The U.S. Spending on Children is Unacceptable
Written By: Matthew Lin
In the Children’s Budget 2020, Olivia Gomez from First Focus on Children, a bipartisan advocacy organization focused on federal policy involving families with children increasing the priority children and families have in national policy and budget decisions, stated that the Trump administration proposed a budget cut of $21 billion to children’s programs in 2021. This proposition from the 45th president eliminates 59 separate beneficial programs for children. To put the proposal into a similar perspective, in 2019, according to Katie Hamm, an examiner at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for federal child care and early education programs, President Trump put more than 300,000 families with at least one child at risk of losing government support in his budget proposal of slashing SSI benefits, where SSI benefits support disabled children who have limited income (“Supplemental”). Trump’s proposals exemplify how the U.S. spending on children is at an unacceptable all-time low.
Our federal government should spend more on children.
First and foremost, Trump’s budget proposals that undermine the effectiveness of children’s programs don’t indicate that our federal government does not support programs that benefit children. According to Erin Currier from the PEW Charitable Trusts, a non-profit organization that serves the public interest by improving public policy, the Child Tax Credit provides families up to $1,000 each year per child to offset the costs of raising children. Furthermore, the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan organization that analyses long-term and current tax problems, estimates the Child Tax Credit helps almost 70% of families with children. This suggests that federal spending on children isn’t at an unacceptably low level. On the other hand, how much more should the government do to support child welfare programs? The Peterson Foundation, a non-partisan organization committed to addressing America’s fiscal challenges, notes that only 2 cents of every dollar would go to children’s programs within the next decade.
In comparison, 71 cents would go towards social security and medicare, and 18 cents would have gone towards interest on the debt (Peterson). Consequently, the potential effectiveness of children’s programs won’t be reached within the next decade and thereby shows how our federal spending on children is at an all-time low. In fact, the amount of federal spending on children is drastically disproportionate to the American kids’ Population, as the KIDS COUNT Data Center, a foundation that produces a comprehensive report that assesses child well-being in the U.S. each year, states “23% of the population consist of citizens under 18”. Without a doubt, this disproportion shows the need for our government to spend substantially more on child welfare programs. This is very prevalent now, as the federal spending on children is at the lowest it has ever been.
Federal spending on children is at an all-time low.
The federal spending on children has decreased from 8.19% to 7.32% over the last five years (Gomez). This decline will likely continue and put even more strain on the budget given to child welfare programs and, therefore, negatively impact their effectiveness. Furthermore, this claim is supported by Heather Hahn, a senior fellow in the Center for Human Services and Population at the Urban Institute, where she projects that “Under pre-pandemic law, children’s share of the federal budget is projected to drop from 9.2 percent to 7.3 percent over the next decade”. Evidently, Hahn’s prediction exemplifies how our current spending on children is, without a doubt, unacceptable because under an economy not torn apart by the Covid-19 pandemic, children were still at risk of losing necessary development programs and governmental assistance. Likewise, what happened to the U.S. economy during the Covid-19 pandemic? Based on an article from Lucia Mutikani, a lead U.S. economic data writer, she points out the resemblances of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the U.S. economy to the effects of the Great Depression. More specially, Mutikani states that during the pandemic, the “GDP fell at a 32.9% annualized rate, the deepest decline since records began back in 1947” (Mutikani). Likewise, Hahn’s predicted decrease and Mutikani’s comparison to the great depression indicate that our federal spending on children is at an all-time low. In addition, it can be inferred that both perspectives agree on the point that our federal government spending on children depends on our country’s economic condition. That inference is affirmed by the fact that “In Fiscal Year 2020, federal spending was equal to 31% of the total gross domestic product (GDP), or economic activity, of the United States that year,” as stated by the U.S. Treasury Data Lab, a website that promotes transparency of government finances. Evidently, the amount of federal spending each year is directly affected by our nation’s economic state, which indicates that if both the GDP and federal spending are lower, the spending on children will also be much less. Thus, it is clear our national spending on children is decreasing rapidly, but why should our federal government spend more in the first place?
There are positive impacts on an increase in funding for child welfare programs.
According to the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, in 2012, $5.3 billion of federal funding in the Child Care and Development Fund program helped serve 1.5 million children monthly (“federal”). These results clearly show how positively impactful our child welfare programs can be. However, with the decline in spending over the years, such effective results are less likely to occur. Andrew Ujifusa, an assistant editor who covers Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, and national education policy, claims that total federal spending on those younger than 19 was $6,200 in 2018, which according to Ujifusa, represented a decline from previous years. This re-affirms the idea that if the U.S. federal government spends less on children, the benefits children will receive from welfare programs will also be less, thereby undermining their effectiveness. To put this into perspective, Randy Burton, founder of Justice for Children, an organization that steps in to help children when the child protection system fails to protect a child, states, “a recent National incidence survey III conducted by the Department of Health And Human Services found that fully 72% of all reports received by CPS, or 2,160,000 reports of abuse or neglect, were never investigated by CPS”. From this, it can be argued that Burton’s alarming report is the result of our federal government not spending enough on children, which is plausible based on the evident decline in spending on children (Ujifusa). Likewise, Elizabeth Brico, a writer from the Pacific Northwest who has an MFA in writing and focuses on the child welfare system, agrees with this claim, as she notes that the U.S. doesn’t have a national CPS service. Clearly, the lack of national service is the result of spending on children being at an all-time low. Additionally, by not having a nationwide service, each state creates “its own child welfare department” (Brico), which could lead to “disparity between some jurisdictions’ caseloads and the number of available services can mean long delays or inadequate referrals.” (Brico). Therefore, the perspectives of Brico, Ujifusa, and Burton exemplify the urgency in which our federal government should spend more on child welfare benefits as it is clear that essential programs like the CPS are receiving no federal support whatsoever.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the constant decline in federal spending over the decade is a prevalent issue that our federal government needs to address immediately, or the effectiveness of many child welfare programs will be drastically reduced in the future. Correspondingly, with spending on children being at an all-time low, our federal government needs to propose a budget that gives a more considerable portion to child welfare programs. In addition, an increase in funding will bring about results that will protect and assist children, ensuring that they develop under optimal conditions.
Works Cited
Comments
Post a Comment