at a number like the "percentage of the population under the age of 18" as the easiest way for public planners to set general goals for population reduction; although, in concrete terms, ZPG philosophy still boils down to: an individual can best serve his community, state and nation by choosing to create and raise only one or two children. 


2.  Free public education would be limited to two children per family.  Families with three or more children would need to pay additional taxes because they are receiving more educational services than other citizens who abide by the ZPG law.  If these parents cannot pay additional taxes to properly support and educate their excessive number of offspring, then some of their children would not receive "free" public education. 

    There are many federal and state "usage taxes" or "fee based taxes," e.g., toll road fees, entrance fees at parks, Medicare Part B & C fees for seniors, college tuition, co-payments for medical services, auto registration taxes, hunting and fishing fees, trash dump disposal fees, gas taxes, sewage hookup fees, tobacco and alcohol taxes, public transportation fees, etc.  Making those who use some specific governmental service or behave in a way that impacts on society at large (e.g., pollution from drivers) pay additional "fees" is sensible.  If they don't pay more, then they can't use the services or products or behave in that manner.  It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, for parents of more than 2 children in public schools to pay additional fees for the publicly funded education of their many children. 


3.  Federal and State tax deductions for dependent children would be limited to two dependent deductions per family.   The amount of dependent tax deductions would be lowered.  Having a third or more children would trigger a federal and/or state tax surcharge.  Heterosexual couples choosing to not have any children, or couples with only one child, should be rewarded with a more generous tax deduction for their positive action to reduce the costs of government by reducing the population size.


4.  Because of the current income tax policies of the Federal government, 43% of Americans pay no Federal taxes.  This has resulted from Republican tax policies such as the earned income tax credits from the years of President Ronald Reagan and from the substantial child tax credits from the years of President George W. Bush, although many "conservative" Democrats have also supported increasing tax deductions for all dependent children in a family.  This tax policy encourages large families and satisfies the right wing religious "Pro-Life" constituency that typically votes for Republican candidates.  This situation is patently unfair for single persons and married couples with no children, and for any person who does pay federal taxes.  Parents with numerous children are the primary and substantial beneficiaries of federal funds given to the States for education, health care, pre-school, and other programs to help children.  Not surprisingly, many of the ultra-rich do not pay any Federal income taxes, because of tax loopholes, irrespective of their family sizes.  The ZPG amendment would result in revised tax laws to make sure everyone paid Federal taxes, e.g., a minimum of 1% to 5%, and would eliminate any special tax deductions for families with more than two children. 

    There are many other reasons why 43% of Americans pay no Federal taxes.  Many working individuals have jobs with very low incomes, many seniors have only a very low Social Security income, 10% to 15% are unemployed due to poor regional economies or a recession, some are handicapped persons, and there is always a percentage that is a permanent welfare dependent underclass.  Should these unfortunate folks pay a minimum of 1% to 5% of their meagerly total income in federal tax?  These are difficult questions for us Americans of all political parties.  Taxes will always be a hot topic of debate, because how much and on what programs a government spends its tax income is another factor that will always be hotly debated. 


5.  Some contend, especially "Pro Life" advocates, that we need to do nothing to shrink family size in America because it is already shrinking down to below 2.0 children per family in most communities in America due to various serious economic pressures.  These trends are positive and beneficial in many industrialized countries, including America.  These same beneficial ZPG trends are not happening in the Latin American countries, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Indo-China, and the Middle East. 

    However, doing nothing to be proactive about implementing ZPG changes in America does nothing to solve the problem of the current inequities in taxation and excessive governmental benefits based on family size, and the current religious discrimination in favor of those who support "Pro Life" religious causes.  In addition, illegal immigrants from Latin American countries to the United States are 75% Catholic, have an average family size of over 3 children, and are unlikely to change because of their social customs and their Catholic religion.  In California, educating all the children of a immigrant family of 4 children, from grades K-12, costs over $500,000, for a family that pays little or no taxes. 

    We have still not reached the ZPG goal of having 18% or less of the population under the age of 18.  In America, 13% of the 2010 U.S. population of 311 million people were under the age of 15.  In Mexico, our largest source of immigrants, 29% of the population is under the age of 15. 

