A child tax credit is quickly emerging as a major family-friendly issue and a possible bipartisan point of agreement in this year’s presidential campaign, touted by both Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance.

During a speech Friday in the battleground state of North Carolina, Harris proposed restoring the popular pandemic-era child tax credit of up to $3,600, and offering an additional $6,000 credit to families with newborn babies.

“That is a vital, vital year of critical development of a child, and the cost can really add up, especially for young parents who need to buy diapers and clothes and a car seat and so much else, and we will do this while reducing the deficit,” Harris said.

And in an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” last Sunday, Vance said he supported an increase to the child tax credit.

“Look, I’d love to see a child tax credit that’s $5,000 per child,” he said. “But you, of course, have to work with Congress to see how possible and viable that is.”

What is the child tax credit?

The child tax credit was first enacted in 1997 as a way to give middle- and upper-income families an extra $500 nonrefundable tax credit per year for each of their children. The credit has been expanded several times under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

In 2017, President Trump signed into law an increase that raised the credit up to a maximum of $2,000 per child. The lowest-income families received a smaller credit than middle-class families — currently, up to $1,600 per child.

Then in 2021, during the height of the pandemic, President Biden signed into law a temporary, fully refundable increase that expanded the child tax credit to $3,600 per child under 6, and $3,000 for older children. This expansion allowed all families — even those earning the lowest incomes — to receive the full amount and have it deposited in monthly allotments directly into their bank accounts. The one-year expansion cost an additional $105 billion.

A historic drop in child poverty

This regular, monthly payment of $250 to $300 each month was a “game-changer” for families, said Christy Felling, director of communications for the nonprofit First Five Years Fund. “That’s really what had a dramatic impact on child poverty.”

The policy had an immediate and enormous impact. In 2021, the child poverty rate dropped by nearly half compared with the year before, from 9.7% down to 5.2% — a historic low.

“We know this works and has a direct impact on so many issues, including child poverty,” Harris said Friday.

Elyssa Schmier, a vice president at the advocacy group MomsRising, described the credit as “life-changing for a lot of people” and “wildly popular.”

Research has found that families spent the money on food and housing, as well as children’s clothing, books and toys. Some stay-at-home parents were able to afford the child care they needed to return to work. The biggest impacts were seen felt Black and Latino families, said Christopher Wimer, director of the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. “Its hard for me to pinpoint another policy that would be as effective at lifting kids out of poverty,” he said.

But when the expansion of the child tax credit expired at the end of the year, Congress did not extend it, and the child poverty rate skyrocketed to 12.4% — even higher than pre-pandemic levels.

At least 15 states, including California, have child tax credits of their own, in addition to the federal credit. Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Harris’s running mate, signed into law a credit of $1,750 per eligible child, among the most generous state policies.

Are you a SoCal mom?

The L.A. Times early childhood team wants to connect with you! Find us in The Mamahood’s mom group on Facebook.

Share your perspective and ask us questions.

Advertisement

Where does the child tax credit stand today?

The current child tax credit of up to $2,000 per child is set to expire in 2025. Because it is not fully refundable, 24 million low-income children receive a smaller credit than middle-class families.

Legislation to increase the credit again has recently garnered bipartisan support in Congress. In January, the House passed a smaller version of an expansion, but the legislation ran up against Republican opposition in the Senate earlier this month and failed. Despite his stated support for an expanded child tax credit, Vance did not show up for the vote.

“It’s really, really hard to get legislation passed right now. It got swept up into the chaos,” said Felling, of The First 5 Years Fund.

So far, Trump has not mentioned the child tax credit during his speeches and rallies.

Harris’ focus on raising the child tax credit is among her first economic policy proposals of the campaign — and has advocates optimistic about another expansion.

“There are so many hot-button issues facing the United States right now, that just to get the spotlight and attention on child-related issues from both sides is half the battle,” said Felling.

Wimer said Harris’ proposal to provide an extra $6,000 to infants in the first year of life was particularly exciting.

“Our research that the birth of a child is quite often like a poverty-inducing event,” he said.

All of the costs of a newborn — including a crib, diapers, formula — add up quickly and can cause real economic stress for a struggling new family. An influx of money during one of the most developmentally sensitive moments of a child’s life has the potential to make a real difference, he said.

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin took a public victory lap this week, claiming credit for managing the Old Dominion’s budget into a $1 billion surplus.

In his annual Joint Money Committee Address before the Commonwealth’s relevant legislative committees, Youngkin, a Republican, laid out how, in recent years, most of the surrounding states’ growth had become attractive to longtime Virginians.

Youngkin began by greeting the Democratic committee chairs: House Appropriations Chair Luke Torian of Prince William, House Finance Chair Vivian Watts of Fairfax and Senate President L. Louise Lucas, who serves as the upper chamber’s finance chairwoman.

“Our neighbors in North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida have been rapidly growing,” Youngkin said. “Many Virginians were choosing to go there instead of here.”

VIRGINIA DECLARES ‘INDEPENDENCE’ FROM CALIFORNIA AS YOUNGKIN EXITS NORTHAM-ERA EMISSIONS PACT

Most of those states shifted toward lowering taxes, he said, while Virginia had been “falling behind” since the year Gov. Robert McDonnell — its last Republican governor — left office, he said.

“Across the country today, there are winning states, and there are losing states,” Youngkin said.

The governor, seen by some as presidential timber in future cycles while facing the Old Dominion’s one-and-done term limit, said there are economic winners and losers state-to-state.

“States that are winning with job growth, population growth, opportunity growth —  and others that are not,” he said.

