Sen. Mitt Romney unveiled a proposal this week that would dramatically expand the child tax credit, giving parents up to $4,200 per year for every child under the age of 6 and $3,000 annually for older children up to age 17.
Several conservatives have already come out swinging against the plan — all for good reasons. Sens. Marco Rubio and Mike Lee are concerned the plan would increase families’ dependence on the welfare state and compared it to a universal basic income program typically supported by the Left. The American Enterprise Institute’s Scott Winship is worried the program could incentivize poor social choices as well as good ones since the child allowance would be available to all parents, regardless of whether they’re married or employed. Other fiscally minded Republicans have rightly pointed out that the $66 billion plan would essentially serve as a net tax increase.
But philosophically, Romney’s plan makes an important point: Common-good conservatism must encourage and reward choices that support and promote the common good. That includes having children, and lots of them.
Theoretically, Romney’s plan would do just that, though its precise effects would need to be studied over time. For quite some time, women in the United States have been telling surveys and researchers that they want to have more children than they have. If the federal government helped provide the means for these parents to expand their families, perhaps the U.S. birthrate would increase over time.
Romney’s plan is also better than fiscal conservatives are willing to admit. It would combine several government benefits aimed to help children into a single child allowance, get rid of the SALT tax deduction of state and local taxes against federal tax liability, and completely eliminate other federal aid programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The net result would be a deficit-neutral program.
It’s difficult to imagine Democrats and Republicans agreeing to these terms, but there is no doubt children would benefit if they did. Many experts argue Romney’s plan would dramatically decrease child poverty. The Niskanen Center estimated “deep” child poverty would be cut in half, child poverty by one-third, and poverty in general by about 14%. That alone should cause lawmakers to consider Romney’s proposal thoughtfully.
However, Romney’s plan fails to see the entire picture clearly, as all government-designed programs do. Financial incentives would undoubtedly help families grow, but they cannot fix the many other factors discouraging family life in America today. The disconnect between today’s churches and their communities, a growing cultural hostility toward those who hold conservative values, and an ever-present feeling of social isolation have contributed to the dissolution of the family more than anything else. If parents feel alone and disconnected from their community, they will not want to help it grow.
Still, Romney’s proposal could be a step in the right direction. Conservatives must do something — at this point, anything — to reorient society toward values consonant with the common good. Rewarding growing families seems like a good place to start.
