US Confirms It’s Entering Talks That Could Lead to US Withdrawal From Iraq

Reports indicate the US is also discussing the idea of withdrawing from Syria

by Dave DeCamp January 25, 2024 at 7:14 pm ET CategoriesNewsTagsIraq, Syria

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin confirmed on Thursday that the US and Iraq will start talks on the future of the US military presence in Iraq in the “coming days,” which could result in a US withdrawal.

Baghdad has been calling for an end to the presence of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition in response to recent US airstrikes in Iraq. Tensions are soaring as Iraqi Shia militias have been attacking US bases in both Iraq and Syria due to President Biden’s support for the Israeli slaughter in Gaza.

Austin said the two countries will convene a meeting of the US-Iraq Higher Military Commission (HMC), which was formed last summer. Signaling that the US wants to maintain some sort of presence in Iraq, Austin said the HMC will “enable the transition to an enduring bilateral security partnership between the United States and Iraq.”

There are about 2,500 US troops in Iraq as part of the anti-ISIS coalition, known as Operation Inherent Resolve. In recent years, the US presence in Iraq has been more about pushing back against Iran’s influence in the country as ISIS has been reduced to small remnants.

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has said that Iraq’s security forces can handle ISIS without the US. Austin said the “transition” in the US presence depends on three factors: “the threat from ISIS, operational and environmental requirements, and the Iraqi security forces’ capability levels.”

There have been reports that indicate the US is also considering ending its military occupation of eastern Syria. There are about 900 US troops, and the US is able to control about one-third of Syria’s territory by backing the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Sources within the Pentagon and State Department told Foreign Policy that the White House “is no longer invested in sustaining a mission that it perceives as unnecessary.” Al-Monitor reported that the Pentagon floated a plan for the SDF to partner with the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, which is under crippling US sanctions.

US officials told POLITICO that a withdrawal from Syria or Iraq is not imminent but did acknowledge there are conversations within the Biden administration about pulling troops out of Syria. However, another US official told CNN that the US was not considering leaving Syria.

Neocon Freak-Out as Biden Contemplates Iraq/Syria Withdrawal

by Daniel McAdams Posted onJanuary 26, 2024

Neocon heads like the Middle East Institute’s Charles Lister’s are exploding with the news today that the Biden Administration may be considering withdrawing from its illegal occupations in both Syria and Iraq.

First on Syria. As Lister opines in Foreign Policy:

…four sources within the Defense and State departments said the White House is no longer invested in sustaining a mission that it perceives as unnecessary. Active internal discussions are now underway to determine how and when a withdrawal may take place.

Lister, an early and stalwart supporter of the al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgency against Assad in Syria, warns of “the catastrophic effect that a withdrawal would have on U.S. and allied influence over the unresolved and acutely volatile crisis in Syria,” adding that, “it would also be a gift to the Islamic State.”

Ah. ISIS. Remember them? We haven’t heard anything from them in awhile. That moveable feast. From not long after Syria’s Assad invited Russia in to rescue the country as it teetered on the verge of total takeover by the US-backed “freedom fighters.”

But… suddenly and if on cue… they’re BACK! Just when after more than a hundred recent attacks on the US occupation bases have convinced even Biden and his “Middle East experts” that it’s only a matter of time before lots of American blood is shed, ISIS suddenly comes roaring back for the neocons to use in attempt to justify Washington’s continued presence in the region.

Very convenient.

But perhaps someone has reminded Biden that it’s an election year and voters might start questioning just why and under what authority American troops are stationed in Iraq and Syria. Especially as the “resistance” rockets (and missiles?) are getting closer.

Similarly to what Lister is panicking about regarding US occupation of Syria, CNN is reporting today that “US and Iraqi governments expected to start talks on future of US military presence in the country.”

Writes CNN’s deep state mouthpiece Natasha Bertrand, “The US and Iraq are expected to soon begin talks on the future of the US military presence in the country, according to sources familiar with the matter, amid public calls from the Iraqi government for the US to withdraw its troops.”

Bertrand quotes several denizens of DC’s “think-tank-topia” who warn that pulling out US “trip-wire” troops from Iraq and Syria could negatively effect their plans for war with Iran…er…could um…embolden ISIS!

Bertrand quotes MIC-funded CSIS “deep thinker” Jon Alterman:

Still, rumblings of a potential US change in its force posture in Iraq would be a victory for Iran, Alterman said. ‘Any sign that this is the beginning of the end would be widely celebrated in Iranian corridors.’

Ah yes! Should the US end its illegal occupation of Syria and Iraq, Iran would celebrate! Those dastardly mullahs! How dare they celebrate no hostile troops on their border!

You know who else would celebrate? Every single mother, wife, husband, and relative of those American troops being forced to sacrifice their very lives for an occupation that has zero to do with the US national interest.

Is Biden a cynical and bloodthirsty monster? No doubt. Is he (or his puppet masters) only concerned about keeping that ring in his hands for four more years? Absolutely. But would I celebrate and praise any decision by the Biden Administration to do the right thing and get the hell out of the Middle East, starting with the occupations of Iraq and Syria? You’re damn right!

As neocon loon Michael Ledeen famously said…”faster please!”

Reprinted with permission from the Ron Paul Institute.

Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-Producer/co-Host, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Daniel served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense/intel policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.

US Troops in Iraq Are a Tripwire for War With Iran

by Scott Horton Posted onJanuary 23, 2024

The New York Times Monday noted the increasing likelihood that U.S. troops will be killed by mortars or rocket fire from Shi’ite militias in Iraq or Syria as they have been attacked and wounded repeatedly in the past three months as locals take revenge for Israel’s violence in Gaza. (AQI/ISIS sure have motive to attack and frame the Shi’ites too, btw.)

As Gen. Mattis said years ago:

“I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and that all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, they can’t come out publicly in support of people who don’t show respect for the Arab Palestinians.”

The point is that as Israel escalates against Hezbollah and Syria, and the U.S. escalates in Syria and Iraq (they assassinated a Shi’ite militia leader with a drone strike in Baghdad two weeks ago, leading the government to demand US withdrawal) and against the Houthis in Yemen, the danger of a real regional war against all the Shi’ite countries and substate militias and terrorist groups is quite high.

The Times says the Biden regime says that if Americans are killed in Iraq, they will feel the political necessity to expand the war to Iran with at least what they consider limited strikes.

At that point it seems very likely it would be all bets off and the Ayatollah would go to war and urge the rest of the so-called Axis of Resistance, or Shi’ite Crescent, to join them.

Even if Russia and China do nothing but watch, the costs to the United States would be enormous. U.S. troops, airmen, sailors, etc. would be at risk in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE and Saudi, along with an empire worth of equipment based in Qatar and Bahrain, home of CENTCOM and the center of American air power there, as well as the home of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.

Iran has thousands of missiles that can reach these targets, as well as air defenses which would be capable of destroying many air force and navy planes before air dominance over Iran could be achieved if it ever could at all, which may be a big assumption.

The Iraqi government and army would also virtually certainly take Iran’s side and join up with the militias to march on Iraqi Kurdistan and force U.S. troops out; same for Syria.

(Nevermind the danger of Hezbollah type groups wreaking havoc across the EU and hopefully not the U.S. too, nor the threat that U.S. Sunni client monarchies and dictatorships in the region could fall and be replace by who-knows-what.)

So then what is Biden supposed to do? Unleash our entire navy and air force (possibly even army, marines, SOCOM) against Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran at the same time — and all to continue to abet Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza?

In 2007, the Chiefs told W. Bush, No way. They don’t want to fight unless they know they will have “escalation dominance” over every stage of the conflict, and here they know they would not have it.

I move for a vote of no confidence in President Biden’s leadership.

Scott Horton is editorial director of Antiwar.com, director of the Libertarian Institute, host of Antiwar Radio on Pacifica, 90.7 FM KPFK in Los Angeles, California and podcasts the Scott Horton Show from ScottHorton.org. He’s the author of the 2021 book Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism, the 2017 book, Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and the editor of the 2019 book, The Great Ron Paul: The Scott Horton Show Interviews 2004–2019. He’s conducted more than 5,500 interviews since 2003. Scott’s articles have appeared at Antiwar.com, The American Conservative magazine, the History News Network, The Future of Freedom, The National Interest and the Christian Science Monitor. He also contributed a chapter to the 2019 book, The Impact of War. Scott lives in Austin, Texas with his wife, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna Horton. He is a fan of, but no relation to the lawyer from Harper’s. Scott’s Twitter, YouTube, Patreon. View all posts by Scott Horton

 

U$A

Bipartisan Tax Bill Offers Generous Corporate Tax Relief, Inadequate Poverty Aid

A proposed bill increases the child tax credit, but fails the poorest families. Yet corporations would see a windfall.

By

 

Tyler Walicek , 

TRUTHOUT

Published

January 20, 2024

The bulk of the Republican side of the Tax Relief Act bargain is dedicated to reaping vast windfalls for corporations, which already dodge taxes with alacrity.

OSCAR WONG / GETTY IMAGES

On January 16, congressional leaders announced that a bipartisan agreement had been reached on a far-ranging, $78 billion tax package. The proposed legislation is not only bipartisan but bicameral: It was negotiated between Jason Smith, a Republican representative from Missouri and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, who is a senator chairing the Finance Committee. If passed, the bill will be realized as the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 (hereon, the Tax Relief Act).

Alongside a bevy of tax policy adjustments, the Tax Relief Act’s most significant changes include a partial reinstatement of Biden’s COVID-era expanded child tax credit — potentially easing financial burdens for millions of low-income families. The plan also stipulates an increase in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and more funds for disaster relief, including for the chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio, and will be funded by ending the fraud-riddled Employee Retention Tax Credit. With Congress seemingly incapable of passing any social assistance without a lavish ritual offering to placate U.S. corporations, the legislation would also furnish businesses with an array of potentially lucrative new deductions and tax claims, potentially to the tune of hundreds of billions.

A Pittance for the Poorest

Unlike many other developed capitalist countries, the U.S. of the last four decades has grown much more confident in divesting from its children — in the face of all evidence about such investments’ outsized effects on future prosperity, for individuals and nations alike. Nevertheless, public spending on kids has declined, and continues to do so in our neoliberal times, in which the notion of state aid for the needy has become anathema.

A brief exception (that proves the rule) was the deployment of COVID aid programs: though quite modest as social democratic measures go, the pandemic assistance measures produced the largest and fastest decrease in poverty, especially child poverty, that has ever occurred in U.S. history. When those programs ended, poverty reemerged just as rapidly. (Though there is a caveat to these precise numbers, as will be described, this deterioration of social welfare has nevertheless been demonstrably severe.)

The Wyden-Smith legislation is loosely similar to Biden’s own COVID-era child tax credit increase, though the latter was considerably larger, and had other advantages, like mandating that the credit should increase month over month. The Biden policy, passed as part of 2021’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan pandemic assistance bill, was wound down in 2022, returning low-income families to the previous, much less beneficent state of affairs

This Former Child Welfare Investigator Says Family Policing Must Be Abolished
Alan J. Dettlaff once worked for Child Protective Services. What he saw made him realize the system should be abolished.
By Eleanor J. Bader , TRUTHOUT  October 19, 2023

A Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) report underscored the tax credit’s load-bearing necessity, in light of the fact that poverty is again climbing in the U.S. after the expiration of the Rescue Plan; the CBPP cited census data indicating that an additional 15.3 million Americans fell below the (already artificially, misleadingly low) poverty line in 2022. This is the inevitable result of the end of COVID aid programs and a spiking cost of living. Per the Census Bureau, the rate leapt from 7.8 percent to 12.4 percent in just a year, a historic uptick.

Even if it’s not quite a systemic change, the enactment of the Wyden-Smith Tax Relief Act — if it survives the congressional floor — would at least make for a real improvement on the penurious post-Rescue Plan conditions. The CBPP projected that the act’s child tax credit increase could “lift as many as 400,000 children above the poverty line and make an additional 3 million children less poor in its first year.”

Under the present policy, parents receive less credit for additional children after their first. The Tax Relief Act increase, by increasing the credit and equalizing it for all of a family’s children, would represent a strong stride toward mending those unjustifiable gaps. Another couple thousand dollars a year can make a practically lifesaving difference to struggling families. However, the act would not eliminate the minimum income eligibility limit, with the result that the poorest families are often the ones receiving the most meager credit.

Professor of economics emerita at Portland State University Mary King is affiliated with the Labor Education & Research Center at the University of Oregon. Speaking with Truthout, she offered some essential caveats. First of all, it must be understood that both the dramatic increases and decreases in poverty, especially child poverty, in recent years have been muddled by statistical factors: King said that “the whole impact of what happened in 2021 [with Biden’s policy] was a little bit exaggerated. It was the result of looking with a newer poverty measure that’s only been reported for 12 years now.”

That census metric, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), is assessed differently than the standard official measure. By counting families’ SNAP funds, housing vouchers and other benefits towards income, “it makes kids’ poverty rates look very low,” explained King. “At the same time that child poverty got measured at 5.2 percent with this new SPM rate, it got measured at over 21 percent by our official poverty measure.”

“But,” King continued, “the main problem with the new poverty measure and the old poverty measure is that the U.S. poverty line itself is set so low” relative to developed capitalist nations like many across Europe. No matter the precise standard, a vast amount of poverty (and homelessness) is obscured in official statistics. As a result, our interpretations are in need of recalibration. The real scale of poverty in the U.S. outstrips even the most dismal projections.

The Tax Relief Act, again, comes up short in comparison to the Biden administration’s now-scuttled COVID-era child tax credit increase. For one, it would only increase the child tax credit to $2,000 per child by 2025 — whereas as the Biden COVID program expanded it to $3,600.

The comparison is even less favorable in regards to income limits. “What’s different about this bill is that it [resembles] what the policy has been before and after the Biden intervention — people at the very lowest incomes won’t get this new version of the child tax credit,” King said. “And they aren’t getting it now. But they did get it in 2021 [because of the Biden aid]. That’s the first big difference.”

In short, Biden’s American Rescue Plan had eliminated the income limit. It’s now been restored, to the detriment of the poorest families, and the Tax Relief Act would keep that restoration intact. In that respect, the proposal is a return to a status quo that has left families mired by the millions in bitter poverty.

“Going to [an equal credit] per child is a big improvement in this new [proposal],” King said. But thanks to the income limit, “it still leaves out some of the poorest people, and it’s maybe half the value per child of what the credit was in 2021.”

The Affordable Housing Labyrinth

The secondary social reform in the current version of the legislation is the increase in the existing Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). Much like the case of the child tax credit, a COVID-era increase in the LIHTC that had mandated an increase of 12.5 percent over the previous 9 percent would be allowed to expire in 2021; the newly proposed legislation would restore that increase through 2025. Wyden claimed in a statement that “the improvements this plan makes to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit will build more than 200,000 new affordable housing units.” If so, it would be through indirect and roundabout means: by incentivizing, ostensibly, affordable construction.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) describes the LIHTC as “the most important resource for creating affordable housing in the United States today.” King explained that these credits “are a part of our really absurdly overcomplicated way of providing affordable housing. In the 1980s, under Reagan, HUD said they were getting out of the housing business. And they did. They quit creating publicly owned, permanently affordable housing — which is what we need to have. And they shifted us towards this privatized system, where you give these tax credits out to people who can sell them in order to get funding to build. It’s a way of further reducing corporate taxes and it makes up a backwards way of funding affordable housing — which is also so complicated.”

People who want to develop affordable housing must find all kinds of funding sources with burdensome requirements. “There’s a tremendous administrative headache, too,” said King. “It’s just so complex that tremendous energy, time and people power go into pulling together the financing to make something happen.” The proposed LIHTC increase “sweetens the deal, by giving [potential affordable developers] access to a little more funding.” But this whole privatized system, she added, “is a terrible way to do affordable housing. And we’d do much better if we would just put public resources straight into owning, leasing and renovating housing.”

The Tax Relief Act also contains an increase in disaster relief funding, including for the East Palestine derailment. The bill also specifies a funding mechanism for its projected $78-80 billion in costs: It will alter “the administration and enforcement of the Employee Retention Credit,” a March 2020 measure that was intended to “help certain businesses continue to meet payroll obligations amid lower consumer demand.” The Tax Relief Act would delimit claiming the credit and strengthen IRS enforcement — evidently necessary, as the program had grown rife with fraud.

Paying the Corporate Tribute

Speaking of which, the bulk of the Republican side of the Tax Relief Act bargain is dedicated to reaping vast windfalls for corporations, which, of course, already dodge taxes with alacrity. For instance, the legislation would make it easier for businesses to file for extensive deductions, both for the near future and grandfathering in past years. That retroactive aspect seems rather remarkable: Businesses would be empowered to refile previous returns, raking in deductions from past years — back when they didn’t exist.

Defenders of that aspect would likely point to the fact that a similar maneuver is also technically available to some families who receive the child care credit, King points out. But realistically, businesses with loophole specialist tax attorneys are going to be better positioned to profit from this capability than overworked single moms, if the latter even learn that it exists, already an unlikely prospect.

“The corporate tax cuts pile onto what the Trump tax cuts already did,” commented King. They allow businesses to “write off research and development, and depreciation of stuff, even when it’s still in its useful life. And, they let you take it all off in a year, rather than spreading it out over five or 15. They’re really front-loading tax deductions for corporations.… It’s a way of shoveling wealth to the top.”

Imbalanced Priorities

Though their stated aim is to pass the bill before tax filing begins on January 29, Wyden and Smith’s proposed Tax Relief Act is at this point far from a foregone conclusion; it faces significant opposition from congressional leaders, chiefly on the right, and it might very well be amended beyond recognition, if it comes to fruition in any form at all. Sen. Chuck Schumer has embraced it, but Politico described Idaho Republican Sen. and Finance Committee leader Mike Crapo’s response as “lukewarm,” in a report that also quoted Crapo’s remark calling the bill a “starting point.”

However welcome the suggested child tax credit increase, the Tax Relief Act’s authors ultimately declined to enact small changes that could make a big difference: namely, eliminating the minimum income floor. Conversely, when it came to aiding business, lawmakers seem to have pulled out all possible stops. (It also might be worth pointing out that this isn’t the first time Wyden has made common cause with Republicans on major social policy, either. In 2011, he worked side-by-side with Paul Ryan to hammer out a plan to introduce more privatization and “competition” into Medicare.)

There’s also the matter of a remark from Representative Smith that appears in the official press release. Perhaps it’s a telling one. Smith touts that “the legislation locks in over $600 billion in proven pro-growth, pro-America tax policies.” And yet the expenditures on the child tax credit and other aspects only total a reported $78-80 million. It would seem that the far larger figure Smith alluded to is a calculation of the potential windfall that corporations are poised to rake in, in the form of the plan’s numerous tax breaks.

“They’re certainly not putting it into housing credits,” remarked King. CBPP President Sharon Parrott also wrote that “two of the corporate provisions feature timing gimmicks that hide their true cost well beyond their temporary nature.” Most damningly, an independent analysis by the center-right Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget appears to confirm that interpretation of Smith’s comment, estimating an ultimate cost of $525 billion in corporate tax breaks over the next decade. Small wonder that, as NPR noted, conservative pro-corporate lobbying group Business Roundtable released an immediate statement of support.

Again, we see that when the public is in need, the congressional response is to bicker over how many crumbs they really deserve; whereas when business calls, leaders are veritably falling over themselves in the scramble to see who can demonstrate the most extravagant largesse. We might at least hope that some modicum of help for the needy also comes out of it.

As Mary King concluded, “It’s a step in the right direction, but the federal government should be investing far more in children and young families. Other countries do it, and the result is that they have a more inclusive and prosperous economy — because it’s good in the short term, and it’s good in the long term. It will help kids in the future, and families need it now.”

TYLER WALICEK

Proposed child tax credit expansion would lift half a million children out of poverty by 2025

The bipartisan proposal increases the maximum credit per child to $2,000 from $1,600 through 2025.


Gabriella Cruz-Martinez
·Personal finance writer

YAHOO
Sun, January 21, 2024 


Congress is considering an expansion of the federal child tax credit (CTC), a measure that could lift as many as half a million children from the poverty line.

