The thing to remember about demographic forecasts is that they rely on trajectories and estimates to remain constant. There can be no change or else the forecast goes more awry than a climate scientists curve. There are tweaks here and there that can make all the difference.

Most people have not looked at the California estimates from 1990 about 2015. It predicted a slightly white California and a far less Asian California. The middle class white exodus was not on their radar, nor was the massive influx of Mexicans in the ’90s after the peso crisis. The tech industry hoovering up Asians for their H1B caste was an unknown. Steve Sailer constantly refers to Africa’s population growth but right now, Africa is enjoying anti-HIV and especially, anti-malaria medications that are working wonders. Talk to doctors that travel there, and they say it won’t last and we will all have to deal with the orphans.

Those America white minority forecasts are based on some interesting assumptions. One is the flow of immigrants is never-ending. The other is that TFR between groups will remain the same. The drop in Hispanic female TFR since 2006 is staggering. It has altered the overall TFR of America. That alone tweaked that whites below 50% year out to 2045. How exactly will all the white-hispanic mixed kids identify anyway? If you pay attention to the common refrain of white parents of mixed kids, you know the “everyone says my kid is so beautiful” line that obese white moms say of their half-black child while sitting alone at the playground. The other common one is white businessmen, often from the Southwest, who after three beers says how their daughter is the “whitest Mexican girl you’ll ever meet”.

I digress, but the point remains that tweaks have large effects. Therefore the biggest tweak we could make to move away from dysgenic trends is to change the child tax credit so that only married filers receive it, but that they receive a double credit. As 40% of all children are born to unwed mothers, the change pays for itself buy sliding what 40% would get and transferring it to the other 60%. Think $4,000 per child per year doesn’t make a difference? For the child’s first year, you probably just paid back the hospital fees for delivery. It would help with daycare or private school.

Stop stop stop. I said one weird trick. Undeniably, there is no way on this earth with this GOP or even a populist coalition, that this could pass. Even if the entire country agreed that we should have married couples having more kids and discourage children being born into poverty with single moms, it will not happen as single women are the key to the System’s mandarins’ destruction of the family. It also does not attack our culture of anti-natalism. Scratch this idea even if as Governor, I would push it for my state.

I will fix dysgenic TFR trends, generate revenue for whatever state applies it and use indirect pressure the way the progressives do to right wing or traditional power groups.

No man or woman under the age of 40 may adopt a pet or cat before having a child. All individuals with one child who adopt a pet, pay a $1,000 pet licensing fee per pet and pay a $500 tax per pet per year for said pet.

There. Fixed things for you. This applies to everyone. This is not dependent on marital status or sexual orientation, so there is no discrimination. It is a tax. It is genius as earns cash strapped states money, and if you have not googled “Illinois + pension”, I suggest you do. You are going to see creative taxation enter the mindpsace of very blue states and poorly managed states (Kentucky).

Who does this really target? We all know who this targets? We are going after those childless couples, often white and Asian, that use a dog or cat as a child substitute. Twitter and Facebook is not full of underclass women writing tearful posts about how dog moms are real moms. Pets have become child substitutes, and we should deny them of this. We have a media culture that pushes this and enables these delusional individuals to carry on this farce. Dog strollers and dressing dogs up in clothes should not be so widespread as to give corporations a market to supply.

This will move the needle. Forget the taxation bit, which is critical for pushing people to go for a second child. Just forcing people to have one child before adopting a pet moves a lot of those 0.0 TFR women to a 1.0. Think of the life cycle of these women. They adopt a pet in their early 20s, maybe mid-20s and that sates the nurturer drive within them. This slices at their fertility window. If denied this outlet, they would most likely have a kid by 25 just to get a dog or cat. This is critical because a national TFR of 1.88 is not everyone having two kids, but the 0.0 crowd pulling us down… and they have grown in size.

Those of you denying this powerful boost are missing one critical thing. Having a child earlier also reveals just how ridiculous using a pet as a child substitute is and how no way is a pet comparable to a child. There are countless women who if they had a child at age 27 would realize they like it and want more. This would then take 0.0 women and move them to 2.0 or 3.0 TFR hits. Getting them to have one earlier suddenly widens their fertility window as they get that baby bug and love being a mom. The realization hits them at age 28, not age 38, and they can have a second or third child, not desperately try for one more that biological reality prevents from happening.

This sounds strange. It sounds ridiculous. Remember that in deep blue states, the different blocks to the progressive Jenga tower matter less. If you win with 60% of the vote, how many people of any specific group would you lose with a broad policy that implicitly crushes one group. Border states would then have to enact similar policies to prevent tax cheats from Illinois or New Jersey from taking advantage of them.

It may not sound populist, but what is more pretentious than a woman pushing around a yorkshire terrier named Mr. Buttons in a dog stroller on her way to dog yoga. Become a part of the community, have a kid.