I don’t usually comment on the political news, or on things at Instapundit (because I figure lots of people read that anyway); however, amidst all of the verbiage on Ann Romney’s choice to stay at home and raise the five Romney, I saw this post.

I don’t know anything about Kevin Williamson, and I didn’t read any of his post except the paragraph Glenn Reynolds quoted, but I agree with that paragraph completely:

It is difficult to put a dollar value on parental time, but it is clear that to the Romneys one hour of Mrs. Romney’s time at home with the family was worth far more than one hour in C-level wages; further, a 2,000-hour annual block of time invested in earning C-level wages would have fundamentally changed the character of the Romney household for the worse, while providing negligible economic benefit. Instead, she provided the family with a critical good that Mr. Romney, for all his riches, could not acquire without her cooperation. If we think of the household as a household, Ann Romney’s decision to stay at home makes perfect economic sense: Her decision to be a full-time mother enormously improved the quality of life for Mr. Romney, for the couple’s five sons, and — let’s not overlook this critical factor — for Mrs. Romney herself.

My wife Jane is a stay-at-home mom. She worked outside the home before we had kids; she might possibly work outside the home when our kids have moved out. But right now, right at the moment, having her at home has proven to be the best thing for all six of us, economically and in all other ways.