You're right as far as you go, consortium, but I didn't get the impression that was Valthazar's argument.
Let's assume that the childcare gives a net cost to the state. What is magic about the third (or whatever) child? There is no marginal cost to a child, the third one costs as much to care for as the second. And being as we're assuming childcare is a net cost for kids one and two, any arguments about efficiency go out of the window if we're prepared to pay for any of them.
Putting a cap on the number makes no sense, it's solely punitive. If the argument was about an effective usage of resources then the answer would be either to support zero (because its a net drain) or as many as is wanted (because the benefits outweigh the costs). With no increase in marginal costs for successive children, there's no "fiscal responsibility" argument for a cap.
So, yes. I agree with you that money should be used effectively, but that wasn't what was being discussed. The punitive aspect of val's suggested policy was all I was talking about.
Several of the gas mains in New York City, for example, are over 127 years old - and we recently had an explosion. I also would like to see a drastic expansion of scholarship programs.
I realise that was just an example, but is that not New York State's problem (as opposed to the federal government)