Valerie Strauss writes about the dramatic effect that the Biden COVID relief plan will have on children. The effects will last only for one year, but Democrats hope to make the family income provision permanent. To do that, they need to retain a majority in 2022 because the GQP doesn’t believe in direct cash benefits to families. They prefer tax cuts for the rich, which might (or might not) incentivize them to create new jobs. That’s trickle-down economics. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it “feeding the sparrows by feeding the horses.”
Valerie Strauss suggests that the plan
President Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is aimed at helping the country recover from the coronavirus pandemic — but it is another thing, as well: a major federal school reform unlike those we’ve seen in the past few decades.
While the new law is aimed at helping families get back on their feet and helping businesses and schools reopen after a year of turmoil, it includes measures that together have the potential to slash poverty among the 12 million students who live in low-income households.
Biden himself tweeted recently: “No child should grow up in poverty. The American Rescue Plan will expand the child tax credit and cut the child poverty rate in half.”
Outside estimates on its impact have come to the same conclusion, including one from the nonprofit Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which said that two key tax credit provisions could “together lift more children above the poverty line, 5.5 million, than any other economic support program.” An Urban Institute analysis of the plan said the child poverty rate in 2021 will fall by more than 52 percent, largely from changes in tax law and the $1,400 stimulus checks that are part of the relief package.
It should be noted that most of the provisions in this new law will remain in effect only for a year or two — and there is no guarantee what will happen beyond then. But directly aiming to reduce child poverty is exactly what many advocates for children have long said is needed.
Policymakers have been focused for decades on improving public schools with a culture based on standardized testing, the expansion of charter schools and other “school choice” measures, and, in some places, the demonization of teachers. Child poverty, they said, was an excuse for poor performance by adults.
But the testing/choice/big data approach has not closed the achievement gap, and on some measures, it has barely moved.
Critics say research clearly shows that standardized test scores are fundamentally a metric of the state of child poverty in America, not of school quality. Students who live in low-income Zip codes virtually always have lower test scores than those who don’t.
While conditions inside many schools do need to be overhauled — and some teachers need better training — what happens to children outside of school has a far larger effect on their performance than what happens in class, researchers have said.
“On nearly every single outcome that we can assess, public schools have a marginal impact that is really small relative to the impact of families,” said Robert Pianta, dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia and founding director of the university’s Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning.
Many schools nationwide have attempted to address the out-of-school lives of students, including “community schools” that forge partnerships with local agencies and organizations to provide wraparound services for children.
But federal policy has been focused on other things since 2002′s No Child Left Behind law ushered in an era of standardized-testing accountability systems for schools and districts. While running for president, Biden had said he wants to make education equity a top priority.
Biden’s rescue plan will, among other things, send direct cash payments of $1,400 to more than 85 percent of U.S. households, make health care more affordable and extend unemployment benefits.
It will also make key changes in federal tax law, including with the child tax credit, which until now has largely helped middle- and high-income families. Under the new law, many more low-income families will be eligible for the credit, which will rise from $2,000 to $3,600 per child every year. The money will be sent to families over the course of the year in installments — essentially a guaranteed income.
Biden has said he wants the changes in the child tax credit to be permanent, which would have a lasting effect on the child poverty rate. At this time, they aren’t.
In 2011, writer Sarah Garland said in the Hechinger Report,“Increasingly, educators and experts are questioning the reformers’ tactics and asking whether the single-minded focus on schools has become an excuse to avoid the hard work of addressing poverty.”
The American Rescue Plan seems to be a start.
This time the rescue act actually has money that will trickle down to children. On the news I saw a single mother with five children with tears of joy in her eyes. She works as an EMT where she has been transporting Covid patients all year. She still had to go to food banks to feed her family. This relief act will help her a great deal.
Some non-citizens will qualify to receive this benefit if they have a social security numbers or an ITIN (Individual tax identification number). Unfortunately, some non-registered children will not qualify for the money.https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/non-us-citizens-third-stimulus-check/
“Trickle down” is a very good way of putting it. And we already know that trickle down economics doesn’t work.
