By Jeffrey A. Rendall
Trump’s proposal to pay at-home parents brings forth many questions, few answers
Had you heard about this?
What, you ask? The recent proposal by the Donald J. Trump administration to pay stay-at-home parents generated quite a stir, both among liberals who chastise and question everything the 47th president does (as though there’s some sort of face-value sinister motivation behind extending welfare benefits to a group that could be moral and straight) and conservatives, those fiscal-minded folks who believe our elected representatives, senators and the president should mind every penny they’re entrusted with.
This is sound thinking, a philosophy I adhere to myself.
But this particular initiative blurred philosophical dividing lines. The desire to hold down government spending and (theoretically) reduce the size of government directly conflicts with some policymakers’ equally important goal of making it financially realistic for couples to get married and afford having more children if they want them.
Anyone who’s been around children understands their early-life care demands a great deal of personal attention as well as a sizeable commitment of time and resources. Does government have a role in this regard? More importantly, should it?
In an article titled, “Conservatives split over Trump plan to pay stay-at-home parents”, Helen Huiskes reported at The Hill recently:
“The White House proposal, as drafted, would essentially expand an existing program designed to provide federal funds for single parents to pay for childcare if they wanted to work. It was part of welfare reform in the 1990s, a push to get more people off of the welfare rolls and into the workforce, and to encourage single parents — predominantly women — to pursue work or school.
“The pitch then was that the federal government would subsidize childcare for eligible (usually low-income) families, typically by providing vouchers to the families or grants to childcare providers.
“Now, the Trump administration is proposing changing that rule to allow families with married parents where one works and one stays at home to qualify for those funds. The move is only in a draft stage, according to The New York Times, which first reported on the project. Key drivers of policy for the conservative movement have been at the forefront of rethinking how to distribute federal funding to encourage Americans to get married and have kids.”
Phew. There are lots of sides to this one. As a member of a non-traditional household where the male partner in the marriage was the one who shouldered many of the “at home” duties, including hour-to-hour oversight of the juveniles, there is no easy answer here.
Whenever social policy is at issue, most people naturally assume so-called “childcare” benefits are targeted at economically disadvantaged single women. There’s the societal/cultural stereotypical vision of a young mother, who, through little fault of her own, finds herself with a baby or toddler who must be cared for at the expense (literally) of more amusing activities.
“The kid ain’t gonna raise him/herself”. One wonders how people in the old days used to get by with families solely tasked with bringing up the next generation. One branch of my family tree included a founding couple of the American version (starting in the 1840’s) having had twelve children, 11 of whom lived to adulthood. And the one who didn’t go on died during the Civil War and is buried in Arkansas, I believe, a thousand miles from his family’s roots.
None of these people needed Uncle Sam looking over their shoulders dangling a check to help them with expenses. I don’t know how my ancestors made ends meet, but here’s thinking there was a heavy dose of practical know-how mixed in with a lot of discipline and a “you don’t have a choice” attitude when it came to pitching in with the household/domestic family duties.
I bet many families, regardless of race, religion or ethnic origin have similar stories to tell about their background. This is the American Dream synopsized in a nutshell for most people. Leftist historians get bogged down in political or systemic diversions from the historic norm, but, at its core, families were responsible for raising their children, and they did so to the best of their respective abilities. Some were more comfortable than others, but we know they succeeded because the evidence is found in the person of everyone alive today.
This would be the ideal scenario.
Our contemporary culture muddles the age-old formula and provides an opening for government do-gooders (in a positive sense) to enter the picture. Social policy regarding abortion, contraception, marriage and tax incentives have further complicated the issue. No longer is it about a man and a woman and a child or children.
Liberals see it as a women’s rights issue, since biological females today are encouraged to pursue their educational interests and, beyond this, their career ambitions regardless of their views on family. I know it as well as anyone because my wife and I went through the same practical gyrations in dealing with who would look after the kids when the time arrived.
We didn’t have the government standing by itching to help out. There wasn’t a hand-up or a hand-out.
My biggest fear regarding this particular idea – and any similar proposal where taxpayer money is earmarked directly for individuals – is the federal program will invariably turn into a bloated fiasco wrought with fraud and susceptible to shirkers and hustlers whose sole motivation is to bilk the government out of as much cash as possible.
Individuals who formerly dismissed this possibility should have been enlightened by the recent revelations in Minnesota, California and other places where gigantic fraud schemes were brought to light involving immigrants or illegal aliens, etc. Fraud is real and the phenomenon is more widespread than just among immigrant populations. The COVID pay-people-not-to-work programs were prime examples.
As I often heard in law school, “highlighting everything highlights nothing,” meaning, if hypothetically speaking, we took this benevolent idea and made everyone eligible for it, there’d be plenty of abuse.
Need a visual? Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttiegieg and “husband” famously adopted a couple infants while he served in senile Joe Biden’s cabinet. Both men took paternity leave to care for the babies, though neither needed to recover physically from the exertion. “Paying” one or both of them on top of the already generous federal benefits they received amounted to a taxpayer-backed financial windfall for the same-sex couple.
Democrats would insist that the program cover the non-traditional scenarios as well as the Norman Rockwell-painting-type depictions of All Americanism. Do we want taxpayers to foot the bill for transgender “birthing parents” who produce children to stay-at-home?
And what about the millions of married partners who either choose not to have children or were physically unable to conceive and carry to term? Do we, through their taxes, then ask them to subsidize families with children? Or childless retired couples who chose to serve society in capacities other than the traditional route?
Given the multitude of potential problems associated with this concept, wouldn’t it be easiest – and smartest – to not do it at all?
Rather than task Congress with appropriating more money – which both parties would gladly partake – why not use Trump’s second term bully pulpit to advocate for stronger traditional families and encourage people to get more involved in their kids’ lives while perhaps providing modest tax incentives in addition to what already exists?
One recent proposal from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) crowd involved a measure to try and reduce “screen time” for America’s youth. This is social policy at its best and wouldn’t involve a huge commitment of resources to achieve, and might even be “bipartisan” if the right Republican proposed it.
Those inclined to be stay-at-home parents don’t need a government check to motivate themselves to do so. Judging from my own experience, weighing the considerable costs of daycare versus what can be saved in many areas helps balance things out.
Bringing government into the equation not only confuses the matter, it will ultimately cost taxpayers more because of the administrative burdens involved. And who would set the dividing line between who qualifies for a subsidy and who doesn’t?
In addition, is there such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution that would apply equally to families in areas with high costs of living and those who dwell in places with fewer demands? Would the rules shift with succeeding administrations? What if the power in Congress changes? Democrats love to play political football with tax incentives, and they support payouts only to their own backers.
Here’s guessing this pay at-home parents proposal probably won’t take up much space in this fall’s campaigns, but with the Trump people searching for subjects that might attract bipartisan support in his last two years, the idea could be brought to the front burner in the near future.
Formulate your opinions and be prepared for the next round in the Trump never-a-dull-moment presidency.
Jeff Rendall is editor and publisher of GolfintheUSA.com and has written about golf and politics for over a quarter of a century. A non-practicing attorney from California, he moved to the east coast three decades ago to pursue and combine his interests in all things American history and culture. Jeff has worked as an intern on Capitol Hill and in various capacities in grassroots organizing and conservative organizations and publications, including a nearly two-decade stint at ConservativeHQ.com. Column republishing or other inquiries: Rendall@msn.com .