Amos's River of Justice

Tag: Child Tax Credit

  • Miser Joe Manchin Offends Faith-Based Allies

    Catholic Democrat Joe Manchin’s position on the child tax credit has put him at odds with important allies such as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Orthodox Union.  Unfortunately, these groups are in a somewhat embarrassing position after objecting to the bill’s mandate that faith-run pre-kindergarten and childcare programs obey federal non-discrimination statutes.  Manchin used their objections as an excuse for his own objections, which have more to do with his dislike of helping those in need.

    Political negotiations first broke down when Manchin proposed to White House officials that the bill maintain elements of the original legislation but omit an expansion of the child tax credit.  Then, this week Manchin told reporters he supports the child tax credit, but only if there is a work requirement for the parents involved.

    Senator Manchin has been trumpeting his work requirement for months despite his religious allies’ prediction that if the requirement becomes part of the law families who don’t pay income tax due to lack of income would not receive the benefit.

    In a September 7 letter, bishops voiced support for the child tax credit expansion without the work requirement.

    “It is especially important that the credit remain fully refundable to ensure the most economically vulnerable children benefit from this family support.”

    The National Association of Evangelicals has not taken a position on the Build Back Better Act as a whole, but the group’s vice president for government relations, Galen Carey, has consistently expressed support for the child tax credit provision. He was asked this week about tying work requirements to the child tax credit.

    “We support making the child tax credit fully available to the families who need the help the most,” he said in a statement. “Work is critically important to human dignity but having a particular level of earned family income should not be a prerequisite to accessing support for their children. Full CTC refundability is what makes it such a powerful anti-poverty tool.”

    The Poor People’s Campaign, a faith-led activist group that often advocates for liberal-leaning legislation, has been protesting against Manchin’s position for months.   The Rev. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, called Manchin’s excuses a “regression back to the tired debate of deserving and undeserving poor.”

    Progressives may have forgotten what an incredible accomplishment the child tax credit was because it was just one item on a very long wish list.  We may have also forgotten to give the Biden administration credit for its implementation.

    This benefit was perfectly aimed at the most vulnerable members of society–children.  And it had the added benefit of demonstrating how valuable the nation’s children are to the President and the people alike.  In my opinion, if the child tax credit is all that can be salvaged from the Build Back Better Act, its survival will be a cause for celebration.

    President Biden has a clear mandate.  I urge his administration to extend the child tax credit–without  Manchin’s work requirement.

     

  • The Seducer State and the Free Labor of Mothers

    Paul Ryan told American women in a televised speech that they must bear more children.  Because this speech closely followed the passage of the scandalous tax bill that reduces taxes for the rich and therefore endangers funding for social programs that help mothers, Ryan’s proposal demonstrates the connection between the seducer state and the free labor of mothers.

    The following video from Chris Hedges’ On Contact discusses government policies, which are meant to increase the birthrate in the face of decreasing financial support for families.

    https://youtu.be/ZeY8p5rdy9M

     

  • Will a Higher Birthrate Lead to Love and Compassion for the World?

    There was a time when it made sense for our politicians to argue that a higher birthrate was necessary to prop up an ailing social security system, but that argument is no longer convincing. Our government has shown an interest in eliminating or privatizing the social security program, it has demonstrated that it has every intention of reducing social spending, and it has indicated that it is willing to destroy the very earth on which we depend. Yet politicians like Paul Ryan continue to demand a higher birthrate without batting an eye.

    From the government’s point of view there are several benefits to overpopulation. It provides a broad tax base; leads to high unemployment and a large pool of low-wage workers; and provides more children for the adoption mill. I’m not claiming the ability to read Paul Ryan’s mind, but regardless of his reasons we know that he, or his donors, expect benefits from a higher birthrate. We know this because even though they favor reducing other types of benefits they re willing to increase the Child Tax Credit. That’s why I view the Child Tax Credit as the modern version of bridewealth. But I haven’t forgotten that the CTC is not a gift.

    The CTC is permission for women who bear and raise children to keep a little more of the money they would otherwise give to the government in taxes. When you compare this to the spirit behind the practice of bridewealth the cynicism is remarkable. But there is good news. It is merely a financial offer, meaning that women are free to take it or leave it. The big guns in this fight are ideological.

    The chief ideological proposition is unspoken: human procreation is a virtue. So our first question should be, how (and why) did large families become a virtue?

    Additional claims stem from this proposition. These include: large families are an act of solidarity with the human race; large families are an act of love and compassion; and a shrinking birthrate indicates that the whole society is giving up on humanity.

