Uriah

In the midst of this baby bust, the Republican Party is having a debate about whether its tax plan should take just a pinch of the money that it's devoting to tax cuts for globalist cucks -- er, sorry, corporations, and spend it instead on families with kids.

The proposed tax credit is linked to having a job. It's specifically designed to satisfy conservative concerns about subsidizing dependency, welfare mothers, illegal immigrants, etc. Lots and lots of its beneficiaries live in Trump country.

It's not going to end the baby bust. It's not big enough to have some major effect on birthrates. But it's SOMETHING. It's a conservative policy that's actually mildly responsive to the trends all these folks freaking about the Twilight of the West (TM) claim to care about.

And guess what? Their great champion, their idiot's version of Constantine or Charles Martel or whatever, came out *against* expanding it today. Because he doesn't want to take any $ away from his yuge tax cut for the very globalist types that all these guys claim to be against.

And naturally if you go to Mark Steyn's feed or Steve King's feed or the homepage of Breitbart dot com you'll find lots of outrage about this, because globalists are bad and demography is destiny and the family is the cradle ... oh, wait, no, there's nothing like there at all.

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS. It isn't a video of a Muslim doing something bad or a Hollywood sex scandal or a stupid left-wing academic saying something stupid. It's just a pro-natalist policy in the midst of a baby bust and who would care about THAT?

I give them a hard time, but I don't really blame the Wall Street Journal guys for being against the child tax credit. They have a theory of what conservatism should be, what tax policy should be, and this stuff doesn't fit. Opposing it is just their nature.