Government Assistance is limited in the US. Subsidized care available to low-income families only covers a small percent of eligible families. However, tax credits (the Child & Dependent Care tax credit) are available to all families and covers children up to age 13.  (Note: the new tax laws of 2018-19 changed these policies somewhat.)

Why is there opposition to government assistance in the US? 

What is it about the American value system that leads to such opposition?

Compare short-term vs long-term costs of helping families with child care expenses

 

Answer:

Child care policies

Government assistance is limited in the US Subsidized care available to low-income families only covers a small percentage of eligible families. However, tax credits (the child and dependent care tax credit) are available to all families and cover children up to 13 years of age. (Note: the new 2018-19 tax laws changed these policies somewhat.)

Currently, more than half of children under the age of 5 in the United States regularly attend some type of daycare or preschool program outside the home. These children's experiences in these places will affect their future lives. For many families, unfortunately, good quality early education and child care is not available or accessible.

Why is there opposition to government aid in the United States?

US policies are inconsistent and weak, compared to many other countries, regarding support for families. Some families qualify for fewer federal benefits that help the poor and working class, such as the earned income tax credit and Medicaid, if the parents marry. Many states that prioritize children's health care offer no support to their parents, despite evidence that children do better when their parents are also in good health.

In the child welfare system, social workers are often indifferent to the role of parents, despite growing evidence of their importance to the well-being of children. In addition, prison systems with family visits ignore what researchers have learned about physical contact: seeing parents through acrylic glass is traumatic for children.

What is it about the American value system that leads to such opposition?

Before the 1970s, politicians rarely talked about families, according to research by political scientists Steven Greene and Laurel Elder, who have analyzed the language used in political speeches. By 1992, conservatives were using the phrase "family values" as a slogan and weapon to launch criticism. Families became more politicized, Greene and Elder argue, as the American family underwent major changes: more working mothers, more single and same-sex fathers, and the emergence of more intensive parenting.

Throughout this period, the family has become the center of the philosophical division between the left and the right, although both sides affirm that the issue that worries them most is families. According to the left, the government plays an essential role in protecting and supporting families, through programs such as Medicaid or a higher minimum wage. According to the right, it seems that the government very often is a burden on families, who need lower taxes and fewer regulations.

Family and parenting are a very powerful political symbol, "Politicians have learned that no matter what the policy is, wrapping it in the language of family and children whether they are Democrats or Republicans is a very effective strategy."

By this logic, even President Trump's family separation policy on the border could be considered pro-family. "If immigrants are coming to take your job, then this policy is pro-family."

He is concerned that the politicization of the family is negative for policy making. As the family becomes a culturally charged symbol, evoking everything and justifying anything, it becomes more difficult to devise real policies that address real needs.

In this climate, families have become the focal point of partisans accused of being hypocrites, on both sides.

Research is clear that adverse childhood experiences, such as parental separation, are harmful to children. Yet the left and right also disagree on which interlocking factors to emphasize to help families: broader structural forces like the economy or more personal decisions like marrying.

Compare the short-term and long-term costs of helping families with child care expenses

In 2019, the United States spent more than $ 100 billion on the Federal Child Tax Credit. Qualifying families can deduct up to $ 2,000 of their taxes for each dependent child, and if the credit is more than the taxes they owe, they get a refund for the balance. The child tax credit is the largest federal expenditure made to benefit children.

But 23 million children are not eligible for this credit because their parents earn too little to qualify. In other words, a program designed to help the little ones is leaving behind those who need it most. Extending credit to low-income families would reduce the child poverty rate - the percentage of children (up to age 17) living below the poverty line - by a quarter.

The 2018 tax code restructuring, President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, increased the maximum Child Tax Credit from $ 1,000 to $ 2,000 per child and extended eligibility for the full credit to families with incomes between $ 110,000 and $ 400,000. The rewrite did not reproduce this generous expansion for the country's lowest-income families.

Under the law, the credit is gradually "built in" with earnings, so parents in families of two adults and two children now need to earn $ 36,000 a year to qualify for the full $ 2,000 tax credit, and a single mother with two children must earn $ 30,000. These income requirements exclude 35% of children from the total benefit of the credit. Only 2% are not eligible for the full credit because their families earn too much.

This means that families with young children and families in rural areas are disproportionately excluded from full credit, as are the majority of black and Latino children. Female-headed households are less likely to receive full credit, at least in part because women are paid less than men for the same job. In California, 37% of the small ones are left without full credit, and there are areas of the state, mainly in metropolitan areas and in the Central Valley, where those who do not get credit are the majority, not the exception.

The US child poverty rate, 13.7%, is one of the highest among developed democracies. In countries where child poverty is significantly less common, such as Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom, for example, child tax credits (also called child allowances) reach almost all children, regardless of their income level. His parents.

Efforts are being made at the federal level to correct inequities in the Child Tax Credit. We estimate that the American Family Act would lift 4 million children out of poverty and cut the number of children in the deepest poverty in half. To correct inequities in the Child Tax Credit. The American Family Act, first introduced in 2017, would expand full eligibility to low-income kids, increase the value of credit for everyone, and distribute it monthly. We estimate that the American Family Act would lift 4 million children out of poverty and cut the number of children in the deepest poverty in half.