I blame Biden’s build back better “green”monstrosity which is where the CTC lived. The focus of the attention was indeed on the green stuff rather than the CTC. What a shame.
This is great! And 100% agree that the second cost - related to dignity, morality, suffering - must be considered. Interestingly, government agencies are already allowed to consider “dignity” in the cost benefit analysis they produce. Folks working on Law and Political Economy are putting a lot of thought into how to quantify, and monetize, dignity. Here's a quick (somewhat dated) blurb by Eric Posner that links to a longer law review article on the topic. https://ericposner.com/dignity-as-a-value-in-cost-benefit-analysis-by-rachel-bayefsky/
I think Daniel’s right. A waste and a shame. But there’s something else – the lack of widespread public support (which you spoke to). I suspect that one of the biggest obstacles to that support is the over used proposition that we will save money later by spending money now to reduce poverty in general, create jobs, rehabilitate prisoners, provide addiction services to the addicted, improve education, etc. It’s an arguable proposition. If I’m now a tad above the poverty line but have horrible schools and no career opportunities, are my chances really better? But the CTC is a little different. There are no impenetrable bureaucracies or self-interested politicians to stand between it and the good it is intended to do. The long term results may/may not bear out the proposition that it was “less expensive” but if it does that’s a huge win and if doesn’t then the worst thing that happened was that money was funneled directly into the hands of those who needed it most.
My first teaching job was in an elementary school in Harlem. At that time, many held the belief that giving financial aid to people with children caused families and, in particular, single mothers to have more children in order to increase their income. I wouldn't be surprised if this thought holds true for some people regarding giving money to poor families today.
The worst of the laws regarding families back then was that no family could receive Aid To Dependent Children if the father lived at home. Too often, the outcome of that was broken home.
David, thanks for this thoughtful post about a complicated subject. In my opinion, yes, the loss of the expanded Child Tax Credit is cruel. I think there's a hidden language around poverty and low-income existence; pride as a language creates a protective bubble around shame or fear of being less. I have flashes of this from childhood that never went away despite a much different grown-up life. Language divides us when it straddles the bubble creating sides of have/have not. It becomes an upside-down world where kindness becomes condescension. Public translation of emotion into a language of dignity is so tricky. Language could be a way into breaking that bubble if we don't break the back of pride. Pride in itself can be problematic, but sometimes that is the fragile support of a life, of a family, of a community. Maybe some of the most vocal citizens against the expanded CTC could use it themselves but fear losing their community...I guess I'm wondering how empathy and agency can come into the conversation so that some of these economic scars are never wounds in the first place. Is it even possible? Festering wounds cannot heal. The expanded CTC was a decent attempt to get extra dollars into many children's formative years. I wonder how many opponents quietly accepted what was actually due their kids? For the kids...I hope many experienced some beneficial difference. Will the time come when the citizen opponents (not politicians) become advocates and demand what is owed to their children? The cycle begins again; maybe it'll work next time.
Thank you so much for sharing this introductory piece David, and it makes me excited for all that is to come through your writings and reflections. Echoing others, I think the psychological dimension of dignity is crucial here - how do we ensure each person is given an environment that expands possibility, that nurtures the ability to thrive? If one feels like there is nothing to lose, there is often a correlated sense of there being nothing to gain, an idea that may be counterintuitive to those (like me) with abundant blessing. In the context of America, I wonder if there are projections of the impact on economy if an entire generation were to be lifted out of poverty and given an education that enabled long-term possibility? When we take immediate, emergent measures that, as you note, only give a momentary uplift, we lose perspective on how such a lasting support might map into the larger, long-term societal benefits. It is interesting to ponder what would be if CTC became a bedrock of support, and how that might ultimately become a benefit to everyone. Thank you for sparking this conversation and these thoughts!
One of the paths to dignity that also coincides with political reality is that the wider the assistance program is, the more dignity and popularity it has. Social Security and Medicare are two great examples.
I hope we eventually take a similar approach to helping Americans with the expense of raising children.
This is an excellent post that should be read more widely. If you choose to spend some of your retirement energy on this, the world will be a better place.
I have one small suggestion as you continue to make this argument. The number of children who will rise from poverty to become "doctors, nurses, scientists, teachers, inventors" is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. However, the number who could rise from poverty to become taxpayers is much larger and would be seen as a positive to many more who are skeptical about the simple moral urgency. Converting the poor to taxpayers, a very reasonable likelihood, would likely be much more "saleable" to doubters. If a few of them do become doctors, nurses, scientists, teachers, inventors, wonderful! (and they will pay higher taxes)
I blame Biden’s build back better “green”monstrosity which is where the CTC lived. The focus of the attention was indeed on the green stuff rather than the CTC. What a shame.
thank you for highlighting this important cause.
