supportive industrial policies to help American workers thrive in their communities. American Compass says it exists “to restore an eco-
nomic consensus that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry to the nation’s liberty and prosperity.” For the Republican Party, which now represents America’s working and middle classes, these policies make a lot of sense. As the 2024 election approaches, advocates are hoping
to make these policies part of the debate. American Compass’ plan — the family income supple-
mental credit (FISC) — calls for providing a family ben- efit of $800 per month to pregnant women beginning in the fifth month of pregnancy, $400 per month from birth until the child’s sixth birthday, and then $250 per month until the child’s 18th birthday, for each child. This would replace the current child tax credit and the
earned income tax credit, where relevant. In addition to being the working-class party, “Repub-
licans have done a good job being the party of parents, when it comes to critical race theory and curricula,” says Patrick Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who strongly advocates the plan. “We have to provide a pro-parent agenda when it
comes to pocketbook issues, as well as values,” he says. American Compass has done extensive polling, and
Cass says that the real split on what people want from such a policy runs down class lines. American Compass’ policy is based on the premise
that children do much better in a two-parent household, and therefore that is what should be supported. Cass, and all the other advocates we spoke with, are
adamant about tying subsidies to work — at least one par- ent needs to be in the workforce. In a single-parent family, that parent must earn a
certain minimum salary with part-time work. Parents on welfare are not included in the subsidy. They will con- tinue to receive temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) benefits until they find work. Republicans fear that removing the work requirement
will create bad incentives that will cause some families to plunge back into poverty, absent paid work. The FISC phases out starting at a joint income of $200,000. In other versions of this policy, including those offered in recent legislation by Republicans Rom- ney and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, requirements vary for how much money a family has to earn and at what income subsidies cease. But they both retain a work requirement. Realistically, any actual policy would be subject to negotiation on these factors with Democrats, who uni- formly prefer no work requirements. Democrats are especially keen on subsidies for daycare.
Government Social Policies ‘Never End Well’
C
onservative opponents feel that a family subsidy from the federal government is a terrible idea.
Scott Hodge, president emeritus of the Tax Foundation in
Washington, D.C., and an original developer of the child tax credit at The Heritage Foundation in the 1990s, says: “I find it creepy, this literally cradle-to-grave conservative nanny state proposal.” He is especially offended at the idea that pregnant women
would have to register with Social Security in their fifth month to receive benefits. Hodge sees two main problems with this sort of plan. First, people will leave the workforce at both ends: working-
class women to be full-time parents, and professional women in two-income families because of the inevitable increased taxes on their labor. That’s a problem in a tight labor market. Second, the policy will raise the numbers of families who
don’t pay federal taxes, which he believes impedes rational self- governance. “Conservatives should be extremely careful about using
government for their social policies. It never ends well,” Hodge warns. Roger Severino of The Heritage Foundation sees supporting
two-parent, working families as a moral imperative. “The American economy should be in service to the American family, and not the other way around,” he states. This policy is new for Heritage, and the details have not been fully formulated. But, he says, “We need family tax policy to support family formation: getting married, having kids — in that order. It is an existential risk to American society if we don’t fix this.” An existential risk? “Thirty percent of American teenage
girls are contemplating suicide. That has a lot to do with the breakdown of the American family. We need active efforts to restore it,” he responds. Carrie Lukas, president of the conservative advocacy
organization Independent Women’s Forum, which supports many pro-family policies, including school choice, could not be more opposed to the subsidies. “Being conservative means that government should have
a limited role. Believing that government should help families with basic survival is no different than European socialism,” she tells Newsmax. Given the realities of the U.S. budget, “it’s insane to think
about creating a new entitlement.” Lukas, who has five children, noted that “there is danger in
having people think that government will pay for their kids. “It sets up terrible expectations that have nothing to do with
liberty or independence.” It is possible to argue about the great value of aiding
families. But it is not possible to argue that it fits inside a liberty agenda. Lukas notes that whatever benefits Republicans provide — in
cash, leave, or daycare subsidies — Democrats will outbid them. She cites the Democrat fondness for the general financial
support known as universal basic income (UBI). “If Republicans make the solution payments, we’re providing an echo, not a choice.” — L.S.
APRIL 2023 | NEWSMAX 31
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
