Breaking Down Congress's Budget-Busting Bills

Family policy matters in engaging and informative weekly radio show and podcast produced by the North Carolina family policy Council hi this is John Ralston, presidency, family, and were grateful to have you with us for this week's program is our prayer that you will be informed, encouraged and inspired by what you hear on family policy matters and that you will fold better equipped to be a voice of persuasion for family values in your community, state and nation, and now here's our house to family policy matters. Tracy Devitt brings thanks for joining us this week for family policy matters. Pres. Biden and Congress have been working hard at negotiating a pair of pending bills that would move forward. The president's campaign agenda. The infrastructure bill that passed in early November and the much larger policy focused build back better bill have large price tags and sweeping policy implications, both of which may be causes for concern among American families here to help us break down what is in these bills and their potential impact on families is Connor samples burger a family research Council. Connor serves as FRC's director of federal affairs for life and human dignity.

Ray lobbies Congress and federal agencies and serves as FRC's spokesman on pro-life issues. He recently published an analysis of the build back better bill entitled six things to know about Biden's anti-family budget buster.

Connor samples burger welcome to family policy matters great to be on again.

There are actually two major spending bills that have been making their way through Congress this year.

So help us to separate which is which of you, but the real way to look at this is actually a passing of all of Biden's agenda that he ran on he ran on jobs he ran on transforming family. So it's one big agenda, but split up in the two separate bills one more focused on the roads and bridges, but don't worry, there's some some nefarious provisions in there as well not pass through with bipartisan support. Much more common sense. The second, much larger package is all those progressive social spending. That the Bible ran on and are trying to pass through Congress. Now so you mentioned that there are portions of that infrastructure bill that already passed in early November that we should be concerned about. Tell us why yes couch is a bipartisan bill. So Republicans 18 and the Senate and 13.

The house voted for this infrastructure bill to build some roads and bridges like we talked about what way beyond that one provision. We particularly had a concern with was in the digital equity provision to expand broadband access on the surface a good goal inserted right and there was a poison pill language that would elevate sexual orientation and gender identity to protect the classes, undervaluing what it means to be married and could actually be targeted against religious folks and those that believe in traditional marriage, all in the guise of a social gender ideology that most Americans disagree with that was inserted right Mayor and it's unfortunate because good conservative Republicans signed up for this bill to build roads and bridges, all while knowing that this bad provision was inserted into the bill tell us. Now what the build back better bill will do a little bit more on that place yes couch is a families plan by Pres. Biden, but we like to term the anti-families budget buster because it's not really for families and boy does it cost the American budget and again this is all the other provisions that progressive Democrats have run on from everything from universal childcare pre-k paid family all these things are trying to reshape America. The green new deal raising our taxes along the way. So that's what this package is its couch is building back better, but really what it is, is when you peel back the 2100 pages of this bill of massive bill. These programs do a lot more to dismantle American family rather than build them up so took a little more in detail about what kinds of things are in this bill back better bill that we as family advocates should particularly be concerned about this bill attempts to put new programs out for American families. But the main issue is that the binder ministration Democrats in Congress have really misunderstanding of what American families really want instead of actually giving families what they want policies that promote freedom and flexibility for working families find the best childcare work situation. The their families need. Instead what this bill attempts to do is take a one-size-fits-all model mostly preferred by really well educated, PhD and upper-level and well-off Americans and put that model on for the rest of American families, and so that's the real danger is that it its couch is helping families, but these policies are not really what working families want and actually make them worse off by writing their taxes and benefiting those families that are already more well-off many surveys you look at what what do families want one terms of work situation almost all income categories prefer to have one parent working full-time and one parent either staying at home are only working part time to take care of the children. That's what almost every economic class of families want except for those high income earners and so instead of actually providing policies that do not allow the flexibility. This policy actually incentivizes all parents to be two full-time employed parents can send their kids to childcare and institutional centers, rather than providing childcare themselves for having a close family member provide childcare in the home and so that's where the disconnect really is. Again, it's putting both mothers and fathers are gross of what they want both in the full-time working jobs and sitting giving them the time or maybe the financial resources they need to care for their own kids. They want those children to be in the their grass as early as possible. Even just after birth, so that they can be caring from them from infancy all the way through college age. So when you read these bills is not very explicit, like if your stay-at-home mom, you get nothing and after two working parents. You get everything you want. It's not as explicit at that, but it's how these programs are designed in the base text of these bills and so talk about maybe the childcare program for some of our other broader tax laws they are written in a way that provides a financial benefit will give you benefit to use this money to send a kid to a head start program or send your child to daycare at your local public school. But the thing is there's incentives or financial vouchers for parents to do that. But what if the family decides this that they don't want to send her to barely rather to stay home and care for their kids didn't get any economic benefit at all. And so there's a financial some of their hate. Well, I might as well go back to work because if I do all childcare will be free to be paid for and I can send my kid right the street and so that's how these things work and get some very explicit that we look at who gets the benefit who does not get a benefit.

It's really clear where the incentives are and we look at who's paying for these those families and we have one income coming in to care for all their kids or their family. They're the ones being taxed and paying for the childcare for those families that choose to take the free benefit. So it is sort of in the weeks but it's good to understand how these actually interact. Who's getting the benefits and who's not getting the benefits.

