Feminists asked for this

For decades the ask has been paid leave, universal childcare, child allowances. Socialist feminists went further and demanded wages for housework and for mothers who stay home.

So why the alarm

The Trump administration is reportedly about to pay mothers who care for their kids at home instead of using daycare. On the surface, a long-standing demand finally met.

The catch is the funding

Details are not official, but the gist went to reporters. The money is not new. It comes out of funds that currently cover childcare for low-income single mothers.

“It's something like an anti-feminist reverse-Robin Hood.”

The program being raided

A 1990s program helps low-income families afford childcare so parents can work or study. It averages about $9,000 per child a year, in a country where care can top $30,000.

Who actually gets it now

Eighty percent of recipients of this federal childcare credit are single parents, and the overwhelming majority of those are single mothers.

Single moms need not apply

Working single mothers cannot redirect the subsidy to pay themselves to stay home. They keep working to qualify, or they marry an employed man.

“(If only they had thought of that!)”

Cohabiting does not count

Unmarried parents living together are also shut out. The payment goes to married mothers whose husbands work full time and for pay.

Same pot, more hands

Eligibility expands but the money does not. A fellow at a conservative think tank put it plainly: more parents competing for the same dollars.

“more parents competing for the same dollars”

The logic eats itself

Conservatives could argue government has no business paying single mothers to stay home. Fine. Then it has no business paying married ones either.

Taking from the worst off

Conservatives correctly note kids of married couples tend to do better. So the plan takes from the most disadvantaged children and hands it to the group already ahead.

“It's about rewarding some mothers and punishing others.”

The wider push

This fits a campaign to move women out of work and into traditional families. Katie Miller called it terrible that women now outnumber men in the workforce, on her own podcast.

Heritage wrote the blueprint

The proposal Saving America by Saving the Family argues credits for poor single mothers incentivize single motherhood and made Washington the de facto husband for millions of women.

“made the federal government the de facto husband for millions of poor women”

Floors, not ceilings

Heritage would set income minimums, so support skips the poorest families. It offers bigger tax breaks for more children and special bank accounts for people who marry before 30.

College is the enemy

The same report blames the sexual revolution, contraception, no-fault divorce, and women finishing four years of college for falling birth rates. It also proposes ending Head Start.

“women who complete 4 years of college are less likely to have a child”

A version that would work

France funds leave, then lets families pick home care, a subsidized nanny, or a crèche, priced by income. Offer that and feminists would cheer. This plan is not that.