The nearly $2 trillion relief package is the opposite of trickle down. Trickle-down economics is tax cuts for the rich, who will then use their millions in tax breaks to create jobs. Except they don’t and it doesn’t work
Reagan and Trump did trickle down economics. I don’t think you understand the Biden relief bill.
and how it most often disguises plans for the exact opposite economic effect: trickle up
Biden’s plan is not going to restructure society. If it makes children more food secure and more able to go to a doctor, it is worth it. Trump did nothing for the poor including the working poor Biden also retooled Obama care so that there is a cap of 8% on incomes. This will help working families a great deal.
I cannot believe so many otherwise intelligent people are buying the ridiculous idea that a one-time pittance check (which is already owed to creditors many times over) and a temporary pittance tax credit is going to “lift children out of poverty”. The only way it’s even possible to pretend that’s happening is by defining poverty far below actual poverty level. The federal poverty threshold is $26,000 for a family of 4. So you’re telling me that a family of 4 making $26,001 is not in poverty? That income doesn’t even begin to cover rent in most big cities, nevermind food, medical care, utilities, debt, etc. If Trump tried to pull this type of spin, you folks would be spitting in outrage over his lies (and rightfully so, but it’s no better when Democrats do it).
The only way to lift children out of poverty is to lift their parents out of poverty. We need living wages, single-payer healthcare, free childcare, debt forgiveness, and end to the U.S. empire and the carceral state. The Democrats are adamantly opposed to all of those measures. I mean, sure they mumble about raising the minimum wage, but then they bicker over $11/hour vs. $15/hour by 2026, neither of which is anywhere close to a living wage ($15/hour = $31,000/year – still not livable in any major city). And sure, they proclaim that “healthcare is a human right”, but they oppose the only system that would actually provide healthcare to all humans. They even walked back the watered down “public option” Biden mumbled about on the campaign trail.
Democrats own the presidency and both houses of Congress, so this is now their mess. They have the power to implement the policies we need. If they choose not to, that’s on them, not the Republicans. The stimulus bill that just passed did so without a single Republican vote, so the only thing holding it back from being even more progressive was the Democrats themselves.
You people are so gaslit you don’t even know who your abusers are. I understand abusive relationships are hard to leave, but the first step is waking up to the mind games your abuser is playing. Apologies for being crude, but the Democrats are pissing on you and they have you convinced it’s raining. Look at the hagiographic coverage Biden has been receiving in the mainstream media: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/06/biden-stimulus-poverty-checks/ How do you not see this as utter propaganda?
Biden is doing very little more than Trump (in fact, in some ways less – he has given less stimulus money to fewer people). His COVID “plan” is basically the same as Trump’s – re-open the country and roll out the vaccine. He is continuing and escalating the forever wars. He is continuing and escalating the war on immigrants (he re-opened a “child migrant facility” (formerly known as “child cages”) that even Trump shut down for abuses, which is built on a toxic waste site).
I realize most of you here are reasonably comfortable and it sure is nice not to deal with mean tweets and clownish behavior in the White House. But that doesn’t mean conditions have changed for those on the bottom. Biden has not been “pushed left” – in fact, he’s gone further right since his campaign. Biden is no FDR – not even close – and it has nothing to do with the Republicans.
You can make your points without being rude and insulting. It’s getting old. To D-77. If I type your whole name I go into moderation.
The wheels turn slowly in politics, that’s why the quick passage of this bill has been so widely celebrated. Nothing is ever perfect, but the intentions here seem to be done in good faith. We will see what happens in the future.
In my mind Biden is sincere in his actions. It amazes me when I hear that even though he goes to church every Sunday he is not Christian. What facts are these people basing this on? It also amazes me that you feel Biden is basically the same as Trump. You talk about abuse. Well, we were abused and I didn’t realize how much I had accepted this abuse as normal as when I first heard Biden speak to the American people with a Presidential voice which tried to comfort instead of chastise. I actually feel as if I can breathe again.
Perhaps I am naive, but I have a lot of hope for the future. The only pit I still have in my stomach is when I think of the policies of some of the Republicans in various states who continue to follow the wrong path which could ultimately end up biting this country in the rear.
I do believe that it is YOU (D-77) who was/is gaslit by IQ45 and his crazy minions. Don’t try and turn it around. Everything is not rainbows and unicorns (with Biden) but it is quite refreshing to wake up, turn on the computer to read the news and not have to read about the crazy midnight tweetings/rantings of an orange madman who is inhabiting the WH. Even my Trump loving neighbors are now rolling up their sleeves to receive a Covid 19 vaccine for something that they thought was a big hoax. You are quite the “Debbie Downer”….just stop!
dienne77
I love it , now convince your friends, neighbors and co workers .
