Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Family Research Council explains value of Santorum tripling child tax deduction

from the FRC email blast;
While the press picks on Rick Santorum for his social views, the Wall Street Journal is attacking the former Senator from another angle: his pro-family economic plan. In Monday's edition, editors complain that the "most disappointing" part of the Pennsylvanian's proposal is his idea to triple the child tax credit from $1,000 today, which the WSJ claims is "social policy masquerading as economics." The paper accuses Santorum of unfairly rewarding taxpayers who have children over those who don't. But at the root of these accusations is a fundamental misunderstanding about how the economy works. The child tax credit, which was originally conceived, developed, and promoted by FRC, recognizes that the American family is the engine that drives the U.S. economy. A world with fewer children means a world with fewer taxpayers.

Sen. Santorum recognizes, as we do, that a modest tax credit now is a small investment to make in the growth of human capital, which is shrinking at an alarming rate. Who does the Wall Street Journal expect to pay down the debt, fund social security benefits, and pick up the tab for big government programs in the future? Certainly not those who aren't having children. America's tax policy should reward the families who are raising taxpayers who will carry these economic burdens in the coming years. The principle of fairness applies to the tax treatment of the family: it should get the same deductions in the tax code as business does for similar investments in human capital. It's simple: if you're interested in growing the U.S. economy, you'll support tax credits for married families raising children.

When Christina was a baby, I brought her with me to protest my liberal Congressman's 'nay' vote on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
I made this point at a Town Hall Meeting of Rep Tim Bishop (NY-D) when I lived on Long Island. The assembled seniors who lived in the wealthy summer colony of Westhampton, NY were concerned about the future of Social Security. I reminded them that a 30% abortion rate for over a third of a century put their checks in danger. They were dumbfounded!
. When you  lower the birth rate as dramatically as we have through abortion, failure to marry and delayed childbearing, you make Social Security a burden. It used to have 16 younger workers paying in for each retiree. Now that ratio is 3 workers for each retiree. Another factor which exacerbates this is the longer life span of older Americans, but good news or not, the Social Security System needs more workers. Santorum pointed out recently that if it had not been for an increase in legal immigration, Social Security would be in even worse trouble.
Want to help the economy? Have a baby!
Bookmark and Share

1 comment:

roddma said...

I am all for life myself and also for taking responsibility for the life you create. If you can't afford kids, you shouldn't have them. FRC forgets not everyone can have kids and not all make good parents . Do we want drug addicts having kids? GOP complain about Americans relying too much on the gov and wants to triple the child tax credit. Sorry but think there needs to be cap or maybe completely removed and the EIC raised. This way everyone benefits. There is already WIC, food stamps, free lunches for low income. What more could parents want? I guess society would rather have me single lined up at the food stamp office than married and childless. After all I would be creating future taxpayers. right? Social security is taken out of your paycheck each week and you get it no matter how many people are on the planet.