    Considering the present large population size and uncontrolled immigration, and increasing life spans, if everyone had just two children the population size would still continue to grow, albeit at a slower rate were ZPG implemented.  We may need to more strongly encourage just 1 child families to slow the fall over a cliff into the overpopulation crisis in America.  We still need to be creative and open about thinking of long term plans to reduce the trends towards skyrocketing population size.  Again, ZPG would "aim" at reducing the number of persons in a population that are under 18 years of age to under 18% of the total population size. 

    There is no doubt that the increasing life span of seniors due to better nutrition and improved health care is also pushing up population numbers even though the number of new children born, or number of children per family, has been steadily decreasing in the last 100 years.  The current lively discussion of Medicare benefits for seniors is pertinent to this discussion.  Very expensive and extraordinary efforts to keep very old and sick seniors alive is a significant cost of federal government services.  Of course, that sensitive topic is also outside the scope of this overview.   


6.  All health insurance policies would be required to provide coverage for birth control, contraceptives, family planning, and legal abortions in special circumstances.  Health insurance policies should no longer fund sexual stimulants, like Viagra, although these could be prescribed by physicians and purchased by the individual himself.  All health care providers receiving federal or state funds for their ongoing operations, including all subsidized church charities, would be required by ZPG laws to provide relevant and practical information regarding birth control, contraceptives, family planning, and legal abortions in special circumstances. 


7.  The single most important factor in the cost of education is the increasing number of students because of population growth and immigration.  More students mean more teachers, more staff, more facilities, more textbooks, more supplies, more equipment, more overhead, etc.  In California, for example, the total population in 1980 was 23,667,000, in 1990 it was 29,760,000, in 2000 it was 33,810,000, and in 2010 it was 37,253,000.  This is a 57% increase in the population of California in a mere 30 years.  In 2010, there were 6.2 million students in California schools.  Public K-12 education in California costs over $7,400 per year per pupil, and thus around $100,000 for 13 years of education per pupil.  The State of California has had serious budget shortfalls and increasing debt for the past ten years; and, elementary and secondary education funding has been reduced each year despite increasing enrollment.  California was among the top five states in elementary educational funding, class size, innovation and performance in 1960; and, now in 2012 it is ranked nearly last compared to all other states.  There are many other ideas for decreasing the cost of education in California that are outside the scope of this discussion.    


8.  Any church group receiving federal or state funds for "educational or charitable" causes would also be required to abide by all applicable Zero Population Growth policies or other federal or state laws or forfeit their "educational or charitable" governmental subsidy.  Any church group actively politically organizing and campaigning against these public ZPG policies would forfeit their tax-exempt non-profit status.  These churches can, of course, give up their unique tax-exempt non-profit status and special subsidies and then actively work and campaign against any new or considered ZPG laws, just as individuals may do so. 


9.  Comprehensive public education is needed to assure the success of long-term family planning and population reduction.  Teenagers would receive a thorough education in all public schools in safe sex practices, birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, overpopulation problems, legal abortion options, responsible sexual behavior, the ZPG public policy of a two child family limit, the dangers of drug usage, and their social and economic responsibilities as parents.  All adults receiving governmental health services would also be educated in these topics.  Education should be grounded current medical sciences and general scientific principles, not on antiquated non-scientific beliefs from the Dark Ages.  Education in the United States of America should be conducted in English. 


10.  All nations need to set limits to population growth internally and through tighter immigration controls if they wish to improve the quality of life of their citizens.  Those nations who have no such limits inevitably sink into the typical Third World conditions of overpopulation, poverty, inadequate governmental and private support services, increasing disease, high unemployment and underemployment, crime, violence, immigration movement, a lack of freshwater for drinking, and periodic hunger or famines.  A nation sharing a border with another nation with no zero population growth policy has every right to be very restrictive about legal and illegal immigration from the irresponsible nation.  Therefore, the United States needs a strong federally funded policy of dramatically lowered immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries that have no ZPG policies. 


11.  Irresponsible parents who cannot properly feed, clothe, house, educate, and protect their children and whose children must be cared for by foster parents and public social services, may have their children permanently adopted by married couples who cannot have children. 


