Former Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), a staunch free-market advocate during his time in Congress, is pushing back hard on a reported Trump administration proposal to divert funds for low-income families to help support married households with a stay-at-home parent.
‘SOCIALISTIC EXPANSION’ OR PRO-FAMILY? GOP SPLITS OVER TRUMP’S PLAN TO PAY STAY-AT-HOME PARENTS
The idea, which has not been announced but is reportedly supported by Vice President JD Vance, a populist, has divided the Republican Party. During an interview with the Washington Examiner, Toomey emphasized that free-market Republicans are still pushing back against the populist wing of the party, and the outcome of the broader ideological debate is still not decided.
“There’s plenty of Republicans who think personal responsibility is actually a really important attribute for society to be healthy, and undermining is not a good idea,” he said. “So yes, I acknowledge there is this movement of left-wing economic collectivism that is appealing to some Republicans, but it’s a battle that is going to be fought, and we’ll see who wins within the Republican Party.”
At question is the $12 billion Child Care and Development Fund and possible rulemaking by the administration that would allow families with a stay-at-home parent $9,000 per child per year.
The proposal would apply to married couples whose incomes fall below a certain threshold, with one parent who works at least 35 hours per week. Unemployed single parents or cohabiting couples would not qualify, according to reports.
The change would be a big one, as the Child Care and Development Fund was created in the 1990s to help low-income parents stay in the workforce by helping to subsidize childcare.
Proponents argue that the change is fair because stay-at-home parents do provide childcare. Plus, they argue that it incentivizes a traditional family structure. But free-market critics view it as an expansion of the welfare system under the guise of conservatism.
“It certainly is an expansion of the welfare state and an expansion of the redistribution of wealth,” Toomey said. “It’s a very bad idea at a number of levels, like starting with undermining the principle of personal responsibility.”
“Is there anything in life for which an able-bodied adult is actually responsible, or is the federal government responsible for everything, including the cost of raising your children?” Toomey, the former ranking member of the Senate banking committee, added.
Toomey was a top free-market conservative in the Senate during his tenure from 2011 to 2023. He was one of the architects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, better known as the Trump tax cuts. He was a staunch supply-sider in a time when the GOP was moving in a more populist direction under Trump.
If approved, the change would mark the first time the government would pay parents to stay home and take care of their children. The idea has proven a polarizing one on the Right, with much debate on social media over the merits of the concept.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), for instance, offered support for the idea. Below her post on X were over 1,500 replies, both agreeing and disagreeing.
“Being a stay at home parent is a full time job and there should be resources and reward available to families that do this,” she wrote. “Raising the next generation is an INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT job.”
Another supporter is Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV), a close Trump ally, who introduced similar legislation last year. Moore told the Washington Examiner that money from the Child Care and Development Fund should be able to go toward parents who forgo work and stay home to care for their children.
“You know we want to keep everybody as a cog in the machine, and we’re willing to use taxpayer dollars to do that — why would we not make that available to a parent who stays at home?” Moore said.
One criticism of the expansion is that it could lead to the government spending more when the $40 trillion national debt is becoming a major problem.
The rulemaking change would not increase spending. Instead, it would only change eligibility for the funds already allocated to the program. But critics, such as Toomey, argue that Congress could end up increasing spending in light of the changes, further bloating the welfare system.
TRUMP’S PROMISED $5,000 ‘DIVIDEND’ CHECKS: WHAT TO KNOW
“They’re not going to be pushed out,” Toomey said of existing beneficiaries, “so it’s going to just increase the size of the program, and it becomes a one-way ratchet once you start sending out these checks.
“What member of Congress is going to stand up and say, ‘OK, I want to be the guy that cuts off these checks?’” he said.
Mabinty Quarshie, a White House reporter for the Washington Examiner, contributed to this story.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