YOUNGKIN: EDUCATION IS THE BEDROCK OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin holds a campaign event in Amherst, Virgina, on Oct. 28, 2021. (Charles Creitz)

Youngkin said such “winning states” are “domina[ting]” the national map in terms of economic growth and fiscal stewardship. 

Most of the “losing states,” he said, are running with budget deficits, while Virginia and the other Southeastern states he mentioned — all but one of which are Republican-led — are faring better.

In remarks to Fox News Digital, Youngkin said that Virginia proves tax relief is a “catalyst for record job creation [and] business growth.”

“The playbook works,” he said. “We are demonstrating in Virginia that a state, once falling behind, can lead when we ‘invest’ in tax relief and understand that money belongs to the people who work for it, not the government.”

The Virginia Capitol in Richmond, Virginia, is seen on Feb. 9, 2019. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

“We’ve already delivered $5 billion in tax relief for Virginia families, and by the end of my administration, we will have delivered at least $8 billion in tax relief to help Virginians keep more of their hard-earned money,” he added.

With the surplus, the governor said, his budget plans to see hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements to the heavily trafficked Interstate 81, which serves as a 323-mile backbone of the state for much of mid-continent commerce as it connects the Northeast’s trucking hubs with several cross-country highways.

About $90 million of the surplus will also go toward a Virginia military survivors and dependents fund.

However, Youngkin warned against profligately spending the new windfall, saying that what befell Virginia in the past “will happen again.”

A majority of likely California voters support stiffer penalties for crimes involving theft and fentanyl, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by The Times.

The results of the poll released Friday showed that 56% of Californians would support Proposition 36, an initiative on the November ballot that would impose stricter sentences for repetitive theft and offenses involving the deadly drug fentanyl.

The proposition has been at the center of a battle in the state Capitol this year as Republicans and law enforcement advocates call for the undoing of Democratic reform policies that downgraded some felonies to misdemeanors, which they blame for an increase in organized retail theft and “smash and grab” robberies.

The poll also gauges how voters feel about initiatives designed to respond to California’s high cost of living. According to the poll, a majority of likely voters support a measure to increase the state minimum wage to $18 per hour, though those surveyed were more divided over a measure that would embolden local governments to expand rent control but still lean toward “yes.”

The broad support for Proposition 36, the tough-on-crime measure, comes as Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Democrats try to balance frustrations about crime among Californians with criminal justice reform goals that voters once supported.

The initiative aims to overhaul parts of Proposition 47, a measure approved by voters a decade ago that downgraded some crime penalties in an effort to reduce the state’s prison population and offer nonviolent offenders more chances at rehabilitation and freedom.

Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll, a nonpartisan survey of California public opinion, noted the “great visibility” of retail theft crimes — caught on camera or witnessed by voters in their communities — as a possible reason why more than twice as many voters said they support Proposition 36 than those who don’t.

“It’s kind of outrageous to voters, what they’re seeing, and they’re linking it to the approval of Proposition 47,” DiCamillo said.

Becky Warren, a spokesperson for the Yes on Proposition 36 campaign, said that the poll “confirms that Californians want real solutions to address our homelessness and drug crises” and that the measure will ensure that “repeat offenders face accountability and consequences.”

While advocates of the GOP-backed measure — which has garnered support from some Democrats including San Francisco Mayor London Breed — see it as a solution to some crime, opponents said it will lead to a costly rise in the state’s prison population.

Newsom and Democrats attempted to craft a rival ballot measure this summer that would have addressed crimes like shoplifting with a less punitive approach than the prosecutor-driven Proposition 36. That measure, though, was abruptly abandoned by the governor last month amid chaotic deal-making in the Capitol.

Anthony York, a former spokesperson for Newsom who now serves as a spokesperson for the No on Proposition 36 campaign, said he’s confident that as election day nears, and voters better understand the nuances of the initiative, they will change their minds.

“It’s really about bringing back the war on drugs; re-criminalizing drug possession and wasting billions of dollars on prisons and jails with zero way to pay for it,” York said. “Quality-of-life issues are important, understandably. People want and deserve to feel safe in their own communities. But they also don’t want bad policies that are going to ruin lives and take us backward.”

Likely voters also support Proposition 32 to increase the California minimum wage to $18 per hour from the current rate of $16, with 52% inclined to vote “yes,” according to the poll, and 34% intending to vote “no.” The remaining voters polled are undecided.

The measure is backed by Joe Sanberg, a wealthy Los Angeles investor and anti-poverty activist, and comes as unions have won raises for individual industries, securing $25 an hour for healthcare workers and $20 an hour for fast-food workers.

Several cities including West Hollywood and Berkeley have moved ahead of the state minimum and already pay more than $18 an hour. Proponents of the measure say that pay should be more uniform across the state, while business groups oppose it over concerns that it will collapse companies that are already struggling financially.

On Proposition 33, a measure that could expand rent control, 40% of likely voters said they would support the initiative, while 34% are opposed. The measure would give local jurisdictions in California more power to regulate rent and would repeal a law that bans localities from capping prices on some properties.

The measure is sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles nonprofit that has backed similar rent control initiatives in the past, and is opposed by the real estate industry, which warns it could cause developers to build less — a problem that could worsen California’s housing crisis.

Ten measures in total will be on the November ballot. DiCamillo said that with a high-stakes presidential election, political excitement could trickle down and draw record attention to propositions that could significantly change California policy.

“I’m expecting a big turnout, and usually that is beneficial to the issues lower down on the ballot,” he said.

Times staff writers Anabel Sosa and Andrew Khouri contributed to this report.