It is no secret that there is a legitimate demographic crisis in most of the Western world. Birth rates in America and most of Europe have declined well below the level needed to replace the population. There are plenty of religious, patriotic, economic, and social reasons for Americans to be deeply concerned about this trend. This has caused an interesting willingness among conservatives to embrace heterodox policy ideas that traditional libertarian economic thinkers find abhorrent. One now finds conservatives calling for Republicans to get serious about the governments family and public health policy, as well as Republicans such as Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida being the insistent voices for increased child tax credits.
There is an inherent tension here. On one hand, conservatives are suspicious of any increase in government spending or interference in the lives of citizens, rightly believing that most charity is best distributed at the local level by families, churches, charitable organizations, etc. On the other hand, we are staring at a civilizational crisis where people are not having enough children to sustain the population. This has serious consequences for our ability to function as a stable society with a thriving, healthy economy.
Conservatives will have to continue this dialogue about how to enact pro-family economic policies that encourage stronger, larger families without unnecessary government intrusion into family life. Child tax credits created through the tax code and administered by the Internal Revenue Service are one thing; the Family Security Act proposed by Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, which would give families a monthly payment administered through the Social Security Administration is quite another.
Conservatives will have to make distinctions and draw lines in the sand to determine how much government expansion we are going to tolerate to accomplish these policy goals. Creating another welfare program through the Social Security Administration seems to go well beyond pro-family tax reform. If conservatives are willing to accept that some pro-family policies may be good even if they come with taxpayer expense and a new government program, we need to start developing a framework to distinguish good family policy from bad.
Pennsylvanias new Child and Dependent Care Enhancement Program that was just passed in the commonwealths budget is a perfect example of bad family policy mistakenly being celebrated as good family policy. It would be one thing if this were passed in a state thoroughly controlled by Democrats. But both houses of the Pennsylvania Legislature are controlled by Republicans. Budgets are creatures of compromise, and there is nothing wrong with Republicans moving toward tax policies that encourage having more children. But conservatives need to be wary of how such pro-family policy is crafted and what preferences are contained within such policies. Republican legislators must take care that they are not unwittingly embracing leftist ideals in the name of pro-family reform.
Supporters point out that this new tax credit will help low-income families by defraying the costs of childcare. But those same supporters are falsely claiming that the tax credit is fashioned after the federal child tax credit, which was increased by the American Rescue Plan in 2021. There is a big, clear difference between the federal tax credit and the new Pennsylvania tax credit: The federal credit is a tax credit given to families under a certain annual income, based on how many dependent children they have. The new Pennsylvania credit allows parents to recoup a percentage of their childcare expenses.
At least someone in the Pennsylvania papers caught the difference, to a certain extent. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board realized the obvious: Some people choose to make sacrifices to have a parent stay home with their children. Others are too poor to afford costly childcare and rely on family members to take care of their children while they are at work. Both these categories of parents are apparently excluded from the Pennsylvania tax credit because they are not paying for daycare.
The editorial calls for at least a smaller standard credit of a few hundred dollars per child for those who choose to keep care in the family. This proposed compromise is still inadequate. Both for reasons of fairness and of good social policy, it is bad for the government to incentivize full-time institutional daycare rather than a family caring for its own children full-time.
The editorial points out what should be common sense: Most of the time, a two-income family earns more money than a one-income family. If families choose for a parent to stay home and care for children full-time, that is an economic sacrifice for most families. If the purpose of these daycare tax credits is to ease the costly burdens of childcare, why does the policy only ease the burden of daycare and not the burden of the one-income family who sacrifices a second income to keep a parent home for childcare?
This is not merely an economically unfair governmental choice. There is a serious and insidious social policy preference in the childcare tax credit. Most tax policies express preferential choices. Corporate entities are taxed differently often more favorably than individuals because we acknowledge that incentivizing LLCs, corporations, and partnerships to be more profitable creates jobs and produces good results for society. In kind payments (payments made with products, services, or something other than cash) are still treated as taxable income because we prefer not to let businesses get away with not paying taxes by bartering. And we have a federal child tax credit because we prefer people to have children. Each of these examples has both an economic reason (it is good for our economy to have this preference) and a moral one (it is good for our society to be this way).
