社区黑料

As more details of the Biden administration鈥檚 pandemic recovery plans came into focus last week, one element 鈥�  鈥� stood out.

The proposed child tax credit would provide monthly checks to American parents to help them cover the costs of having and raising healthy children. The size of the checks would be linked to the income and number of children in a family, with each child under the age of 6 qualifying their family for a total of $3,600 across the year (i.e. a family with two toddlers would receive $7,200 across the course of a year), and each child between 6 and 17 qualifying a family for a total of $3,000 annually. Individuals with incomes over $75,000 and couples making more than $150,000 would receive smaller benefits. This represents a significant expansion (and improvement) of , which is only delivered annually and is not fully available to many low-income families.

While the approach would be a in the , these sorts of are common in other developed nations, such as , the , , and many others. The awful juggling acts the pandemic has imposed on millions of working American parents have made it clearer than ever that caring for children is work 鈥� inestimably valuable work. Child allowances recognize that the public has a real interest in valorizing and supporting families for taking it on. Early suggests the proposal could reduce child poverty by more than 50 percent in our country.

So far, the administration鈥檚 proposal would currently cover just one year of payments, as part of a broader pandemic recovery plan. But some in Congress are interested, including , in extending some sort of child allowances for at least several more years.

If made permanent, these child allowances would represent a generational sea change for present 鈥� and future 鈥� American families. That鈥檚 because, in this country, we may talk as if our children鈥檚 lives are precious, but 鈥� when it comes time to walk that talk, we usually wind up discounting them all the same. on programs targeted at supporting families and children is , and .

Our kids bear the costs of our national parsimony. When children鈥檚 families, particularly early in their life, struggle with poverty, their long-term development, health, and academic achievement.

What鈥檚 more, lower-income homes are more likely to face and insecurity, as well as . Worst of all, constant exposure to these sorts of pressures, known as 鈥渢oxic stress,鈥� can cause long-term damage to children鈥檚 brains.

Since President Biden鈥檚 child allowances plan would likely cost over $100 billion annually 鈥� 鈥� it鈥檚 inevitable that the coming debate will be largely conducted in the language of budgets and balance sheets. But here鈥檚 the thing: it鈥檚 actually vastly more expensive to build systems to overcome the negative early developmental, health and academic patterns that can result from an economically precarious childhood.

There鈥檚 ample evidence from Nobel Laureate economist and others showing that efforts to improve children鈥檚 long-term social, educational and economic trajectories are most efficient in the early years. It鈥檚 relatively cheap to change a child鈥檚 prospects when their brains are young and still growing 鈥� and poverty-related stress hasn鈥檛 yet reached toxic levels. These efforts only get less efficient as they grow older.

Grade repetition and additional educational services for struggling students are more expensive and less effective. Career training for struggling workers in their 20s and 30s is even less efficient. And so forth, all the way up to mass incarceration, which perhaps represents the nadir of inefficient public policies 鈥� it drains resources while squandering human capital. And indeed, the United States鈥檚 low spending on families and young children have delivered us .

Child allowances offer a simple proposition: the country will save significant resources by supporting families at the outset, when children are young. that when a family鈥檚 income goes up, children鈥檚 well-being improves in both the short and long term.

And yet, don鈥檛 miss the paucity of that proposition 鈥� the inadequacy of framing kids鈥� development in terms of return on investment. Whatever sense it makes to think this way as a congressional budget staffer or a macroeconomist, it is wholly unsuited to talking seriously about children and childhood.

What does the line鈥斺�淸he] cut the number of children in poverty by as much as 54 percent鈥濃�攔eally mean anyway? It鈥檚 the sort of phrase you etch into a presidential memorial in 30 years. It鈥檚 a topic for a panel discussion on public policy. But it鈥檚 not the actual point.

The point is that children are both vulnerable and blameless. They are born into a world they did not choose. Each child鈥檚 life is ultimately her own project to develop and complete, but it is many years before she gets to take control. She deserves a childhood , a childhood in which she is cared for, safe and well fed. A country as rich as ours can choose to reduce child poverty because doing so will improve children鈥檚 academic achievement and allow us to reduce our spending on remedial education, health care and more.

Or we can reduce child poverty simply because she deserves a real chance to grow into a healthy adult life full of opportunities to thrive. We can do it because there is no actual virtue in allowing millions of children to suffer simply to flatter our national disinclination to pay for a humane, modern, developed, democratic society. Or, put simply, we must do it because it鈥檚 the right thing to do.

Conor P. Williams is a fellow at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank. All views expressed here are his alone.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 社区黑料鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.