Kevin Roberts

I forget which year, but it's been on the tax code for a long time.

What we're arguing is that take that same concept.

We still want, of course, people to adopt, even more people to adopt.

It actually would probably help both of these pieces of data.

But take that same part of the tax code and expand it to births, natural births.

for a married couple.

That's real money that probably begins to change behavior.

Does it get the fertility rate from where it is now, 1.58, to replacement rate 2.1 on its own?

No.

But if you have the president and his entire administration talking about the beauty of marriage and family, if you eliminate all the disincentives in our safety net programs toward marriage, you probably start knocking on the door of the replacement rate over 10 or 15 or 20 years.

We have four.

And our fellow traditional Catholic family say, y'all are kind of pulling up the caboose, Robert.

We're enamored with that idea.

We didn't propose that in our paper because we want to do more research.

So two things I will say, what you described is basically Hungary's system.

And the second thing is we see this family policy paper as sort of a launch point to commence conversations like what you and I are having.

We thought, especially given the news cycle, that we would get a lot more blowback on this paper, including from some conservative circles.

While there are truly legitimate critiques of using government policy.

What is the argument?

That as a conservative organization, we shouldn't be talking about government programs for anything.