SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
covid-19 pandemic
As Paper Shows Benefits of Expanded Child Tax Credit, Sinema Challenger Gallego Says 'Bring It Back'
A Georgetown University economist tied pandemic stimulus and expanded child tax credit payments to reduced low birth weights, fewer preterm births, and higher Apgar scores.
Apr 15, 2023
"Bring it back."
That's what Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)—who is running to replace Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) in 2024—said Friday in response to new research highlighting some benefits of the expanded child tax credit (CTC) of 2021.
Krista Ruffini, an economist and assistant professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, shared a working paper about how Covid-19 pandemic stimulus and expanded CTC payments impacted infant health on the open access research platform SSRN.
After three rounds of stimulus checks throughout the first year of the pandemic, households with children received $250-$300 per child each month for the last six months of 2021 through the CTC expansion included in the American Rescue Plan relief package.
Ruffini found that "increased resources during pregnancy improve child well-being, and that unconditional cash transfers have large effects on infant health." Specifically, she connected an additional $1,000 with "increasing Apgar scores 0.02 points, reducing very low birth weight by at least 0.6 percentage points, and reducing preterm births by approximately 3 percentage points."
\u201cPayments were super important for infant health and broad across the popn: less low birthweight, fewer pre-term births, higher Apgar scores 2/4\u201d— Krista Ruffini (@Krista Ruffini) 1681498682
"Payment timing is also important: Resources received during the final months of a pregnancy yield a greater health benefit than those received earlier on," the economist explained. "Patterns in prenatal care and maternal health suggest that these benefits to infants accrue through both investments in children as well as improvements in the prenatal environment."
"The improvements in infant health documented in this paper are consistent with previous work showing that families used the payments on essential goods and services and to improve their financial position. It builds on this literature by showing that these improvements in material hardship benefited the next generation in ways that are expected to yield long-term benefits," she wrote. "These findings are particularly relevant as dozens of U.S. cities are piloting guaranteed income programs and policymakers contemplate a permanent expansion of the federal child tax credit."
\u201cWhy? Families spent $ on essentials and paid down debt, + less maternal smoking, more prenatal care. Altogether, consistent w large body of work showing importance of resources on infant & child health. 4/4\u201d— Krista Ruffini (@Krista Ruffini) 1681498682
Despite the well-documented benefits of the boosted CTC, including a dramatic drop in child poverty, congressional Democrats' efforts to lengthen the period of the program or even make it permanent have been unsuccessful.
After long joining with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to thwart various priorities of Democratic lawmakers and President Joe Biden, Sinema formally ditched the party in December and became an Independent. Although Sinema has not officially announced whether she will seek reelection next year, Gallego's campaign has gained national attention since launching in late January.
Throughout his campaign, Gallego has shared his experience growing up poor, as one of four children being raised by a single mother, and accused Sinema of fighting "for the interests of Big Pharma and Wall Street at our expense."
As Gallego's campaign said Friday:
Sen. Sinema helped block the expanded child tax credit from being included in the Inflation Reduction Act—essentially giving a thumbs up to 3.7 million children living in poverty. While, simultaneously, she fought to protect the carried interest tax loophole—a favorite of her hedge fund donors.
Growing up as the child of a poor, single mother, Ruben understands what the child tax credit means for millions of hard-working Americans and their children. That is why he has always been and remains a firm and vocal supporter of the child tax credit—because working families deserve to make ends meet and no child should ever have to worry about where their next meal will come from. In the Senate, Ruben will always fight for working people—because that's who he is and where he comes from.
While Sinema weighs whether to run for Senate again, her campaign filings for the first quarter of this year revealed Friday that she only raised $2.1 million, compared with Gallego's $3.7 million since launching his campaign.
Sinema "brought in funds from several prominent Republican donors and Wall Street sources. She raised more than $280,000 from employees of Blackstone, the private investment company, and $196,000 from employees of the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm," Politico reported. "Former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci also gave her campaign the maximum $3,300, while the No Labels Problem Solvers PAC gave $10,000."
