Last week Mitt Romney proposed a bill called the Family Security Act. What this bill would do is instead of tax credits, a family with a child under the age of 5 would get under $350 a month. Between the ages of 6-17 that would go down to below $250 per month.
The writer for this Post article thinks that this is a great idea and the way forward for the populist right. While it certainly would be popular and, populist, it is a terrible idea. Their first defense of this bill is that it’s “fiscally sound” saying, “By consolidating existing benefits and moving them under the monthly payment banner, Romney’s proposal would remain deficit neutral, covering the $250 billion in annual expenditure through elimination of other deductions (such as for state and local taxes), which perversely benefit the upper crust.”
I will admit, that with this it would be “fiscally sound”. However, if this were passed, we all know it wouldn’t stay that way. In ten or so years, people would be calling on the government to increase the amount they get, with how much the government likes to spend, it’d likely pass. Next time though, there’ll be a lot less concern about being “deficit neutral”.
Pappin says that he put forward a proposal much like this in 2019 and Republicans didn’t like the direct pay then. He says, “The pandemic has upended those concerns.” No, it hasn’t. The only thing “good” about the stimulus relief is that the government compensated businesses (5th amen constitution) but not nearly enough.
Other than that, the stimulus is a massive debt we’ll all have to pay eventually and, I think we all can recognize that the almost only reason why it was done was so those politicians would have an argument for why we should vote for them again.
Another reason why we must move forward into this future is because, as Pappin says, “The old GOP attitude — tough luck, just work harder — doesn’t work when work disappears.” If I remember correctly, this isn’t the first recession and, massive job loss this country has seen. We didn’t do this before for the same reasons we shouldn’t do it now. We shouldn’t dangle American’s tax dollars in front of them and act like it’s somehow a benefit. Also, because all welfare programs have never and, will never produce positive outcomes.
We shouldn’t be accepting working from home and mass unemployment as the new normal. Especially since the survivab rate among the most vulnerable age group is above 90%. That’s without a vaccine that we now have. We as a populace decide what we want. If our government doesn’t follow through, we vote them out and get new ones. It’s as simple as that. We should and need to decide that we need to go back to work.
The article goes on to cite other countries as having other programs that are similar and therefore we should as well. We should never take policy ideas from other countries. There are a lot of things that go into a policy being successful in a country. Population size, ethnicity, culture ect. The left likes to cite the UK and Australian gun bans as being successful for them and therefore be successful for us. However, we don’t do it because 1) in every state that’s increased its gun laws, has seen an increase in violent crime and 2) IT’S WRONG.
Pappins closing argument is that, “If Republicans don’t seize this opportunity, they can expect a federal daycare system administered by their opponents.” which I think shows what his true intentions are. It’s about winning votes. We shouldn’t do anything just because our opponents will do something similar but just a bit different later down the line. We should make decisions that are both beneficial and right.
What would be most beneficial, not just for families but everyone, would be more tax cuts. This would do as we saw just a few years prior. It wasn’t that long ago. More jobs, higher pay, economic growth, and most importantly, more freedom.