Though many of the Democratic presidential candidates have introduced proposals to help working families, few of Booker’s rivals have offered a policy specifically aimed at cutting the child poverty rate. The Booker campaign said its plan would help at least 7.3 million children escape poverty, citing an analysis by researchers at Columbia University.
Earlier this year, Booker campaigned heavily on his “baby bonds” proposal, which would offer government-funded savings accounts for children that would be handed over as a lump sum when they turned 18 but could only be put toward “wealth-building” transactions like paying for college, buying a home or starting a small business.
His new plan seeks to help families with young children immediately. Though it includes some broadly defined goals and builds off ideas his campaign has already introduced, it also includes three proposals that could shift some wealth toward poor people.
“Building on the same American spirit that gave us Social Security, Medicare, nutrition assistance and so much more, we must come together to ensure that every child has a fair shot to participate in and benefit from our collective promise,” Booker said in a statement. “I know that we can do this, and as president, I will act.”
A central tenet of Booker’s plan is to provide a $300 monthly cash allowance to families for each child under 5 years old through a vast expansion of the child tax credit. The proposal would also eliminate a loophole that leaves out the poorest American families, whose tax credit under the current system is limited to 15% of their earned income over $2,500.
The tax credit would begin to phase out for individual filers earning at least $130,000 or couples earning $180,000.
Booker’s proposal follows a bill, the American Family Act of 2019, that was introduced by two other Democratic senators: Michael Bennet of Colorado, who is also running for the Democratic nomination, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio. The bill proposed expanding the child tax credit from $2,000 per year to $3,600 per year, or $300 per month, for families with children up to 5 years old, and then $3,000 a year until the child turns 18. Booker and several other Democratic candidates have signed on to that bill.
Sending money to families with children is common in Europe and in Canada, and a Columbia University study of the 2017 version of the bill found that it would cut child poverty roughly in half.
Booker also proposed expanding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps, by 30%. And he called for expanding school meals outside the academic year and allowing all children who are eligible for food stamps to receive free or reduced-price school lunches.
Experts in childhood education viewed Booker’s focus on childhood poverty as a welcome discussion in the sprawling campaign.
“We have kids operating under toxic stress because they’re not eating or they don’t have a stable home or they’re not safe,” said Paul Reville, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. “And until you tackle this, the whole problem of human capital development can’t possibly be successfully treated.”
In a more expansive proposal, Booker called for increasing funding by 40% for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program, which provides temporary financial assistance to families dealt an unexpected crisis like a job loss.
Citing a study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, which found that the program is providing direct financial assistance to only about 1 in 4 families, Booker also proposed requiring that TANF grants focus on families that are most in need.
The campaign would not offer a total cost for Booker’s proposal and said that if elected, he would most likely need cooperation from Congress to increase funding levels for government programs. The campaign proposed paying for his plan with a similar method he has cited in other proposals: repealing President Donald Trump’s tax cuts and overhauling capital gains taxes and the estate tax.
Some experts questioned the expansive goals and unknown price tag of Booker’s plan.
“I think it is totally aspirational,” said Susan Neuman, a professor of childhood education at New York University. “You can do some things that really, really make a difference. If you look at the literature on child poverty, you can see that the tax credit is a benefit, providing lunches year round is a benefit. But providing more money for TANF or child care will not change behavior, and I question whether all of these policies are possible to do at one time.”
This article originally appeared in
.