“The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority” Zinn
Good Luck
D-77 and her pals would have defeated FDR in 1936 because he didn’t achieve universal healthcare. They would have amplified the far right wing propaganda that FDR specifically chose of his own corrupt and evil volition to remove healthcare in his big 1935 relief packages and therefore the Democratic party is corrupt.
They would have amplified far right propaganda to defeat Truman in 1948 because he didn’t achieve Medicare.
Imagine how great it would be if we could get those on the far right to help the progressive movement by having them repeat left wing talking points as much as D-77 repeats right wing talking points.
We could get far right posters to remind the Christian right that even though Republicans controlled the presidency and both the Senate and House in 2016, those lying, dishonest Republicans sold them out and abortion isn’t illegal yet. We could get Republicans to remind the far right that Trump didn’t lock up the lefty socialists yet. We could have had the far right helping us to a huge progressive victory in their belief that only by empowering Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and defeating the lying Republicans could they get the far right wing, racist, xenophobic society they dream of!
Pssst. Don’t tell her that FDR approved segregation in housing and employment policy over the objections of Frances Perkins! Her head might explode.
“I mean, sure they mumble about raising the minimum wage, but then they bicker over $11/hour vs. $15/hour by 2026, neither of which is anywhere close to a living wage ($15/hour = $31,000/year – still not livable in any major city).”
But major cities ALREADY have a $15 minimum wage! If this dishonest poster lives in a place in this country that does not have a $15 minimum wage, that is entirely her own fault and the fault of her community. Why is she blaming Biden for the awful things that she and her own community are too selfish to support?
“Biden is doing very little more than Trump.” Now that is some serious delusion! Verging on criminal delusion.
GQP indeed. The party that staunchly stands in the way of even the most minimal progressive actions. I have to say that it’s so nice not to have to wake up to some orange ogre blathering, bloviating and spewing lies and nonsense while not addressing the real needs of this nation. We could very well have had 4 more years of DT but we were spared that agony and he’s not been very visible since Biden took over. Hurrah! Good on Biden/Harris for this stimulus package, no thanks to the GQP.
Joe Biden is going to help children instead of Wall Street? That is something that can actually happen? Is it possible that the Biden administration recognizes the marginal role schools play in producing desired test outcomes, and sees that blaming and punishing people for living in poverty does not help them? Could it be that President Biden understands that students are influenced more by factors outside of school than inside of school? Might Reaganomics be dead? Is it within the realm of possibility that when the new administration says they want test scores this year so that they can target support and resources, they actually mean it? No more closing and privatizing schools is a possibility? The end of blaming and shaming teachers could happen? Could this be not the bait and switch to which we all have become accustomed? I can’t believe it is even possible.
From your lips to God’s ears as they say. I wish it all were true. Unfortunately, there are too many billionaires writing checks to fund the undermining of public education.
I know, but after I read Valerie Strauss’ description on the Answer Sheet I was left hopeful. Okay, wishful.
By the way, I was led to the Answer Sheet this morning by the Network for Public Education blog.
I am wondering if I am the only one here who is worried about the National Debt?
No….you are not. I think we are ALL concerned about the National Debt. I think it’s to be addressed soon. There will be taxation on the uber wealthy. It’s about time that the ALEC clan start paying taxes instead of benefitting from loopholes and siphoning off tax dollars for their own private businesses . Check out Senator Whitehouse on you-tube….he is hell-bent on exposing the Dark Money in politics.
Yes!!!
LisaM, just saw this headline in Bloomberg:
“Biden Eyes First Major Tax Hike Since 1993 in Next Economic Plan”
That’s a tax hike on people with high incomes.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/senate-judiciary-holds-hearing-on-dark-money-and-supreme-court/
Once you know who the “actors” are and how they have operated in the upper courts, you will see how these “actors” influence the flow of tax dollars away from the public good and into their own coffers or tax diversion for their own benefit. Rich get richer. Poor get poorer. The middle class gets smothered. You have to know “the rules” before you can try and win the game?
