Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Mike Lee on the Tea Party vs. the Establishment, by Peter Robinson
In our recent discussion in Washington, I put the question of the day to Senator Mike Lee of Utah: What of this much-discussed gap between the Tea Party and the GOP establishment? Here’s what he had to say:
Published in General
Did I hear this accurately? Mike Lee wants a program to subsidize parents?
Geeze. Washington DC is like the Borg.
Peter, if you ever get to see this on Rico 2.0, it would be nice to have a link (URL) to the entire conversation at the WSJ.
I think you have misunderstood. This NRO post explains it.
I’m still a bit confused. The term tax CREDIT suggests to me free money.
I know it cost money to raise a child. Why add another normal part of life as something the government must subsidize?
I think the argument that parents are paying SS twice is stupid. Plus, a significant number of children have parents that are collecting welfare, not paying SS and a significant percentage of those children will become adult benefit recipients – not future taxpayers.
If a Conservative (wanting smaller government) concluded some program may be unfair; repeal the program, don’t add another level of bloat to try and ease some of the perceived unfairness.
I listened to the episode 2 more times. I think I like Mike Lee but I guess I’m just disenchanted how politicians have to lay down all these markers to avoid being called heartless.
You said Sen. Lee proposed a “program” to “subsidize” parents. As you should recognize, he proposed no program, and he is not offering subsidies.
As for the rest, conservatism has long recognized the significant, additional financial burdens borne by adults who are raising children. A single man making $100,000 has quite a larger income than a father making $100,000 and supporting a wife and three children. Sen. Lee’s proposal takes note of this and seeks an equitable solution. Nor is there anything “stupid” about trying to do something about the Social Security free-loading of childless adults.
It sounds to me as if you are taking a libertarian position rather than conservative one. Libertarians are notorious (with certain exceptions like George Gilder) for disregarding the critical importance of marriage and family. But conservatives traditionally have understood this importance. I recommend reading Gilder’s book, Men and Marriage, as one introduction to the topic.
Sorry if subsidy is the wrong term for a tax credit.
I’m not yet convinced that raising children equates to paying into SS twice.
I do not consider the single man being in a more advantageous position than the family man. While I will not dispute that the single man will probably have more free time and disposable income.
I’m all for promoting marriage and family, but that is not governments’ job. I think SS and welfare have weakened marriage and family more than anything else. Therefor I’d prefer we’d eliminate these programs and replace them with nothing. I suspect that is not possible but I don’t want to add yet another plan in an attempt to fix the current plan.
I like Mike Lee. In as much as I understand politics, I suppose this is an ok position at this time.