William, I understand your point and the frustration behind it.

The perception (and sometimes reality) that welfare recipients are having too many babies and sponging off the public purse to pay for them, is not much fun. But all the alternatives seem far worse.

FWIW, the current Prime Minister of New Zealand is from a welfare family. He was brought up in a welfare-funded home and received free education to tertiary level and free healthcare. Now he is a multi-millionaire who took a significant pay-cut to become Prime Minister.

I'm sure people can find examples of others who did just as well without welfare (which is why anecdote is not that useful ;-) but my point is that if welfare is affordable, society should pay for it to give the potential Prime Ministers, scientists and others whose contribution to society may well be greater than any of ours, every opportunity to want to be part of and contribute to the sort of society we want to live in. Why would you want to risk marginalizing such capable people? Sure there will be some who bludge and take advantage but those sorts of people are everywhere (including in power suits in offices) and are just part of the price we pay to live in a free society.

One thing is very sure: welfare recipients have never created such a mess and placed such a potential burden on future taxpayers as has the current financial crisis presided over by people with multi-million-dollar salaries and corporate jets. Having a baby which you cannot afford but which society can afford is as nothing compared to wiping out tens or hundreds of $billions of others' savings by being reckless.