Quote (IceMage @ 4 Feb 2021 17:28)
https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1357344348979875848So on one hand we have "populists" like Josh Hawley who go on Fox News and whine about big tech. On the other hand, we have Mitt Romney disregarding the failed Republican orthodoxy of the last two decades and embracing policy that will help working-class families.
Is this something Trump supporters can get behind?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/02/04/romney-child-benefit-stimulus/In principle, yes, that's something I can get behind. I would need to wait until experts have gone through the details though, since I know too little about he inticacies of American tax code.
Some key sections from the WaPo article:
Quote
Unlike the Democrats’ plan, Romney’s Family Security Act would be paid for, in part, by eliminating Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a welfare program, as well as other existing federal tax credits for children and working families.
Quote
Romney’s plan would have a dramatic impact on lowering child poverty, according to an analysis by the Niskanen Center, a center-right think tank. The percentage of children in poverty would fall by about 32 percent, with close to 3 million lifted out of poverty. Additionally, the percentage of children in “deep poverty” would fall by about 50 percent, meaning about 1.2 million children would be lifted out of deep poverty, the analysis found.
Quote
Some liberal Democrats said Romney’s plan could be improved by maintaining the tax credits and welfare program it proposes repurposing to fund the new child benefit. “It’s misguided to undercut the policy’s poverty-reducing impact by using deep cuts in other critical forms of support for low-income people to pay for it,” said Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Democratic-aligned think tank. “There are far better financing options that ask those who are doing the best to pitch in a little more.”
Quote
Romney’s plan would not provide the benefit to those living in the U.S. without a Social Security number. In its 2017 tax law, the GOP stripped as many as 4 million immigrant filers from receiving the existing child tax credit — which Romney envisions repurposing for his new proposal.
Quote
Matt Bruenig, founder of the People’s Policy Project, a left-leaning think tank, said the benefits Romney’s new plan provide to poor families outweigh the potential downsides of eliminating these programs
Quote
Romney’s plan differs from Biden’s in several key ways. Romney is proposing to pay for the measure by both consolidating existing government programs and ending a policy that lets Americans deduct up to $10,000 in state and local taxes off their federal tax obligations, a move Democrats are expected to oppose, especially those representing areas with higher taxes.
Pelosi and Schumer are gonna love this.
Quote
If enacted, Romney’s plan would be deficit-neutral and finance the new child benefit through 2025. [...]
Romney’s plan would also call for the new benefit to be administered through the Social Security Administration, rather than the IRS, which some experts believe would make it easier for the federal government to reach poor families with unreliable tax return information. It would also cap the potential monthly benefit one family can receive at $1,250.
So, based on what I can gather from this article, Romney's proposal would be a step in the right direction philosophically, and would be a significant net improvement for poor families in practice. But it would be more of a consolidation of existing benefits and programs than pure additional spending. The funding would, in substantial parts, come from slushing existing child benefits and tax deductions.
Overall, I'm unsure about the proposal, but cautiously optimistic. I do share Bobb's general sentiment of distrusting Romney's motives though. The guy is a ruthless, ultra-rich venture capitalist who has never prioritized the interests of the less fortunate in his personal and political life. Perhaps his motivation is to genuinely improve the country by helping its members most in need, perhaps his motivation is to divert inevitable policy in a direction which would soak the rich the least. There currently is a lot of momentum in politics/the public discourse in favor of such policies. By baiting Democrats with a narrow, deficit-neutral but bipartisan policy, Romney could perhaps be trying to prevent a similar but more wide-reaching program, one which would raise the deficit or taxes on the rich more.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 4 2021 08:50pm