art
The Missing Argument in the Stay-at-Home Parent Subsidy Debate
Preface: Video Context: Video Credit: Timcast / Tim Pool This article is a response to a recent Timcast segment discussing the proposed policy that would allow qualifying married couples with a stay-at-home parent to receive childcare subsidies of roughly $9,000 per child per year. The video frames the central debate around whether this amounts to additional welfare or whether it simply redirects money government is already spending on childcare toward parents who choose to provide that care themselves. Around 9:32–10:20 , Tim argues that the welfare expenditure already exists and that the important change is where the incentive points: instead of subsidizing families specifically when parents work and children are cared for elsewhere, the same funding could begin supporting married parents who raise their children at home.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast8 days ago in The Swamp
A Better Buyout: Paying Married Parents to Buy Back Their Time
A Different Kind of Buyout I previously proposed what I called a Family Support Buyout: give families the option to voluntarily exchange a large portion of the government benefits and services already being spent on their behalf for one predictable, untaxed monthly payment they control themselves. Instead of administering SNAP, childcare subsidies, housing assistance, refundable credits, cash assistance, and other ordinary supports through separate bureaucracies, government could calculate the avoidable cost of those programs and offer families perhaps 65, 70, or 75 percent of that value directly. The family would relinquish the benefits being replaced, taxpayers would retain the remaining savings, and the household would gain dramatically greater control over how its resources are allocated. Medical coverage, disability services, catastrophic healthcare, and other specialized needs could remain separate because those costs are less suitable for a simple cash conversion. The central idea was straightforward: if government is already spending $100 supporting a family, perhaps both taxpayers and the family can benefit if the family receives $70 directly instead.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast8 days ago in The Swamp
Fear: The Quiet Architect of Closed Minds
I use AI the same way any creator uses a tool to support my imagination, not replace it. My stories, my voice, my face, my lived experience are mine. If you choose to judge or ostracize people for using modern tools, that’s your bias, not my truth. I’m not hiding. I’m not cheating. I’m creating. And I’ll keep doing that with whatever tools help me express my work.
By Vicki Lawana Trusselli 17 days ago in The Swamp
Family-Directed Support. AI-Generated.
American family policy has a basic design failure. Government can spend heavily around a low-income household—on subsidized child care, food assistance, housing support, tax credits, disability services, provider reimbursements, case management, and repeated eligibility reviews—while the household itself remains cash-poor, overregulated, unable to save, and vulnerable to every ordinary emergency.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast25 days ago in The Swamp
Pay Families Directly Without Paying Them to Remain Poor. AI-Generated.
Every debate over family policy tends to collapse into two positions: keep the current fragmented, provider-directed welfare system, or replace a household's entire public-spending footprint with one large, unrestricted cash payment. Both sides of that argument are, in their own way, correct about something important. The status quo really does trap families in cliff-ridden, cash-poor dependency on institutions that treat parental caregiving as economically worthless. The buyout really does identify a genuine contradiction — government will pay almost anyone to care for a child except the parent — and it's right that fixing that contradiction is worth real money.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast25 days ago in The Swamp
A Third Way for Family Support. AI-Generated.
The debate over family assistance is often framed too narrowly. One side defends a fragmented welfare system that routes money through child-care providers, food programs, housing subsidies, disability services, tax credits, and administrative agencies while many families remain cash-poor and heavily constrained. The other side responds with a sweeping alternative: calculate what government already spends around a household, convert perhaps 60 to 75 percent of that amount into direct cash, and let the family assume responsibility for ordinary living costs. Both positions identify real truths. The current system is expensive, paternalistic, and often irrational. A broad cash buyout would give families far more control. The strongest policy, however, lies between them: family-directed support that pays parents for real caregiving, replaces cliffs with gradual earnings phase-outs, protects savings and asset formation, preserves medical and protective services, and expands broader cash support only as the economy becomes productive enough to sustain it.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast25 days ago in The Swamp
Family-Directed Support. AI-Generated.
The American welfare system spends heavily around low-income families while leaving those families with little cash, little control, and strong financial penalties for earning more. The full Family Support Buyout correctly identifies that failure and the deeper inconsistency of paying almost anyone except a parent to care for a child. Converting an entire household’s historical public-spending footprint into a permanent unrestricted payment, however, overreaches. International experience and economic logic converge on a stronger middle path: Family-Directed Support. This architecture transfers real authority to families, compensates parents when they perform care the public would otherwise purchase, eliminates cliffs that punish work, and keeps medical, protective, and specialized functions separate because those risks are not ordinary household consumption.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast25 days ago in The Swamp
Do Not Replace the Welfare State With a Stay-Home Salary. AI-Generated.
The existing welfare system deserves major reform. It can spend enormous amounts around low-income families while leaving those families with very little cash, little flexibility, little ability to save, and strong incentives to remain below benefit thresholds. Child-care subsidies can exceed the wages a parent earns by leaving the home. Food assistance, housing subsidies, refundable tax credits, cash benefits, caregiving authorizations, and administrative overhead can push the government's total expenditure on a household far above the household's private earnings. Those contradictions are real. The current system can absolutely become more expensive than the problems it is attempting to solve. The answer, however, should not be to convert most of that expenditure into a large permanent cash payment that makes withdrawal from market production financially attractive.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast25 days ago in The Swamp
The Buyout Trap. AI-Generated.
Why Cashing Out a Family's Safety Net Solves the Wrong Problem — and What to Do Instead The Family Support Buyout is seductive precisely because it's built on a true observation: government spends enormous, fragmented sums on poor families while those families remain cash-poor and administratively exhausted. That diagnosis is correct. The prescribed cure — discount the package, hand the family cash, and let them walk away from the underlying programs — is where the argument quietly stops being about efficiency and starts creating a new set of problems, several of which are worse than the ones it claims to solve. A reform can be right about the disease and wrong about the treatment. This is that case.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast25 days ago in The Swamp
The Case Against Converting Support Into Unconditional Cash. AI-Generated.
The strongest case for reforming the current system begins with an accurate diagnosis of its failures and ends with a refusal to replace those failures with a more durable form of dependence. The present architecture spends large sums around low-income families while leaving many of those families cash-poor, time-constrained, and trapped by benefit cliffs. That diagnosis is correct. The proposed remedy—converting a discounted share of existing ordinary non-medical expenditures into direct, largely unconditional family payments—solves the immediate administrative and cash-margin problems while creating stronger long-term incentives against work, production, and eventual exit from public support. A system that already struggles to maintain a sufficient productive base cannot afford a reform whose primary effect is to make non-work more stable and more attractive for the households that already generate the highest public costs.
By Peter Thwing - Host of the FST Podcast25 days ago in The Swamp
