{"id":8943,"date":"2022-09-25T14:34:49","date_gmt":"2022-09-25T14:34:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=8943"},"modified":"2022-09-25T14:34:49","modified_gmt":"2022-09-25T14:34:49","slug":"mitt-romneys-family-plan-isnt-great-but-it-may-be-better-than-the-alternatives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=8943","title":{"rendered":"Mitt Romney’s Family Plan Isn’t Great, but It May Be Better Than the Alternatives"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“According to Sen. Mitt Romney (R\u2013Utah), America’s current welfare policies have two major flaws: They penalize recipients who get married by reducing the benefits they’re eligible for, and they don’t do enough to help couples afford to have more kids.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“There’s a growing gap between the number of children people say they want to have and the number they actually decide to have,” he said during an event yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, D.C. “Just to be clear here, I don’t think the goal of policy should be to try to create incentives to have people have more children than they want, but instead should find a way to bridge the gap between what people would like to add to their family and what they’re able to afford.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attempting to address these issues, Romney in June released the Family Security Act 2.0<\/a>, a proposal to send parents monthly checks of between $250 and $700 per child, beginning midway through a pregnancy. A household would need to have earned at least $10,000 the previous year to be eligible for the full benefit, a provision meant to keep families from dropping out of the work force entirely. The program would be “paid for” by reducing or eliminating various existing income tax breaks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s hard to fault efforts to resolve distortions introduced by previous federal policy, including the whoopsie-daisy of incentivizing low-income couples to remain unmarried. The idea that it’s the government’s job to help people have more kids rests on a more debatable assumption\u2014namely, that parents should not have to shoulder the full cost of raising future members of society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regardless of whether you buy that “positive externalities” argument, the federal government does spend billions each year on family programs. Given that these efforts are not likely to go away (however much libertarian purists might wish otherwise), it’s worth considering whether Romney’s proposal represents at least an incremental improvement over the status quo.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Mitt Romney’s Family Plan Isn’t Great, but It May Be Better Than the Alternatives<\/a><\/blockquote>