Credit: Washington Post.
Dear Commons Community,
A bipartisan bill expanding the child tax credit, as well as business deductions sought by corporate America, failed to advance in the Senate yesterday after overwhelming opposition from Republicans who feared giving Democrats a major win ahead of the November elections.
The 48-44 vote came amid debate about which party is more “pro-family” and whether the government should penalize people without children, or “childless cat ladies,” as Ohio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, suggested in recently resurfaced comments that have drawn bipartisan criticism. As reported by the Huffington Post.
“If these folks are so pro-family, why aren’t they supporting paid family and medical leave? If they believe in families, why are they not supporting the child tax credit?” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) told HuffPost when asked about GOP opposition to the bill.
The legislation would have given low-income parents larger tax refunds, especially in households with multiple children. Tax analysts said a tax filer who has two children and earned $9,000 last year would receive a child tax credit refund worth $975 under current law, but $1,950 under the proposal.
The bill’s authors, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), said it would “help 16 million kids from low-income families and lift 500,000 out of poverty,” in part by allowing parents to claim the full tax credit for each of their kids, something they can’t do now.
Republicans complained that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) only brought the measure up for a vote six months after it was approved by the House (by a 357-70 vote) to help bolster the campaigns of vulnerable Democratic incumbents facing tough reelection fights in November.
Some GOP senators also warned about giving Democrats a major election-year legislative victory, insisting that they’d be better positioned to pass the legislation next year if they win control of the White House and the Senate.
But Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who voted to advance the bill, wasn’t convinced by that argument.
“You could turn that around and say that a Republican House was able to pass meaningful tax relief for children and that’d be great for them going forward into the fall campaign. You could put the political argument both ways,” he said.
Progressives in the chamber, meanwhile, voted to advance the bill even though they didn’t think it included enough benefit for families.
The bill included several sweeteners for Republicans, including business tax breaks for research-and-development expenses long sought by corporate donors. It would also not cost the government money, according to budget scorekeepers, because it would crack down on abuse of the employee retention tax credit, or ERTC, a program from the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic that encouraged business owners to keep workers on company payrolls. Republicans disputed that cost analysis, however.
Senator Vance, who missed Thursday’s vote, has repeatedly accused Democrats of being the “anti-child” party, citing, among other things, liberal concerns over the human impact on climate change. In 2021, for example, he argued that Republicans should “go to war” against the idea of deciding not to have children, suggesting that someone who focuses on building their career instead of making babies will be “a sad, lonely, pathetic person.”
Last week, he doubled down, saying, “This is not about criticizing people who for various reasons don’t have kids. This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child.”
But Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) took offense to his remarks.
“I said that it was offensive to me as a woman,” Murkowski told reporters Wednesday. “Women make their own determinations as to whether or not they’re going to have children or cats or dogs or how many kids they’re going to have.”
Murkoski has it right!
Tony
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