12.  There are many different viewpoints of various religious groups in the United States regarding birth control and family planning.  These viewpoints are often in conflict.  There are some powerful "Pro Life" religious organizations in America, e.g., Catholics, Southern Baptists, black and white Fundamentalist churches, Muslims, etc.  By "Pro Life" is meant supporting negative opinions about masturbation, homosexuality, safe sex practices, contraceptives, birth control, family planning and abortions.  People should have, within reasonable limits, the religious freedom to think and act as they want and pay for the consequences of their decisions themselves.  The passage of the Zero Population Growth Amendment will clearly end the unfair, discriminatory, and disproportionate payment of higher taxes by those people who do not support "Pro Life" and must pay for the education, food, and medical services of the children from large "Pro Life" families who pay less or nothing in taxes.  This Zero Population Growth Amendment supports "Pro Better Life" for fewer children.   


13.  Since homosexuality, same sex permanent relationships, or same sex marriages cause no impact upon population growth, there is no reason to prevent or discourage them by ZPG standards.  Such gay or lesbian marriages do not result in any significant increases in governmental benefits to such couples.  Some generous gay marriage couples adopt children abandoned or neglected by irresponsible parents and provide a valuable public service. 


14.  The mother of a child born in the United States of America must be a citizen by birth or naturalization, or a permanent legal resident, before her newborn child can be become a natural born United States citizen.  If the mother is not a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization, or not a permanent legal resident, then the child will take the foreign nationality of the mother.  Some method and new federal constitutional amendments need to be developed to prevent the children of illegal immigrants in automatically becoming U.S. citizens if they are born in the U.S.  


15.  Any father who abandons his children and does not work to support them, would be subject to more serious criminal and civil penalties.  All fathers in America need to take more serious responsibility for using birth control methods themselves and working to support their own children, and stop ignoring or repressing the rights of women as they do in many countries and religions.   


16.  Some support more radical measures, including vasectomies, tubal ligation, or even castration of sexual criminals, sexual molesters of children, rapists, and extremely negligent, abusive, and very irresponsible parents.  Some want violent sexual crimes or child molestation punishable by the execution of the criminal.  There will be substantial "civil liberties" issues regarding the involuntary sterilization for sexual criminals and/or seriously irresponsible parents.  There also will be "civil liberties" issues with other aspects of a Zero Population Growth Amendment.  We certainly do not want in America the cruel and barbaric treatment of adulterous women, child female brides, repressed and disenfranchised women, or homosexuals that we see under Islamic Sharia in the Middle East.  These civil rights issues in America cannot be fully anticipated, analyzed or discussed in this short prospectus. 


17.  One would assume that the new ZPG amendment would apply to all newly married couples and all married couples with two children effective immediately upon the passage of the Zero Population Growth Amendment.  For those with large families (i.e., over two children) at the time of the passage of the Amendment, a gradual implementation over ten years in tax laws and benefits changes would need to be managed.  Some will argue that the new amendment should apply immediately to the large family of any illegal immigrant not paying any any federal taxes. 


18.  All students would pay tuition for post-secondary education at public Community Colleges, Colleges, and Universities.  Students from families with more than 2 children, would pay out-of-state tuition costs for the third or higher child from the same family. 


19.  Parents who are drug addicts and will not or cannot feed, clothe, and educate their large families are a shameful disgrace in our communities and are currently subject to serious criminal penalties.  The social, health and legal costs of drug abuse (i.e., smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, and using recreational drugs (marihuana, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, etc) are staggering to our society.  The deleterious effects on our families are shocking.  Drug addicts should choose to not have any children. 


20.  Free or reduced breakfast and lunches at public schools would be limited to two children per each low income family.  Knowing this, parents with three or more children who cannot afford to feed their own children are irresponsible persons and may be subject to child endangerment penalties.  Why parents would have more children when they cannot properly feed the children they have is a serious social, moral and political problem. 