The childcare tax credit adopted in Pennsylvania is not good for our society because it expresses a bad policy preference. If a family has children, both the mother and father work outside the home, and the family uses full-time institutional daycare for the children, the government will subsidize that with thousands of dollars in tax credits. If a family has children and one parent works while the other stays home to care for the children, the government does not subsidize the parents decision to stay home with the children. If both parents work (or if it is a single-parent household) and the children are cared for by a relative, the government also does not offer the tax credit. There is a clear policy preference expressed by the Pennsylvania government: It is better for families with children to have two working parents and to pay someone else to care for their children. This is bad policy.
There are many reasons it is beneficial for families to have a parent stay at home with children. Children tend to do better educationally when a parent stays home with them and/or chooses to homeschool. There is also good research suggesting that children develop more behavioral problems like stress and aggression when cared for full-time by out-of-home daycare rather than by a stay-at-home parent. Admittedly there are challenges for stay-at-home parents, such as the desire to return to work outside the home and the danger of social isolation. But having a stay-at-home parent is a good decision for raising intelligent, well-adjusted children.
Society benefits from having more intelligent, well-adjusted children. So the government should enact policies that encourage a parent to stay at home and be the full-time caretaker for children. If families decide they want or need two incomes to support their household, they are free to make that choice. But when the government actually incentivizes the decision to have ones children cared for full-time by a paid childcare institution rather than by the childrens own parents, it raises a question: Is this really good for families, for children, for society? Or is the government incentivizing the further distortion of the natural family? Is this a proper pro-family policy or a nod to socialism?
Incentivizing families to have more children through child tax credits, like the current federal tax code does, is a reasonable policy preference for conservatives concerned about our nations demographic decline. Subsidizing only those families who choose full-time institutional daycare, while disincentivizing families choosing to have a stay-at-home parent or using extended family for childcare, favors a socialist understanding of family and work life. Conservatives in general and Republican legislators in particular should be sensitive to this distinction.
Frank DeVito is an attorney living in eastern Pennsylvania with his wife and three young children. His work has previously been published in The American Conservative, the Quinnipiac Law Review and the Penn State Online Law Review.
Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.
See the original post:
Discouraging Parents From Raising Their Own Kids Isn't Pro-Family - The Federalist
- Court: Trump Can Appeal Attempt To Disqualify Fani Willis - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Media Give Blasey Ford Another Chance To Smear Kavanaugh - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Exclusive: Jordan Demands Docs From CISA About PA Election 'Task Force' - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- The Columns Spotlight: The Federalist Society Washington and Lee University - The Columns - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Democracy Under Pressure at the EU Level - The New Federalist - Le Taurillon - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Justice Jackson's 'Hamstringing' Comment Wasn't Her Worst - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Andrei Illarionov and Morgan Wirthlin, Author at The Federalist - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Democracy Under Pressure in Hungary - The New Federalist - Le Taurillon - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Mike Johnson Needs To Grow A Spine And Fight Biden's Border Invasion - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- High Gas Prices Don't Bother Biden Because They Cut Car Use - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Hemingway: All Of Biden's Interactions With The Press Are Coordinated And Protected - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Zuckbucks Group Teaches Election Offices How To Target Speech - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Gov't Says 'Once-In-A-Lifetime Pandemic' Excuses First Amendment Violations - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Speaking Openly About Isolation Can Help Us Resist Tyranny - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Trans Zealots Revolt Against Reality Rather Than Admit They're Wrong - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Trump's 'Bloodbath' Is The Fake Media's New 'Guy' And 'Sir' - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- It's Time For Georgia's AG To Indict Fani Willis For Perjury - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- What's New In Bragg's 'Get Trump' Hush Money Lawfare In NY - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Clutch Your Pearls, This Isn't The Last Trump 'Bloodbath' - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- DC Doesn't Just Spend Too Much, It Spends On The Wrong Things - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- CNN Analyst Asks Feds To Meddle In Elections To Defeat Trump - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- NYC Subway Shooting Is A Result Of 'Tolerance And Diversity' - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Keeping Trump In Court While Biden Campaigns Is Election Interference - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Disenchanted Democrats Should Be Asking Deeper Questions - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Olivia Rodrigo Hands Out Free Morning-After Pills To Teen Fans - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- Poll Shows Biden Bombed State Of The Union Address - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- GA Election Board Member Voted On Cases Involving His Clients - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- GOPers Pass Bill To Keep OK Free Of Ranked-Choice Voting Chaos - The Federalist - March 20th, 2024 [March 20th, 2024]
