Authors:
Rachel Greszler, Senior Research Fellow;
John Shelton, Vice President of Policy;
Joel Griffith, Senior Fellow
Plymouth Institute for Free Enterprise
Topline
Vice President Vance is proposing a poorly designed expansion of the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) benefit to include stay-at-home parents (currently, only working single parents and dual-income households are eligible).
Conservatives should oppose this expansion, which would expose the sanctity of the family to government intrusion, discourage work, and create new avenues for fraud.
CCDF Background
- CCDF was created during welfare reform in the 1990s to help low- and moderate-income parents afford childcare so they could develop the skills to move off welfare.
- 870,000 families—80 percent of whom are single parents, predominantly mothers—receive a total of $12 billion in subsidies to help pay for childcare.
- CCDF is already stretched beyond capacity: nearly 400,000 children are currently on wait lists.
Vance’s Draft Proposal
- Stay-at-home parent families making less than state income limits could reportedly receive the same benefit, averaging $9,000 per child per year.
- To qualify, one spouse must work 35+ hours a week, while the other earns nothing.
Forced to Pick: Invasive Government Scrutiny or Rampant Fraud?
- Treating parenting as a “childcare service” requires government oversight.
- Without proper oversight, the expansion opens the door to significant fraud.
- With proper oversight, bureaucrats will need to inspect families’ homes and scrutinize their tax returns.
Punishing Work, Imposing Childcare Arrangements
- Stay-at-home spouses receiving benefits would be prevented from performing any remote, part-time, or gig work.
- Welfare’s goal is to get people into work and off of welfare.
- This proposal would do the opposite, using already limited resources.
- The government should not use taxpayer money to direct family arrangements.
Bottom Line
American families need the freedom and flexibility to make the decisions that work best for them—not taxpayer-funded subsidies that reward one family’s arrangement over another. Conservatives are already familiar with the danger of expanding the welfare state. Just because a proposal seeks to assist a segment of society that conservatives are favorable toward doesn’t make it good policy.
