Early September, the Trump Administration was reported to have drafted a plan to allow eligible married stay-at-home parents to receive federal child care subsidies under the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF).
The CCDF was designed to aid low- to moderate-income parents in their ability to afford child care. An estimated 994,000 families receive annual assistance from the CCDF, according to 2023 data from the HHS.
Under this new proposal, qualification for aid would be more stringent than past government subsidy programs.
- Assistance is only for married parents.
- One spouse works at minimum of 35 hours/week.
- One spouse stays at home with the kids.
- Income requirements must be met, depending on each state bracket marker. Meaning, this proposal would directly benefit married families who are in the low-income to moderate-income tax brackets.
Controversy has arisen surrounding the first major requirement of this proposal; mainly, that the couple must be married – thereby excluding live-in-boyfriend situations or single parents.
The number of government assistance programs that already aid single parents are numerous. In addition to this, it is essential for a government to not only recognize the benefits of marriage, but to encourage the pursuit of the institution.
Every measurable statistic points to the stability that comes not only to a home, but also to a society when marriage between a man and a woman is embraced.
As it relates to child care, low-income married households who choose one spouse to raise their children instead of handing them over to an institution should be rewarded.
Roger Severino, the Vice President of the Heritage Foundation commented on X,
“Parents who hand their kids to commercial day care get subsidy payments, while parents who bear the toil, expense, and opportunity cost of raising their kids at home currently get ZERO. It’s illogical and unjust and this proposal would level the playing field.
Critically, the stay at home benefit for two-parent households would be specifically tied to marriage because of course it should. Our government provides better treatment to marriage all over law and policy because marriage, on average, provides better treatment to kids.”
God did not design government for the sole purpose of providing for its people. The purpose of the institution of government, as God has designed it, is for the protection of good and the punishment of evil. (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2)
For too long, government subsidy programs have not only tolerated unbiblical family arrangements, but have, in many ways, encouraged them.
Just think of the welfare system that is highly misused across the country – the fact that women are encouraged to stay single and have more children out of wed-lock simply because they receive a bigger subsidy check in the mail.
It is essential for government programs to encourage righteous living, and this subsidy proposal from the Trump Administration is just that.
Who knows? If it goes into effect, maybe we might see a marriage “boom.”