- CISA Admitted 'Risks' Of Vote-By-Mail In Internal Docs From 2020 - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Democrat Bill Aims To Stifle Regulation Of Big Fertility Market - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Group Behind 'Zuckbucks' Is Now Meddling In The 2024 Election - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- California Democrats Work To Make Discrimination Legal (Again) - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- A Haley Win In New Hampshire Will Not Be The Victory She Thinks - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Votes Without Citizenship Proof 'Exploded' In AZ After Dem Lawfare - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Congressional Republicans Need To Start Fighting Abortion - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Matthew Malec, Author at The Federalist - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Larry Taunton, Author at The Federalist - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Congress's $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill Goes On Trial In Texas - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Chicago Abortionists Advertise Possibly Illegal Late-Term Abortions - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- How DeSantis's Disappointed Supporters Can Move On From Ron - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Thousands Attend March For Life Hoping To Make Abortion 'Unthinkable' - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Putting An End To Race-Based Hiring Is 30 Years Past Due - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Ever-Closer Union: Brussels Plots Federalist Reforms The European Conservative - The European Conservative - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- 4 Years Too Late, DOJ Admits Biden 'Laptop From Hell' Is Real - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Heritage Foundation President Slams Davos Elites To Their Faces - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- TSA Sign Says Migrants Without ID May Opt Out Of Photos - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Two-Thirds Of Elites Say There's Too Much Freedom In America - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- How Disgruntled Fishermen Could Prompt SCOTUS To Capsize The Administrative State - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- No Testing Needed To Prove Hailey Davidson Isn't A Woman - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Democrats Promise To Save 'Democracy' By Destroying It - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- 7 Takeaways From SCOTUS Case That Could Slay The Bureaucracy - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Haley Woos Her Real Constituents In New Hampshire: Democrats - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Men, Ignore The Bad Advice To Seek A 'Low-IQ' Wife - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- By 'Protecting Election Workers,' Democrats Mean Protecting Control Over Election Administration - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Harbaugh Champions Right To Life After Football Championship - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Oppressor Matrix Gives Leftists Like Hasan Piker Brain Worms - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- How And Why The Ivy League Will Die - The Federalist - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Gorsuch Gleefully Leads Right-Wing Cohort In Fulfilling Their Federalist Society Quest - TPM - January 23rd, 2024 [January 23rd, 2024]
- Only 6% Of Americans Approve Of GOP Leader Mitch McConnell - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Knowing Of Hunter's Plan To Defy Subpoena Puts Biden In Legal Jeopardy - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- PA School Board President Sworn In With Pornographic Books - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- The 'Ukraine War Is Good For Business' Argument Is Vile And Also A Lie - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Data: Banning Therapy For LGBT People Increases Suicide Risks - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- John Yoo and Jeremy Rabkin, Author at The Federalist - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- From Woke Walkouts To 'Equity,' Illinois Schools Are Melting Down - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Hunter Biden Invokes Gun Rights Ruling That Joe Called Unconstitutional - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- China's Cyber Warfare Surges With Hacking Of U.S. Infrastructure - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Every Biden 2024 Scenario Is Deadly Dangerous - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Study Finds NewsGuard Overtly Biased Against Conservatives - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Republicans Need To Learn How To Go After The Left - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Biden Overdrew America's Account With Blank Checks To Ukraine - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Meet Michael Dreeben, The Man Behind Major Anti-Trump Ops - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Senate Dems Block Bill To Allow Whole Milk In School Lunch Programs - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- 'Experts' Who Discredited Biden Laptop Call To Extend Warrantless Spying - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- Ranked-Choice Voting Proponents Are Lying To WI Voters To Hide The System's Flaws - The Federalist - December 19th, 2023 [December 19th, 2023]
- The Case for an AUMF Against Iran and Its Proxies - The Federalist Society - November 18th, 2023 [November 18th, 2023]
- Bari Weiss's Olson Lecture: You Are the Last Line of Defense - Reason - November 18th, 2023 [November 18th, 2023]
- Book Review: The People's Justice - The Federalist Society - November 18th, 2023 [November 18th, 2023]
- Farewell to the Mayflower - Reason - November 18th, 2023 [November 18th, 2023]
- FBI Targets Trump Voters Ahead Of 2024 Election - The Federalist - October 9th, 2023 [October 9th, 2023]