The vast majority of the US National debt is owned by US tax payers.
The Social Security Trust fund is a relatively large owner of the deb, even though Social SSecurit actually takes in more money than it pays out. That’s because the government has been using the money and effectively writing an IOU to future retirees.
https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124
If the US government ever defaulted, the biggest losers would be US citizens.
There are about $2.7 trillion in assets in the SS trust fund. The GOP says they are worthless IOUs. Not true. The securities held by the trust funds are “special issues” of the United States Treasury. They are just as valid as cash or savings bonds. The trust fund may run out in the 2030s if nothing is done but SS will not go bankrupt because money will still be coming in from the SS wage tax. The benefit would be reduced but there are tweaks that could be made to avoid a shortfall.
From AARP: The maximum taxable income for Social Security for 2021 is $142,800. If you make more than that from work, the excess won’t be subject to the portion of FICA taxes that fund Social Security. (That’s 6.2 percent of your gross wages if you have a job and 12.4 percent of net proceeds from self-employment.) end quote
According to Bernie if you raise the cap or even eliminate it, problem solved for a long time.
Joe, Trump tried to eliminate the tax that funds social security and claimed that working people would be grateful to see a bigger paycheck.
Was that article inaccurate in some way?
The real problem as I see it is that Congress sees the SS Trust fund as a kitty to raid to fund stuff that would otherwise go unfunded.
It’s a game they play to avoid having to raise taxes.
Same game they play to fund wars.
The GOP wasn’t concerned about the national debt when it cut the taxes on the rich. The top marginal tax rate should be what is was under Ike, 91%. I am worried about the millions of Americans without health insurance and are 1 illness away from destitution.
In 1980 +- Peter Peterson put a debt clock up on 3rd (or 6th ) avenue in Manhattan . The debt was 990 billion. Social Programs and Entitlements had to be cut drastically or the world as we know it was coming to an end.
Are you still waiting.
Sixth Avenue, I.e., Avenue of the Americas
Peter Peterson, a billionaire who had a life long vendetta against Social Security and the other social programs. SS is 85 years old and has survived wars, recessions and the GQP’s repeated attempts to dismantle and destroy it.
According to Bloomberg business, Biden is considering raising taxes on the following:
Raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%
Paring back tax preferences for so-called pass-through businesses, such as limited-liability companies or partnerships
Raising the income tax rate on individuals earning more than $400,000
Expanding the estate tax’s reach
A higher capital-gains tax rate for individuals earning at least $1 million annually.
He does not want the middle class to shoulder the tax increase. He wants to help rebuild the middle class.
Why is the federal government cutting $15,000 checks to households with incomes up to $150,000?
Alternatively, why is this not universal?
This needs to either be targeted at people who are actually in poverty or it needs to be universal.
It is? Households who earn $149,999 are getting $15,000 checks? How did I not know that?
On the other hand, given that the Republicans essentially gave million dollar plus checks to billionaires by lowing their tax rates, this seems pretty tame.
My understanding is the phase-out doesn’t start until $150k for household income. (75k individual.) Four kids = $12,000 to $14,400, depending on their ages.
Just wondering if you thought your original reply was actually a helpful way to begin a discussion, because it seemed quite disingenuous.
I don’t know about “universal”, but I could imagine a fade out so that the higher the HHI after $149,999, the less one would receive per child.
There is a good discussion to be had about whether to use any means testing at all of benefits. Under Reagan, all social security survivors’ benefits for children were stopped at age 18 — previously they had continued beyond 18 if that child was enrolled full time in a college. Under Reagan, Social Security for recipients started being taxed.
I thought there was a good argument to be had for taxing social security benefits for people whose total income was high and leaving them tax free for retirees whose total income was not high.
But these are complicated issues, because does someone who has a huge amount of wealth in a trust get taxed? What about if you own a $5 million dollar property, and what if you own a $5 million dollar family farm?
There is a lot of dishonesty and disingenuousness when these issues are discussed in American politics. I wish it were not so. It’s much easier to pass less complicated legislation where the majority of people who benefit are not rich than to develop a complicated means testing.
I also recall this discussion coming up decades ago with regard to federally insured college loans, which used to be available to all families without a means test. Complicated. Well-worth a discussion, as long as both sides truthfully acknowledge the trade offs that public policy always has and always will.
