Lost in the partisan prop wash of divisive impeachment proceedings was the opportunity for Congress to debate policies that impact American families. Unfortunately, the deliberative body once again forwent substantive public debate or the amendment process while approving continued funding for the government. Both chambers approved a $1.4 trillion spending package packed with Christmas ornaments and gifts galore for lobbyists and their clients, but it left little for hardworking families. 

One of the positive policy amendments left out in the cold was a bipartisan refundable tax credit plan for families, courtesy of Sens. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Michael Bennet, D-Colo. 

The plan would have built upon the hard-fought, two-year effort of Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio to include improvements to the Child Tax Credit as part of the 2017 tax reform. The expansion of the credit, which ultimately fell short of their original amendment, was still a clear victory for American families. 

Related
What did Congress get done while warring over impeachment? You’ll find out this week

Now, new estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation show the refundable parts of 2017’s expanded Child Tax Credit may have increased aid to low-income families by as much as $10 billion per year.

This encouraging report makes the absence of any debate or votes on the Romney-Bennet plan a missed opportunity. Sadly, in an era of continuing resolutions and last-minute budget deals behind closed doors, full debate on such matters is too rare.

The Romney-Bennet plan looked to go further than the 2017 expansion, providing a larger refund to low-income parents who have no tax liability. In other words, as one reporter summed it up, “for the first time in American history, the poorest parents would be guaranteed a benefit whether or not they are employed.”

With this kind of policy, some rightly raise questions about whether government should take money from Peter to pay Paul. And still others want to know what sorts of incentives such a policy might unintentionally create.

Would free money be wasted on unhealthy habits, such as smoking and drinking?

Supporters of the policy, however, are not only pointing to this new data on the 2017 expanded Child Tax Credit, but they’re also touting the success of programs already on the books in places like Australia to Canada. Additionally, studies suggest that when poor parents receive payments like a refundable child tax credit, they appear to largely spend it on things like food, or even prenatal care, rather than alcohol or tobacco.

View Comments

Such policies may even improve the earning capacity of subsequent generations. A study by University of California-Irvine economist Greg Duncan, for example, suggests that an annual income increase of several thousand dollars for impoverished families may correlate with a nearly 20% income boost when children of those parents reach adulthood. 

Pro-family tax policies, such as the Romney-Bennet plan, and the Lee-Rubio plan before it, hold promise.

Others, of course, may wonder whether just giving away money might incentivize idleness. But, on the whole, analysts find that work often goes up, not down. While researchers studying Canada’s policies did find a “negative income effects on labour supply for lower-educated (married) mothers,” according to Samuel Hammond, the director of poverty and welfare policy at the conservative Niskanen Center, such findings don’t tell the whole story. “It turns out the introduction of Canada’s Universal Child Care Benefit was followed by a sizable increase in employment for many mothers, particularly women who were never married, common-law married, or divorced. Employment rates of highly educated married women also increased a point.”  

Reacting to the Romney-Bennet proposal last week, New York Times’ columnist Ross Douthat took to Twitter to address the concerns, sometimes common in the 1990s, that such a tax policy might also unintentionally create an incentive for, say, teen motherhood. Douthat observed that when conservatives were concerned about that happening, “U.S. fertility was above replacement and teen birthrate was three times higher than today and rising.” Today, however, “(the) teen birthrate has plummeted and overall fertility is at record lows. So those ’90s-era worries are less relevant, the need for experiments in pro-natalist policy much more pressing, and conservative policy can and should shift accordingly.” 

Related
Utah’s fertility rate falls below replacement level for the first time — but there’s more to the story

Pro-family tax policies, such as the Romney-Bennet plan, and the Lee-Rubio plan before it, hold promise. They merit a full public debate and discussion. American families, especially those with acute needs, deserve nothing less.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.