On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that “even from a conservative point of view,” the child tax credit “is a fantastic program.” And that the idea had bipartisan support until things in Washington became hyperpartisan.
Brooks said, “[I]f you ask me to pick one policy to reduce poverty, this would be it, the child tax credit. I give — Michael Bennet, the senator from Colorado, the Democrat, he’s been pushing this for years and years. Marco Rubio had a plan. The conservative think tanks all have their plans. It’s — they’re — this is the — if you want to get rid of childhood poverty, you give people, the families the money to make choices for their kids. You get the kids in better environments. Because the families are less financially stressed. The kids — you can just have this massive effect. I’m betraying my Canadian roots. Canada did this a couple of years ago, massive effect. The estimates now, what’s happening now, reduction of child poverty by 40%. Very rarely do you get a social program that reduces poverty or has any effect that big. So, it’s a big effect.”
He continued, “There are some Republican talking points that it’ll create dependency on government. There’s no evidence of that in Canada or Australia, the other places. People are not aging backwards to qualify for this. Like, they’re not turning into children so they can get the benefit. So, even from a conservative point of view, this is a fantastic program. … And it should have, it did have, until this town became so partisan, it had complete bipartisan support, this idea. As I say, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, they had their own versions of this, smaller, but in the right direction.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett