How JD Vance Brought the Culture War to Helping Kids

Vice presidential candidate JD Vance says people without kids should pay higher taxes.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro , a Connecticut Democrat, says we need to fight child poverty.

Sen. Mitt Romney , a onetime Republican presidential nominee, says we need to support marriage and families as core pillars of society.

It might not sound like it, but they’re all describing versions of the same policy, refracted through a culture war.

There are few more unusual political coalitions than the one that supports expansion of the existing child tax credit, which provides tax benefits to families with kids. It’s supported by both anti-abortion groups and feminist groups, by both people who want the government to be larger and people who want the government to be smaller.

“We always frame our policy push as focusing specifically on family stability,” said Duncan Braid, coalition director at the conservative think tank American Compass, which supports expanding the child tax credit. “All these various narratives are good, as long as we’re keeping the issue in focus that families should get more support.”

Helping kids is pretty popular, as priorities go.

But enacting policy is all in the sales pitch. And punishing people for not having kids? That’s not a great way to sell anything, as Vance was reminded over the past week.

“Let’s tax the things that are bad and not tax the things that are good,” Vance said in 2021, as reported by ABC News . “If you are making $100,000, $400,000 a year and you’ve got three kids, you should pay a different, lower tax rate than if you are making the same amount of money and you don’t have any kids.”

The comments drew rebuke not just from childless cat ladies — the constituency Vance notoriously singled out for derision — but also the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which argued that taxes shouldn’t be used as a cudgel to make people have more kids.

“It’s bad policy to use the tax code for social policy because it creates complications that add distortions,” it said in a piece this week . “Pro-natalist tax policies haven’t worked where they’ve been tried.”

What’s ironic is that the child tax credit already reduces the tax burden for many parents compared to people without kids. And politicians on both sides of the aisle have pushed for it to be more generous.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign is already making that idea a centerpiece of her economic policy push. During the pandemic, Democrats topped up the credit and sent it as monthly checks to parents, an effort that is credited with cutting child poverty nearly in half while it was in effect.

But many Republicans have pushed for any new effort at expansion to keep longstanding work requirements, fearing an expansion of the welfare state.

Depending on how you look at it, more financial support could make it easier for parents, whether single or not, to afford child care and therefore have the flexibility to get a job. Or it could make it easier for one parent to stay at home by supplementing the income of the other parent.

There’s clearly room for compromise, even if what people might consider “pro-family” is different.

A deal struck by the chair of Congress’ tax-writing committees passed the House earlier this year in an overwhelming 357-70 vote. The bill would particularly benefit lower-income families with multiple children by raising the cap on the size of the credit and also making it easier for them to claim more of it.

Democratic Senate Campaign Chair Gary Peters put it in blunt terms to my colleague, Ben Guggenheim: “If you believe in helping families, and if you consider yourself pro-family, then you will vote for this package. If you don’t, then clearly your words are hollow.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) similarly said he was a “hard yes” on the tax package. “It’s hard to explain why they’re not for it,” Mullin said of Senate Republicans.

The legislation has gotten ensnared in election-year politics, though; it failed to clear a crucial hurdle on the Senate floor on Thursday.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reportedly said early this year that Republicans didn’t want to hand the president this win in 2024. (His office told me later that he also had process concerns because Finance Chair Ron Wyden had not advanced it through the committee.)

Here’s where the sales pitch matters for more than just the politics; different goals lead to fights about how the policy is designed.

Senior Republicans like Sen. Mike Crapo have particularly taken issue with a provision that would allow some families to count income from the previous year for purposes of calculating their credit, which could allow for a more generous benefit even if the parent is not currently working.

Some progressive Democrats, meanwhile, have balked at restrictions contained in the bill, as well as the fact that it’s paired with tax breaks for corporations.

Regardless, it looks doomed for now, making the framing heading into next year all the more important.

“What I find so distasteful is just this idea that some families are valued more than others,” said Shilpa Phadke, former deputy director of the Gender Policy Council in President Joe Biden’s White House, referring to Vance’s comments.

If Vance wants to win this election — but also if he wants to govern — he should take note.