The policy PRO advocates is superior to the status quo.

Hi, thanks for the opportunity for this debate. I hope we have an enlightening discussion! First, let me say that I recognize the problem which your policy addresses. Childhood poverty is a good predictor of future adult poverty, crime, and drug abuse. It clearly must be reduced in some way. While the status quo is not acceptable in its own right, it is superior to your proposed policy. I am an advocate of using government to solve societal problems, but I believe that there are serious problems with your approach. I'll use this response to state drawbacks as well as ask questions to clarify your position on this policy. Here are some questions/drawbacks I notice (label D# as requested): D1. The process for creation of Org is unclear. A government project of this scope would require approval by both houses of Congress (potentially including 60 votes to end debate in the Senate) and the President. The federal budget would have to be amended to account for the initial cost of Org (even if it begins to make money down the road). Keep in mind that this policy is sure to cause controversy, calling into question the cohesiveness and support of the government bodies involved when it comes to execution of this policy. The funding source for Org is unclear. D2./D3./D4. These three policy points are extremely coercive and violate the rights of the parents to raise their own children. By creating a situation in which parents are less able to pay to raise their own children and more able to give children to Org, this policy reduces the ability of parents to raise their own children. The "easy out" you refer to is a manufactured solution to a problem created in part by reducing welfare benefits. D5. Once again, the source of funding for this policy is unclear. Where will Org get money to pay the salaries of hundreds of thousands of caretakers? If there isn't enough funding for competent caretakers, the resulting situation would be just as bad as a neglecting family would be. Raising children "in bulk" seems to indicate that individuals will receive less personal time with caretakers, which is a problem that already plagues public schools with high student/teacher ratios and overcrowded orphanages. D6./D8./D9. When changing the location of HQ from a developed area to a poorer area, you move children into a more dangerous environment. D7. Raising children in bulk does not give them a safe and stable family unit. Children who identify with supportive families are less likely to be involved with gangs because they already have a grounded sense of home. A bulk child-raising headquarters is impersonal and intimidating. Hired employees cannot simulate the love a parent has for a child. D10. Define success here - does it mean money? Stability? Happiness? Individuals vary in their talents and desires; what maximizes "success" in one might minimize "success" in another. Children have to be treated as individuals, especially during the period in which they are developing identities for themselves. Those are just a few problems and questions I have. But overall, I don't think that a parent's love can be replaced by a bureaucracy. There is a place for both in a child's life, but the goal should not be to remove parents from their children's development because of income. The goal should be making raising a child on a low income possible.