21.  Head Start preschool services to low income families should be limited to two children per family in any fifteen year period.  This would open up opportunities for tax paying parents to have some of their children attend Head Start preschools, particularly advantageous to families where both parents are employed.  Or, some advocates of educational reform recommend we just eliminate public preschool and kindergarten, and parents can pay for this education of their children on their own. 


22.  A socialist state might favor "free" government services to all, irrespective of family size limits.  There seems to be little or no interest by American citizens for paying higher taxes to create a socialist state.  Most of the 57% of Americans who do pay federal taxes are dissatisfied with paying endless higher taxes to support irresponsible persons who cannot support their own children properly in large families, or who don't pay their fair share of taxes (i.e., the rich, or the poor, illegal immigrants, or the churches).  The political environment does not favor a socialist state in America at the present. 


22.  This proposal in no way resembles the "totalitarian" eugenics policies of Nazi or other previous socialist or communist states.  The ZPG policy applies to all citizens.  It does not favor or discriminate against the rich, the poor, specific races, the handicapped, or specific religions.  Everyone will benefit from slowing the population growth in America.  Everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes for governmental benefits received.  The ZPG amendment does not force anyone to have an abortion or use birth control, but expects them to be responsible and committed to raising their own children properly and shouldering themselves more of the economic responsibility for their third or more children. 


23.  A woman giving birth to a child is no longer considered a "magical" event or "mysterious", or receiving a "gift" from God, or a "blessing" from Heaven.  Modern science has explained the process of conception quite clearly and completely.  Simple and inexpensive family planning and birth control methods include abstinence, restraint, masturbation, oral sex, rhythm methods, condoms, gels, diaphragms and IUDs, birth control pills, morning after pills, and vasectomy.  Female tubal ligation and legal abortions are more invasive, expensive, and dangerous and include many moral and ethical issues for the individuals. 


24.  Legal abortions are a intense issue for public debate in America.  Some compromise needs to be negotiated.  Maybe we could make the individual woman bear all the costs for any legal abortion not involving rape or incest, and require that women under the age of 16 obtain prior consent from their parents before getting an abortion; in exchange for making all parents with three or more children pay much higher taxes or pay for their own third or higher child's support, education, and upbringing, and/or eliminating federal subsidies to Pro Life church "charities" if these churches will not abide by the new ZPG policies. 


25.  There are numerous issues related to the rights of parents to dictate and control the sexual behavior and sexual knowledge of their own children under 16 years of age.  Some think that the age for being considered a consenting adult in a sexual relationship or an adult in terms of having a right to free access to safe sex information and free choice should be 18 years of age.  Many strong "Pro Life" religious groups want to indoctrinate their children in their own religious views, and resist or refuse outside information intervention by others with a alternative sexual and family practices philosophy, including medical personnel.  Most sensible people in America want their children to be well informed about safe sex practices and family planning options before their children reach 16 years of age.  These issues regarding "age of consent" or "age of sexual freedom" are very complex and substantive, and outside the scope of this overview. 


26.  A few contend that everybody pays taxes for federal or state governmental services they don't use themselves.  I don't use bridges in Alaska, or National Parks in Maine, or Interstate freeways in Georgia, or federal Veterans benefits even though I am a veteran, or a federally subsidized Catholic hospital in Detroit, even though I willingly pay substantial annual federal taxes to support these and thousands of other worthwhile governmental programs that I will never use.  A similar situation exists for many worthwhile state or county programs I might never use.  Likewise, these persons argue, even though I myself only raised two children, I should not begrudge paying higher taxes for the many very expensive governmental services used by the children in large families or by the many children of illegal immigrants.  These people seem to have little concept of the extent of the costs of these services to children or are unaware that people with large families pay little or no federal taxes.  Personally, my generosity has reached its limits for financially supporting the unrestrained sexual behavior of others, whether "justified" by their religious views or not.  Many other people in America think as I do about this issue and would agree with me. 


