What's behind Obama's "war" on stay-at-home moms?

The Obama administration's new tax reform proposal includes two important pieces of assistance to middle class families that include two working parents. One is the proposed creation of a Second Earner Tax Credit that would knock $500 off the tax bills of two-income families. The other is the proposed expansion of the Child Care Tax Credit to cover up to $3,000 in child care expenses.

One natural question to ask about this is why not just do a bigger child tax credit rather than specifically focusing the credit on child care? In other words, why not deliver financial assistance to two-parent families with only one working parent? Tim Carney sees "social engineering" by the Obama administration, while Ramesh Ponnuru dubs it "Obama's War on Homemakers."

The administration's actual thinking on this is explained by chart 20 in a report on labor force participation that Obama's Council of Economic Advisors put out last summer:

A country's GDP is in part a function of what share of its population goes out and looks for work. In terms of prime-age women, this is an area where we've fallen behind Canada and northern Europe and where we appear likely to be surpassed by Japan. The administration wants to build a welfare state that's conducive to economic growth rather than one that undermines it, and that means emphasizing the kinds of new family assistance initiatives that support market work.

You may or may not find that way of thinking compelling. But that's the basic tradeoff we're looking at. A new child benefit that you get whether or not you do market work will marginally discourage market work, while a new child benefit that you only get if you do paid work will marginally encourage more paid work. One provides help to recipients in a way that's more flexible, the other provides help to recipients in a way that boosts economic growth.

When it comes to programs for poor people, conservatives are generally quite worried about work incentives. But when contemplating government assistance for middle class families, that same kind of emphasis seems to look to many conservatives like an assault on traditional values. But the basic thinking is essentially the same — GDP will be higher if the government subsidizes work than if it does untargeted subsidies.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via