|
In an audacious political dare to
Congressional Republicans, President Bill Clinton proposed in
his State of the Union address to help stay-at-home moms and
dads. He called for a tax credit of up to $500 per child, age
one or younger, to help the traditional one-earner family meet
the financial costs of bringing new life into the world.
This break from the Democratic orthodoxy of
"day care for all" immediately roused suspicions among
the Congressional majority. During 1998, after all, Republican
advocates for "universalizing" the existing child care
tax credit—so that parents-at-home would enjoy the same tax
relief as parents purchasing commercial child care—faced
implacable White House opposition. Is this new plan merely a
feint, designed to confuse and divide social conservatives
during the Impeachment Trial?
Perhaps so. But it might also be seen as a
serendipitous opportunity, where the bitter divides between
"right" and "left" on family policy issues
might be overcome.
In some respects, the Clinton initiative is
very modest. The benefit would be means tested, going only to
low and low-middle income families, and delivering even to these
families an average of only $178 in net tax relief.
All the same time, the idea represents an
important philosophical breakthrough. It recognizes that bearing
a child within responsible homes is, in and of itself, a
positive act, and that all child-rearing parents, not
just those using commercial day care, deserve tax relief.
Moreover, all young families would benefit from expanded child
care choices: "two-career" families, which could
choose to give more time to infant care without losing a
tax benefit, just as much as traditional "one earner"
families, which now only get a stiffer Federal tax bill.
Moreover, the Clinton initiative is in line
with a January 13 statement, "A Call for Family Supportive
Tax Relief," issued by a coalition of scholars and writers
spanning the ideological spectrum. Specifically, the document
calls, among other things, for reform of the dependent care tax
credit, "making it available on a non-discriminatory basis
to all families with young children." It is signed by
figures such as Cornel West, Professor of Afro-American studies
at Harvard University, Wade Horn of the National Fatherhood
Initiative, Professor Steven Nock of Harvard University, and
columnist William Mattox, former Vice President of The Family
Research Council.
Importantly, the statement concludes:
"…on the left, many of us recognize that the enduring
problems of poverty and economic inequality are unlikely to
diminish so long as divorce and unwed childbearing continue
at…historically high levels. On the right, many of us
recognize that if families continue to fragment, leaving a host
of important and unmet social needs in their wake, government is
almost certain to become larger, not smaller or more
limited."
Whatever the President’s motivations, and
whatever his personal fate, this new proposal should be
celebrated as an important cultural and political event. Rather
than grumbling, Republicans should immediately call his dare,
and raise the policy ante. They could urge that the credit for
at-home care be available to all taxpaying families, and
they could argue for raising the maximum age for children
covered to four or five. All American families would be
the winners.
|
