But other obvious incentives of this proposal run counter to its intent. The rule would encourage married mothers to stay home with their children rather than work. But as currently written, it would discourage remote or part-time work while the family has a grandparent or other family member caring for their children — something completely compatible and desirable within the natural family structure. The proposal would potentially encourage each nuclear family to move farther away from extended relatives that served as caretakers, such as uncles, aunts, and grandparents, since it is only the mother who can take care of children to receive funding.

Finally, the proposed rule would create a new class of fraud, similar to daycare center fraud or hospice care fraud, where no children or elderly are actually at these subsidized facilities, families would be encouraged to lie to the government and claim one parent stays home when in reality they work off the books. Will Uncle Sam send a government agent to each home? Like they do for the many fewer childcare centers that have robbed taxpayers of millions?

But the most important unintended effect of this regulatory change would be seen in the long run: Republican states could become a significant interest group pushing to expand the CCDBG eligibility and funding to give more money to parents directly in the form of cash transfers. 

The proposed rule is well-intentioned; the government should encourage marriage and fertility, especially given the demographic crisis. But it should do so effectively.

When the now-extinct Aid to Families with Dependent Children program was created as part of the New Deal during the Great Depression, no one ever intended for it to encourage single motherhood or out-of-wedlock births. The intent was to help low-income mothers and to ensure children weren’t raised in extreme poverty. But the intent of political leaders did not matter: the AFDC kept expanding in eligibility through new laws and regulations, and Congress allocated more and more funding. Slowly, welfare broke millions of families, cost trillions in debt, and sank recipients into permanent poverty rather than lifting them up from it. 

Thirty years ago, Republicans learned the lesson and ended the catastrophic AFDC when Congress passed the 1996 welfare reform championed by then Speaker Newt Gingrich. That reform led to an increase in employment among unmarried single mothers of 18 percentage points, and ever since, the share of children living with two married parents stopped declining while pregnancies among unmarried women began to fall. There is also some evidence that the 1996 welfare reform increased marriage rates among welfare recipients by ending marriage penalties.

We can apply the lessons from the 1996 reform today by entirely ending childcare subsidies that have been corrupted and instead expanding the child tax credit so as to give parents money directly. Congress could even enhance the child tax credit only for married couples to encourage marriage. All of this can be done through reconciliation in the budget process without a single Democratic legislator.

HEAD START HOLDING BACK CHILDREN

To encourage marriage and fertility, we should be wary of creating a new class of government dependents and interested parties in expanding government and a new way to game another government program. The intentions of a policy are meaningless; it is its effects that matter.

Daniel Di Martino is an economist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute.