My first semester at the University, I took an English class in which we studied a work by the great satirist Jonathan Swift, titled “A Modest Proposal.” In this piece, Swift proposes to fix the high rate of poverty in Ireland by consuming the offspring of the poor. By eating babies, Swift argues, the country would simultaneously decrease the rate of homelessness and provide food for the poor! This is obviously satire. I won’t insult your intelligence by explaining it to you.As a guy who loves good satire, I found this article extremely enjoyable to read. Imagine my surprise when the Advocate ran a similar piece Sept. 24. It had all the incisive satire, all the obvious absurdity of Swift, and here it was being run in our town’s daily news.It was a delightfully savage piece of satire about a state legislator who decided it would be a good idea to pay poor people $1,000 to agree to voluntary sterilization. It was a cunning piece of writing, lambasting our government and our people for giving up on trying to assist those in poverty. The more I read the article, the more I applauded the writer’s razor-sharp wit and biting criticism.Then it hit me. This wasn’t satire. Somebody was serious.Apparently, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, D-Metairie, discusses a plan to offer impoverished people $1,000 for voluntary sterilization.  In its current incarnation, the plan only includes paying women to have their fallopian tubes tied, but LaBruzzo has made it clear he is also considering paying for men to have vasectomies—lest he be accused of sexism.    LaBruzzo argues that by offering poorer people an incentive not to reproduce, the state can reduce the poverty rate and thus break the cycle of poverty that plagues our fair state.  Yet LaBruzzo’s main argument in favor of his bill isn’t even that it will solve the poverty problems our state faces. He argues those who receive government aid are reproducing faster than more affluent citizens and are thus creating an increasing drain on the state economy.In my estimation, the problems with this plan are numerous. First, the cost must be taken into account. Approximately 88,000 people live below the poverty line, according to the 2005 census. For arguments sake, let’s say 5 percent of these people take advantage of the program. That’s 4,400 people.That brings us to a grand total of $4.4 million. That’s for only a fraction of the underprivileged populace, barely enough to put a dent in the growth rate. Not exactly cost-effective population control.Even if the plan were cost-effective, it only accounts for those born into poverty; it makes absolutely no provision for those who slide into it.Despite all of these practical problems, the real question remains: What does it say about our society if we resort to this? Call me an idealist, but isn’t taking away the ability to bear children essentially giving up?    Yes, remedying poverty in Louisiana requires radical solutions. But it’s imperative we find some kind of solution that doesn’t dehumanize our poorest citizens, especially not if the motivation for doing so isn’t necessarily in their self-interest. The desire to bear children is hard-wired into our brains, a basic animal instinct to further the species. Isn’t there something fundamentally wrong with tempting someone into selling this priceless commodity, the ability to bring forth life in the world, simply because their doing so strains our government’s resources?From a practical perspective, the whole discussion may be moot. LaBruzzo himself recognizes that the bill may be a tough sell. The representative is aware that the bill raises many moral, ethical and especially racial concerns that may make real discussion infeasible. “It’s easy to say, ‘Oh, he’s a racist,'” LaBruzzo said in a Sept. 23 Times-Picayune article. “The hard part is to sit down and think of some solutions.”I don’t disagree with the representative on this. Poverty in Louisiana is so entrenched and so prevalent that it will take radical new solutions to remedy it in any meaningful way.That being said, there has to be a better way than mass sterilization. Radically innovative new takes on traditional approaches, such as fixing our broken education system, and a fine-tuned streamlining of our fundamentally flawed welfare system are necessary, not something this morally questionable.      Although it may not be as blatantly immoral and unethical as Swift’s baby-eating proposal, something is inherently wrong about baiting the poor into not reproducing.  It is, in effect, denying the chances of a child of poor parents to make something of themselves in the world.As it always is, it’s our job as Louisianians to say we won’t give up on our underprivileged citizens.  It’s our job to protest Representative LaBruzzo’s idea and stop this indecent proposal before it gets off the ground. 
—-Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]