\u201cThe top 1, 2, and 3 private equity firms in the world also happen to be Kyrsten Sinema's three largest contributors. What a coincidence! \n\nBlackstone: $286,850 \nThe Carlyle Group: $196,400\nKKR: $53,700 \n\nAnd that's just for the first quarter of the year.\u201d— Replace Sinema (@Replace Sinema) 1681517340
Gallego's campaign highlighted that less than $6,000 of Sinema's funds for January through March came from small-dollar donors, while 98% of those who have given to his campaign are small-dollar donors.
"I'm proud to be running a people-powered campaign where 98% of my donors are small-dollar donors who chipped in less than $100," Gallego said. " It's unfortunate that Sinema has pursued a different strategy: catering to a small group of rich donors."
"It doesn't seem to be getting her very far," he added. "At the end of the day: this seat is not going to be bought by a few rich guys on Wall Street. It's going to be won with the support of regular, everyday Arizonans—and I'm proud to have them in my corner."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Soaring School Lunch Debt Shows Need for Universal Free Meals
"Access to good nutrition should not depend on where a child lives or their family finances!" said one group.
Jan 11, 2023
Congress initially responded to the Covid-19 pandemic by enabling U.S. public schools to provide free breakfast and lunch to all 50 million children, but Republicans blocked a continuation of the program last summer—and now, districts and kids are suffering.
Halfway through the academic year, the nonprofit School Nutrition Association (SNA) on Wednesday released the results of a November survey that shows school meal programs are struggling with increasing costs, staff and menu item shortages, and unpaid charges.
"Congress has an opportunity to protect this critical lifeline."
Last June, Congress passed the Keep Kids Fed Act, bipartisan compromise legislation that increased the federal reimbursement rates for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) by 40 cents and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) by 15 cents for the 2022-23 school year.
However, only around a quarter of the 1,230 districts that responded to SNA's survey said those levels are sufficient, and 99.2% of them have moderate or serious concern about the raised rates expiring.
Additionally, a majority of districts that charge for meals said that the loss of the federal pandemic waiver enabling them to feed all students led to a rise in unpaid meal debt (96.3%), complaints and concerns from families (86.8%), administrative burden (86.5%), and stigma for low-income students (66.8%).
Over two-thirds of the districts reported unpaid meal debt collectively totaling $19.2 million. By district, debt ranged from just $15 to $1.7 million, but the median was $5,164.
\u201c.@SchoolLunch's 2023 survey shows that school nutrition programs are at a dangerous tipping point, facing rising costs, supply chain issues & labor shortages.\nAll schools should be able to offer free #HealthySchoolMeals to ensure all students are able to thrive. @urbanschoolfood\u201d— Devon Klatell (@Devon Klatell) 1673458391
A new position paper outlines SNA's primary recommendations:
- Make permanent the Keep Kids Fed Act reimbursement rates;
- Expand NSLP/SBP to offer healthy school meals for all students at no charge;
- Ensure the U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains current nutrition standards; and
- Reduce administrative and regulatory burdens.
"School meal programs are at a tipping point as rising costs, persistent supply chain issues, and labor shortages jeopardize their long-term sustainability," said SNA president Lori Adkins. "Congress has an opportunity to protect this critical lifeline by making reimbursement increases permanent and allowing us to offer free meals to ensure all students are nourished during the school day."
SNA is far from alone in demanding congressional action—though the dynamic on Capitol Hill is even more complicated now than it was last summer, since a divided Republican Party took narrow control of the U.S. House of Representatives last week.
\u201cRemember when we jumped up and down about universal school meals expiring and then the GOP blocked the extension because they wanted to nickel-and-dime a few mil & they were worried about those rich kids living large off the gov't Sloppy Joes? Yeah, well:\n\nhttps://t.co/Ldy3a9zjBy\u201d— Elliot Haspel (@Elliot Haspel) 1673444415
"We are experiencing cost increases in food, supplies, and labor like we have never seen before, and the meal reimbursement rate is not sufficient to cover the costs," Katie Wilson, executive director of the Urban School Food Alliance, a nonprofit created by school food service professionals, told The Washington Post, which reported on the SNA survey.
"We are witnessing large negative balances in schools since free meals have been discontinued," Wilson added, noting that some districts have started giving children with certain levels of debt alternate, lesser meals.
Highlighting that school meal policies vary by state and district, Wilson's organization
tweeted Wednesday that "access to good nutrition should not depend on where a child lives or their family finances!"
As USA Today—which also reported on SNA's survey Wednesday—detailed:
After pandemic-era waivers granting universal schools meal expired at the start of the school year, some states effectively extended them this school year, including Massachusetts, Nevada, Vermont, and Pennsylvania.
California, Maine, and now Colorado are the only states with laws ensuring permanent universal meal programs for all children, regardless of parents' income.
A few districts, including Chicago and New York City, also offer free meals to kids.
However, Donna Martin, nutrition director for the Burke County school district in Georgia, warned the Post that "doing universal school meals state by state is way too piecemeal and will ultimately leave needy students out."
"School districts are incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in school meal debt that the school districts' budgets—not school nutrition—will eventually have to cover," Martin stressed. "This takes dollars away from teaching and learning."
Elliot Haspel, author of Crawling Behind: America's Child Care Crisis and How to Fix It, said in a series of tweets Wednesday that "I, too, dislike the state-by-state approach. HOWEVER, given the political makeup of Congress, I think every state that can needs to be passing universal school meals (at solid reimbursement rates) during the '23 legislative session."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Public Health Experts Raise Alarm as Trump White House Embraces 'Fringe' Declaration Pushing Herd Immunity
"It's being presented as if it's a major alternative view that's held by large numbers of experts in the scientific community. That is not true."
Oct 14, 2020
Public health experts on Tuesday evening into Wednesday raised alarm over reports that the White House has embraced a declaration calling for a "herd immunity" approach to managing the coronavirus pandemic, put forward by scientists whose views have been denounced as "fringe" by National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins.
"This is a fringe component of epidemiology. This is not mainstream science. It's dangerous. It fits into the political views of certain parts of our confused political establishment."
--Dr. Francis Collins, National Institutes of Health
Reporters spoke on Monday with an anonymous senior administration official about the "Great Barrington Declaration," a document unveiled on Oct. 4 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts at the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank.
The declaration promotes a strategy called "Focused Protection"--what one professor at the University of New South Wales called a rebranding of "herd immunity," in which Covid-19 would be permitted to spread through the young and relatively healthy population while the elderly and people with pre-existing health conditions would follow public health guidance to prevent them from contracting the disease. The document calls for a return to schools, workplaces, and normal pre-pandemic routines as a means of allowing the virus to spread at "natural" rates.
\u201c"Herd Immunity" now rebranded "focused prevention" but still the same Social Darwinism underneath. As in this excellent @washingtonpost article: "Critics of Focused Protection say the idea is impractical, unethical and potentially deadly. There is no way, they say, to segregate\u201d— Bill Bowtell AO (@Bill Bowtell AO) 1602624362
Three epidemiologists in particular--Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, Sunetra Gupta of University of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford Medical School--were signatories of the document and have been mentioned by name in recent press briefings by Dr. Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist and senior fellow at the right-wing Hoover Institution who has become one of President Donald Trump's top coronavirus advisers in recent months despite his lack of public health expertise.
The scientists met with Atlas and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar last week, according to the Washington Post.
The senior administration official told the Post that the Great Barrington Declaration--which proponents claim has been signed by thousands of doctors and scientists but whose signatories include "transparently fake" names including "Dr. Johnny Bananas" and "Dr. Person Fakename," according toSky News--simply promotes the approach pushed by Trump for months.
The president began harshly criticizing lockdown measures almost as soon as they began in March and has pushed for a full reopening of schools and businesses while he and other Republicans have scoffed at the notion of providing robust, long-term economic aid to people and small businesses as other wealthy countries did months ago.
By forcing much of the population to return to their normal routines amid the pandemic, adherence to the Great Barrington Declaration would keep the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate from having to consider how to provide aid to businesses that are forced to close and people who have to stay at home to avoid spreading the coronavirus.
Rather than ignoring public health guidance, tweeted Yale epidemiologist and public health activist Gregg Gonsalves, the federal government must focus on making it economically viable for families and small businesses to keep their communities safe.