Let's talk about some of these long-standing pro-life budget measures which have been for many years bipartisan. Why are they going away, what's going on with that. It's been a major break from the consensus of old which wasn't regardless of everyone's position on abortion. Everybody could agree that our taxpayer dollars should not be funding or subsidizing abortion and that sentiment is held true for 40+ years from all sides of the aisle, but as the Democratic Party has continued to go down a more radical and ideological lens to the left as that's shifted these bipartisan consensus with these riders again which protect our taxpayer funds from funding abortion have been kicked to the wayside. It started in the 2016 campaign with Hillary Clinton.

The Democratic Party platform called for the removal of the Hyde amendment. The most famous of these policy writers only increased since then there there amendments that direct where our tax dollars go and again they said we should not fund abortions. We should not force physicians to be referring or performing abortions against the will. They don't want to topping our taxpayer dollars from paying for forces overseas many many different amendments like this. Over the years and almost all of them are the Organon buddies pro-abortion members of Congress to remove and send our taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion in ways that they've never have in the history of our country taken on the marriage issue that why do you argue that the bill back. Better bill will actually weaken the institution of marriage in our tax code. Marriage for many many years has been penalized penalized for several reasons, and thankfully Republicans in Congress without the presence from fixed a lot of those when they pass their tax cuts build 20 17th but will remains are some existing marriage penalties and a lot of what we call our means tested programs that things like the earned income tax credit for low income women. I have children also snap which is a food supplemental programs. Programs like that have marriage penalty.

So if you're more in the lower class and your single person in your getting certain benefit if you choose to be married.

Your tax bill might double or even triple if you choose to marry and so that's what we call a marriage penalty. So we know that these things exist in FRC has been here trying to kill his back and actually make a marriage be a positive thing in the tax code, not a negative. What this bill does is instead of attempting to remove those penalties. There actually increasing these marriage penalties and again it's not an overt thing, like look here. We don't like marriage in order to double everyone's tax penalties if they get married. It's not how that looks in the bill which is restructuring of these existing programs to change who's eligible and where the benefits go, and when you look at the numbers. These marriage penalties are actually exacerbated. They put up more negative hit on maybe a low income woman with a young child that finds a good partner wants to get married. Her and her husband actually face a higher tax bill that she would remain single in the couple would cohabitate so that's why it's not promoting marriage. It's actually just incentivizing couples to to be and to stay married okay work on a pleasant Thursdays now is the build back better bill going to affect education. Do you think so.

The education policies are a big push in this bill and what by administration want to do was expand public education from kindergarten to 12th grade. They want that two more years of the beginning preschool three and four-year-old in two years. At the end two years of free community college. The community college provisions because of the expenses had to be stripped out, but they've zeroed in on expanding universal preschool for all kids in all states three and four-year-olds, and again, we've already have a program like this with Headstart that helps low-income families get preschool education, but the real detriment with the education here is not only does it force out 50 survivors of your faith-based preschool program like the one I went to my local church. You don't get any subsidy or actually crowded out because you have to take on all these expanded requirements that they just would not be able to accept. In addition to that, though it really detriment education because it's wanting to pull kids out of their nucleus of the family environment where there learning from their parents and their family members put them into childcare programs much earlier age, education programs much earlier age and they mandate this is a big here they would mandate each state have a statewide curriculum for these preschool programs, and boy.

If only we could trust the state curriculums that would be okay but when you see what's coming out of places like California weather suggesting teaching gender ideologies early as three and four years old and then potentially if there part of this program mandating it for all preschool programs across the state boy to Zach it really detrimental for our use.

Teaching them things are just totally not just irrational but against what their parents would want to be teaching them in the home so it's really attacking the court of education earlier and earlier ages. Finally, what about religious organizations. What sort of impacts do you expect this bill to have a in its current form, at least on their ability to continue to do their work for religious organizations really need not apply.

There's all. Again, like the pro-life writers.

There's been a consensus that while the federal government will cannot subsidize religious activities themselves like a religious and class, they can help provide subsidies for churches or Catholic or Christian schools that provide childcare programs or pre-k programs provide books provide maybe facilities things like that they can help educate because they're doing the job what the government white otherwise have to do these religious educators, religious schools and childcare programs are already doing and instead of allowing them participate like they already all already have through various federal programs. They say need not apply. If you do, you might be accepted but you would have to accept all of these mandates on marriage, on life abortion, you name it, that this a religious employer if they stuck to their religious convictions would not be able to accept so it crowds out religious providers consider bringing in all of approach to educating youth. They don't want religious groups involved, so that's a real problem here and in the text of the bill and so hopefully there still changes that can be made that can actually just go back to the status quo of allowing these providers to participate in programs like this provide some financial subsidies so that a kid can take this childcare tax credit or childcare program is going to the public school for pre-k, they can actually go to their their churches preschool that might be in the church basement Connor samples Parker helps listeners to read your report.

Six things to know about Biden's anti-family budget buster and also follow the progress of this legislation, you can log onto FRC.org/spending to find our new resource that shows six things to know about the anti-family budget buster and to follow along for the progress of this bill. I encourage you to sign up for action alert and FRC action.org and that'll give timely updates as these bills continue to move through the House of Representatives and in the Senate and potentially the president's desk will keep you updated and how you can take action to let your members of Congress and your sinners know how you feel about the provisions in this bill Connor samples Parker FRC's director of federal affairs for life and human dignity. Thank you so much for being with us today on family policy matters.

You been listening to family policy matters.

We hope you enjoyed the program and plenitude, and again next week to listen to the show online and to learn more about NC families work to inform, encourage and inspire families across Carolina go to our website@ncfamily.org that's NC family.org.

Thanks again for listening and may God bless you and your family