I hate J.D. Vance and the "national conservative" ideology he espouses.

But much of the backlash generated by his comment that childless adults should pay higher taxes is just a matter of framing.

People are forgetting that the childless already DO pay higher taxes than parents with the same incomes. Why? Because parents are entitled to the child tax credit.

And that credit has broad bipartisan support. Many Democrats argue it should actually be bigger. Why? Because it's framed as giving parents lower tax rates, rather than making childless people pay higher ones. Described in those terms, everyone loves it!

On the other hand, when Vance says childless people should pay higher tax rates and combines it with swipes at "childless cat ladies," he comes off like an intolerant, misogynist creep, and most people hate him. Maybe that's exactly what he deserves. But people are happy to support the same kind of policy if it's described in different terms.

If I were advising Vance (don't worry, I never would!), I would tell him to stop talking about cat ladies, and instead say something like this:

"I want to give a bigger tax break to America's hard-working parents, so they can better provide for their adorable children. Parents and kids need a break from the heavy taxes and high prices imposed by the Democrats. After all, children are our future!"

Maybe combine it with an ad in which Vance appears with a group of mothers and kisses some babies.

Is increasing the child tax credit actually a good idea? I'm far from sure. But framed in these positive terms (as tax relief for parents, rather than as forcing the childless to pay higher taxes), it sure sounds good.