The bipartisan proposal for the CTC expansion would increase the maximum credit per child to $2,000 from $1,600 through 2025.

While that increase is lower compared to the American Rescue Plan credit expansion that expired at the end of 2021, the new expansion would significantly improve the financial stability of roughly 19 million children who currently get a partial credit or none at all because their families’ incomes are too low, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found.

The measure would also eliminate a provision that largely penalizes lower-income households with more than one child. As it stands, the child tax credit benefits middle- and higher-earning families — excluding those who need it the most.

"This is great news for families. The Child Tax Credit is one of the most transformative pieces of legislation that we have seen in the last few years, and in 2021 it lifted millions of kids out of poverty," Ailen Arreaza, executive director of ParentsTogether Action, told Yahoo Finance. "This bipartisan agreement is a step in the right direction."

Arreaza added: "There are still some kids who are excluded because their families don’t earn enough income, which seems quite frankly, backwards. However, 80% of the 19 million children who are either getting a partial credit or none at all are being included. That’s a huge progress."

Read more: Child tax credit: Everything you need to know for the 2023 tax year

Teddy bears, meant to represent West Virginia children, appear on the National Mall during an event with the Unbearable Campaign to urge Congress to expand the child tax credit. (Credit: Tom Williams, CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) (Tom Williams via Getty Images)
'A policy that transforms families' lives'

After years of fighting to get a new version of the expanded child tax credit, families may finally get some much needed relief.

"This would mark the beginning of a much-needed reversal of the sharp rise in child poverty that occurred in 2022, following the expiration of the child tax credit and other COVID relief measures," CBPP analysts wrote. This figure includes 3 million children under the age of 3, the CBPP found.

"This would mark the beginning of a much-needed reversal of the sharp rise in child poverty that occurred in 2022, following the expiration of the child tax credit and other COVID relief measures," CBPP analysts wrote.

Under the proposal, half of the 16 million children who would benefit from the credits within the first year live in families who would gain $630 or more, the CBPP found. Nearly 40% of children who would benefit would see their households gain $1,000 or more, and approximately 25% of children are in families that would see a gain of more than $1,400 within that first year.

The gains would be significant for low-income families with more than one child, which represent close to three-quarters of children. They would get at least $1,000 or more within the first year of the credit expansion.

According to the analysis, for a parent with a toddler and second grader earning $15,000, the first year of the expanded child tax credit would increase from $1,875 to $3,600. That’s a bump of $1,725.

"It’s really encouraging. We know our parents are really excited that this is happening because it is a policy that transforms families’ lives," Arreaza said. "We hear over and over again that it’s getting harder to raise a family and that parents are really struggling and these types of benefits make the difference."

Full coverage: Taxes 2024 — Everything you need to file your taxes on time

(Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of Current Population Survey data) (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

When the American Rescue Plan temporarily expanded the federal child tax credit, the nation’s child poverty rate was cut by half to a historic low of 5%.

The pandemic-era expansion helped lift 3 million children out of poverty, according to the US Census Bureau, which said that most parents used the credit payments for everyday, crucial expenses like shelter costs, food, and daycare.

"Some parents were telling us that they finally didn’t have to make impossible choices between paying rent and buying school supplies or paying for medication, or utilities," Arreaza noted. "The stories I loved the most were parents who said they could finally afford kids’ soccer cleats or karate lessons, enriching their lives."

The Rescue Plan’s CTC raised the maximum credit amount from $2,000 to $3,600 for children under 6 and $3,000 for children between the ages of 6-17. It was also the first time 17-year-olds were included. The credits were fully refundable – meaning families with little to no income were eligible for the tax credits for the first time.

In 2021 alone, the temporary child tax credit helped child poverty decrease by 46%, lifting 716,000 Black, 820,000 white, and 1.2 million Latino children and families out of poverty.

"It was a stunning achievement," Marisa Calderon, president and CEO of Prosperity Now, said in an emailed statement. "It was a major success benefiting millions of children and their families, but it was only temporary. Once the child tax credit was cut back, child poverty rose, and millions of children and families fell back into poverty."

The failure to renew the CTC back then and the end of pandemic stimulus payments had severe impacts on children’s financial stability in the US. The number of children in poverty more than doubled, from 4 million in 2021 to 9 million in 2022, the US Census Bureau revealed.

Those impacted the most were among the most systemically vulnerable groups. Black and Latino child poverty increased the most in 2022. According to the Census Bureau, Black child poverty increased from 8.3% to 18.3%, and the Latino child poverty rate increased from 8.4% to 19.5%.

The new proposal could reverse some of those trends significantly.

Within the first year of the proposal, more than 1 in 5 children under the age of 17 would benefit from the expanded tax credit, according to analysts at CBPP. Black, Latino, American Indian, and Alaska Native children would also benefit the most.

More than 1 in 3 Black and Latino children under 17 would receive immediate relief, followed by 3 in 10 Alaska Native children, and 1 in 7 white and Asian children.

While the new proposal for the CTC expansion has its merits, it falls short in other areas. The bipartisan compromise doesn't not include children in families without earnings.

"Much more will need to be done to fully reverse this increase — and if there are opportunities to strengthen the proposal to improve its impacts for children in families with low incomes, that would of course be preferable," researchers at the CBPP wrote.

Parents and caregivers with the Economic Security Project gather outside the White House to advocate for the child tax credit in Washington, D.C. (Credit: Larry French, Getty Images) (Larry French via Getty Images)
Changes include lookback provision, refundability

The new design of the expanded child tax credit offers a few improvements.

First, the expansion would eliminate a provision that reduced the amount of tax credits for lower-income households with more than one child. Instead, the proposal would provide each child in a family with their own same-sized credit, the same as higher-income families.

Under the current child tax credit, the lowest-income families with two or three children get the same total credit as a family with one child at the same income level.

Second, taxpayers would be able to use their income from the current or prior year when calculating the child tax credit amount. The adoption of the “lookback provision” would allow families that experience a drop in income and no longer qualify for the credits to use the prior year earnings in tax years 2024 and 2025.

Third, the proposal would change the refundability cap to help families with modest earnings be eligible for a higher amount of tax credits. The current cap is set at $1,800, which would be lifted to $1,900 in 2023 and $2,000 in tax year 2025.

"Now is the time to push ahead," Calderon said. "We need all hands on deck to make sure Congress shows up for families and pushes this deal through. We have a real chance for Congress to give families and kids the support they need this year."

Gabriella is a personal finance and housing reporter at Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X @__gabriellacruz.Tyler Walicek is a freelance writer and journalist in Portland, Oregon.

Book ban lawsuit moves forward as Florida district removes over 1,000 titles

ABC News
New report says nearly 140 school districts are implementing book bans
Duration 2:40  View on Watch

A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit challenging book bans in Escambia County, Florida, can move forward on the same day the county released an updated list of more than 2,800 individual books that have been pulled from shelves for review.

U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II ruled on Wednesday that book publisher Penguin Random House, free expression PEN America, authors, and families of Escambia County had standing to pursue their claims under the First Amendment because those protections are implicated when officials remove books based on ideology or viewpoint. However, they were denied to pursue the claims under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

"We are gratified that the Judge recognized that books cannot be removed from school library shelves simply because of the views they espouse, and are looking forward to moving forward with this case to protect the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs," Lynn Oberlander of Ballard Spahr, who is representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

Escambia County has released a list of 2,812 books -- totaling more than 1,500 titles -- that have been pulled from shelves for "further review" of their compliance under House Bill 1069 which limits discussion of gender and sexual orientation in grade school as of Jan. 10. These books include "The World Book encyclopedia," "100 Women Who Made History: Remarkable Women Who Shaped Our World," "Africa (Cultural Atlas for Young People)" and more.



Students and others attend a rally to protest Florida education policies outside Orlando City Hall, April 21, 2023, in Orlando, Fla.© Paul Hennessy/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

The previously released round-up of books to be reviewed included Merriam-Webster's dictionary and Webster's dictionary and thesaurus.

