Among other benefits, the bill would improve the living standards of 16 million low-income children and lift 400,000 children out of poverty in the first year. Incentives for research and development will also increase. And best of all, all of that money would be paid for by reining in pandemic-era tax cuts that created an avalanche of fraudulent claims.
The policies in this bill are also good. The bill is supported by virtually all parties of nearly every conceivable political persuasion, including business groups, pro-life groups, parent alliances, anti-poverty advocacy groups, conservative coalitions, and progressives. It’s also a chance for Republicans to prove the sincerity of their family supporters. Dobbs.
So when the bill passed the House with broad bipartisan support, there was renewed hope that the dysfunctional Congress might sometimes be able to govern after all.
Unfortunately, those hopes were premature. Republican senators are now trying to kill the bill, and some Republican supporters say it is on “life support.”
Their colleagues’ objections are all over the place, but none are particularly convincing. With the election just around the corner, some fear it will hand President Biden a victory. (I’d argue that the 400,000 children lifted out of poverty are the real winners, but that varies.) Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) made this clear in January. stated. Mailing checks before the election means he could be re-elected. ”
A related explanation is that Republicans hope to win control of Congress and the White House this November, after which they will abandon stupid, child-conscious compromises with Democrats and offer bigger tax cuts for corporations. There is a possibility that it will only promote the
If that’s the strategy, it’s strange for a number of reasons. Among them, the bill includes tax cuts that have expired over the past few years, and the business community is adamant about restoring them retroactively. now. Not next year, when Republicans may or may not have more power.
“Many employers, especially small businesses, are struggling with unexpected tax bills resulting from the expiration of these provisions,” Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told me. . “Asking employers to wait until the next Congress is effectively asking the federal government to make a loan with the expectation that it will be repaid in 2025 or 2026.”
Some senators claim more fundamental concerns. For example, Mike Crapo (Idaho), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, argued that even though the bill has a clear income requirement (i.e., earned income), the child tax credit measure They complained that this could discourage workers from working. only (if a family member is working). After Mr. Crapo identified a particular provision he was concerned about, Democratic Party Chairman Ron Wyden of Oregon offered to remove it from the bill.
But Crapo has yet to be mollified. He and his Senate colleague Thom Tillis, RN.C., also complained about the bill’s cost.
Specifically, I can’t believe I’m actually writing this, but they’re pissed about this. I don’t It costs everything.
seriously. Both men say they don’t want to set a precedent for paying for tax cuts because Congressional Republicans have a decades-long track record of not cutting taxes. Tillis said at the committee hearing. We normally don’t do that, but we did that in this bill. ” He also explained that he is worried that when the time comes next year to extend the expiring Trump tax cuts, Democrats will demand that they pay for them (God forbid).
Please note that payment is this The bill would eliminate a fraud-ridden pandemic program whose continuation would waste tens of billions of dollars. Normally, such an end to the show would be welcomed by Republicans. However, this is clearly not the case if there is a possibility of more debt in the future. (And to be honest, this “precedent” for paying tax breaks doesn’t seem to be strictly binding.)
it doesn’t matter. If Republicans regain the Senate majority, Crapo will likely become the next Senate Finance Committee chairman. Even Republicans who supported the bill are now reluctant to oppose him, Hill staffers told me.
What all of these obstacles to passage of the bill have in common is that they have nothing to do with the welfare of poor children, the original reason why so many people of all ideological stripes were excited about this bill. It is.
Perhaps some politicians may have misheard “suffer the little children” simply as “suffer, little children.”
