Mon, May 28, 2012, 5:12 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Memorial Day

Rick Santorum's Big-Family Economics: It's All About the Kids

Santorum's tax plan is great, if you're a fan of bigger families and a smaller safety net

615_Santorum_School.jpgReuters

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum finished second in the Iowa caucus last night by a "minivan margin" of eight votes. Losing a state by fewer votes than a Dodge Grand Caravan has seats isn't a loss, really. Especially not when you spent 10% of Rick Perry's campaign on media and got double the votes. But you all know what this means: It's suddenly a two-man race, again (again! (again!!)).

Rick Santorum is not the jobs candidate (that was Perry). He's not the business-experience candidate (Romney). He's not the tax-cut candidate (Cain) or the wonk-with-a-wink candidate (Gingrich). He's the conservative social policy candidate. So, it's no surprise that his tax code is an instrument of social policy.

The best place to start with Santorum's economic policy is with his own family. He and his wife, a longtime neonatal nurse, have seven children together. It is fitting, then, that the most distinguishing part of Santorum's tax plan are incentives for families to become as large as his. He would triple the personal exemption in the tax code for dependent children and eliminate the so-called marriage penalty, which has punished couples with similar incomes when they marry. A Santorum tax code would eliminate the cooling effect on dual-earner marriages and encourage families to have more kids by promising larger per-child savings than the current system.

Like the other candidates, whose tax plans are compared easily in this Tax Policy Center chart, Santorum would reduce tax rates on earned income, investment income, and corporate income. But rather than pay for lower tax rates with fewer tax deductions, Santorum would keep deductions for charitable giving, mortgage interest, employer-sponsored healthcare, and retirement. Santorum would also eliminate the AMT and the estate tax on top of slashing revenue in every part of the tax code except the payroll tax.

So, is it a good plan? If you're a social and fiscal conservative, there is plenty to like. It's a "pro-growth" plan gilded with family values benefits. But the single biggest problem with Santorum's plan is that it's guaranteed to explode the deficit ... unless he finds trillions in spending cuts. He has proposed slashing government spending by $5 trillion over five years, with much of the savings coming from Medicaid cuts, Medicare reform, Social Security privatization, and cuts to income security programs. The spending cuts he identifies overwhelmingly impact the poor, the sick, and the unemployed. This is somewhat inevitable with spending-only solutions to the deficit, since three out of five dollars Washington spends goes to Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, and defense, which Santorum won't likely cut.

But once again, we have a Republican plan that sidesteps the only reasonable compromise when it comes to tax reform. We can lower rates to promote growth and pay for it by eliminating the deductions that skew incentives and "cost" us $1 trillion a year in foregone tax revenue. You could argue that Santorum's plan does the opposite of this. It keeps the expensive tax breaks targeted at homeowners, workers, families, charities, churches, and children. But poorer families who aren't rich enough to own homes or fortunate enough to find work would find their safety net scaled back to pay for tax cuts that will benefit richer businesses and families.




