The Stay-At-Home Parent Debate Is GDP First Vs. America First
Charlie Kirk, shortly before his assassination, emphasized the importance of revitalizing the American dream for the younger Generation Z to prevent losing them to socialist ideologies. Recently, the White House, supported by Vice President J.D. Vance, proposed allowing families to use existing child-care subsidies to support stay-at-home parents, a move criticized by old-right Republicans who labeled it as socialist welfare. Critics question why taxpayer money should only support professional child care and argue that supporting families directly aligns with conservative values of promoting family formation. Economically,two working parents contribute more to the economy,but child-rearing by parents is vital for societal well-being. The focus on economic success for families aligns with the broader goal of putting America frist-prioritizing citizens’ prosperity and family stability over mere workforce expansion. Despite recent successes in engaging young voters, their support remains unpredictable due to rising living costs-housing, education, and healthcare-and the shifting political landscape, with increased socialist influence within the Democratic Party. To truly serve American interests, conservatives need to deliver on policies that support families, restore order, promote energy independence, and ensure that the American dream remains attainable, starting with empowering moms and dads to raise their children.
Just a few weeks before his assassination, Charlie Kirk penned a still deeply poignant op-ed titled “Republicans must seize Gen Z moment or risk losing an entire generation.” His argument was simple: If Republicans do not revive the American dream for young people, they will lose them to communist candidates who will turn the country into an equitable hellscape.
A year after his public murder, a lot of Republicans have ignored his warning.
On Saturday, The New York Times reported that the White House, with support from Vice President J.D. Vance, was developing a proposal to allow existing child-care subsidies to benefit married couples in which one parent stays home to care for their children. The Clinton-era Child Care and Development Fund already provides about $9,000 a year per child to qualifying low-income households to finance third-party child care. The proposed change would let families use that money to support a stay-at-home parent instead.
Cue the angry old-right establishment GOP mob, which yesterday began screeching that Vance’s plan amounts to “socialist right” welfare.
Their outrage is hard to follow. The money is already leaving taxpayers’ pockets for child care. So why must a family use it only if they hand their child to a stranger?
As Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts writes, “The welfare state already exists. The subsidies already exist. And conservatives do not have the votes to dismantle either. Until that changes, taxpayer dollars should reward family formation, not subsidize its decline. That is the conservative option.” Indeed it is.
It’s frankly bizarre that the old right had no problem spending billions to separate mothers from their babies, but is now outraged at the thought of moms using that same money to stay home and raise their own children.
That’s why I suspect all the hysteria has more to do with the GDP than with any principled opposition to the welfare state. There is no question that, from an economic standpoint, two working parents contribute more to the economy than one.
But is that good for moms, dads, and children? Child-rearing happens to be essential to the social and spiritual well-being of our society. And no one does it better than a small child’s actual mom and dad.
This gets at the heart of what it means to put America First.
Pay attention now: America First means the prosperity of individual American citizens and the health of American families. Sometimes that coincides with what benefits Wall Street. Sometimes it doesn’t. A country that measures success only by how many people it can shove into the labor market is measuring the wrong thing. It should also ask whether its people can afford a home, raise happy children, and prosper.
And that’s actually all Gen Z wants.
As Kirk wrote last year, Gen Z wants “basic economic success and security like the generations before them. They want a home, they want a family, they want to feel like they are building something and that they are a part of something.”
Before his horrific assassination, Kirk was sounding the alarm bells on the rise of slick New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — a real communist. Kirk warned more Mamdanis would follow, and he was right. Radical Democratic Socialists are currently colonizing the Democratic Party and winning primaries across the country because the American dream is slipping away from the young.
The numbers today are brutal. Homes now cost roughly seven times the median annual income, as opposed to three or four times in the 1970s. The average first-time buyer is 40 years old. As Kirk observed before his death, public college tuition that cost about $2,800 in today’s dollars in 1980 is now around $10,000. Rent, housing, school, and health care have all moved increasingly out of reach.
Trump did better with young voters in 2024 than any Republican in recent memory. But that doesn’t mean they’ll vote red in 2026 — or 2028, for that matter. Young voters are politically fluid. “They’re happy to give Republicans a shot, then turn around and elect a Marxist two years later,” Kirk wrote.
Winning means delivering. We must raise deportations to raise the value of American labor. We must unleash American energy independence, restore order to our once great cities that have slid into crime and chaos, and reorient existing policy so working families can stay together and thrive.
Ultimately, we must treat a family as more than an economic unit. America First means American families first, not the largest possible workforce. Charlie Kirk understood that. Conservatives cannot afford to write off a generation. They have to make the American dream possible again. And letting moms and dads raise their own kids is a good place to start.
Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a contributor to The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter and Instagram at @evitaduffy_1.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
