How JD Vance Incorporated the Culture War into Efforts to Help Kids
There is widespread agreement on the child tax credit. So why present it in a way that creates division?
TroibNews 
Vice presidential candidate JD Vance has proposed higher taxes for individuals without children.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, emphasizes the need to combat child poverty.
Sen. Mitt Romney, a former Republican presidential nominee, believes in supporting marriage and families as fundamental to society.
Although they might not seem related, these statements reflect different versions of a similar policy concept, viewed through the lens of cultural debates.
An unusual political coalition supports expanding the child tax credit, which provides tax benefits to families with children. This policy is backed by both anti-abortion and feminist groups, as well as proponents of both larger and smaller government.
“We always frame our policy push as focusing specifically on family stability,” said Duncan Braid, coalition director at the conservative think tank American Compass, which supports enhancing the child tax credit. “All these various narratives are good, as long as we’re keeping the issue in focus that families should get more support.”
Supporting children is a widely accepted priority.
However, the success of a policy depends on its presentation. Vance learned this over the past week, as punishing people for not having kids proved an unpopular approach.
“Let’s tax the things that are bad and not tax the things that are good,” Vance said in 2021, as reported by ABC News. “If you are making $100,000, $400,000 a year and you’ve got three kids, you should pay a different, lower tax rate than if you are making the same amount of money and you don’t have any kids.”
The statement faced criticism not only from childless individuals but also from The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which argued against using taxes to incentivize having more children.
“It’s bad policy to use the tax code for social policy because it creates complications that add distortions,” it said in a piece this week. “Pro-natalist tax policies haven’t worked where they’ve been tried.”
Interestingly, the existing child tax credit already lessens the tax burden for parents compared to those without children, and politicians from both parties have advocated for its expansion.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign highlights this idea as central to her economic policy. During the pandemic, Democrats expanded the credit and distributed it as monthly checks to parents, an effort credited with nearly halving child poverty during its implementation.
Many Republicans, however, want any expansion to retain work requirements to prevent an expansion of the welfare state.
Increased financial support could help parents afford child care and work, or allow one parent to stay at home by supplementing the other parent’s income. There is potential for compromise, even if views on what constitutes "pro-family" differ.
A House-passed bill, favored by the chair of Congress' tax-writing committees, aimed to particularly assist lower-income families with multiple children by increasing the credit cap and simplifying claims.
Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) also expressed strong support for the tax package. “It’s hard to explain why they’re not for it,” Mullin said of Senate Republicans.
However, the legislation became entangled in election-year politics, failing to pass a crucial Senate vote on Thursday.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) indicated that Republicans did not want to give the president a victory in 2024. His office also mentioned process concerns, as Finance Chair Ron Wyden had not advanced it through committee.
Different policy goals lead to disputes over the design of the policy. Senior Republicans like Sen. Mike Crapo opposed a provision allowing families to count income from the previous year for credit purposes, potentially providing a more generous benefit even if the parent is not currently working.
Some progressive Democrats opposed the restrictions in the bill and its pairing with corporate tax breaks.
For now, the policy seems stalled, making the framing of the issue critical for future discussions.
“What I find so distasteful is just this idea that some families are valued more than others,” said Shilpa Phadke, former deputy director of the Gender Policy Council in President Joe Biden’s White House, referring to Vance’s comments.
If Vance aims to win the election and govern effectively, he should consider this feedback.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, emphasizes the need to combat child poverty.
Sen. Mitt Romney, a former Republican presidential nominee, believes in supporting marriage and families as fundamental to society.
Although they might not seem related, these statements reflect different versions of a similar policy concept, viewed through the lens of cultural debates.
An unusual political coalition supports expanding the child tax credit, which provides tax benefits to families with children. This policy is backed by both anti-abortion and feminist groups, as well as proponents of both larger and smaller government.
“We always frame our policy push as focusing specifically on family stability,” said Duncan Braid, coalition director at the conservative think tank American Compass, which supports enhancing the child tax credit. “All these various narratives are good, as long as we’re keeping the issue in focus that families should get more support.”
Supporting children is a widely accepted priority.
However, the success of a policy depends on its presentation. Vance learned this over the past week, as punishing people for not having kids proved an unpopular approach.
“Let’s tax the things that are bad and not tax the things that are good,” Vance said in 2021, as reported by ABC News. “If you are making $100,000, $400,000 a year and you’ve got three kids, you should pay a different, lower tax rate than if you are making the same amount of money and you don’t have any kids.”
The statement faced criticism not only from childless individuals but also from The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which argued against using taxes to incentivize having more children.
“It’s bad policy to use the tax code for social policy because it creates complications that add distortions,” it said in a piece this week. “Pro-natalist tax policies haven’t worked where they’ve been tried.”
Interestingly, the existing child tax credit already lessens the tax burden for parents compared to those without children, and politicians from both parties have advocated for its expansion.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign highlights this idea as central to her economic policy. During the pandemic, Democrats expanded the credit and distributed it as monthly checks to parents, an effort credited with nearly halving child poverty during its implementation.
Many Republicans, however, want any expansion to retain work requirements to prevent an expansion of the welfare state.
Increased financial support could help parents afford child care and work, or allow one parent to stay at home by supplementing the other parent’s income. There is potential for compromise, even if views on what constitutes "pro-family" differ.
A House-passed bill, favored by the chair of Congress' tax-writing committees, aimed to particularly assist lower-income families with multiple children by increasing the credit cap and simplifying claims.
Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) also expressed strong support for the tax package. “It’s hard to explain why they’re not for it,” Mullin said of Senate Republicans.
However, the legislation became entangled in election-year politics, failing to pass a crucial Senate vote on Thursday.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) indicated that Republicans did not want to give the president a victory in 2024. His office also mentioned process concerns, as Finance Chair Ron Wyden had not advanced it through committee.
Different policy goals lead to disputes over the design of the policy. Senior Republicans like Sen. Mike Crapo opposed a provision allowing families to count income from the previous year for credit purposes, potentially providing a more generous benefit even if the parent is not currently working.
Some progressive Democrats opposed the restrictions in the bill and its pairing with corporate tax breaks.
For now, the policy seems stalled, making the framing of the issue critical for future discussions.
“What I find so distasteful is just this idea that some families are valued more than others,” said Shilpa Phadke, former deputy director of the Gender Policy Council in President Joe Biden’s White House, referring to Vance’s comments.
If Vance aims to win the election and govern effectively, he should consider this feedback.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
