The Hits Just Keep On Coming
Recapping recent pieces of legislation that could usher in better tax policy for families
I gave up sending out newsletters on time for Lent. If it’s Friday, it’s Family Matters:
The Main Event: Congress continues to propose ideas to improve child benefits
IVF Myths Busted: Five Things You Should Know About IVF
Webinar March 11: Recapping Flowers of Fire
It’s Me, Hi: Commonplace and Newsweek
Parting Shots
The Main Event
In the House of Representatives, Republicans hold a record-thin majority. It’s plausible, if not likely, that Speaker Mike Johnson will be able to spare one or two votes at most when he tries to shepherd “one beautiful bill” through Congress this summer.
Packing all the must-haves into one bill helps keep everyone onside, but means that the GOP’s eyes will inevitably be bigger than its stomach — as a CBO report this week pointed out, even the scale of tax cut and budget reductions they are have already will necessitate cuts to Medicaid (something some members have expressed some heartburn over), and that’s essentially only to pay for extending the tax cuts from 2017. Adding in new tax provisions, such as no tax on tips, no tax on auto loans, or the rest, will require blowing up the federal deficit even more (or cutting even more politically popular spending.)
All this makes the odds of expanding the top-line value of the Child Tax Credit this year rather slim. A GOP reconciliation bill may end up being the only major legislative package to move this year, suggesting that pro-family voices should pick and choose their priorities carefully in hopes of slipping something into the mix that doesn’t have a huge budget score attached (why yes, that is in fact the entrance music for a Baby Bonus!)
But that hasn’t, and shouldn’t, stopped new ideas from percolating. There have been multiple attempts at improving the CTC (and CDCTC)1, each with some aspects to recommend it and areas it could be improved. With an eye towards the future, here’s a quick refresher:
Child Care Availability and Affordability Act
The most recent entry comes from Alabama Senator Katie Britt, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, and a host of bipartisan co-sponsors, backed up by a host of Early Childhood Groups. It would be a big change the current CDCTC. Currently, the amount of child care expenses you can deduct from your taxes is capped at $1,050 (which hasn’t changed since 2001), and you can only deduct from taxes owed – so only families with sufficient federal income tax can claim the credit.
Britt-Kaine would increase expenses that qualify the CDCTC to $5,000 per child, and increase the refundability – that is, as a check on top of your tax relief. Even families with no income taxes owed would receive a check back from the federal government, up to as much as a $2,500 reimbursement of their child care expenses (assuming they paid that much throughout the year and met the various income requirements).
The upside of beefing up the CDCTC is its low-intensity structure – you simply need the child care provider’s taxpayer ID or Social Security Number in order to claim it. And expanding a credit that currently delivers most of its relief to upper-income households is a nice thought. However, Britt-Kaine, as written, would not change the CDCTC’s requirement that all parents in a household be working, which discriminates against families in which one parent works informally or sporadically.
Allowing moms with a side hustle to count babysitting hours as CDCTC-eligible expenses would be a relatively cheap tweak and ensure that all families, regardless of their work-home arrangements, could benefit from the new approach. Otherwise, Congress would be taking the position that single-earner families with no child care expenses would receive limited refundability in the CTC, but families in the same income band but paying for child care with both parents working would receive an extra check. Either loosen the activity test for two-parent families, give stay-at-home parents an allowable credit amount (as and have suggested) or fold the CDCTC into a Young Child Tax Credit, as I proposed while working at Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.
Family Income Supplemental Credit Act
The Family Income Supplemental Credit Act would transform the CTC into a monthly payment to parents, with its total amount capped at the amount of income earned by a household in the previous year. It would also institute a 20% bonus for married couples, phase the credit out at $250,000 for couples filing jointly ($125,000 for single parents), and provide for a higher benefit during the last months of pregnancy.
Part of what makes the FISC Act so interesting is, of course, who’s introducing it – Rep. , a father of two young kids himself, is a Democrat representing a Trump +9 district in northern Maine, making him one of just 16 House members to come from a district that voted for the opposing Presidential candidate in 2024.
Family First Act
And then there is Rep. Blake Moore’s Family First Act, built atop the infrastructure created by his fellow Utahn, former Senator Mitt Romney. Like Golden’s bill, it would change the structure of the CTC from a income-based phase-in to a threshold amount – in this case, families making $20,000 to $400,000 would receive the full amount of Child Tax Credit they’d theoretically be eligible for ($3,000 for children above age 6, $4,200 for young kids). Those below that amount would receive their CTC scaled down by their income as a percentage of that threshold figure.
It’s no secret I am a big fan of this approach, having recently hosted a panel on the Hill singing the bill’s praises. If you need me to convince you about why you, too, should support Rep. Moore’s bill, give me a holler.
Bipartisan Wyden-Smith Deal from last Congress
Some still light a candle for the dearly-departed bipartisan deal that passed the House last Congress. It would have indexed the credit for inflation, accelerated how quickly the refundable portion of the CTC phased in for low-income families with multiple children, allowed families to claim the prior year’s earnings to secure eligibility, and removed the cap restricting the refundable portion to below the full credit amount.
At the time, I called it a worthwhile though imperfect deal. Now, given that its main pay-for – the expiring and fraud-ridden Employee Retention Credit – is no longer available to offset the cost, that deal seems unlikely to have much of a future. Similarly, more aggressive policy visions – such as Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley’s proposal to increase the CTC to $5,000 or Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s push to increase the size of the CTC during the first year of a child’s life – don’t have much of a political pathway forward in the current climate.
