conditions, conditions, conditions.

Sometimes conditions are good, sometimes bad, and sometimes hypocritical.

subsidies, subsidies, subsidies.

Sometimes subsidies are good, sometimes bad, and almost always they are used to promote agendas.

Child allowance subsidies in Israel used to be there to promote and encourage couples having more kids, as well as ensuring a minimal amount of financial support to keep people above the poverty line and to ensure the children get some food in their bellies.

When the government decided they wanted to encourage couples to have fewer kids, or to encourage people to seek employment instead of relying on subsidies, they cut the allowances.

And sometimes subsidies are just used as political bribes. And that's ok too, as it is part of the political game.

The recent coalition agreement to increase the child allowance subsidies seems to be both to promote an agenda, and as a political bribe. Just this time it is that way from two different sides of the coin.

Kikar is reporting that while UTJ and Likud negotiated and agreed to an increase in child allowance subsidies, as a political bribe, as part of the package that would allow UTJ to join the coalition. Yaakov Litzman, in his authority as Deputy Minister of Health with the power given to him in the coalition agreements, will be establishing that parents who do not vaccinate their children will not qualify for the child allowance subsidies. Litzman didn't want the condition to remain, but he did manage to be granted the authority to set the criteria.

I find it hard to believe that most anti-vaxxers will give up their strong belief against vaccinations just to receive a little bit of money in child allowance subsidies, but maybe some will need the money badly enough that they will decide to vaccinate their kids.

While I happen to like this condition, and think it is a good use of a subsidy to promote an agenda (vaccinations in this case), it does seem hypocritical, to me, that UTJ did not make a big deal about this and agreed to it without making a stink.

The problem with this condition is that it is collective punishment. in the view of UTJ, based on past arguments they have made in favor of the subsidy being increased, it is not the child's fault for decisions the parents made, bad as they might be. The children do not need to suffer increased poverty, which leads to less food in their mouths and less of everythign in general, because the parents made a decision.

In the past this argument was used to say that the government wants to ensure kids get food and clothes and education and whatnot, so just because parents decide not to work and to live a life of poverty, it is not a reason to make the kids suffer and take away the subsidies that would ensure they get some nutrition.

To apply that here, it is not the kids fault that their parents decided to not vaccinate - why should they suffer and not have enough food to eat because the parents did not vaccinate them.

If the subsidy would potentially sway parents to vaccinate, that might be one thing. However, I do not think it will. Anti-vaxxers do not vaccinate on an ideological basis, and a small subsidy is not going to change that in most cases.