This is great! And 100% agree that the second cost - related to dignity, morality, suffering - must be considered. Interestingly, government agencies are already allowed to consider “dignity” in the cost benefit analysis they produce. Folks working on Law and Political Economy are putting a lot of thought into how to quantify, and monetize, dignity. Here's a quick (somewhat dated) blurb by Eric Posner that links to a longer law review article on the topic. https://ericposner.com/dignity-as-a-value-in-cost-benefit-analysis-by-rachel-bayefsky/
Thanks Peter for the comment and the link. A lot to think about in terms of dignity and avoiding stigmatization of receiving help.
I think Daniel’s right. A waste and a shame. But there’s something else – the lack of widespread public support (which you spoke to). I suspect that one of the biggest obstacles to that support is the over used proposition that we will save money later by spending money now to reduce poverty in general, create jobs, rehabilitate prisoners, provide addiction services to the addicted, improve education, etc. It’s an arguable proposition. If I’m now a tad above the poverty line but have horrible schools and no career opportunities, are my chances really better? But the CTC is a little different. There are no impenetrable bureaucracies or self-interested politicians to stand between it and the good it is intended to do. The long term results may/may not bear out the proposition that it was “less expensive” but if it does that’s a huge win and if doesn’t then the worst thing that happened was that money was funneled directly into the hands of those who needed it most.
My first teaching job was in an elementary school in Harlem. At that time, many held the belief that giving financial aid to people with children caused families and, in particular, single mothers to have more children in order to increase their income. I wouldn't be surprised if this thought holds true for some people regarding giving money to poor families today.
The worst of the laws regarding families back then was that no family could receive Aid To Dependent Children if the father lived at home. Too often, the outcome of that was broken home.
David, thanks for this thoughtful post about a complicated subject. In my opinion, yes, the loss of the expanded Child Tax Credit is cruel. I think there's a hidden language around poverty and low-income existence; pride as a language creates a protective bubble around shame or fear of being less. I have flashes of this from childhood that never went away despite a much different grown-up life. Language divides us when it straddles the bubble creating sides of have/have not. It becomes an upside-down world where kindness becomes condescension. Public translation of emotion into a language of dignity is so tricky. Language could be a way into breaking that bubble if we don't break the back of pride. Pride in itself can be problematic, but sometimes that is the fragile support of a life, of a family, of a community. Maybe some of the most vocal citizens against the expanded CTC could use it themselves but fear losing their community...I guess I'm wondering how empathy and agency can come into the conversation so that some of these economic scars are never wounds in the first place. Is it even possible? Festering wounds cannot heal. The expanded CTC was a decent attempt to get extra dollars into many children's formative years. I wonder how many opponents quietly accepted what was actually due their kids? For the kids...I hope many experienced some beneficial difference. Will the time come when the citizen opponents (not politicians) become advocates and demand what is owed to their children? The cycle begins again; maybe it'll work next time.
Thank you so much for sharing this introductory piece David, and it makes me excited for all that is to come through your writings and reflections. Echoing others, I think the psychological dimension of dignity is crucial here - how do we ensure each person is given an environment that expands possibility, that nurtures the ability to thrive? If one feels like there is nothing to lose, there is often a correlated sense of there being nothing to gain, an idea that may be counterintuitive to those (like me) with abundant blessing. In the context of America, I wonder if there are projections of the impact on economy if an entire generation were to be lifted out of poverty and given an education that enabled long-term possibility? When we take immediate, emergent measures that, as you note, only give a momentary uplift, we lose perspective on how such a lasting support might map into the larger, long-term societal benefits. It is interesting to ponder what would be if CTC became a bedrock of support, and how that might ultimately become a benefit to everyone. Thank you for sparking this conversation and these thoughts!
One of the paths to dignity that also coincides with political reality is that the wider the assistance program is, the more dignity and popularity it has. Social Security and Medicare are two great examples.
I hope we eventually take a similar approach to helping Americans with the expense of raising children.
(Soon to send out a Pesach themed post)
This is an excellent post that should be read more widely. If you choose to spend some of your retirement energy on this, the world will be a better place.
I have one small suggestion as you continue to make this argument. The number of children who will rise from poverty to become "doctors, nurses, scientists, teachers, inventors" is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. However, the number who could rise from poverty to become taxpayers is much larger and would be seen as a positive to many more who are skeptical about the simple moral urgency. Converting the poor to taxpayers, a very reasonable likelihood, would likely be much more "saleable" to doubters. If a few of them do become doctors, nurses, scientists, teachers, inventors, wonderful! (and they will pay higher taxes)
Bravo!