Let’s build up American families | WORLD
Logo
Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Let’s build up American families

A White House proposal to compensate stay-at-home parents is worth pursuing


SDI Productions / E+ via Getty Images

Let’s build up American families
You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get started for as low as $3.99 per month.

Current WORLD subscribers can log in to access content. Just go to "SIGN IN" at the top right.

LET'S GO

Already a member? Sign in.

Loading the Audio Player...

I used to believe, as many conservatives still do, that our government is not in the business of subsidizing families to have kids. But after five children, including one born profoundly disabled, I’ve changed my tune. Apparently, so has the White House. The Trump administration recently unveiled plans to support married, stay-at-home parents by expanding existing Child Care Development Fund benefits that currently support working parents.

Americans already understand that disabled and aging citizens need financial support from Medicaid and Social Security. Can programs like these provide a broader template to transform how we think about care, dependence, compensation, and the essential work of parenting? I think so.

When you look at my son David, who is deaf, blind, non-verbal, non-mobile, and relies on a G-tube for all of his nutrition, it’s not hard to see that caring for him requires significant time, resources, attention, nurture, and financial means. The compensation I receive caring for my son recognizes that David’s needs exceed typical parenting responsibilities. Without my constant care and attention, David would reside in a pediatric nursing facility, costing the state much more than community placement with a parent as a paid caregiver.

The care that my husband and I provide for David is not temporary. He will never grow up. He will never leave the safety and security of our home, never get his first job, driver’s license, or go to college. He will never go on a date, or make plans to get married one day. I will never have the distinct pleasure of seeing him become a father.

But the labor of parenting our other four children is temporary. After decades of care and attention from me and my husband, the hope is that our children will become productive and active citizens. Maybe they will serve in the military, protecting our country, or be the attorney helping you craft your will. One of my kids might fix your car, or install your HVAC, or be the first responder who arrives at the scene during your crisis.

My children will one day make the income that is taxed for your benefit. My children will one day make the dollar that you draw.

True conservatism means preserving what’s good about our country for future generations.

Sending direct cash payments into Americans’ pockets is nothing new. Funded through generations of payroll tax, Social Security checks arrive monthly for nearly every elderly citizen. It’s true that some elderly rely entirely on Social Security in their old age. But it’s certainly recommended that folks act in ways that are financially prudent, save for retirement, and live within their means with an eye towards the future. Why can’t that same logic be applied towards providing direct payments to families with children under 18?

Parents—mostly moms—who exit the workforce pay dearly to be home with their kids. Married, two-parent families living on one income aren’t eligible for many of the benefits that two working parents or single parents can access.

Compensating stay-at-home parents is far from an anti-conservative stance. True conservatism means preserving what’s good about our country for future generations—ensuring we honorably steward the legacy of those who have come before us for those who come after. Building up American families through a proposition like the White House unveiled is doing just that.

Welcoming children is a privilege and burden meant to be shared by our neighbors, like the responsibility of providing for elderly and disabled people. Children are our collective future. How we treat them, and the parents raising them, has effects that last for generations.

When my kids are asked someday if they would like to have children, perhaps they will have witnessed that the work of parenting is indeed valuable and even compensated. That new life is viewed as essential to our long-term flourishing as a nation. That their neighbors have a vested interest in seeing them thrive, shown clearly in their schools, playgrounds, parks, and more. They could see that their parents even get money in their pocket that will be used towards their benefit.

As Americans, we can invest in future children by investing in today’s parents. Let’s start now, while we still have time. Let’s give this plan serious consideration.


Rachel Roth Aldhizer

Rachel writes on culture, politics, and family life. Her reporting and opinion has appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and elsewhere. Rachel’s commentary has been featured on NPR, MSNBC, and other national outlets. She is a Visiting Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a recent recipient of the Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship.


Read the Latest from WORLD Opinions

Ericka Andersen | Writer turns linguistic and ideological cartwheels to make the case that a woman can be “a little bit pregnant”

David Closson | Safeguards fall away as assisted suicide expands in Australia and Canada

Eric Patterson | Marx-inspired candidates say some radical things about faith, but they don’t say much about protecting fundamental liberties

Ray Hacke | A male cross country runner, his female teammates, and the need for truth and justice on Nov. 3

COMMENT BELOW

Please wait while we load the latest comments...

Comments