Well, "Conservatism, Inc." is anti-family--or at the very least, it is not "PRO-family."
But as we all know, "Conservatism" properly speaking is pro-family. The problem is that propaganda groups which claim "conservatism" are not properly Conservative; instead, they are Conservative, Inc.
This essay at American Greatness points to a very serious problem with Conservative, Inc.
When the otherwise-despicable Romney suggests a $350/kid (or less) payment to families, AEI--a 'conservative' group--screeches that women might not seek/hold employment if those payments were made, so it's BAD!!
Really? The birth-dearth here is serious and getting worse every year. Money-for-babies is a very American solution to what is a demographic catastrophe-in-the-making. After all, what is the per-child deduction but money-for-babies on the cheap?
Raise the minimum wage? Heritage Foundation clutches its (large and pricey) pearls and goes into a dead faint.
...increasing the minimum wage could raise childcare costs to make it a kind of luxury expenditure. “That could reduce employment by causing some parents—particularly within two-parent families—to stay home with children instead of working,” she writes. “To the extent that women would be more likely to stay home than men, this could widen gender-based differences in the labor market.” ...
If the author of that passage is actually older than 14, I'll give you a nickel; her thought-pattern doesn't show it. We all have concerns about raising the minimum wage, but 'women leaving the workforce' is inane.
What you see from Conservative, Inc. is a materialist world-view which, as you recall, is also the Marxist world-view. That's not Conservative by any stretch of the imagination.