Conservatives split over Trump plan to pay stay-at-home parents

A new proposal from the White House to expand childcare subsidies to cover stay-at-home parents is dividing conservatives. 

The idea is not a new one. The rule change the administration is pushing forward that would make married stay-at-home parents eligible for federal funding has been bandied about by think tank scholars and Republicans in Congress.

It’s part of a larger pro-natalist, pro-marriage platform that Vice President Vance has looked to make a priority for the Trump administration. 

Many conservatives are backing it.

Terry Schilling, president of American Principles Project, a conservative organization focused on social issues, said the Vance wing of the party is right to focus on helping parents stay at home. 

“These stay-at-home moms work very, very hard for very little recognition, and they don’t really ask for much,” Schilling said. “And what I think this program has the potential to do is help a lot of these moms see that the money that they put towards childcare and the time they spend away from their children really isn’t worth it in the grand scheme of things, in many cases.”

Others aren’t so sure.

“I’m all for people having children. I’m also all in favor of those that choose not to have children, not having children,” said Joel Griffith of Advancing American Freedom, a think tank founded by former Vice President Mike Pence.

“I don’t believe that we should be using the tax code to sway people’s decisions one way or the other, to penalize people for having more children, or to incentivize people to have more children. That is not the purpose of the tax code,” he said.

The debate falls along familiar lines: the populist “new right” that doesn’t mind government intervention to bring about social and cultural change, and the more “establishment” Republican view which favors limited government that leaves such choices up to individual families. 

Debate between those sides about the childcare proposal — which blew up online over the weekend — is a microcosm of the coming policy fight over what it means to be conservative, some say. 

“Conservatism was sort of carrying on a tradition of [former President] Ronald Reagan for a long time, even into, you know, almost 30 years after he left office, and [President] Trump came in and blew up that consensus of what conservatism meant. How should we be, you know, what should we think about trade? What should we think about the government’s role in our lives? What should we think about reforming entitlements and deficits and all of that?” said Tim Carney, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 

“I think this particular policy provides a good time to hash out some bigger questions,” he added.

The White House proposal, as drafted, would essentially expand an existing program designed to provide federal funds for single parents to pay for childcare........

© The Hill