The two driving factors in determining birth rates are 1) women's education, and 2) per capita wealth. The more educated the women and the more wealthy the population, the fewer children they have. Empirically fiscal policy is virtually irrelevant.
So what is Romney doing? I think he's subtly pushing the country towards a universal basic income, using children as cover for that effort. Romney at heart remains a "progressive" when it comes to healthcare and the social safety net. I put "progressive" in quotation marks because the ideas were originally proposed by the libertarian hero Milton Friedman, who saw them as key to making capitalism work more efficiently and with less government interference. But such details have been lost in the modern debate.
So I don't think Romney expects his proposals to increase the birth rate in the United States. He's aiming at something else.
I lived for a long time in Europe, where child stipends are pretty common, and my late wife worked for the Worldbank until she passed away, and they also paid a child allowance.
Romney is the guy who a couple months ago was critical of 2k pandemic relief, and his rationale was that "someone has to pay for that."
Romney warns of China on the ascendancy, and worries about the US' fertility rate. Ironically, both nations have the same fertility rate at the moment, and over the last two decades, China's has been lower (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN), so fertility rate is not the underlying problem.
Look at Mittens' plan from the context of "somebody has to pay for that," and the 47% that he isn't worried about. Mittens has pointed out multiple times that his intention is for this to be net neutral, meaning he just plans to shift money around. Dollars to donuts says that in the net, monies will be lost by the 47% and gained by the other 53%.
Ironically, Mitten's constituents have a higher than average fertility rate. Utah is higher than the national average.
Why is it Mitten's responsibility to encourage childbirth and marriage?
This plan rewards and encourages Mormon values. His constituents will benefit disproportionately well. For something that they're already doing.
We are in the silly season, meaning that endless period in which politicians misdirect and lie.
Romney adopted the conservative idea (Heritage Foundation, IIRC) of Romneycare. He claimed to have rejected that in 2008, but now he continues his effort to build something like a poor man's European-style social safety net.
Yes, he criticized the stimulus package. But he didn't stand in the way of it in the senate. And now he is justifying a step towards the European child-subsidy model, justifying it by reference to Mormon values. In my view it would be a mistake to take the rhetoric seriously. Romney is doing what yesterday's GOP wanted to do. He is positioning himself as the anti-Trump in case the GOP moves back towards its previous stance.
In other words, he's too intelligent to think that changes in tax policy will produce a surge in fertility. After all, everyone can see that child subsidies did not increase population in Europe.
Mittens is certainly jockeying for position as the GOP's anti-Trump leader (along with some others).
You're right about the rhetoric. It's nearly meaningless. Mitten's is whatever he needs to be in the moment to get elected (progressive today, conservative yesterday, progressive before that, etc). He'd switch parties if that's what it took to get elected.
The problem with being a progressive in the Republican Party is that what makes him progressive is anathema to the base. And what makes him appeal to Democrats isn't sufficient to put him ahead of bonafide Democrat candidates. Both parties are increasingly partisan.
Romney won in Utah because his TBM status has a huge halo effect there. It likely has the opposite impact nation wide. Long term, he's going to have to perform as a Republican in Utah, and he often doesn't walk and talk like the duck that he needs to be.
"Pay us for all our babies" may resonate in Utah, but it likely won't in the GOP nationwide. The programs from which he intends to redirect funds tend to be means tested, which means that some people who need the money would lose it. That won't resonate with Democrats.
Anyway, I'm sure it's all posturing designed to please his Mormon constituents. He's gotta do something to maintain their support long term.
I agree with Lot's Wife, Mittons is certainly a progressive. That's fine with me, and I respect everyone's beliefs. What annoys me is that he ran on being a conservative and most Utahns are uninformed and naive actually believed that he is a conservative. And voted him in. He really is a deceiver. It's really the worst sort of politician any state could have.
Once again you confuse support for Trump with conservatism.
The policies Romney is inching towards, like UBI? Those were the proposals of Milton Friedman, the god of modern conservatism, who nevertheless knew the importance of maintaining a society in which capitalism could work.
Who is more the conservative? magaRomney or Milton Friedman?