Woo hoo, I’m a drain on society.

Maphet pointed out this gem of an article: Two Is Enough: Why large families don’t deserve tax breaks.

It’s long been known that kids from large families perform worse in school, but it has been impossible to explain why. That’s because research about the relationship between family size and children’s educational achievement has been plagued by a nagging issue: Large families tend to be different from small families on a number of fronts—religiosity, commitment to education, orientation to the future, maybe even intelligence level. [emphasis mine]

Ah … someone just called my momma an idiot. Stand back.

I just love when so-called experts trot out the ol’ smaller-is-better argument when it comes to families. First off, they completely fail to take into account one big factor: Not all children are pre-planned. This is due to sub-factors such as unreliable or expensive birth control; abstinence-or-else sex ed; religious beliefs; cultural beliefs that value children and humankind as individuals, not fiscal liabilities; and plain old Acts of God.

I’m the oldest of six children, all of us borne of the same mother and father. Now, I can’t say that life is peachy when you share a house with seven other people and a dog. I can’t say I always treasured taking care of babies and toddlers throughout my formative years.

But I can say that coming from a large family was a blessing, not an economic setback. And I can most definitely and without a doubt say that my folks aren’t stupid, and my momma didn’t raise no fools.

The reasons that additional siblings hamper the intellectual growth of children (and particularly middle-borns) are fairly obvious—parental resources are a fixed pie, and children do better when they get more attention (and money). The conclusions to be drawn are more controversial. For example, we always talk about the goal of raising test scores and the overall “intellectual” or “human” capital of our population to fit the needs of the new information economy (and to compete with other nations in math and science), yet our tax policy does the exact opposite: It gives tax credits for additional kids. We have to confront the possibility that a more powerful educational (and antipoverty) policy is a tax structure that acts as a disincentive to have more children.

Let me just lay it out for you: Two of us kids have graduated cum laude from college. The third is acing his third year of biochemical engineering study at a technical institute. The three youngest are still in school and scoring in the top percentiles on their tests.

I dare you to tell me that we’re not prepared for whatever “highly skilled” jobs the U.S. economy can throw our way. And I dare you to tell me that my parents’ love and attention and resources are a “fixed pie,” and that each of us children suffers the more when another is born. The jury is still out on half of us, but history is showing that we’re doing pretty damn well, despite our “disadvantage.”

Look. I am a person, not a cash-flow problem. Telling me that the government should punish my parents for having brought me or my siblings into this world is pretty damned harsh. Clearly, it’s just as harsh to say that lower-income families don’t deserve to have as many children as they can, or choose to, or can afford to, or are surprised with. Reproductive rights, including the right to choose how many kids you’d like to have, is one of those “inalienable” things the Constitution speaks of.

Such “research” and proposals — that we should penalize families for having more than two children — is heartbreakingly callous, and far from the enlightened approach author Dalton Conley seems to think it is. Pardon me for mentioning it, but there are other countries which cap procreation at two children — Communist China comes to mind.

Now, if that’s the economic future he foresees for the U.S., please, count me [and my five “extraneous” siblings] out.