At the recent vice-presidential debate between Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz, both leaders emphasized that families are America’s backbone. However, they erred in their approach by suggesting that more government involvement could solve families’ challenges. From expanding the child tax credit to advocating for new social programs, their solutions imply that the government can strengthen families. This is a dangerous misconception.
Instead of empowering families, government programs often create dependency and stifle personal responsibility.
Families thrive when they can shape their futures, not when bureaucratic systems constrain them. Each time the government steps in with a new program or benefit, it diminishes that freedom, replacing it with control.
What begins as well-intentioned assistance often leads to dependence on the state. For example, the expansion of the child tax credit may appear to help families in the short term, but beneath the surface, it’s just another form of wealth redistribution. The government takes from some families to give to others, often with strings attached, reducing overall freedom and fostering a culture of dependency.
As Milton Friedman often argued, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Every dollar spent on social programs must come from somewhere—from today’s taxpayers or, worse, future generations who will inherit the debt.
When politicians advocate for more government borrowing, they are not helping families; they are placing a financial burden on the very children they claim to support. These government interventions discourage self-reliance and erode the virtues that strengthen families, such as responsibility and initiative.
The real solution to helping families is not more government intervention—it’s less.
Cutting government spending and reducing taxes allows families to keep more of their hard-earned money. When families control more of their income, they can make decisions that fit their unique needs, whether saving for a home, investing in their children’s education, or starting a small business.
Families are far better equipped to allocate resources than Washington bureaucrats.
Moreover, reducing the size of government programs fosters independence. Work requirements, for instance, are essential to reducing welfare dependency. When individuals are encouraged to contribute to society through meaningful work, they regain a sense of dignity and self-worth—key elements for the stability and strength of the family unit.
Government handouts that lack work incentives trap individuals in cycles of poverty and dependency. Over time, these individuals lose the motivation to improve their circumstances, weakening the family structure.
A critical area where this is evident is in criminal justice reform.
Too many fathers, particularly in minority communities, are imprisoned for non-violent offenses, leaving families without a primary breadwinner and creating emotional and financial strain. This is another case where excessive government intervention—in the form of overcriminalization—has done more harm than good.
Reforming the system to focus on rehabilitation and second chances would do far more to help struggling families than government welfare checks. Strong families depend on having responsible, present role models. Keeping families intact is essential to breaking the cycles of poverty that afflict so many communities.
Rising living costs are another major issue for families, but government intervention often exacerbates this problem.
In housing, healthcare, and education, regulations and taxes inflate costs, making it harder for families to get by. For instance, restrictive zoning laws and excessive property taxes increase housing costs. Rather than creating new government programs to subsidize housing, a better approach would be eliminating these regulations and reducing the tax burden, allowing the free market to provide more affordable solutions.
The free market has a proven track record of reducing prices and increasing access, while government involvement often does the opposite.
The government should protect individual rights and ensure a fair playing field, not interfere by redistributing wealth or attempting to manage the economy. Personal responsibility and economic freedom are key to prosperity. Families need the freedom to choose how to work, spend, and live their lives.
More government programs won’t strengthen families—freedom will.
Politicians like Vance and Walz, though well-meaning, miss the broader point. Families don’t need more government programs; they need more freedom. This includes the freedom to work, to spend their money as they see fit, and to live without excessive regulation. By reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, and eliminating burdensome regulations, we give families the tools they need to succeed on their terms.
The key to strengthening families is not expanding government but reducing its role. Families thrive when they have the freedom to make their own choices without the heavy hand of government dictating their lives. The best way to help families is to let them keep more of what they earn, remove the bureaucratic red tape that stifles opportunity, and foster a culture of personal responsibility. The freer families are to pursue their goals, the more prosperous society will become—not just for them but for the entire country.
Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, host of the Let People Prosper Show, and previously chief economist of the Trump White House’s OMB. Follow him on X.com at @VanceGinn.
READER COMMENTS
David Seltzer
Oct 25 2024 at 2:51pm
Vince: Government t has fractured families with perverse incentives. Johnson’s Great Society expanded welfare with benefits that were generous enough to discourage marriage. Welfare assistance went to mothers as long as no male boarded there. It’s estimated that 40% of non-marital births are incentivized by extravagant, no man in the house, entitlements. Jason Riley noted, “the government paid mothers to keep fathers out of the home—and paid them well.”
David Seltzer
Oct 27 2024 at 7:32pm
Apologies: I meant Vance.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Oct 25 2024 at 10:33pm
The analysis of the Refundable Child Tax Credit was a bit simplistic. How it would create “dependency” was not spelled out.