September 07, 2026
AdVancing Socialism in America
Timothy Birdnow
Uh, no.
This dreadful idea has a name - socialism. We are trying to get RID of socialism, not join it.
"Officials are drafting a rule that would let married couples with one stay-at-home spouse tap federal child care subsidies, a priority of Vice President JD Vance, the New York Times reported. The plan would carve out a new category the draft calls "parent-based child care,” letting one married parent draw assistance to care for their child while the other works at least 35 hours a week, according to the Times."
Once again J.D. (as in Rockefeller) Vance is promoting a terrible idea in his folksy, hillbilly way. But it takes money from producers to give to those who are not involved in economic growth. You know that this will be horribly abused and will require a massive Federal bureaucracy to run and enforce.
If you want to help families allow mothers to stay at home you need to get the cost of living down and wages up. Taking money from producers to subsidize a stay-at-home lifestyle will lead to more inflation and suppressed wages, and in the end will destroy the families even more over the long run.
Government is like fire; a dubious servant and a fearful master. There is a reason why the Founders didn't put stuff like this in the Constitution in the first place.
FTA:
The money would come from the Child Care and Development Fund, a roughly $12 billion program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Congress created the fund under the 1990 Child Care and Development Block Grant Act to help low-income families afford care so parents could work or attend school, according to the Congressional Research Service. States distribute the aid through vouchers or direct payments to providers, and it averages about $9,000 per child each year, according to the Times.
Redirecting that pot toward at-home parents worries critics who say the fund cannot stretch further without new dollars. Roughly 80% of the 870,000 families now collecting the subsidy are headed by single working parents, most of them mothers, according to Health Department figures cited by the Times.
I have no problem redirecting money away from freeloaders, but it will just lead to new freeloaders or the old ones finding a way to take advantage. The fact is this will grow and metastasize, and once the Democrats are back in power you will see this thing grow mammoth. And they will put new qualifications on it (like, perhaps, no home schooling). The President is playing with fire.
We need less government, and government taken OUT of our lives rather than put into it.
Government safety nets are not supposed to be hammocks. That is what this will become.
If Vance supports this then I do not support Vance. It is a form of socialism. It will lead to Guaranteed Minimum Income (it's quite similar, is it not?) We did not put Trump and Vance in office to backdoor socialism in America.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:19 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 4 kb.
24kb generated in CPU 0.1516, elapsed 0.2903 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2778 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2778 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
