Nancy Pelosi:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." 

Rob Port:

To follow Pelosi’s reasoning, government spends a lot of money on entitlements for low-income children so obviously spending even more money on free condoms (and tax subsidized abortions, though she no doubt doesn’t want to advocate aborting low-income kids to save the government money on national television) will cause fewer children to be created which in turn will save the government money.

Pelosi wants to cut costs by cutting babies? Of course, no one forced big-government types to take on as many costs as they have - costs that have slowed down the economy in the first place. But regardless, instead of cutting earmarks and wasteful spending, she wants to cut babies? Because Pelosi cannot afford to apply her government programs to a bigger population, she would rather reduce the population she was supposed to help in the first place? Unbelievable. I wonder whether the day will come when the likes of Pelosi will forcefully limit us to a certain number of babies so they can "afford" their government plans. It's not as ridiculous a possibility as it sounds.

A friend of mine pointed out the irony of the following two links being placed right next to each on the Drudge Report: Pelosi's astounding statement and Japan's Canon sending employees home early to have more babies.

Contraceptives can stimulate a lot of things - but the economy is most certainly not one of them.