More From The Atlantic
 

6 comments

  • tach1  •  Lynchburg, Virginia  •  4 months ago
    It's all about incentives, Derek. Incentivize marriages (and children within marriage) and those poorer families will be much better off. The only caveat with Santorum's plan is the potential to increase the deficit. His record in the fiscal area is not strong.
    • Lynn 4 months ago
      yeah like we need more welfare families. And to do all those tax cuts is not the answer completely. To touch S.S. and medicare is wrong, to cut welfare help
      I agree with.
  • Joan  •  Wichita, Kansas  •  4 months ago
    Santorum definitely trusts in God. I think he is a truly good person whom I will vote for if I have the chance.
    • Lynn 4 months ago
      I just started reading about him, I still have an open mind but this article doesn't
      suit me -they could be lies so I will do more research
  • victorianlady359  •  Oshkosh, Wisconsin  •  4 months ago
    First of all, I do not have the space to comment on this entire article, on Santorum's tax statement's, etc, of this article, and i will not comment on something I still have yet to check into,and learn more about,--minus the commentor's comments. I only speak of what i know to be true, which i stand by 150%, and will not back down on, unless someone can unequivically dispute me, that i am in error. So, here goes. Thanks for reading BTW. IF we take the Social Security fund, and privitize it, into a fund which is respective of the P.F.D. Fund which is respective of the one that Alaska, (hello Palin--why didn't you think of this one), and put it into an account which cannot be touched by anyone--but the overseer's of it, and the people whom receive it, but, put it into an account which collects interest each and every day. And stating matter of factly--no-one is allowed to take anything out of it, except it's receiver's. Adamently, this would take care of itself, and should of been done many yrs., ago, but why not now? Can you imagine the amount of monies this would build up, and the interest it would collect? Think about this seriously folk's, What are ur thoughts? Why hasn't anyone thought of this before this? Where are our overseier's whom are there to protect our monies, and whom ever said that Congress or anyone else, could take Our monies to do with as they wish??? For this I should be getting the medal of honor, bestowed upon someone who at least has brain's enuf, to know--what results this could bring for our American people's. Not bragging, but am very matter of fact about this, adamently. Tell me ur thoughts. What are ur ideas? Why cannot someone sit down, with the folk's in Alaska, and see what/how it's run/and get going on this, instead of bashing people whom don't have a clue what their doing as a means to "solve" someting.???? Thanks for reading. Vic.
  • Anonymous  •  4 months ago
    Santorum is still around? I thought he would have sunk by now. Guess its time he got exposed too.
    .
    He actively campaigned for pro-choice candidates Arlen Specter and Governor Christie Whitman, who vetoed a bill banning partial birth abortions.
    Arlen Specter, who switched from Repub to Dem, gave President Barack Obama the key Senate vote to pass Obamacare.
    .
    Iowans for Life are calling Santorum a “Pro-Life Fraud”.
    .
    He was named as one of three most corrupt members of Congress by the Center For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington largely in part to his lobbying activity.
    .
    Voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.
    .
    Between 2003-04, Santorum cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending.
    .
    Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003.
    .
    He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 2005, but on the same day, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage.
    .
    Sponsored a bill to regulate “price gouging and unfair pricing by the big oil companies.” Then opposed a “windfall profits tax” that Democrats tried to impose on oil companies in 2005.
    .
    In late 2000, Santorum wrote an op-ed encouraging more home ownership, particularly for low-income families, with the help of government assistance, whether it was through the Federal Housing Administration, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
    However, he changed his tune in 2005, when he urged reform of Fannie and Freddie.
    .
    As a candidate for the Senate in 1994, Santorum filled out a questionnaire in which he indicated that he wanted “national standards” from the federal government and he didn’t support eliminating the Department of Education. Santorum also supported No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded Washington’s control over education.
    But in a 2011 interview, he said “well, the Department of Education is, in my opinion, unnecessary and overseeing a state bureaucracy which is already a big problem.
  • EDZ  •  Ocala, Florida  •  4 months ago
    Once again, this article brings out the tried and true "class warfare". Am I the only person in the United States who doesn't believe that people who are wealthier than I am (and that runs into the millions!) owe me something?
    • JMIndependent 4 months ago
      nope, there's one more
    • Lynn 4 months ago
      no one owes you anything. You want things work and safe for them. They people that have money worked for it, planned and invested and of course they inherted
      it but the relative worked for it and thankfully we are still allowed to leave our inhertance to who we choose.
  • Pam  •  Lubbock, Texas  •  4 months ago
    We don't need religon we need GOD, We need some one that will trust in GOD and lean on Him,
 
Recent Quotes
Symbol Price Change % Chg 
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
 
Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.

Trading Center

Yahoo! Finance on Facebook

  YAHOO! FINANCE ON TWITTER