27.  Some might object to ZPG on the grounds that it represents government intrusion into their bedrooms.  Some don't want any government intrusion into the sexual activity of consenting adults.  "The government can't force me to wear a condom when I have sex" or "the government can't force me to take birth control pills" and so forth.  The private sexual activities of consenting adults are quite varied and are worthy of protection from governmental or neighborly intrusions.  Nothing in this ZPG amendment is relevant to this objection - you are free to be celibate, be homosexual, rarely have sex, be a Gothic fetishist, or have intercourse four times a week and have five children.  ZPG just requires that when you have your third, fourth, or fifth child that you take responsibility for your private actions and pay yourself for the upbringing of your many children, rather than make somebody else pay more taxes for raising and caring for your large family.  For many centuries, "Pro Life" advocates and religious people actively supported harassment and intrusion into the private lives of homosexuals or couples of mixed marriages (different religions or different races); yet, a few of these same busybodies now inconsistently argue for less government intrusion into their own bedrooms.  Generally, I think it is reasonable to support the libertarian position of freedom of sexual activity between consenting adults. 




Relevant Facts to Support the Zero Population Growth Amendment


"According to the Department of Homeland Security's most recent available statistics, about 2.6 million illegal aliens live in California. In Los Angeles County, the nation's largest county with a population of 9.8 million, about 54 percent (5.3 million) speak a language other than English.  According to L.A. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, in 2010 the "total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers" was more than $1.6 billion including food stamps and benefits from CalWorks, a comprehensive welfare program.  Antonovich added that welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants (anchor babies) cost Los Angeles County more than $600 million last year, "not including the hundreds of millions of dollars for education."  Yet education is by far the most expensive illegal alien entitlement. For Antonovich to leave it out of his calculation is like omitting your monthly mortgage from your family expenses.  Had Antonovich included immigrant education costs, he could have added a staggering $3 billion to the taxpayers' tab.  The California Department of Education's website shows that K-12 schools included as part of Los Angeles County's districts had 410,000 non-English speakers enrolled during the 2009-2010 academic year. Nearly 90 percent (369,000) list Spanish as their native language.  The inescapable conclusion is that most Los Angeles County non-English speakers come from Mexico or Central America and are either illegal immigrants or their citizen children.  Using a conservative average annual cost of $7,500 per student, the estimated education dollar total for those illegal immigrants and anchor babies is $2.8 billion.  Added to Antonovich's $1.6 billion welfare costs, the aggregate bill is $4.4 billion -- in Los Angeles alone!  Statewide, the sum approaches a staggering $10 billion."
-   California's Mult-Billion Dollar Cost to Educate Anchor Baby Citizens, by Joe Guzzardi, East Valley Tribune Newspaper, 1/31/2011


"All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth. By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people, according to a recent U.N. forecast. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared."
Are We Breeding Ourselves Into Extinction, by Chris Hedges


"When the U.S. population reached 100 million in 1915, the average number of people sharing a home was 4.5.   The average number of people living in U.S. households has dropped almost one whole body each time the country adds 100 million citizens, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.  When the 300-million milestone is reached, that number will be at a new low of 2.6 people per home—parents, offspring and extended squatters included.  A combination of cultural factors is behind the shrinking American household, experts say. "It's the three Fs—family, freedom, and finance," said Gil Troy, professor of American history at McGill University in Montreal."
-   U.S. Household Size Shrinking, by Heather Phelps


82% of Mexicans are Catholics.  The national average household size in Mexico is 3.9 persons.  The average household size of the immigrant population in California in 2009 was 3.89 persons.  55% of the immigrants to California come from Latin America.  70% of Latin Americans consider themselves Catholic.  The Catholic Church has the strongest Pro-Life and anti-birth control policies of all the Christian Churches.  The Catholic Church has existed in many socialist countries, and is considered to have liberal and positive views towards many welfare programs. 


"According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics (DHS), an estimated 2,600,000 illegal immigrants resided in California in 2009, compared to 1.5 million in 1990 and 2.5 million in 2000.  This number represents about 25 percent of the entire estimated illegal immigrant population in the United States (10.8 million in 2009).  This estimate puts the percentage of California's population that are illegal immigrants to be about 6.8 percent, with a majority being from Mexico.  Across the entire United States, an estimated 6.7 million illegal immigrants were from Mexico, up from 4.7 million in 2000."
Illegal Immigrants in California, Los Angeles Almanac



Related Reading


California's Education Crisis Reflects the State's Overpopulation and Over-Immigration Crisis, by Joe Guzzardi

Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States

Population Connection: Education and Action for a Better World 

Population Under 15 Years of Age in All Countries

Sex, Religion, and Politics   An brief blog post by Michael P. Garofalo on February 17, 2012. 

