The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Michael Cianchette is a Navy reservist who served in Afghanistan. He is in-house counsel to a number of businesses in southern Maine and was a chief counsel to former Gov. Paul LePage.
“I’m a parent. I haven’t got the luxury of principles.”
That was a quote from Benjamin Martin, the protagonist of “The Patriot” portrayed by Mel Gibson. It is an entertaining historical fiction flick — I jokingly call it “Braveheart II” — that leans heavily on the fiction side of the ledger.
Yet Martin’s quip hit me the other day while watching the movie for the umpteenth time. With all the drama surrounding Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance’s comments about childless women, where does the intersection between parenthood, politics, and principles lie?
Now, some of Vance’s swipes against childless politicians are simply wrong. You never know what struggles others are going through. There are couples throughout the country that want desperately to start a family of their own but, for any number of reasons, cannot.
They are not lesser citizens. Nor are their contributions any less valuable be they childless by choice or circumstance.
Some of our finest leaders, including several Founders, never had children of their own. They include George Washington and James Madison. Both of these men served as moral lodestars for the fledgling nation; they had the luxury of principles since they weren’t parents.
Yet some of Vance’s points, while poorly made, aren’t necessarily wrong. Democrats don’t bother with consistency. In their zeal to gain an electoral advantage, “Kamala HQ” attacked him for claiming that childless adults should pay more in taxes.
While it is postured differently, that exact same policy is championed by President Joe Biden. The White House website has an entire page dedicated to it.
It is the “Child Tax Credit.”
Now, it is not an active penalty for failing to have children. But it is a subsidy for those with kids.
Imagine two couples. Each earns $80,000 annually. The couple with a child pays less in federal income taxes than the couple without. So as a practical matter, the childless adults are paying more taxes.
Yet the childless couple likely have a more comfortable lifestyle than their young parent peers. Little ones are expensive propositions on a good day. A tax credit doesn’t make up the difference.
However, as a state and as a nation, a serious discussion about demographics is in order. It is often said “demographics are destiny.” And the United States — and developed economies across the globe — have real challenges when it comes to having enough kids.
America’s fertility rate dropped to record lows last year. In order to maintain a stable population, women should have around 2.1 children on average. The United States is at 1.6 children per woman. So, ignoring immigration, we will ultimately begin shrinking as a nation.
This has very real economic repercussions. Social Security and other old-age safety net programs were built upon a demographic pyramid, where larger numbers of younger people would be paying into the pot, supporting a lesser number of elderly. When the pyramid turns into a cylinder — or worse, inverts — we have a problem.
That brings us back to J.D. Vance. The comments he made were needlessly inflammatory; calling people “cat ladies” is not exactly presidential.
But the idea that, as a nation, we really need to find ways to help support young families lest we wind up in a demographic winter is legitimate.
The titular character in “The Patriot” worried about placing his children into a warzone should he vote for independence. His parenthood trumped his principles.
As real-life descendants of the American Revolution, it is worth making parenthood a principle with dedicated support. It is a way to protect our independence for generations to come by ensuring there are more generations to come.
