Why does the National Review hate stay at home Moms?

This has got to be the ultimate case of conservative hypocrisy I have ever seen.  The National Review is so intent on going after old enemies, so intent on continuing to push the politically dead plan of privatizing social security, that they end up sticking it to a group of mothers the "traditional family values" party is supposed to love:  Moms who choose to stay home.
It all started when Teresa Heinz Kerry wrote a thoughtful opinion piece in the Boston Herald about the penalty stay at home Moms face in the social security system:

Social Security benefits are based on average earnings over 40 years. For each year not worked, a zero is entered. The lowest five years of earnings are dropped and the benefit is calculated based on the remaining 35 years.

But women - and mothers in particular - spend less time in the work force. Many join the "mommy track" to stay home to care for preschool children. Others take time off from work to attend to the responsibilities that come with aging parents. It's hard to believe that women are penalized for these vital contributions, but they are.

Women when they retire will average 13 years of zeroes. That means out of the 35 years used to determine the average income, eight years will reflect no income at all.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what this does to women's eventual Social Security benefits. More importantly, it doesn't take an economist to fix the problem: Allow women who drop out of the work force to care for young children or aging parents the ability to drop out five more years of zeroes.

When I read this, I was truly heartened to see in print what I have thought for years.  It started when my mother in-law, who is German, remarked that Germany gives Moms credit for each child they have toward their social security to make up for the lost income and pension while they stayed home to care for their kids.  Now I want to be clear here that this has nothing to do with the "Mommy wars".  Currently, working Moms get the income and social security contributions, while also benefitting from tax deductions for daycare costs.  I am perfectly fine with those tax deductions, but in contrast, stay at home Moms get absolutely no recognition from the tax code or the social security administration whatsoever for the contributions we make to society.  In addition to caring for our children, most Moms I know volunteer in the community, whether it be at the school, for charities for the poor, for both political parties, and for the environment, just to name a few examples.  I think this is good for American society -- it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it seems to me that we should be given back a small fraction of what we have put in for our families and communities. 

Well a big "Dick Cheney" You was leveled at stay at home Moms by Carrie Lukas at the National Review Online in a piece mostly written to do what right wingers like to do best:  attack Democrats, or in this case, a Democrat's spouse.  Her main complaint is that Teresa Heinz Kerry wrote the piece in honor of Mother's Day.  Gee, Mrs. Lukas, considering it's a time to recognize what we Moms do, I greatly appreciate Mrs. Kerry's defense of the sacrifices I have made to be home with my kids.  There is a condescending tone to Mrs. Lukas's piece which just makes my blood boil, that somehow everything is wonderful for SAHMs, even though all the work we do gets no recognition from the government.  She doesn't simply go after Mrs. Kerry's approach; she is DEAD SET against any increased benefits for SAHMs, because we don't deserve it.  She gives no alternative concept (like how in Germany, it is based on number of children) except disingenuously bringing up private accounts, which do nothing to solve the solvency problem she whines about later:

One of the many virtues of creating personal accounts within the Social Security system would be that they would avoid such unfair quirks. At least that portion of a worker's Social Security contribution that is put into the personal account would fund his own retirement benefits, rather than someone else's, and with a fair return, too. But Mrs. Kerry would prefer instead to tweak the current system to further favor particular groups like stay-at-home moms. If she looked at the recent report by Social Security's Trustees, she'd realize that it's irresponsible to talk about raising anyone's benefits at a time when the system is spiraling toward financial ruin: It's the equivalent of a woman demanding her day at the Red Door spa when the bank is preparing to foreclose on the family home. If Mrs. Kerry is concerned about women's retirement security, she should encourage her husband and the Democrats in Congress to discuss ways to reform the system to reduce Social Security's unfunded liabilities - something they have steadfastly refused to do.

Wow.  I didn't realize that Mrs. Lukas's sole view of SAHMs was that we sit around and eat bon bons in between our days at the spa.  Sounds to me like she is someone who enjoys scoffing at us, and belittling us behind our back.  Which would be perfectly within her rights except for the fact that she shills for the Republican party, a party that boasts endlessly how they are the party of family values.  Well, Teresa has an answer to that hypocrisy, too:

Those extolling the virtues of family values should be willing to put their money where their rhetoric is. We should allow women to drop out the "zero years" instead of telling them that their care for their young children and elderly parents is worth zero when it comes time to calculate Social Security benefits.

Amen.  It's nice to know who is on my side and who thinks I am worth zero.

Comments