By that logic reforming any government spending is bad.

https://www.romney.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/family%20security%20act_one%20pager.pdf

How it's paid for is shown on the 2nd page.

This bill seems like something a culturally conservative, right-wing populist would support.

It's not that I'm against it, if I had a choice between spending money on helping families with child care vs other programs I'm less fond of it's not a hard choice.

But look where his proposed offsets are coming from.

He wants to pull 15 billion from TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.)
He wants to pull 25 billion from State and Local Tax (SALT) Deduction

among other social program and tax breaks

The reality is, it won't happen.

For example, look at what Cuomo is saying about SALT reductions.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/cuomo-privately-calls-on-business-leaders-to-stay-in-ny-lobby-on-salt.html

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 9 2021 10:10am

The merits of the bill are different from whether it's something that can pass. Republicans won't support it because it acts as an anti-poverty program in a sense, and Democrats won't support it because it eliminates SALT, and also eliminates welfare programs so that it's deficit neutral. But I think it's a good idea, something that would get passed if more people supported moderate, pragmatic politicians.

Vox has a good article explaining it:
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22264520/mitt-romney-checks-parents-4200

This post was edited by IceMage on May 9 2021 10:31am

Why do you think Republicans are pro-poverty?

It's probably more fair to say they are anti-anti-poverty.

Or in more generally neutral terms, for less spending.

https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/2/rubio-lee-statement-on-child-tax-credit

Rubio and Lee oppose the universality of Romney's proposal, not because it raises spending, or because it's not effective at lowering poverty(particularly childhood poverty), but because it's not connected to work, and therefore is "welfare". The ideological imperative for Republicans to not dole out welfare is the most important factor here, so I think it's not hyperbolic to say they are anti-anti-poverty.

I tend to agree with this article on Rubio/Lee's objection:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/mitt-romney-family-plan.html

This post was edited by IceMage on May 9 2021 11:18am

Yep, a good article I can agree with. By the way: I'm starting to see the point you were making months ago about Rubio being a faux-populist.

Against over-spending perhaps

I'd actually take a step further and say that a stay at home mom should be taxed based on the fair market value of childcare in their area. Stay at home moms/dads produce value through their labor and I think they should be taxed as if they are making ~$70K per year. That's in a vacuum though and we obviously want to incentivize childcare so I'm okay not taxing their value AND I'm in favor of increasing the deduction for childcare.

We're at a point in society where our growth rates are well below the replacement rate and that's not sustainable. Both parties need to put forward pro-family policies so that the American population can be stable. In addition, corporations need to have policies that are pro-family and that includes mandatory paid leave for BOTH parents.