Expand the Child Tax Credit, but define success first

A bipartisan bill would put a little more money into the pockets of millions of working families. The Stronger Start for Working Families Act, introduced Sept. 3 by Republican Carol Miller and three colleagues, would lower the refundable child tax credit’s earnings threshold from $2,500 to $1. It remains in the Ways and Means Committee. The proposal raises a larger question: Is Congress buying relief from today’s bills or helping families become more secure over time?

Under the bill, a qualifying parent earning $10,000 could receive about $1,500 instead of $1,125, subject to other limits. The difference comes from applying the existing 15% credit formula to earnings previously excluded. Families without earnings or already receiving the maximum credit would see no change, but supporters estimate 3.5 million families could benefit. A bipartisan Senate version was introduced in January.

For a struggling family, that additional $375 could cover groceries, utilities, or a car repair that keeps someone working. That is meaningful assistance, but it tells us little about whether the family’s circumstances will improve.

The pandemic provided a larger experiment. In 2021, Congress temporarily expanded the child tax credit and made it fully refundable. Child poverty fell sharply under the policy and rose after it expired. The experience showed that assistance can reduce poverty while payments continue, without necessarily producing lasting independence.

Both outcomes matter, but Congress must measure them separately. How many families receive meaningful relief today, and how many become financially secure enough to remain out of poverty tomorrow?

The poverty statistics illustrate the problem. In 2025, official poverty fell to 10.2%, while supplemental poverty stood at 13.1%, statistically unchanged. The official measure counts cash income; the supplemental measure adds government benefits and tax credits and subtracts taxes and essential expenses. Neither shows whether the same families remain poor for years.

SNAP, the federal food assistance program, averaged 42.1 million participants monthly in fiscal 2025, compared with 41.7 million the previous year. Its population share remained 12.3%. These figures show how many people received help, not whether it improved their long-term security. Families can leave poverty while others enter and still others remain for years, leaving annual totals largely unchanged.

This debate is hardly new. In 1969, Daniel Patrick Moynihan helped President Richard Nixon develop the Family Assistance Plan, combining financial support with work incentives. They wanted to relieve hardship while encouraging independence, two purposes Congress still struggles to evaluate separately.

Moynihan also warned against “feeding the sparrows by feeding the horses“: supporting enormous institutions, hoping that enough assistance eventually reached poor families. His concern remains relevant. Congress must know what reaches recipients and what spending accomplishes.

Under President George W. Bush, a White House task force examined federal youth programs during Leslie Lenkowsky’s leadership of the agency overseeing AmeriCorps. Its 2003 report identified 339 programs and recommended clearer goals, coordination, and evaluation. The lesson was not that every program failed, but that the government struggled to assess them collectively.

Congress recognized the broader problem in 2011, directing the Office of Management and Budget to develop and annually update a federal program inventory. The objective was straightforward: Identify what government funds, what it costs, and what it achieves.

Fifteen years later, the job remains unfinished. A March 2026 Government Accountability Office report found that OMB had not fully addressed 13 of 20 statutory requirements. Essential information about programs, spending, and performance was still missing. Those findings do not prove antipoverty programs fail, but they expose how poorly Congress can evaluate them collectively.

An inventory is only the beginning. Congress must distinguish people served, hardship relieved, and families achieving sustained independence. Counting programs or participants cannot substitute for measuring results.

The underlying problems also differ. A parent whose wages cannot cover rent faces different obstacles from someone whose addiction prevents steady employment. Poor schools, neighborhood crime, unstable families, and expensive housing require different responses. A tax credit may pay a bill without resolving why it keeps going unpaid.

Before expanding assistance, Congress should require a clear definition of the problem, intended beneficiaries, measurable goals, and evaluation methods. Relief should be judged by the hardship reduced and the cost; mobility by sustained improvements in earnings and security. For seniors and people unable to work, stability itself may be success.

CONGRESS GAVE FAMILIES A RAISE. NOW LET PARENTS DECIDE HOW TO USE IT

Congress should direct OMB to finish the inventory. Within a year, GAO, working with Census and federal agencies, should assess evidence on costs, participation, and effectiveness and identify research gaps. Longer-term studies should track sustained exits from poverty and subsequent returns. Existing assistance should continue while this work proceeds.

Congress should be held accountable for spending money without first defining the need, setting goals, and planning how to monitor and evaluate. A national debt exceeding $40 trillion demands accountability.

Continue reading...

[ H/T Washington Examiner ]