1 Trending: From Cradle To Krispy Kreme To Grave, Private Equity Is Making Everyone’s Life Worse

2 Trending: Exclusive: Secretaries Of State Argue 9th Circuit ‘Erased’ Right To Remove Noncitizens From Voter Rolls

3 Trending: Livestreaming Trials Emboldens Lawyers Like Lindsay Clancy’s To Act Out For Clicks

4 Trending: Women Defending Lindsay Clancy Admit They’re Dangerous And Unaccountable

The Stay-At-Home Parent Debate Is GDP First Vs. America First​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Conservatives have to make the American dream possible again, and letting moms and dads raise their own kids is a good place to start.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

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........

© The Federalist