What is the downside to bettering lives of children?

The country achieved something remarkable in 2021. It reduced child poverty by more than 30%. Nearly 3 million of the poorest children saw their lives improve. The child poverty rate dropped to a record 5.2%.

Then, with the arrival of a new year, the achievement vanished.

How? A provision of the American Rescue Plan, an expansion of the quarter-century old Child Tax Credit, expired, returning millions of children below the poverty line.

The thinking at the Biden White House and among congressional Democrats was that one year of experience with the expanded tax credit would lead to an extension, perhaps in the massive spending bill approved by lawmakers last month. But that did not happen.

An effort to pair the achievement with an extension of the research and development deduction for businesses fizzled, despite bipartisan support for both steps. That pairing remains a worthy option.

The important thing for the president and lawmakers is that they find a way to restore the expanded Child Tax Credit, if not fully then by focusing on the poorest and most vulnerable children and their families.

The expanded credit was not cheap, running roughly $100 billion a year. The credit now has reverted to $2,000 per eligible child under age 17. Under the expansion, it increased to $3,600 for children under age 6 and $3,000 for children ages 6 through 17. The credit also became “fully refundable,” widening eligibility to those families who pay little or no federal income tax.

This advance repaired an unacceptable situation in which families at the lowest income rungs receive no credit or a partial credit while those with annual incomes as high as $400,000 gain the full amount. For instance, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, a single mother with two eligible children and earning $14,000 would receive roughly $850 per child.

Another helpful aspect of the expanded credit came in the form of monthly payments. Recipients didn’t have to wait until tax time for the entire sum.

No member of Congress advocates more ardently for the expanded credit than U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, of Ohio. He has been pushing in this direction for years. No wonder. The research is compelling. Studies show that reducing poverty, and its severe trauma, enhances young lives.

It brightens their prospects, in the short term and long term. Children with sufficient food, attentive child care and stable housing perform better in school. They are healthier. Such improvements translate to higher graduation rates and, eventually, more promising employment and greater incomes. Thus, it matters that the expanded credit reduced food insecurity by 19%.

The expanded credit takes aim at a most pressing problem — income inequality. The past three decades, new income has flowed largely to those households already at the highest levels. Many with lower and middle incomes have not shared adequately in the economic rewards, the marketplace failing as a matter of fair distribution. A more generous credit works as a partial remedy.

Why, then, has the expanded credit been left behind?

Annie Lowrey, a staff writer at The Atlantic, wrote recently about surveys showing a decline in support when the credit is cast as a tool for reducing poverty. Part of that goes to racial bias, little doubt. There is a tendency to see the credit as a wasteful handout, or “welfare,” the federal government squandering resources.

What the research shows is that recipients spent the larger credit on essentials, such as food, rent, educational costs and clothing. More, parents didn’t take the money and exit the work force. The additional sum hardly makes up for a job, but it helps in easing financial stress, even getting ahead.

Then, there is the multiplier effect. Recipients spend the benefit in their communities, their purchases working just like those of others to bolster local economies, benefiting businesses, employees, households and public coffers. Many may balk at helping children because they don’t trust the middle man or woman, the parents. That is shortsighted, and at odds with what we know.

Reducing child poverty is the first purpose of the credit, and the expanded version delivered impressive gains. Over the years, the credit has earned support from Democrats and Republicans as they have joined to broaden its reach multiple times. Of late, the parties have overcome the deep polarization to address obvious needs in semiconductor manufacturing and infrastructure.

The need is no less plain regarding child poverty, and the answer proven and clear. It may not be possible to restore the entire expanded credit, though that outcome would be best. Surely, there is a path to starting with the poorest children and their families. What is the downside, really, to bettering the lives of children?

Douglas was the Beacon Journal editorial page editor from 1999 to 2019. He can be reached at mddouglasmm@gmail.com.