Conservativism indicates a desire to conserve something, protecting it from erosion, and passing it down to the next generation. At least since the 1980s conservatism in America has been defined by foreign policy internationalists, social conservatives and economic libertarians. However, as a recent webinar from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) showed, this alliance may be coming apart.
The webinar “Should conservatives favor child allowances?” included AEI President Robert Doar as well as AEI Fellows Scott Winship, Bradford Wilcox, Angela Rachidi, Lyman Stone, Matt Weidinger and Tim Carnet.
Senator Mitt Romney’s (R-UT) Family Security Act is a controversial new bill that would overhaul the current social safety net in favor of increased aid to families with children. Its most salient feature is a monthly $350 check ($4,200/year) for children 5 and under and $250 for children ages 6-17 ($3,000/year), capped at 5 kids. Without increasing spending, it would be paid for by reforms including eliminating the State and Local Tax Deduction (SALT) and Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF).
The most obviously striking part of the webinar was the different ways in which the different interlocutors used the word ‘conservative.’ At the opening of the webinar Lyman, who defended the Romney plan, addressed this difference:
“There are economic conservatives and social conservatives, in very broad brush terms, and the priorities of these groups of conservatives are likely to be different in many areas. You might have some conservatives who are interested in efficient markets and limited government and other conservatives whose main priorities are the traditional family or religious liberty… These things often are going to play nicely together… but there are times where there are fissures and I would argue that the child allowance is one of these.”
Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist, also said that while conservatives have done a great job “talking the talk” about ‘family values’ but haven’t “walked the walk.” Citing a recent study, he said that the number one reason reported by working and middle class Americans for not having children was that it is too expensive. The United States has also been below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman since 2009 and has only been decreasing to 1.65 in 2020. Similarly, the marriage rate reached an all-time low in 2019 at 33.2%.
The arguments against the bill revolved around the kinds of incentives and disincentives the Romney plan would give to parents, single and married, of children. The current complex system of social security is designed to benefit single parents with jobs more than anyone. As a result, single mothers are financially pressured to stay working and unmarried.
By giving a no-strings-attached monthly allowance to parents with children some of the AEI Fellows argued mothers would feel less pressure to return to work, thus depressing their workforce participation. Angela Rachidi noted that an alternative to the Romney plan could be an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that isn’t extended to any non-working families.
Matt Weidinger also argued that the Romney plan isn’t conservative because it could eventually lead to a Universal Basic Income and that it would enable too many people to go without working. All of the opponents of the Romney bill were eager to bring up the problems of welfare prior to the Clinton administration’s reforms in the 1990s. The specter of thousands of families living off of government doles was hard to escape.
Against this fear, Lyman argued that work done by homemakers, who would benefit most from Romney’s plan, is real work whose social benefit we have taken for granted. Without a significant number of people able to focus on raising children and fostering community our civil institutions fall apart. That our economy apparently is no longer able to sustain community building indicates radical changes may be necessary. If families aren’t forming then our nation will not exist for future generations, full stop.
Tim Carney also pointed out the sad reality that many of those without children are working class people who want kids but can’t afford them. The phenomenon of declining birth rates isn’t a symptom of youths being indoctrinated at liberal arts schools with anti-natalist sentiment. People want to have kids, the economy just can’t support them. Even abortion rates decline with child credits, helping women who think they’re too poor to give birth.
Is it conservative to pay mothers so they can stay home with their kids instead of working and hiring a babysitter? Is it conservative to enable some people to escape labor if it means increasing marriage and fertility rates for the whole nation? Should the state play a role in fostering the development of community? These are all questions Romney’s plan necessitates answers for.
Comment by Dan W on March 5, 2021 at 5:40 pm
Who decided it was a bad idea to grow up before you start a family?
A very bad idea is paying teenagers to have children.
Comment by Philip J. Brooks on March 5, 2021 at 9:07 pm
Actually Dan W. teen pregnancy rates are at all time low right now.
Comment by Stan Jefferson on March 6, 2021 at 7:03 pm
The wealthiest nation in the world now wants to subsidize kids so that mom can stay home. Odd, that’s the nation I grew up in about 60 years ago–except without the subsidies.
And then suppose mom has the kids, gets the money and keeps on working, either legitimately or off the books? “Oh, well…”
The problem is that now mom is expected to be a breadwinner along with dad in order to “make ends meet”. Why don’t we try something really radical, like run our households on one budgeted income, do without some of the the non-necessities we think are so necessary (big house, two or three expensive cars, going out each week to restaurants, etc., etc.) and truly put the family first.
We don’t need subsidies. We need discipline.
Comment by DAvid on March 7, 2021 at 6:26 am
Stan: Sixty years ago, a man could earn enough to support a family on his own. With the disappearance of well paid manufacturing jobs and the now half century stagnation or decline of real wages, this is no longer the case. On top of this, there is now the need to college educate children that was not so much the case prior to WWII. Europe has promoted tuition-free state universities, but these are uncommon in the US. Those who had to struggle to educate a child are not pleased to see others get this benefit for free. This is a typical American attitude towards attempts to raise conditions in society. “I had to walk 10 miles to school in the snow” is heard in one form or another far too frequently. Meanwhile, the US slips lower and lower on the standard of living list.
Comment by Dan W on March 7, 2021 at 9:49 am
Stan, I agree 100%.
David, 60 years ago it was common for two parents and 4-5 children to share a 3 bedroom house. If you had a washing machine, you probably dried your clothes outside on a clothesline. One black and white T.V. received three channels. Central heat and a/c was for rich folks. My elementary school in Georgia did not have air conditioning – and it was blazing hot in September. Long distance telephone calls were expensive, and for special occasions. Most families couldn’t afford air travel for leisure trips. 21st century families could live off one income if they were willing to be frugal.
Comment by David on March 7, 2021 at 8:38 pm
Dan: I am old enough to remember what you mention, however, families I knew had only 2 or rarely 3 children. Being in the north, everyone had central heating, but not AC—you went to the movies or department stores for that. Trips by plane were a great rarity. Median family income may be higher today than in 1960, but this may be due to having two income earners.
Comment by betsy on March 8, 2021 at 6:12 pm
I don’t know what needs to give, but I do not like the idea of the government financially supporting anybody. Maybe we need to rethink our priorities.
If people cannot afford children to begin with, exactly who is going to be paying the taxes so that the government can then afford to turn around and pay people to have children? Sounds like a vicious cycle to me. The government is already in trillions of dollars in debt. And the answer is not to print more money.
I already knew America was in trouble and then I read this insanity!!!!!!!!!!!!