At first glance, it looks like another New York Times story about all those public policy debates between the entrenched Republicans and White House, along with the narrow Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill.
But if you look carefully, there is a reason that this Gray Lady update about the arrival of the expanded Child Tax Credit was, to use a turn of phrase from “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken, a “haunted house” of religion-news ghosts. He was riffing on a term your GetReligionistas have used since Day 1 at this blog. (Click here to tune in this week’s GetReligion podcast.)
OK, let’s play “spot the religion ghost.” First, here is the double-decker headline on this report:
Monthly Payments to Families With Children to Begin
The Biden administration will send up to $300 per child a month to most American families thanks to a temporary increase in the child tax credit that advocates hope to extend.
Nine out of 10 children in the United States will be eligible for these payments, which are linked to the COVID-19 crisis, but call back memories of policies from the old War on Poverty.
The program will expire in a year, at which point the debates over its effectiveness will crank into a higher gear.
Here’s the Times overture:
WASHINGTON — If all goes as planned, the Treasury Department will begin making a series of monthly payments in coming days to families with children, setting a milestone in social policy and intensifying a debate over whether to make the subsidies a permanent part of the American safety net.
With all but the most affluent families eligible to receive up to $300 a month per child, the United States will join many other rich countries that provide a guaranteed income for children, a goal that has long animated progressives. Experts estimate the payments will cut child poverty by nearly half, an achievement with no precedent. …
While the government has increased many aid programs during the coronavirus pandemic, supporters say the payments from an expanded Child Tax Credit, at a one-year cost of about $105 billion, are unique in their potential to stabilize both poor and middle-class families.
As you would expect, many Republicans oppose what they consider a return to old-style “welfare” payments of this kind.
That’s many Republicans, but not all. Prepare for your first glimpse of a religion ghost.
… Compared to past aid debates, opposition has so far been muted. A few conservatives support children’s subsidies, which might boost falling birthrates and allow more parents to raise children full-time. Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, has proposed a larger child benefit, though he would finance it by cutting other programs.
Ah, this policy would certainly help American families who have — how should we put this — more than 1.7 children. And what kind of Americans choose to have lots of children?
That’s a complicated question, especially since I added the word “choose.”
But as part two of this spot-the-ghost game, let’s return to an essay — “America’s One-Child Policy” — from the old Weekly Standard (RIP) that I have quoted many times. This is long, but essential:
... In a world where childbearing has no practical benefit, people have babies because they want to, either for self-fulfillment or as a moral imperative. "Moral imperative," of course, is a euphemism for "religious compulsion." There are stark differences in fertility between secular and religious people.
The best indicator of actual fertility is "aspirational fertility" – the number of children men and women say they would like to have. Gallup has been asking Americans about their "ideal family size" since 1936. When they first asked the question, 64 percent of Americans said that three or more children were ideal; 34 percent said that zero, one, or two children were ideal. Today only 34 percent of Americans think that a family with three-or-more children is ideal.
But on this question there are two Americas today: a secular population that wants small families (or no family at all) and a religious population that wants larger families.
Religious affiliation is part of the story, but the real difference comes with church attendance. Among people who seldom or never go to church, 66 percent say that zero, one, or two children is the ideal family size, and only 25 percent view three-or-more children as ideal. Among those who go to church monthly, the three-or-more number edges up to 29 percent. But among those who attend church every week, 41 percent say three or more children is ideal, while only 47 percent think that a smaller family is preferable. When you meet couples with more than three children today, chances are they're making a cultural and theological statement.
Think of it this way: Democrats on the Hill are about to pour lots of dollars into large families of various kinds from coast to coast.
Now, when you think of intact families with lots of children, what kind of images appear in your mind’s eye? You should be picturing lots of parents parking vans at churches, synagogues and mosques.
The odds are also good that many of these people are home-schoolers, or would choose that option if they could afford to do so. That’s right: Democrats helping home-school people.
Then again, with some extra income, many of these parents could afford to send their children to religious private schools. This income would allow many mothers to stay home, if that is their choice. Working parents with additional income would be able to afford alternative forms of day care — perhaps creating family-centered co-ops or church-based childcare. Let me stress that these kinds of ministries are very extremely common in Black and Latino churches, as well as stereotypical White congregations in suburbs.
Now do you see how these side effects could lead to interesting debates among GOP populists and old-guard Country Club Republicans? There would be similar fault lines among secular Democrats and those who are committed to retaining some ties to church folks.
More ghosts? The Times story includes a glimpse of a big one:
… In West Monroe … Levi Sullivan, another low-income parent, described the program as wasteful and counterproductive. Mr. Sullivan, a pipeline worker, has been jobless for more than a year but argued the payments would increase the national debt and reward indolence.
“I’m a Christian believer — I rely on God more than I rely on the government,” he said.
With four children, Mr. Sullivan, who has gotten by on unemployment insurance, food stamps, and odd jobs, could collect $1,150 a month, but he is so skeptical of the program he went online to defer the payments and collect a lump sum next year. Otherwise, he fears that if he finds work he may have to pay the money back.
Yes, you know that lots of working-class religious conservatives — many who enthusiastically or reluctantly voted for Donald Trump — will distrust this program because of its origins in the Democratic Party. At the same time, they will immediately realize how it could affect the lives of their children, in part because it will allow them more church-centered options for schooling and care.
In the podcast, I named a few other ghosts present in this story, including some linked to theological differences between Catholics and Protestants, as well as Black and White Protestants.
But let me end with a piece of a recent Juicy Ecumenism essay — “America’s Birth Dearth” — about a related topic. Wheaton College graduate James Diddams, who focuses on political theology, points to the work of University of Virginia professor Brad Wilcox, noting:
Sadly, in the United States it’s the poor and middle class that have been the hardest hit by declines in fertility. Those with only a high school diploma or some college education have seen the sharpest drops in childbearing rates since the 1970s. Wilcox criticized Republicans for “talking a big game” about the importance of the family in American life but failing to prioritize families in the policy realm.
“Too many Republicans are stuck in a Reagan style approach to public policy where you want to talk a good game but not advance the ball when it comes to working and middle class families,” Wilcox charged.
Wilcox doesn’t trust the goals of this White House. But he also sees potential here for policies that could be endorsed by many pro-family Republicans:
Against the Biden proposal and what he viewed as Republicans’ empty rhetoric, Wilcox proposed some solutions. “I’m in favor of a family allowance that looks like this: we would give families $4,000 per year per child. I would give more money to younger kids than older kids, given the way in which parents are at home with younger kids more than older kids. I would have it paid out monthly to cover expenses as they come up for rearing kids whether it’s rent or mortgage or whatever. I would look for policies that don’t penalize marriage as unfortunately the EITC and Medicaid tend to do, and I would look to policies that could cover a broad swathe of American families, including working and middle class families.”
Although these programs would expand the role of the Federal government, Christians will have to weigh having a smaller government against reversing declines in childbearing and fertility.
Stay tuned. This policy debate is just getting started. Lot’s of working-class conservatives are about to have some new options in their budgets.
Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it on to others.
FIRST IMAGE: From a Pinterest page linked to HomeSweetHomemaker.org