The proposal, supported by the vice president, would expand the entitlement state to parents who aren’t currently receiving benefits.
Over the weekend, it was reported that the Trump administration — particularly Vice President Vance — is pushing a plan to open up a federal childcare subsidy program to stay-at-home parents who care for their own children. This proposal could offer around $9,000 per year to such parents whose income is low enough to qualify, in lieu of subsidies for paid childcare.
Proponents suggest that this measure would simply establish neutrality between parenting choices, putting stay-at-home mothers on equal footing with those who decide to work. Program recipients could quit their jobs and stay home with their kids without losing government benefits. The change would thus eliminate a welfare cliff for traditional families.
The problem here is that it’s not so simple. As the New York Times notes, “about 80 percent of the 870,000 families who currently get the childcare subsidies have single working parents, most of them mothers, according to Health Department data.” For the vast majority of those single mothers, working and paying for childcare is not really a choice. An extra $9,000 from the government won’t make up for the paycheck needed to support a family.
Meanwhile, the administration’s proposal would expand eligibility for the subsidy to millions of married mothers who already choose to stay home. Those families would get the same kind of deadweight spending that went to the 75 percent of EV tax-credit recipients who would have purchased an electric car with or without the subsidy. Millions of other well-off married parents could stop working and reduce their incomes enough to newly qualify for the benefit.
Defenders insist that the proposal would merely repurpose existing spending, not add any more. But it would be impossible to target the new subsidy at only those parents who would otherwise work. If spending truly wouldn’t grow to accommodate new recipients, the change would necessarily redirect benefits from poorer single parents.
Consider me doubtful that Congress, or the state governments that administer the childcare program, would allow that. Single mothers would almost certainly keep the childcare subsidies they depend on to earn a living. The effect of Vance’s preferred policy, therefore, would be exactly what it looks like: a brand new federal entitlement. Tellingly, the new subsidy would not be reserved for single mothers — who comprise four-fifths of current beneficiaries — which would be logical to ensure neutrality. Rather, it would be exclusively for married couples, or those currently receiving very few benefits.
There’s a fair argument that current government benefits favor working parents by subsidizing childcare. But the number of families whom that incentive affects is very small: married couples with incomes roughly as low as that of single parents. No other married parents receive any childcare benefits to begin with. Vance would put them on welfare for the first time. The obvious yet unstated objective is to pay middle-class working mothers to leave their jobs.
The vice president and his allies are doing a motte-and-bailey routine. Among themselves, they openly discuss using state power and taxpayer money to privilege traditional ways of life. Then, when scrutinized by conservatives, they say they are just shifting current spending around. But no, this is a Republican administration seeking to expand the entitlement state so it can influence social outcomes.