    If you accept the first assumption the rest might make perfect sense, but are they true? This is an important question because these kinds of arguments do have an effect. What we need is evidence–perhaps we could start with a series of surveys. In the meantime I think I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between Paul Ryan’s compassion and his demand for a higher birthrate.

  • The State is Your Daddy

    It’s been my policy to ignore the Republicans. However, I feel I should say something about the government shutdown and the House tax bill. Since the Republicans control both houses of Congress I suspect that they actually want the shutdown to happen. Therefore, their threats represent a clear and present danger and must be stopped by force if necessary.

    As for the tax bill, I think it can be addressed on the basis of principle. It is important to be aware that certain ancient principles are still being honored today. The law of bridewealth is acknowledged in the Bible in a perverse way–in the changing of it. This takes place in the third chapter of Genesis.

    And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

    …Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to they husband and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3: 13, 16)

    I would argue that this story is justification for marriage without compensation. It suggests that marriage by default was always the norm, however there is evidence that the custom of bridewealth was practiced in the Old Testament. T.M. Lemos provides evidence of marriage gifts in the legal and narrative texts of the Bible, and in extrabiblical sources. Lemos also lists biblical references to marriage gifts other than bridewealth. Obviously, indebtedness to childbearing women is not admitted today but I believe it is acknowledged in the story of Adam and Eve. Please keep this in mind as we discuss the increase in the Child Tax Credit.

    The House Republican tax bill would increase the maximum Child Tax Credit (CTC) from the current $1,000 to $1,600 per child. However it would exclude 10 million children whose parents work for low pay—about 1 in 7 of all U.S. children in working families, including thousands of children in every state. Another 12 million children in working families would receive less than the full $600-per-child increase in the credit (in most cases much less). Altogether, about 1 in 3 children in working families would either be excluded entirely or only partially benefit from the CTC increase. In almost every state, 25 percent of children in working families would be partially or completely excluded. In 12 states, at least 40 percent would be excluded. If you include cuts to or elimination of 1 million immigrant children in low-income families, the total number comes to 23 million children.

    The credit is partially refundable. The refundable portion is limited to 15 percent of a family’s earnings over $3,000. So a single mother with two children and earnings of $10,000 is eligible for a CTC of $1,050 or $525 per child, rather than for the $2,000 ($1,000 per child) that a middle-income family with two children receives. The poorest children qualify for only a very small CTC or none at all.

    On the other hand, families with six-figure incomes would be made newly eligible for the credit or receive the largest CTC increases. The CTC of a married couple with two children earning $200,000 would rise from zero today to $3,200 under the plan.

    The Rubio-Lee proposal would help but it still falls short. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Senators Sherrod Brown and Michael Bennet, and other lawmakers have also introduced improvements. They would improve the CTC proposal in the House tax bill but they would not touch the biggest shortcomings in the plan: its heavy tilt toward the highest-income households and profitable corporations, and its impact in substantially increasing budget deficits and debt. (Emily Horton Child Tax Credit Increase Excludes Thousands of Children, Available: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/house-tax-bills-child-tax-credit-increase-excludes-thousands-of-children-in-low

    Rising deficits in turn would lead to increased pressure to make deep budget cuts in areas such as health care, food assistance for struggling families, and education – cuts that would fall heavily on low- and middle-income families and render them net losers, even if the plan’s CTC provisions are strengthened.

    “Overall, the House tax bill is heavily skewed toward high-income households and profitable corporations. When fully in effect, 38 percent of its benefits would go to the 0.3 percent of filers with annual incomes over $1 million…”

    Of course not even the full amount of the CTC will defray the costs of raising a child in the middle class. The Republicans seem to be counting on our ignorance of the principles involved here. I conclude that the central obligation in the resistance should belong to the parents of girls. Since the government seems to be playing the part of a spouse or in-law, I would also advise young women to cooperate with their parents to assure proper compensation from the government. I think this type of organization is a matter of self-defense under this regime.

    Maybe this will lead to a society in which Paul Ryan and his ilk cannot seduce women into having more children for a few pennies, and fill the coffers of the rich while denying those same women the entitlements they’ve paid for.

    See also: Emily Hales, Can government incentives reverse falling birth rates? Deseret news, June 27, 2014. Available: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605862/Governments-use-incentives-to-counter-falling-fertility-rates.html

    Buttonwood, Political power follows economic power, The Economist, Feb 3, 2016. Available: https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/02/economics-and-democracy

error: Content is protected !!