Read on Twitter
Yesterday, we hosted @NiskanenCenter’s @hamandcheese and @AEI’s @swinshi for a debate about the merits of a child benefit like @MittRomney’s Family Security Act.
Read the transcript: https://americancompass.org/event/family-feud-child-allowance-edition/
Read the transcript: https://americancompass.org/event/family-feud-child-allowance-edition/
This is a great primer if you’re interested in family policy debates. @hamandcheese and @swinshi presented thoughtful, substantive cases, backed up by extensive literature. We are grateful to them for sharing their expertise! https://americancompass.org/event/family-feud-child-allowance-edition/
. @hamandcheese begins with the political situation, informed by Canada’s experience, where the Conservative party successfully united around an economic agenda, including a universal child allowance.
“What I most value about [Romney’s proposal] is both on the policy merits, I think it’s a great idea to enact universal child allowance, but I also think it points a way forward for a more productive, conservative thinking and a 21st-century policy agenda.” @hamandcheese
“If Republicans are serious about making inroads with the Hispanic or the African-American vote, they can’t just be bailing out ASAP Rocky from Swedish jail. They have to start responding to the economic and material interests of the people whose votes they want.” @hamandcheese
Overall, @hamandcheese argues that the child allowance is pro-work, pro-family, and pro-fertility.
In responding to the Romney proposal, @swinshi says his main concern is that it could have long-term negative consequences on poverty and opportunity for low-income people.
“We have to acknowledge subsidizing parenthood also means subsidizing single parenthood, including families with no workers. And that has the potential to worsen entrenched poverty,” says @swinshi. “That is one of the real lessons from the 1990s ... that has been forgotten.”
On work requirements, @swinshi is a big fan: Instead of a child allowance, he favors boosting benefits within the existing safety net, and pairing them with more work requirements in existing programs like SNAP and housing subsidies.
. @hamandcheese prefers extending the benefits up the income scale, avoiding creating the “lobster trap” of some other welfare programs that are easy to enter but tough to get out of.
Differentiating between types of social safety nets, @hamandcheese describes two broad paradigms: The FDR New Deal, which forms a foundation for the middle class, and the Great Society, which focused intently on means testing in a bifurcated society.
In his conclusion, @swinshi cautions: “We need to not mess up an anti-poverty policy that’s worked pretty well for the last 25 years. I think we also need to acknowledge that we are doing not so badly [on child poverty].”
Looking forward, @hamandcheese suggests that, if the sky doesn’t fall as a result of giving fully refundable credits to low-income families, we may need to pause, reflect, and update our prior assumptions.
For more on family policy, check out our Home Building collection, with more survey results, research, and commentary to come this month: https://americancompass.org/collections/home-building/
