Freddie, I'm not going to hold you responsible for the things you say when you're drunk. But shave off my goatee and put a wig on me and I'll look like Jean Stapleton. Just saying.

Yeah, I think that's new. I think the change.gov blog moved over there pretty quickly, though I could be wrong.

I'm not sure what's up with the bloglines stats. It does look like there's something funny on the site, though -- the autodiscovery address is different than the one you get if you click the RSS icon on the page itself.

Good questions have one answer, do not require judgement calls, do not change over time, and would be known by very few people. "What was the name of your first pet" is reasonably good. "What is the name of your youngest child" is not because that answer can change (and yes I've seen that one).

One company asked me where my social security card was issued, which is usually the town you are born in -- but not always. Of course, having not applied for my social security card in person, I didn't know. And the cards of all military children were processed in the same office in New York -- something else I would not have known.

Personally, I think the security questions are a useless harassment and security theater.

The best solutions are the places that ask you to write both question and answer.

But you said "there's very little support for parents beyond church and other family members." And I personally think there is more support out there for parents than for other members of our society.

I think I was confused because your initial response was "why don't we do more for other people!" But I think you have more of a point here, and it's because I misspoke -- my perspective is a little narrow at the moment because I'm the parent of a very young child who does not yet qualify for most of the support children get, which is generally focused on education. Yes, there are a lot of resources for children once they are in school; before then, however, there isn't much beyond tax deductions for parents of young children.

That said, there are more opportunities for adults acting as primary caregivers for older adults than I think you're aware of. Again, not nearly the kind of support that's needed. But it is there.

Children attending college often have as their address-of-record the address of the parent, even if they are spending nine months out of every year in a dorm or in off-campus housing.

Also, adult dependent parents (as well as grandparents and siblings) are qualifying dependents under head-of-household filing rules: http://tinyurl.com/88aoou

Just as an aside here, you can use basic HTML. I'll doublecheck on that. I will also see if ID has a rich text editor to help...

I don't agree that the decision to have children is not a life choice. In this day and age, it is.

"Life choice" suggests a personal decision about how to live one's life that doesn't have serious ramifications on others. It is far more optional to have children than it used to be, but it's still a major determining factor in people's economic well-being.

However, I do not believe that children and parents are more important to our society than any other citizens.

I don't think I am making that claim. I did say I understand the accommodations people make for parents in the workplace. And I do think there are other areas where we need to focus resources: early child care is atrocious, and what we do to a spouse (male or female) who chooses to stay home and care for a child rather than return immediately to work is also pretty bad.

What about our elders? Don't we owe them something for their hard work and contributions to our society?

Certainly. I don't see why the two need to be exclusive; we need to care for people at all stages of life. Child health care, elder health care, and everything in between would be aided significantly by genuine National health care as well.

I don't recall seeing people argue that it should be subsidized by tax credits and dollars.

Just a cursory five-minute review of Google turned up Clinton's 1999 proposal (http://tinyurl.com/7mdqoc),a 2004 bill introduced by Larry Craig (http://tinyurl.com/97c6mg),a 2008 bill which would have provided tax breaks like you suggest (http://tinyurl.com/7d5429).

Overall, of course, I'm arguing for more comprehensive reform: tax breaks aren't sufficient. And I don't know what the hold up on these is. Perhaps it's because people think the quality of life of older people should be related to the quality of the life choices they made? Maybe they should have saved more or worked harder? That's generally the argument against helping people out, anyway.

Some of the policies you mention were established because we felt there was an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage. As you know, I'm opposed to the Government providing incentives for people to have sex under contract. And health care is a human right; our current health care structure is a travesty in more ways than tax deductions because of family status, and I back reform there as well.

However, having children is not merely a "life choice" like, say, being Baptist or Republican. The resources available to children and parents have a direct impact on everyone's quality of life -- not just in the future, when those kids are adults, but now -- when they affect the lives of the adults around them. Whether or not you choose to have kids, the health and well-being of kids other people have are of significant economic and social importance.

I hadn't thought of it quite that way, but that's a good point. I'd rather it didn't manifest in pearl-clutching or reactionary legislation, tho.

I don't know, Karan. People are already trying to sell us that line *now*, but ain't nobody buying. Too many people have been directly injured. I don't doubt people will need reminding, but maybe not so much as you think quite so early. At least, I hope that's true.