The fade-out is how it works now. So I think people with household incomes as high as 199k are still receiving some amount of this child tax credit. I think that’s pretty crazy.
How is that crazier than your suggestion of not means testing at all?
Ok, you are in charge FLERP! What should the limit be?
What policy is “not crazy” in your book?
If you’re going to hand out checks of this size to 85% of Americans, then you may as well hand them out to the other 15 percent. The difference is not quite negligible but it’s close by today’s standards.
I would means-test this much tighter, to a much lower income threshold, and I would be inclined to limit coronavirus relief to people who have actually been negatively impacted by shutdowns, through job or income loss since March 2020. Or by medical expenses incurred because of the pandemic.
Also, this:
” In 2017, the birth rate in the United States was highest in families that had under 10,000 U.S. dollars in income per year, at 66.44 births per 1,000 women. As the income scale increases, the birth rate decreases, with families making 200,000 U.S. dollars or more per year having the lowest birth rate, at 43.92 births per 1,000 women.
Income and the birth rate
Income and high birth rates are strongly linked, not just in the United States, but around the world. Women in lower income brackets tend to have higher birth rates across the board. There are many factors at play in birth rates, such as the education level of the mother, ethnicity of the mother, and even where someone lives. ”
This public policy is designed to have the maximum impact on the poorest Americans.
That doesn’t mean that some higher income families will also benefit. But most of the benefit will go to the families with the lowest incomes.
And given that no public policy is perfect, this seems a lot better than the Republican public policy which maximizes the benefits to the richest Americans!
Maximizing the benefits to those with the lowest income and minimizing it to those with the highest incomes is a public policy I can support. Good job, Democrats!
“I would means-test this much tighter, to a much lower income threshold, and I would be inclined to limit coronavirus relief to people who have actually been negatively impacted by shutdowns, through job or income loss since March 2020. Or by medical expenses incurred because of the pandemic.”
What “much lower income threshold”?
And what you are saying is that first responders and all the essential workers who didn’t lose their jobs don’t deserve this? And are you saying the billionaires who have high medical expenses should benefit because they used expensive medical providers?
I could throw out all sorts of reasons why you seem to want to help rich people more than those who have worked the hardest and risked their lives during this pandemic. If I was being disingenuous.
As I pointed out, this policy was specifically designed to benefit low-income people the most. The fact that a small percentage of households making $150,000/year who also happen to have 4 young children will also benefit seems a poor excuse to also give this benefit to billionaires who don’t need it.
I do think there could have been better ways but those would also have negatively impacted some people who most needed or deserved this and positively impacted some people who least needed or deserved this.
There is no perfect policy that won’t do this. But there is also no reason except a talking point to make this money available to billionaire households, either.
FLERP!,
The problem with more rigid eligibility standards is that 1) they will be expensive to enforce, and 2) will likely cause some people who deserve help not to get it.
We can hope that people who feel they do not need the money can donate it to charity and not have to pay taxes on it as income.
“Under the new law, many more low-income families will be eligible for the credit, which will rise from $2,000 to $3,600 per child every year.” Yes.
But the Biden plan offers more tax credits for married couples, according to Katie Porter, than for single parents raising children. Porter, who does need the money but escaped from a terrible marriage with three children, is advocating for money targeting the child, not just the children of married couples.
That is not to say she is opposed to the Biden bill, but there is a population that will get much less than the bill appears to offer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvPfVNb551c
“a terrible marriage with three children”
Is that worse than one with two children?
Yes, given that the stimulus tax credits are not available to children living with a single parent.
In 2019, there were about 15.76 million children living with a single mother in the United States, and about 3.23 million children living with a single father.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/252847/number-of-children-living-with-a-single-mother-or-single-father/
I don’t know how it will help children get out of poverty in one year, but nothing seems better than this. They need to secure the majority in Congress, since the bill is obviously a product of partisan-approval. It doesn’t seem to be an easy path, as I am seeing discords among Democrats in both House and Senate.
I think the bill is a good start as a trial, and they need to make sure that similar amount of money will be allotted for this purpose in the future. It shouldn’t be hidden under the title of COVID because child poverty takes way much longer to get fixed than the pandemic.
The least thing people see is the dollar stops at bureaucrats or goes to Wall street donors.