Let's look at what the Cameron Tories are actually proposing: A tax allowance of roughly £1000 a year for parents who stay home with their kids, front-loaded per-child tax benefits that offer parents £2800 a year while their kids are below the age of three, and increased tax credits for low-income parents, which would offer 1.8 million British couples roughly £1600 a year. Translate those pounds into dollars, and those population figures into an American context, and you've got a set of proposals that might be slightly less pricey than the $5000-per-child tax credit and the (fiscally unspecific) notions of benefits for stay-at-home parents we propose, but that are certainly in the same general ballpark - and that actually go further than our basic proposals (though not our ideal ones) in terms of directly discriminating in favor of marriage.
The current exchange rate helps Ross' argument, but Cameron's proposals are still less expensive but more directed toward pro-marriage discrimination. (I might add I believe in the state encouraging civil marriage as far as possible. It's good for all of us.) I prefer Cameron - but Ross' point is well-taken about the "same general ballpark," which was, I might add, the general thrust of my argument. Reihan puts it less cautiously:
If Cameron embraced an agenda like the one outlined in Grand New Party, he would likely be accused of being a libertarian radical hellbent on destroying the most cherished parts of Britain’s welfare state.
But this is largely a function of where Cameron starts from in a much more collectivist Britain, especially in healthcare and education, as Reihan concedes.