\u201cIn many places in the US we have widespread community transmission happening. We need to get these levels down now. This means a massive voluntary commitment to doing this together to protect our neighbors, friends and families. 5/\u201d— Gregg Gonsalves (@Gregg Gonsalves) 1602535579
\u201cIn many places in the US we have widespread community transmission happening. We need to get these levels down now. This means a massive voluntary commitment to doing this together to protect our neighbors, friends and families. 5/\u201d— Gregg Gonsalves (@Gregg Gonsalves) 1602535579
\u201cWe did this in the spring, BUT too many people were left behind. The social and economic support that should have been forthcoming from the federal government in the US got shoveled to big corporations. 6/\u201d— Gregg Gonsalves (@Gregg Gonsalves) 1602535579
The declaration does not include any mention of members of the public wearing face coverings or adhering to social distancing guidelines, nor does it outline how specifically society would segregate elderly and medically vulnerable people from young and relatively healthy people who are urged to go about their regular routines.
Collins told the Post that the document will likely be embraced as "an idea that someone can wrap themselves in as a justification for skipping wearing masks or social distancing and just doing whatever they damn well please."
"What I worry about with this is it's being presented as if it's a major alternative view that's held by large numbers of experts in the scientific community. That is not true," Collins told the Post. "This is a fringe component of epidemiology. This is not mainstream science. It's dangerous. It fits into the political views of certain parts of our confused political establishment."
Other public health experts on social media, both in the United Kingdom and the U.S., expressed alarm over the White House's decision to embrace the proposal.
\u201cWe need a new approach that says what do families, small businesses need to stay safe? Main Street not Wall Street has to be the focus. And we need to fight for it otherwise the pigs, the big shots at the trough keep eating at our expense. 7/\u201d— Gregg Gonsalves (@Gregg Gonsalves) 1602535579
\u201cThe "focused protection" idea:\n\n*ignores Long Covid\n*ignores the massive mental health effects of shielding\n*is ableist,ageist+racist\n*won't work because everyone's interlinked\n*relies on immunity we don't yet know exists\n\nMedia, pls stop giving these fringe scientists airtime.\u201d— Georgia Ladbury \ud83c\udf6b\u2615 (@Georgia Ladbury \ud83c\udf6b\u2615) 1602364754
\u201cHerd immunity is not a public health strategy.\n\nPeriod.\u201d— Don S. Dizon MD (he/him) \ud83c\uddec\ud83c\uddfa (@Don S. Dizon MD (he/him) \ud83c\uddec\ud83c\uddfa) 1602670622
\u201cTreating herd immunity as an option is ridiculous because it violates principles of biomedical ethics. \n\nCould we REALLY tolerate 1.2 million deaths in a short period of time; MILLIONS more with unknown complications? \n\nhttps://t.co/XUuxzornZ6\u201d— (((Howard Forman))) (sarcasm/parody) (@(((Howard Forman))) (sarcasm/parody)) 1602633266
\u201cThe White House is reportedly embracing a herd-immunity approach focused on \u201cprotecting the elderly and the vulnerable\u201d just a few weeks after it failed to protect a 74-year-old with multiple comorbidities.\n\nhttps://t.co/E57n4PzS3T\u201d— Craig Spencer MD MPH (@Craig Spencer MD MPH) 1602644834
Gonsalves called into question the primary idea being put forth by the Great Barrington Declaration--that public health experts are calling for a "full-scale" lockdown in which people would be unable to leave their homes for long periods of time.
\u201cSo, no one likes lockdowns. No one thinks that they are without secondary harms. And most importantly, NO ONE is arguing for Wuhan-style full-scale lockdowns. No one is. But a straw man argument is being set up by those who want to mislead the American and British publics. 1/\u201d— Gregg Gonsalves (@Gregg Gonsalves) 1602535579
\u201cWhat are public health experts really promoting? Testing, tracing, isolation, targeted screening, universal mask wearing, massive social/economic support for ordinary Americans (and Britons). If closures need to happen they can be targeted, focused,. 3/\u201d— Gregg Gonsalves (@Gregg Gonsalves) 1602535579
"We need a vaccine to get to herd immunity without putting millions of lives in jeopardy," Gonsalves tweeted. "Full stop. Stop the bullshit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular