The Disappearing Differences Between Republicans and Democrats on Federal Family Spending
Many conservatives no longer appear to care much for fiscal conservatism.

For a few years, I have sounded the alarm that a growing wave of conservatives are working to make Republicans indistinguishable from Democrats on social spending. Some say that to win elections, Republicans need to pay more attention to families—by which they mean dole out ever more money to families like the Democrats do. Exhibit A for this development is the newly reintroduced New Parents Act.
The Act was recently reintroduced by Sens. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) and Mitt Romney (R–Utah). It's a massive handout to parents, pretty much regardless of income level. If adopted, it would significantly expand the role of the federal government as it further swells the deficit and national debt.
The proposal has many parts, but two illustrate my point best.
First, it would create a federal paid leave program that would allow new parents to advance themselves up to three months of parental-leave benefits today by drawing funds from their Social Security retirement benefits. This scheme is based on misconceptions that are hard to explain away. Romney and Rubio ignore the reality that the private sector, not the federal government, is the best provider of paid leave.
In fact, a majority of women today are paid during their leaves by their employers through various and flexible arrangements and programs. A government program would be unlikely to solve the issue of most concern to those workers who still do not have leave. That's in part because they work with a very small business, are self-employed or are temporary and/or part-time workers. By forcing the matter with all employers—no matter who eventually picks up the tab—it could cost this vulnerable group of women jobs and promotions, as we have seen in many countries with national paid leave programs.
It is amazing that the senators would even consider using Social Security, a program that is already insolvent, to provide paid leave, and that they believe the advanced benefits will be repaid decades down the road. We can't tie the hands of future Congresses, and it's likely that future politicians will cave to the pressure to forgive these debts when they come due. When that happens, the cost to Social Security will become enormous.
Second is an extended child tax credit that goes to most families, even rich ones. The cost would be extreme. According to the plan, "Parents would receive a credit of up to $3,500 per child, and $4,500 per child for children under the age of 6." Imagine an enormous credit, fully refundable, with no work or marriage requirements. A family with four kids, for instance, wouldn't start paying taxes until they make over $118,000. Over time, the expanded CTC amounts to $69,000 per child. If you're concerned that this boondoggle might disincentivize work and marriage, you would be correct, as shown by the work of American Enterprise Institute economist Scott Winship.
The budgetary cost is astronomical, too. A friend of mine has six kids between the ages of 4 and 13. Both she and her husband work and are comfortable enough to have taken on the responsibility—and joy—of a large family. But as she recently told me, under the Rubio-Romney regime, "that would mean other people would have to pay $414,000 in taxes to support the family that I chose to have." The Act's elimination of the state and local tax deduction would do very little to recoup the cost.
It is unclear if some version of these handouts will be enacted. Democrats support the extended child tax credit, but they don't support using Social Security to deliver paid leave. (They prefer an even more expansive and distortive program, like the FAMILY Act.) However, the risks are high precisely because underneath each policy is an identical support for using the government to shell out money to every family, even if the evidence says it will backfire.
Between some conservatives' and Republicans' push for federal family subsidies and their newfound embrace for bailouts and industrial policy, the difference between the right and the left on economic issues is narrowing significantly. If many more of them cave into the pressure from their more radical peers to reject economic liberalism altogether, the political transformation will be complete.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
BOAF SIDEZ!!!!
right?
right?
Right.
You're finally starting to think.
What the hell. Sarcasmic's supposed to be on my team. I spent weeks grooming him.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even (vst-24) realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay241.blogspot.com
Any argument that criticizes both sides is always wrong because the other side is always worse.
When one side is a pickpocket and the other is an army of fanatical génocidaires, yes.
It's like an argument over which turd is firmer.
"Pickpockets and génocidaires, same shit" - t. sarcasmic
Now I look up génocidaire.
Your troll buddies will like that one.
"Hey I slipped this one in before sarc looked it up! Look how stupid he is! I'm so smart! We can quote this one for weeks!"
Right.
You're finally starting to think.
Wait... You didn't know what génocidaire meant?
Seems to be the case here.
Reason's predictable.
Not at all. Republicans always spend more and always on stupider shit.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1557801778187538432?t=ff717C1GfwN2zI6jY9KYcg&s=19
JUST NOW: ABC guest blames FBI raid anger on Neo-Nazis because Merrick Garland is Jewish
[Video]
Trump is the first US president in American history to have Jewish immediate family members, but somehow his supporters are antisemitic.
They really just fling any old shit hoping that it sticks.
Talk about drawing a conclusion from things that have nothing to do with each other.
That takes talent that I don't have.
ABC guest blames FBI raid anger on Neo-Nazis because Merrick Garland is Jewish...
first US president in American history to have Jewish immediate family members, but somehow his supporters are antisemitic.
Two seconds of thought does indeed seem to be a superpower you're lacking.
"That takes talent that I don't have."
Why be so specific?
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1557800191700393984?t=bmzP8eE1NKiTDGqRgf6tug&s=19
NEW - Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum proposes to automate censorship of "hate speech" and "disinformation" with AI fed by "subject matter experts."
[Link]
Forget "1984" and a "Brave New World". These guys are trying to emulate bad Bond villains.
Someone's seen Klaus' wardrobe
What ever happened to the Nazis having great uniforms?
They ARE bad Bond villains.
"Subject matter experts" like Nikole Hannah-Jones?
Right after the Democrats spent $750 billion on "Inflation Reduction" without 1 single GOP vote.
BoTh SiDeS!
Crazy lady can't find a single difference even if the DNC machine is trumpeting it all over their propaganda organs.
Not one single Republican in the Senate voted for Biden's Inflation Creation Act.
There are differences now and then.
But didn't they vote for Trump and his omnibus act - you know the one that Trump inferred, that '...under penalty of death...' he would never sign such a bill? What differences?
Wow. Seriously Wow. No doubt the Republicans suck on spending, but after watching the last 1.5 years of Democrats record breaking, reckless spending, the best argument that Reason Editors can make is: both sides?
GOP politicians are in constant danger of falling into a "two can play at this game" mentality on bribes, er, social spending to voters, and their feet do need to be held to the fire, but one sometimes gets the impression that it is less the spending than just a chance to criticize the GOP that motivates these articles.
Why on earth would anyone want to curtail spending when it just gives the other side move room to increase even more spending the next time they're in the drivers' seat? Free shit=votes.
Remember when Reagan was accused of breaking the bank so the Dems wouldn't have any room to increase spending? That eventually led to welfare reform from Clinton. Unfortunately, in the long run, that led to the currently held belief that deficits don't even matter at all - so let the good times roll. It's true - deficits don't matter....right up until they do.
When one party is offering largesse from the treasury, it's a fools errand to be the guy promising to give you nothing.
It's so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, especially since this has been a criticism of democracy since it's inception over 2000 years ago.
Exactly. There is no political incentive for a politician to say "no."
Many conservatives no longer appear to care much for fiscal conservatism.
And to think they used to do a credible job of appearing to care about fiscal conservatism. Of course, a quick glance at the year-over-year trajectory of the federal budget would make anybody with two brain cells realize it was just for show, the GOP has never actually cared for fiscal conservatism.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/our-democracy-grave-danger-tulsi-gabbard-warns-democrats-are-coming-after-middle-class
"A family with four kids, for instance, wouldn't start paying taxes until they make over $118,000."
Assuming that at least one member of the family worked, they would pay payroll taxes; just not income taxes. I can see the argument that we can't afford this given our already-sizable deficits. But if we're going to cut taxes, we should try to do so for as many people as possible. Past GOP tax cuts have gone disproportionately to a minority of high-income families. Changing that would be a step forward for Republicans.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1557775959217950725?t=2nrV1FQhU33sQQfSLeV1rw&s=19
Boston Children’s Hospital (@BostonChildrens) is now offering “gender affirming hysterectomies” for young girls
[Link]
beats abortion to the punch
Just in case someone thinks this is the fever dream of a Fox News host.
ALL REVERSIBLE!
>>Sens. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) and Mitt Romney (R–Utah).
stalwart fiscal conservatives lol.
Tax Credits are not spending, it allows taxpayers to keep their own money.
Advancing yourself SS benefits is also a praiseworthy idea, in fact, someone here has already praised it (can’t remember who). It also is not receiving other peoples money.
Reason Both Sides Derangement gets really old
Not true with 'refundable' tax credits. A regular tax credit is a deduction to an existing tax liability. If by chance, the credit was greater than or equal to tax liability, no taxes would be owed that year. With 'refundable' credits, if this were the case, not only would you owe no tax, but you would also be eligible to receive any remaining credit as a payment from government. I won't call it a refund since it exceeds your actual tax liability. It's no longer "their own money". It's a redistribution of other people's money. For example, if you owe $3000 in taxes, but have 3 children, you qualify for $10,500 credit (assuming all over age 6). Uncle Sugar sends you a check for $7,500. NOT your money!
In another article I read on this subject, Romney supposedly made the argument that worrying about financial ability to support children shouldn't be an impediment to deciding whether or not to have them. Talk about moral hazard. In this day and age where politicians and so many others seem ready to eliminate the concept of responsibility and obligation this just adds another weapon, and an especially egregious one, to their arsenal.
The G.O. Pee and Dems HAVE to converge on the same thing because they seek to brainwash, kidnap and mutilate the same children. Since the Anschluss, we're stuck with another Klannish TEA party to serve as a voteless jeering squad. Reaction to the Black guy--elected President after the G.O.Prohibitionist asset-forfeiture Crash--has morphed into angry girl-bulliers tasked with reinstating Orange Hitler. Gone are the non-anarchist candidates people would trust with leveraged spoiler vote clout.
Can we get a "Libertariantranslator" translator?
No thsnks
We complain all day about spending, but there is no meaningful poltical capital to be gained from not spending.
The politician who demands people and private companies shoulder the responsibility for child care and paid leave will lose 97 times out of 100 to a politician offering to have the government pay for it all.
That's not a politician problem, that's a societal problem.
Well, libertarians still haven't resolved one of their most pressing contradictions. How do you account for the existence of children?
They do not "deserve" their station in life, rich or poor, because they're children who make no relevant choices in the matter.
So without any public support, they're at the mercy of the wealth and parenting skills of their parents. Then libertarians go on to blame disparate social outcomes on individual free choice.
Is social darwinism all you have to offer?
Republican's spend more because the Democrats go along with them, never having seen a dollar they didn't want to spend.
Democrats spend less because Republicans block much of their spending.
Both sides are insane on spending. The $5 trillion dollar covid relief bill, every dollar printed money proves that. It is why I switched from being a Democrat to a libertarian (years ago) It is why I will never be a Republican.
Yet the Democrats are so repressive, so unconstitutional, so bent on targeting political opponents, so insane on spending so that, so focused on developing a one party dictator ship and refusing to enforce current US law like immigration, that I will vote a straight Republican ticket for the first time in my life.