Sorry, I meant to say this socialistic proposal is by Republicans, not AOC.
Republican-Sponsored Socialism
In a move that AOC, Elizabeth Warren, and all the Progressives will soon seek to expand, the New York Times reveals Trump Officials Draft Plan to Pay At-Home Parents, Using Funds for Working Ones
The Trump administration is moving to allow married couples with a stay-at-home spouse to collect child care subsidies, a policy championed by Vice President JD Vance, using funds from a federal program intended to assist working parents, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The change would create the only federal subsidy to pay parents to stay home and raise their children, one of the most significant efforts to date by the Trump administration to harness federal funds to promote a traditional view of families.
Under the draft new rule, parents who stay home with their children could benefit from the program, which typically provides about $9,000 per child each year, potentially reshaping which families get federal child care money.
The move could end up redirecting money away from working parents and their child care providers, causing some to raise their rates or even close, critics said, potentially worsening what many experts say is a child care crisis in the country.
About 80 percent of the 870,000 families who currently get the child care subsidies have single working parents, most of them mothers, according to Health Department data.
The policy change would effectively create a government incentive for parents to stay home with their children, an idea embraced as part of a broader conservative effort to advance policies that promote more mothers staying at home.
The new rule being drafted would allow married couples with one stay-at-home parent in certain income brackets to collect a subsidy, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the plan before it is finalized. The change could be made without approval from Congress.
The plan is being pushed by the White House and is seen as a top priority of Mr. Vance, according to several people familiar with the discussions. The draft rule also incorporates policies in legislation written by Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he was a senator from Florida.
Some family policy experts said the changes to the program would hurt parents who have to work and have difficulty affording child care.
“I am a big proponent of more support for stay-at-home parents. But this is not how I would choose to do it,” said Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the Life and Family Initiative at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank.
“Expanding the eligibility without increasing funding would mean more parents competing for the same dollars, and leaving more parents — particularly single working parents — worse off,” he said.
Question of the Day
If Democrats proposed this idea, would you be saying “I agree with the premise of this plan”?
Where Is this Headed?
To be fair, Democrats would not propose this exact plan. But also, to be fair, you are clueless if you don’t know where this is headed.
- The current tease is that no new money will go into this.
- Republicans and Democrats will soon find that $9,000 isn’t enough.
- So, they will both agree to expand the program.
- But Democrats will want to restore the benefits that were cut to fund this new idea.
- And they will.
- The bottom line is Republicans are proposing a new benefit that AOC, Elizabeth Warren and all the Progressives will love, even if they distance themselves from the initial implementation.
A Word About New Programs
MOM accurately notes, “Every new program requires money.” Yet, she agrees with the premise of the plan.
I don’t, precisely because every new program requires money.
MOM does have this right: “I foresee this growing into a huge government-run handout. Just my opinion.”
More Government Expansion
Here’s the key: “Expanding the eligibility without increasing funding would mean more parents competing for the same dollars, and leaving more parents — particularly single working parents — worse off.”
That funding will be restored, and the new program expanded.
I cannot begin to estimate what this foot-in-the-door proposal will eventually cost.
But I can tell you that Democrats are salivating over the new social benefit no matter how much they pretend otherwise.
The MAGA Agenda
- Start a war after campaigning against war
- Protect pedophiles including Trump, despite signing a bill mandating unredacted names
- Expand social programs
- Tell farmers the price of diesel is a tiny price to pay after promising to cut energy bills in half
- Make friends with North Korea and Russia
- Make enemies with Canada and other allies
- Sell pardons for a going price of $1 million or more
- Seek payments for those who invaded the Capitol
- Threaten to take Greenland, a NATO country, by force, to steal its minerals
- Jack up tariffs, a tax on US consumers and businesses
- Let Hegseth, someone totally incompetent, run the US military
- Do nothing to reduce the national debt
- Show more concern for the ballroom, arch, and reflecting pool than dead US soldiers from an idiotic war
- Blame everything on Biden and Obama
That’s one hell of a platform. But the cult cheers. Morons are still touting “Trump was right about everything.”
Gallup Party Affiliation Favors Democrats by Largest Margin Since 2015
Let’s review what this means historically.
Expect a Republican bloodbath in November because one is coming.
Related Posts
August 31, 2026: Classified Document Leak Shows US Is Militarily Overextended in Iran
The truth is out. Hegseth has seriously messed up the war in Iran.
September 4, 2026: Trump Threatens to Cancel Trade with World Unless the Fed Cuts Rates
Let’s discuss the economic madness of Trump’s threat although it’s a ridiculous, idiotic bluff.
September 5, 2026: Major Escalation, Iran Fired at US Aircraft Carrier, US Hits 3 Iranian Tankers
Iran’s attack on Navy warships amounts to major escalation.
Grok Addendum
Redirecting existing childcare subsidies from working parents (mostly single moms) to pay married stay-at-home spouses creates a new federal entitlement without new funding.
It favors one family model via taxpayer money, risks reducing care slots and raising costs for those who must work, and invites future expansion by both parties.
Better to cut taxes and regulations so more families can afford their own choices.
Article posted with permission from Mish Shedlock