What’s the point of rehashing all of this for you today? Partly to make sure you’re paying attention – too many reporters treat the CTC and CDCTC as interchangeable, and too many analysts and pundits focus on the CTC’s top-line amount instead of the changes under the hood that could help strengthen marriage, support families, or ease the administrative burden on parents. But these discussions aren’t going away, and the principles embedded in these bills could end up forming the backbone of future efforts (the Britt-Kaine bill, in particular, could very easily attach to something must-pass, and it would be better to make it more inclusive ahead of time than wait until the 11th hour.)
IVF Myths Busted
As a public service to you, the people, I compiled a list of five common misconceptions about the case for expanding public funding for in vitro fertilization (IVF), and why the White House should proceed with caution before deregulating and/or writing a blank check to the fertility industry:
Virtually no nation that has publicly subsidized IVF has seen a subsequent increase in birth rates
The U.S.’ light-touch regulations around assisted reproduction raises questions about patient safety and bioethics concerns
Expanding public subsidy for IVF could lead to higher health care costs or raise federal expenditures
Many couples have higher rates of success with restorative reproductive health approaches
While polls show helping couples who face fertility is broadly popular, more context is needed
Download the one-page version, and share with all your friends:
Webinar March 11
I’ll be joining a murderer’s row of friends of
— , , , , and Rachel Lu — for a rollicking discussion of our recent virtual book club. Our topic: Hawon Jung’s Flowers of Fire: The Inside Story of South Korea's Feminist Movement and What It Means for Women's Rights Worldwide — what does the 4B movement in South Korea mean for the U.S.? Can we avoid the toxic gender politics we read about?(For those who missed out, installments one, two, three, and four are available at Fairer Disputations.) All are welcome, even - especially! - if you didn’t read along with the book.
Join us Tuesday, March 11, at 1:00 p.m. for a Zoom discussion of Flowers of Fire and what it means for the U.S.:
It’s Me, Hi
For Commonplace, I argue that the best parts of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement — its focus on root causes and holistic health care — run the risk of being betrayed by the White House’s moves on deregulating the fertility industry:
“If the President and his team were interested in applying the underlying principles of the MAHA movement to concrete policy proposals, they’d be directing federal research dollars towards the study and treatment of endometriosis or recurrent miscarriage…They’d hold the fertility industry—which has far from a sterling record—to the same standard as the organs of public health, instead of abetting misinformation about IVF’s track record of success (or lack thereof) as women get into their mid-to-late 30s. They’d get rid of marriage penalties and focus on helping young adults get married earlier in life, when chances at conceiving a child are higher. All of these would be root causes to be tackled, key steps towards making America—and her fertility rates—healthier.”
And, for Newsweek, I argue that some of the support for public subsidy of IVF is grounded in misimpressions of the facts on the ground:
“If President Trump and his team truly want to deliver for parents, they'll fund research to address the root causes of infertility and support families with a robust Child Tax Credit. At the very least, they should proceed with eyes wide open about how the wants of the fertility industry do not coincide with the needs of parents desperate for a child, or the necessity of building an authentically pro-family America.”
Parting Shots
Texas Rep. Daniel Alders has introduced a bill that would require IVF firms to provide more reporting on how many embryos are created, how many survive, and the scale of preimplantation genetic testing. More information is needed about this industry and more states should adopt this approach. (The Texan)
Just in time for our Flowers of Fire book club, Claire Cain Miller looks at polling about masculinity and partisanship — the age breakdown may be the most striking (New York Times)
Nic Dunn reports on the very real marriage disincentives that exist in our safety net programs, and calls for more state experimentation to help address them (Institute for Family Studies)
Emily Kennard reports that Republicans are gung-ho for Medicaid work requirements, but haven't thought through the implementation and administrative hurdles it will pose to states and recipients (NOTUS)
Vivian Wang looks at the unorthodox steps Chinese firms are adopting to help the country’s pro-natal efforts (New York Times)
Adrianna Rodriguez reports on the growing push to give teens better information about fertility and to expand sex ed to cover more topics beyond just avoiding pregnancy (USA Today)
Kevin Corinth estimates there are about 8.8 million non-disabled adults without children between the ages of 25-54 who receive Medicaid (AEI)
After years of pleading technological inability, Apple has introduced easier administration of child accounts, better App Store ratings, and more information about what children are downloading — changes conservatives like myself, , Michael Toscano, and others have been pushing from a policy standpoint for a while (TechCrunch)
Montana has a host of child care tax credit bills under consideration, though sadly the $1,200 child tax credit previously proposed by Gov. Greg Gianforte appears permanently stuck amidst partisan fighting (Montana Free Press)
As a final reminder, EPPC is looking for someone interested in families, tech, and the intersection thereof to join our team: Apply here.
Excellent profile of (New York Times)
Strongly recommend ’s 50 Doge Theses:
is putting actual meat on the bone of how progressives could build out an agenda that speaks to men and boys — conservatives should take note:
Congrats to Family Matters reader Daniel K., who took home the most points in our inaugural Oscars prediction competition (as it turns out, predicting a good night for Anora was the smart bet.) For
, essayist offered a smart take on the movie, arguing that — contrary to how it’s been billed — the film about an immigrant sex worker and Russian oligarchs is actually a profoundly pro-marriage story:
Comments and criticism both welcome, albeit not quite equally; send me a postcard, drop me a line, and then sign up for more content and analysis from EPPC scholars.
Child Tax Credit and Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, respectively, though perhaps one easy pro-family move would be renaming the latter in a way that produces less confusion
Can't WAIT for book club!! I have so many thoughts and questions...