War Powers Authorization by Public Vote Constitutional Amendment Proposal   By Michael P. Garofalo

Zero Population Growth - Wikipedia



Other Comments by Michael Garofalo:

I love children and they bring joy to our lives.  I fathered and raised two children.  I practiced birth control by having a vasectomy after the birth of my second child.  I treasure and love my children and grand-children. 

I have worked part-time as a classified support employee for a public school district in a poor rural community in the North Sacramento Valley from 1999-2012.  70% of the children attending this school district receive a free or reduced breakfast and lunch, 30% of the students speak Spanish at home, and 30% of the parents have incomes below the poverty level.  43% of these families pay no federal taxes.   The population of of the City of Corning where I work is 7,663.  There were 1,848 families (70.3% of all households) and the average family size was 1.34 children, and 32% of the population was under the age of 18. 

I have seen the healthy, happy, and successful children of loving parents taking full responsibility for the upbringing of their two children.  Unfortunately, I have also seen children inadequately fed, poorly clothed, and performing poorly because of the irresponsible behavior and poor child rearing practices of their irresponsible parents.  These same parents pay less or no taxes and expect free government services to educate and care for their many neglected children. 

I grew up in East Los Angeles and worked my whole career in East Los Angeles.  I lived and worked in East Los Angeles for 52 years.  I am very familiar with the day to day living conditions of poor Hispanic immigrants, the underclass, and the poor in the U.S.. 

I consider myself an independent voter, a fiscal conservative, and support many libertarian viewpoints. 

Green Way Research, Michael P. Garofalo, Red Bluff, California

This webpage was first published on the Internet on February 1, 2012. 

This webpage was last changed or updated on February 21, 2012. 

The author of this webpage is Michael P. Garofalo.

Cloud Hands Blog

Email Mike Garofalo


War Powers Authorization by Public Vote Constitutional Amendment Proposal   By Michael P. Garofalo




TAGS, Search Terms


"Pro Better Life" Policies and Beliefs
Reducing Population Size in California and the United States of America
Consequences of Overpopulation in California and the United States of America
Improve the Quality of Life by Reducing Populations in California and the United States of America  
Federal Constitutional Amendment for Zero Population Growth and Population Size Reduction
State Constitutional Amendment for Zero Population Growth and Population Size Reduction
Reducing the Federal and State Budgets by a Zero Population Growth Amendment 
Ending Religious Discrimination Based on Family Planning Policies in the United States 
Federal Support for Christian and Moslem Church Policies of Large Family Size 
Negative Effects of Overpopulation in California and the United States of America 
End Religious Discrimination by the Government in Favor of "Pro Life" Churches
Tea Party Ideas for Reducing Federal and/or State Taxes
Conservative Economic Ideas for Reducing Federal and/or State Taxes 
Same Sex Marriages - Benefits  
A Minimum Flat Tax of 5% for All Americans for Federal Taxes 
"Pro Life" Families Making Others Pay for Raising Their Children 
Large Families Should Pay Higher Taxes for Their Increased Demands on Governmental Services 
Population Control, Population Reduction, Population Growth Restrictions 
Having Children is not a Right if you Cannot Support and Raise Your Children Yourself 
ZPG Amendment Proposal = Zero Population Growth Amendment 
"Pro Life" Means Making Others Pay for Raising Your Children 
Fewer Children in California and the United States Would Improve the Quality of Life 
Illegal Immigration by Mexican Catholics and Overpopulation 
Ideas for Reducing the Federal and State Budgets that Might Appeal to Tea Party Members
Ideas for Reducing the Federal and State Budgets that Might Appeal to Fiscal Conservatives
Getting Big Families to Pay Their Fair Share of Federal Taxes 
Support a Federal Minimum Flat Tax on All Citizens of at Least 5%. 
Republicans and Democrats Need to Reexamine Their Support of Large Family Size in America