Current Events > Mitt Romney's child payments plan is...actually good?

Topic List	Page List: 1
Antifar 02/08/21 11:10:17 AM #1:	https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/02/mitt-romney-child-allowance-covid-stimulus.html Less than a decade ago, Mitt Romney campaigned for the presidency on a promise to stop the government from giving free stuff to poor people. The 2012 Republican nominee was so adamant in his opposition to welfare spending, he told his supporters to remind their pro-Obamacare friends that if they want more stuff from government, tell them to go vote for the other guy more free stuff. But dont forget nothing is really free. Romney reiterated his contempt for government programs that help non-affluent people survive in his infamous 47 percent speech, in which he declared that a near-majority of Americans believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it and would, therefore, never vote for him. Nine long years later, Romney is calling for the passage of the most generous cash-welfare program in modern U.S. history. On Thursday, the Utah senator introduced the Family Security Act, a bill that would provide all non-rich households in the United States with $350 a month for every child they are raising who is younger than 5 years old, and $250 a month for every child between the ages of 6 and 17, up to a maximum of $1,250 a month. In addition to these benefits, new parents would collect a $1,400 payment just before their childs birth. Put differently: If Romneys bill passes, then the parents of a child born next year will receive $62,600 in child support from Uncle Sam by the time that kid turns 18. Crucially, unlike every other child-welfare policy that the United States has entertained in the past quarter century, Romneys plan would not give less help to the very poorest children in America, so as to punish their parents for not working. And unlike the refundable child tax credit, the benefits in Romneys plan arent delivered in a lump-sum rebate to the subset of low-income families who properly file for it, but rather, to all non-affluent parents in monthly installments, administered by the Social Security Administration (the allowance phases out starting with single parents whose incomes exceed $200,000, and joint filers with incomes above $400,000). This mode of administration enhances the policys utility to families who cant wait until the end of the year to make ends meet, while also ensuring damn-near 100 percent participation in the program. That last bit is crucial: As is, roughly 22 percent of those eligible for the child tax credit do not receive it. Generally speaking, when a conservative serves up a good-looking policy, theres a bottles worth of poison pills buried inside (see: Charles Murrays proposal to establish a universal basic income by liquidating the welfare state). And at first glance, Romneys plan appears to be no exception: The Utah senators policy is funded primarily by cuts to other programs and tax credits that aid the poor. But these pay-fors are more benign than one might fear. Romneys bill would eliminate the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) and the Head of Household (HoH) tax-filing status, while reducing the value of the EITC to workers with children, and ending federal funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The child allowance makes the CDCTC largely redundant. And the same can be said of the HoH, which has a deeply regressive policy design (the poor derive no tax relief from the policy, and the more a worker earns, the more tax relief he or she receives). These realities, combined with the sheer size of the child benefit in Romneys plan, means that swapping out these tax benefits for the child allowance is a good trade for just about all U.S. families. The elimination of federal block grant for TANF would be concerning if TANF had not already been gutted. As Matt Bruenig of the Peoples Policy Project explains: In 1997, the federal government allocated $16.5 billion to this block grant program. In 2019, it allocated the exact same amount of money, which was worth 40 percent less than in 1997 in inflation-adjusted terms. Over that same period, the share of TANF block grants that went out as cash assistance to poor families with children declined from 71 percent to 21 percent. Taken together, this means that federal spending on TANF cash assistance has fallen by 82 percent since 1997. In 2019, it was only $3.5 billion. For comparison, food stamp benefits in 2019 totaled $55 billion. To be sure, $3.5 billion in federal support to needy families is much better than zero. But the Romney plans total benefit to such families would dwarf that sum. The biggest problem with Romneys pay-for scheme is that its revision to the EITC would leave a very small subset of working-class families worse off. For example, a single mother of one who is eligible for the maximum EITC benefit under current law, and whose child is over 5 years old would take home $1,420 less under Romneys plan, according to the Peoples Policy Project. But the number of people in this situation, or an analogous one, would not be large. Finally, in addition to its cuts to various forms of aid to low-income families, Romney would also eliminate the state-and-local tax (SALT) deduction, a policy that delivers the vast majority of its benefits to upper-income households. There is a plausible progressive defense of the deduction on political grounds: SALT makes it a bit easier for Democrats to advance social democratic policies at the state level by effectively enabling blue states to finance a portion of their welfare programs through deficit spending (if you raise taxes on your rich residents who then get to write some of those taxes off on their federal returns youve essentially tapped Uncle Sams sweet sweet money printer). --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:950413591] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/02/mitt-romney-child-allowance-covid-stimulus.html <quote>Less than a decade ago, Mitt Romney campaigned for the presidency on a promise to stop the government from giving free stuff to poor people. The 2012 Republican nominee was so adamant in his opposition to welfare spending, he told his supporters to remind their pro-Obamacare friends that if they want more stuff from government, tell them to go vote for the other guy more free stuff. But dont forget nothing is really free. Romney reiterated his contempt for government programs that help non-affluent people survive in his infamous 47 percent speech, in which he declared that a near-majority of Americans believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it and would, therefore, never vote for him. Nine long years later, Romney is calling for the passage of the most generous cash-welfare program in modern U.S. history. On Thursday, the Utah senator introduced the Family Security Act, a bill that would provide all non-rich households in the United States with $350 a month for every child they are raising who is younger than 5 years old, and $250 a month for every child between the ages of 6 and 17, up to a maximum of $1,250 a month. In addition to these benefits, new parents would collect a $1,400 payment just before their childs birth. Put differently: If Romneys bill passes, then the parents of a child born next year will receive $62,600 in child support from Uncle Sam by the time that kid turns 18. Crucially, unlike every other child-welfare policy that the United States has entertained in the past quarter century, Romneys plan would not give less help to the very poorest children in America, so as to punish their parents for not working. And unlike the refundable child tax credit, the benefits in Romneys plan arent delivered in a lump-sum rebate to the subset of low-income families who properly file for it, but rather, to all non-affluent parents in monthly installments, administered by the Social Security Administration (the allowance phases out starting with single parents whose incomes exceed $200,000, and joint filers with incomes above $400,000). This mode of administration enhances the policys utility to families who cant wait until the end of the year to make ends meet, while also ensuring damn-near 100 percent participation in the program. That last bit is crucial: As is, roughly 22 percent of those eligible for the child tax credit do not receive it. Generally speaking, when a conservative serves up a good-looking policy, theres a bottles worth of poison pills buried inside (see: Charles Murrays proposal to establish a universal basic income by liquidating the welfare state). And at first glance, Romneys plan appears to be no exception: The Utah senators policy is funded primarily by cuts to other programs and tax credits that aid the poor. But these pay-fors are more benign than one might fear. Romneys bill would eliminate the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) and the Head of Household (HoH) tax-filing status, while reducing the value of the EITC to workers with children, and ending federal funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The child allowance makes the CDCTC largely redundant. And the same can be said of the HoH, which has a deeply regressive policy design (the poor derive no tax relief from the policy, and the more a worker earns, the more tax relief he or she receives). These realities, combined with the sheer size of the child benefit in Romneys plan, means that swapping out these tax benefits for the child allowance is a good trade for just about all U.S. families. The elimination of federal block grant for TANF would be concerning if TANF had not already been gutted. As Matt Bruenig of the Peoples Policy Project explains: In 1997, the federal government allocated $16.5 billion to this block grant program. In 2019, it allocated the exact same amount of money, which was worth 40 percent less than in 1997 in inflation-adjusted terms. Over that same period, the share of TANF block grants that went out as cash assistance to poor families with children declined from 71 percent to 21 percent. Taken together, this means that federal spending on TANF cash assistance has fallen by 82 percent since 1997. In 2019, it was only $3.5 billion. For comparison, food stamp benefits in 2019 totaled $55 billion. To be sure, $3.5 billion in federal support to needy families is much better than zero. But the Romney plans total benefit to such families would dwarf that sum. The biggest problem with Romneys pay-for scheme is that its revision to the EITC would leave a very small subset of working-class families worse off. For example, a single mother of one who is eligible for the maximum EITC benefit under current law, and whose child is over 5 years old would take home $1,420 less under Romneys plan, according to the Peoples Policy Project. But the number of people in this situation, or an analogous one, would not be large. Finally, in addition to its cuts to various forms of aid to low-income families, Romney would also eliminate the state-and-local tax (SALT) deduction, a policy that delivers the vast majority of its benefits to upper-income households. There is a plausible progressive defense of the deduction on political grounds: SALT makes it a bit easier for Democrats to advance social democratic policies at the state level by effectively enabling blue states to finance a portion of their welfare programs through deficit spending (if you raise taxes on your rich residents who then get to write some of those taxes off on their federal returns youve essentially tapped Uncle Sams sweet sweet money printer). </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 02/08/21 11:12:04 AM #2:	Formatting this post was a God damn nightmare on mobile, so I'll continue here Nevertheless, if the choice before Congress were Romneys plan or the status quo, theres no question the former would leave the nation as a whole better off. To put that point more concretely, according to an analysis from the Niskanen Center, Romneys policy would lift 5.1 million Americans out of poverty, and slash the child poverty rate by one-third. As part of his pending $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, Joe Biden has proposed a fully refundable child tax credit. The presidents policy would provide $3,600 a year (or $300 per month) to parents of kids under 6, and $3,000 a year (or $250 a month) to parents of kids ages 6 to 16. In other words: It provides less overall benefit than Romneys plan, as Bruenig helpfully illustrates in this table (which also contrasts the two plans with the current child tax credit and his own ideal program): Bidens plan does have a clear advantage over Romneys: It does not involve cutting any other existing welfare or tax benefits. On the other hand, Bidens policy, as currently written, expires after a single year. And that vice is bound up with the programs virtue: As a temporary, COVID-era measure, the child tax credit expansion requires no offsetting pay-for; there is broad support in Congress for deficit spending in a context of high unemployment. In order to make the new child tax credit permanent however, some offsetting tax hike or spending cut will likely be required. This is because unless Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and other moderate Democrats suddenly embrace filibuster abolition the Biden plan would need to be implemented through the budget reconciliation process (which requires all new spending to be fully offset after ten years) or else with the support of ten Republican senators (who would surely insist on paying for the policy with cuts to other welfare programs). All of which is to say: If Congress were given a choice between Bidens single-year child tax credit (with no cuts to other welfare programs), and Romneys permanent child allowance (with its specified cuts to other welfare programs), the latter would leave the nation better off. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:950413637] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Formatting this post was a God damn nightmare on mobile, so I'll continue here <quote>Nevertheless, if the choice before Congress were Romneys plan or the status quo, theres no question the former would leave the nation as a whole better off. To put that point more concretely, according to an analysis from the Niskanen Center, Romneys policy would lift 5.1 million Americans out of poverty, and slash the child poverty rate by one-third. As part of his pending $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, Joe Biden has proposed a fully refundable child tax credit. The presidents policy would provide $3,600 a year (or $300 per month) to parents of kids under 6, and $3,000 a year (or $250 a month) to parents of kids ages 6 to 16. In other words: It provides less overall benefit than Romneys plan, as Bruenig helpfully illustrates in this table (which also contrasts the two plans with the current child tax credit and his own ideal program): Bidens plan does have a clear advantage over Romneys: It does not involve cutting any other existing welfare or tax benefits. On the other hand, Bidens policy, as currently written, expires after a single year. And that vice is bound up with the programs virtue: As a temporary, COVID-era measure, the child tax credit expansion requires no offsetting pay-for; there is broad support in Congress for deficit spending in a context of high unemployment. In order to make the new child tax credit permanent however, some offsetting tax hike or spending cut will likely be required. This is because unless Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and other moderate Democrats suddenly embrace filibuster abolition the Biden plan would need to be implemented through the budget reconciliation process (which requires all new spending to be fully offset after ten years) or else with the support of ten Republican senators (who would surely insist on paying for the policy with cuts to other welfare programs). All of which is to say: If Congress were given a choice between Bidens single-year child tax credit (with no cuts to other welfare programs), and Romneys permanent child allowance (with its specified cuts to other welfare programs), the latter would leave the nation better off.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 02/08/21 11:13:19 AM #3:	What's his angle --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 https://imgur.com/mPvcy <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:950413678] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>What's his angle </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ScazarMeltex 02/08/21 11:14:14 AM #4:	Doom_Art posted... What's his angle Trying to be the anti-Trump in hopes of redeeming the party's image. --- "If you wish to converse with me define your terms" Voltaire <cite>ScazarMeltex posted [p:950413711] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Doom_Art posted... </cite> <quote>What's his angle</quote>Trying to be the anti-Trump in hopes of redeeming the party's image. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 02/08/21 11:14:58 AM #5:	Doom_Art posted... What's his angle A future run for president, if I had to guess. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:950413739] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Doom_Art posted... </cite> <quote>What's his angle</quote>A future run for president, if I had to guess. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BignutzisBack 02/08/21 11:15:49 AM #6:	Doom_Art posted... What's his angle It's utah, he's sucking up to his voters with 40 kids a piece --- https://imgur.com/plA0Vg9 https://media.giphy.com/media/dgK22exekwOLm/giphy.gif <cite>BignutzisBack posted [p:950413774] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Doom_Art posted... </cite> <quote>What's his angle</quote> It's utah, he's sucking up to his voters with 40 kids a piece </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Were_Wyrm 02/08/21 11:16:56 AM #7:	Doom_Art posted... What's his angle Obtuse --- I was a God, Valeria. I found it...beneath me. - Dr. Doom https://imgur.com/FKDXbHs <cite>Were_Wyrm posted [p:950413810] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Doom_Art posted... </cite> <quote>What's his angle</quote>Obtuse </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#8	Post #8 was unavailable or deleted.
Broseph_Stalin 02/08/21 11:17:44 AM #9:	Doom_Art posted... What's his angle BignutzisBack posted... It's utah, he's sucking up to his voters with 40 kids a piece <cite>Broseph_Stalin posted [p:950413836] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Doom_Art posted... </cite> <quote>What's his angle</quote> BignutzisBack posted... </cite> <quote>It's utah, he's sucking up to his voters with 40 kids a piece</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 02/08/21 11:23:28 AM #10:	That's a pretty generous cut off --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV https://imgur.com/S1m3po4 https://imgur.com/7fCcfko <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:950414021] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>That's a pretty generous cut off</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
uwnim 02/08/21 11:24:36 AM #11:	PrideOfLion posted... It's capped at like 3-5 kids though 40 was a bit of an exaggeration. Im guessing a combination of this ScazarMeltex posted... Trying to be the anti-Trump in hopes of redeeming the party's image. And this BignutzisBack posted... It's utah, he's sucking up to his voters with 40 kids a piece --- I want a pet Lavos Spawn. [Order of the Cetaceans: Phocoena dioptrica] <cite>uwnim posted [p:950414051] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>PrideOfLion posted... </cite> <quote>It's capped at like 3-5 kids though</quote>40 was a bit of an exaggeration. Im guessing a combination of this ScazarMeltex posted... </cite> <quote>Trying to be the anti-Trump in hopes of redeeming the party's image.</quote>And this BignutzisBack posted... </cite> <quote>It's utah, he's sucking up to his voters with 40 kids a piece</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sackgurl 02/08/21 11:43:06 AM #12:	why do we need to analyze his reasons if he's trying to pull the GOP leftward and make the changes that were supposed to happen incrementally 20 years ago, good the purpose of the left wing is to pressure the right wing hard enough with the threat of radical change that it supports incremental progress instead of zero progress it has failed completely for nearly 20 years and so we have had zero progress outside of the brief 2008-2010 window. now another window is available for the left wing to cause some progress. that the less nazi elements of the GOP are willing to offer compromises is unsurprising: the alternative is that democrats act unilaterally without them --- LittleBigPlanet is like merging dress-up with a real game. <cite>Sackgurl posted [p:950414707] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>why do we need to analyze his reasons if he's trying to pull the GOP leftward and make the changes that were supposed to happen incrementally 20 years ago, good the purpose of the left wing is to pressure the right wing hard enough with the threat of radical change that it supports incremental progress instead of zero progress it has failed completely for nearly 20 years and so we have had zero progress outside of the brief 2008-2010 window. now another window is available for the left wing to cause some progress. that the less nazi elements of the GOP are willing to offer compromises is unsurprising: the alternative is that democrats act unilaterally without them </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/08/21 11:43:19 AM #13:	Yes --- Trying to dunk since July 2020 <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:950414714] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Yes </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Broseph_Stalin 02/08/21 11:50:54 AM #14:	Sackgurl posted... if he's trying to pull the GOP leftward the left will probably come out against this for being means tested or whatever i don't really like the idea of reducing the EITC or eliminating the SALT deduction tbh <cite>Broseph_Stalin posted [p:950414988] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Sackgurl posted... </cite> <quote>if he's trying to pull the GOP leftward</quote> the left will probably come out against this for being means tested or whatever i don't really like the idea of reducing the EITC or eliminating the SALT deduction tbh </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sackgurl 02/08/21 11:52:38 AM #15:	Broseph_Stalin posted... the left will probably come out against this for being means tested or whatever i don't really like the idea of reducing the EITC or eliminating the SALT deduction tbh yeah i mean bargaining typically doesn't involve immediately accepting the other side's initial offer especially when the only leverage they have is joe manchin's ability to sustain an erection i'm just happy to see the GOP offer is not "nothing" or "a reduction to existing benefits" but an actual proposal if a compromise bill achieves more than a unilateral bill would, it's better for democrats to pursue that, so long as their pursuit is in the name of the best bill possible and not "bipartisanship to show how unified we are!" so far so good, the critics of any negotiation with the GOP are understandably salty after the obama presidency's naivete on the subject was fully exploited. but i'm glad consideration is being given and good-faith initial offers are being made. --- LittleBigPlanet is like merging dress-up with a real game. <cite>Sackgurl posted [p:950415053] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Broseph_Stalin posted... </cite> <quote>the left will probably come out against this for being means tested or whatever i don't really like the idea of reducing the EITC or eliminating the SALT deduction tbh</quote> yeah i mean bargaining typically doesn't involve immediately accepting the other side's initial offer especially when the only leverage they have is joe manchin's ability to sustain an erection i'm just happy to see the GOP offer is not "nothing" or "a reduction to existing benefits" but an actual proposal if a compromise bill achieves more than a unilateral bill would, it's better for democrats to pursue that, so long as their pursuit is in the name of the best bill possible and not "bipartisanship to show how unified we are!" so far so good, the critics of any negotiation with the GOP are understandably salty after the obama presidency's naivete on the subject was fully exploited. but i'm glad consideration is being given and good-faith initial offers are being made. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/08/21 12:25:48 PM #16:	Eliminating the salt deduction* is good in it's own terms, it's especially good as a pay for for this --- Trying to dunk since July 2020 <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:950416172] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Eliminating the salt deduction* is good in it's own terms, it's especially good as a pay for for this </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Irony 02/08/21 12:26:42 PM #17:	ScazarMeltex posted... Trying to be the anti-Trump in hopes of redeeming the party's image. Yet he voted against budget reconciliation --- I am Mogar, God of Irony and The Devourer of Topics. <cite>Irony posted [p:950416207] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>ScazarMeltex posted... </cite> <quote>Trying to be the anti-Trump in hopes of redeeming the party's image.</quote>Yet he voted against budget reconciliation </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#18	Post #18 was unavailable or deleted.
Antifar 02/08/21 9:09:50 PM #19:	The conservative response is that this is going to give mothers too much time to spend with their children https://twitter.com/swinshi/status/1358849608609366017 https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1357479317526183939 --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:950433132] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>The conservative response is that this is going to give mothers too much time to spend with their children https://twitter.com/swinshi/status/1358849608609366017 https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1357479317526183939 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 02/08/21 9:15:48 PM #20:	Antifar posted... The conservative response is that this is going to give mothers too much time to spend with their children https://twitter.com/swinshi/status/1358849608609366017 https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1357479317526183939 Well, yes. That's why it's notable that a conservative offered it up in the first place. --- Trying to dunk since July 2020 <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:950433296] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Antifar posted... </cite> <quote>The conservative response is that this is going to give mothers too much time to spend with their children https://twitter.com/swinshi/status/1358849608609366017 https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1357479317526183939</quote> Well, yes. That's why it's notable that a conservative offered it up in the first place. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ManaYuka 02/08/21 9:27:33 PM #21:	Utah houses the homeless, they are the philanthropist state. He's definitely pandering. But do we really care? Who cares the motivation behind it. He was a brutal capitalist, but hey this plan looks legit. --- Looking forward to- FFVII Remake Part 2, Final Fantasy XVI, REVIIlage, Elden Ring <cite>ManaYuka posted [p:950433618] in Mitt Romne... [t:79284455]...</cite> <quote>Utah houses the homeless, they are the philanthropist state. He's definitely pandering. But do we really care? Who cares the motivation behind it. He was a brutal capitalist, but hey this plan looks legit. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Mitt Romney's child payments plan is...actually good? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Mitt Romney's child payments plan is...actually good?