A proposal by Vice President JD Vance to provide subsidies for stay-at-home parents could inadvertently lead to government intrusion and undermine the goal of encouraging work and independence, according to Advancing American Freedom (AAF), a group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence.
In a document outlining its concerns, AAF urged opposition to Vance's draft plan, stating it could "expose the sanctity of the family to government intrusion, punish work, and create new avenues for fraud." The proposal aims to expand the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), a program established during the Clinton administration to assist low-income and working-class families with childcare costs. The CCDF currently provides approximately $9,000 per child annually, with funds typically disbursed directly to childcare providers.
Under Vance's proposal, married couples with a stay-at-home parent and a spouse working at least 35 hours per week could receive up to $9,000 per child annually, provided their income falls below state limits. Unmarried couples and single, non-working parents would not be eligible.
"Parenting is the most difficult job in the world. Vice President Vance is right to focus on the family," said AAF president Tim Chapman. "Unfortunately, as sympathetic groups around the movement have noted, this particular proposal would do more harm than good: opening up the family to government audits, benefit cliffs, dependency and new disincentives to work."
AAF highlighted that approximately 870,000 families, 80% of whom are single mothers, currently benefit from the CCDF. Expanding eligibility to stay-at-home parents, the group warned, could increase competition for limited resources, as nearly one-third of states already have waitlists for the program. The group also cautioned that Vance's plan would necessitate an auditable "childcare service," potentially creating opportunities for fraud if not rigorously monitored.
John Shelton, AAF's vice president of policy, acknowledged the laudable intent behind supporting parents but emphasized the potential drawbacks in implementation. "What should be this opportunity for celebration and excitement could actually end up being this huge setback where you get a $1,000, $5,000 bonus, and suddenly you lose out on access to north of $10,000 depending on how many kids you have," Shelton stated. "That's a disincentive to work to kind of grow and get promoted. That is not the kind of conservative ideal for how these programs should work."
AAF argued that the proposal could penalize stay-at-home spouses for taking on part-time or remote work, and that families might face financial repercussions for receiving raises or promotions. "Welfare’s goal is to get people into work and off of welfare," AAF asserted. "This proposal would do the opposite."
Supporters of such proposals argue that stay-at-home parents should receive financial support comparable to families utilizing subsidized childcare. Roger Severino, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, wrote on X that parents using commercial daycare receive subsidies while those raising children at home receive none, calling the current system "illogical and unjust."
While commending the administration's intentions, AAF rated the effort as an "A" but the implementation as a "C or a D."