{"id":15757,"date":"2024-01-31T08:40:00","date_gmt":"2024-01-31T13:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americancompass.org\/?p=15757"},"modified":"2024-01-31T08:40:02","modified_gmt":"2024-01-31T13:40:02","slug":"passing-a-test-on-family-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americancompass.org\/passing-a-test-on-family-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Passing a Test on Family Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The thing you have to understand about\u00a0the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/em>\u2019s last stand<\/a>\u00a0against the Smith-Wyden tax deal and its Child Tax Credit expansion is that their position has nothing to do with the details of the deal. That\u2019s why the arguments are\u00a0so bad<\/a>, and often\u00a0border on bizarre<\/a>. (See:\u00a0Debunking Myths About the Tax Deal<\/a>.) They would have opposed\u00a0anything<\/em>\u00a0that provides more support to working families, and now they\u2019re working backward to find a way to block this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/em>\u00a0in 2017,\u00a0editorializing against<\/a>\u00a0the successful effort by Senators Rubio and Lee to expand the Child Tax Credit in the\u00a0Tax Cuts and Jobs Act<\/em>. The\u00a0Journal<\/em>\u2019s editorial board called the Child Tax Credit \u201ca special favor for taxpayers.\u201d They worried it \u201cfavor[s] one kind of behavior (having children) over another\u201d and compared it to a subsidy for buying a Tesla. They complained it wasn\u2019t pro-growth and suggested a bigger corporate tax cut instead. Even back then, they were warning without evidence or even analysis that it \u201cdiscourages work.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Note also that back then the\u00a0Journal<\/em>\u00a0was already predicting a slippery slope to a \u201cfully refundable\u201d credit for families that don\u2019t work, a prediction that has since been empirically refuted. Democrats did slide down the slope for a year in 2021, and got firmly rebuked. The public\u00a0didn\u2019t like it<\/a>\u00a0and Congress refused to extend it. Unlike the\u00a0Journal<\/em>, the American people can tell the difference between support for working families and unconditional cash payments. The question now is, can conservatives?<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is a pivotal moment for the conservative movement, which has finally woken up to the reality that\u00a0decades of WSJ-style economic policy have been a disaster<\/a>\u00a0for working families and thus a disaster for America. Senators Romney, Daines, and Burr developed an innovative\u00a0Family Security Act<\/a><\/em>. Senator Hawley has proposed the\u00a0Parent Tax Credit<\/a><\/em>. Senators Rubio and Lee have\u00a0proposed<\/a>\u00a0a dramatic expansion of the Child Tax Credit. President Trump has\u00a0proposed<\/a>\u00a0a baby bonus. These proposals all have their strengths and weaknesses, but they have in common two principles that must be fundamental to conservative policy going forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First: Family is good, and public policy must not be neutral on the question of having and raising children. A child is not the same as a Tesla. There is no parallel between a child and a pet, as one\u00a0Journal<\/em>\u00a0editor tried to imply in an especially obtuse column (\u201cThe IRS shouldn\u2019t favor Child Moms over Dog Moms<\/a>\u201d).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second: Supporting family means supporting working families. Recall that in all the talk of globalization\u2019s wonders, economists would often murmur that of course there would be losers but the winners could compensate them. Well, congratulations, we\u2019ve now gone through decades of making it harder for the typical worker to support a family. In the 1980s, 40 weeks of the median male income could provide middle-class security for a family of four. Now it takes 62 weeks<\/a>, which is a problem, there being 52 weeks in a year. And yet, at the first sign of trying to follow through for those who find themselves working hard but falling behind, the Wall Street Journal<\/em> screams \u201chand out\u201d and \u201credistribution.\u201d Methinks they never had any intention of helping anyone. Shame on any conservative who goes along with this bait-and-switch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n