“If you want to know what raising a family might look like under a Kamala Harris presidency, look to this Rust Belt city.” Those are the words of Washington Post economics columnist Catherine Rampell. Rampell is referencing what she deems “an innovative, pro-family program that has become a key plank of Harris’s economic agenda: giving newborn babies $6,000 in cash, no strings attached.”
About Rampell’s column, it’s important to stress up front that it’s in no way a hit piece on Harris. While those who lean left reflexively recoil at the mere hint of authoritarianism that emerges from anyone on (or even associated with) the right, Rampell has taken a casual (if not downright giddy) stance about a future president in Harris arrogating to herself a substantial, wildly expensive role in shaping how parents raise their kids.
While Rampell is specifically writing about a “pilot” program in Flint that she yet again sees as “innovative” and “pro-family,” what has her seemingly optimistic is “Harris’s national iteration” of the Flint pilot. If we ignore Harris’s comfort with a president (from either party) expanding executive power in such substantial fashion, we can’t ignore Rampell’s lament from March of this year about Donald Trump’s allegedly fraudulent exaggeration of the value of his assets to bankers in pursuit of better loan terms. Trump’s actions very much disappointed Rampell because they “ultimately reduced resources available for other, honest borrowers.”
When Rampell was writing the aforementioned column, it was no doubt lost on her that whether right or wrong about Trump vis-à-vis his bankers, Rampell was making a rather effective, right-of-center case against government spending. Some would even say a libertarian case: government spending occurs only insofar as there are reduced resources available for other, most certainly viable allocations of precious capital.
What was true in March is true in October. Even if readers are as excited as Rampell is by substantial future outlays of “no strings attached” cash from the Harris administration to parents and families, shouldn’t we expect a more humble approach from Rampell? If she believes Trump overstated his case to bankers, don’t politicians inevitably do the same? Doesn’t politics or “political” imply overstatement, and in this case wouldn’t a massive federal outlay care of Harris result in “reduced resources” for other, impressively viable private-sector outlays? Only for Rampell to resume her unwitting case for limited government.
Rampell writes with evident approval about the “no strings attached” money that “families are entrusted to use this windfall however they see fit.” As she sees it, “Every family’s needs are different.” Well, yes. It’s what libertarians of the small l variety have been saying for decades, and surely longer than that.
Libertarians (small l) aren’t anarchists as much as they believe as Rampell does that everyone’s needs are different, and since they are, it’s essential that the vast majority of governance be local so that people with different beliefs about government (and needs from it) can choose their governmental bliss. If they want a lot of government, including financial help for family expenses, they should pay for just that government locally. Conversely, if they want very little government as a reflection of their belief in the wisdom of the free individual, they should pay reduced taxes to reflect just that belief.
What’s important is that libertarians are decidedly not against child rearing, healthcare, retirement savings, or any of the many things members of the left want, Harris is promising, or both. In truth, libertarians are for all three and many more; the only difference having to do with their belief that national governments are least situated to provide what the people want precisely because “Every family’s needs are different.” Yes, libertarians are about choice.
