“Democrats seem ready to enact major economic relief legislation. The package will be big, with a price tag probably close to the Biden administration’s proposed $1.9 trillion. But the bulk of this spending will clearly be temporary. Americans won’t be getting $1,400 checks every year, unemployment benefits won’t always be this generous, we won’t constantly be mobilizing for emergency vaccination programs (or at least we hope not).
There is, however, one piece of the package many progressives hope will become permanent: enhanced aid to families with children. Indeed, there’s an overwhelming economic and social case for providing such aid, in addition to the moral case.
Yet most conservatives seem to be opposed, even though they’re having a notably hard time explaining why. And the fact that they’re against helping children despite their lack of good arguments tells you a lot about why they really oppose aid to those in need.”
David Lindsay Jr.
Hamden, CT | NYT Comment:
It all sounds good, but will it incentivize having more and more children? What the country and world need is zero, or even better, negative population growth. So I would like to know how this will effect the choice of the number of children American people will have. It might be good for the environment to put a cap on the credit/income payment for just two children, and not some unlimited number. We are living during the 6th extinction in the Anthropocene, which means that non human species are going extinct at an unusual and unsustainable rate, perhaps hundreds a week. We lost the Great White African Rhinoceros this winter. Just one of probably thousands of species lost. Someday, it would be useful if politically possible, to have the credit/subsidy for the first two children, and universal and subsidized family planning as part of health care.
David Lindsay Jr. is the author of “The Tay Son Rebellion, Historical Fiction of Eighteenth Century Vietnam” and blogs at InconvenientNews.Net.