The lawsuit was brought forward in May 2023 by Penguin Random House, PEN America, authors and families of Escambia County who argue that the school board's removal and restriction of books violates the First Amendment.

The lawsuit claims the county violated the First Amendment rights of the students, authors, and publishers by "removing books 'based on ideological objections to their contents or disagreement with their messages or themes.'"

Several authors whose books have been impacted by book bans across the country, including David Levithan, George M. Johnson and Ashley Hope Pérez, are backing the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also alleges, that in every decision to remove a book, "the removals have disproportionately targeted books by or about people of color and/or LGBTQ people, and have prescribed an orthodoxy of opinion that violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments."MORE: School culture wars push students to form banned book clubs, anti-censorship groups

The Board argued in its motion to dismiss the case that it has not banned any books, rather it "'removed from its own school libraries [books] that the Board had purchased for those libraries with Board funds. It [has] not prohibit[ed] anyone else from owning, possessing, or reading the book[s].'"


The school board claims it "has the ultimate authority to decide what books will be purchased and kept on the shelves of the schools in the district," according to the motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

House Bill 1069 expanded the Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" law by critics from prekindergarten through grade 8. It was passed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2023.

From grades 9 through 12, such content must be "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Recent legislation in Florida, including the Parental Rights in Education Bill and the Stop WOKE Act, have led to restrictions and removals of books across the state.

The Stop WOKE Act restricts lessons and training on race and diversity in schools and in the workplace, particularly anything that discusses privilege or oppression based on race. WOKE in the bill stands for "Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees."


Between January 1 and August 31, 2023, the American Library Association recorded 695 attempts to ban library materials and services, affecting 1,915 different book titles. The organization said this marked a 20% increase from the same reporting period in 2022, which saw the highest number of book challenges since ALA began compiling the data more than 20 years ago.

Most of the book challenges in 2023 were against books written by or about a person of color or a member of the LGBTQ community, according to the ALA.

To comply with HB 1069, Escambia County has subject books in school and classroom libraries to be reviewed by district book review committees and the school board.

In several cases, the books approved for use by the district book review committees have been rejected and removed or restricted by the school board. This includes the titles of "All Boys Aren't Blue," by George M. Johnson, "Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison, "Lucky" by Alice Sebold, "And Tango Makes Three," by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, "Push" by Sapphire, and others.


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks about his new book "The Courage to Be Free" in the Air Force One Pavilion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, March 5, 2023, in Simi Valley, Calif.© Mario Tama/Getty Images, FILE

Dozens of books that were challenged by community members were requested by one person, an English teacher at a high school in Escambia County. She cites "indoctrination," "sexual content," "violent language," and "LGBTQ content" among her objections in the more than 100 complaints.

"Ensuring that students have access to books on a wide range of topics and that express a diversity of viewpoints is a core function of public education — preparing students to be thoughtful and engaged citizens," said PEN America in a statement on the lawsuit.

Escambia County officials did not immediately respond to ABC News requests for comment.

'No, This Is Not a Parody': Florida School District Bans Dictionaries Under DeSantis Law


Webster's Dictionary & Thesaurus and The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank are among the books that the Escambia County School District has yanked from library shelves.


A student holds a placard at a walkout protesting Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' attacks on public education outside Orlando City Hall on April 21, 2023 in Orlando, Florida.
(Photo: Paul Hennessy/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

COMMON DREAMS
Jan 10, 2024

Dictionaries and encyclopedias are among the more than 2,800 books that a Florida school district has pulled from library shelves in an effort to comply with a law that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed last year.

Judd Legum, author of the Popular Information newsletter, reported Wednesday that the Escambia County School District said the books that have been banned pending further investigation "may violate H.B. 1069," which "gives residents the right to demand the removal of any library book that 'depicts or describes sexual conduct,' as defined under Florida law, whether or not the book is pornographic."

"Rather than considering complaints, the Escambia County School Board adopted an emergency rule last June that required the district's librarians to conduct a review of all library books and remove titles that may violate H.B. 1069," Legum noted. "Each school in Escambia County has thousands of titles. As a result, many school libraries were closed at the beginning of the school year pending the completion of the review."




Florida led the United States in book bans during the 2022-2023 school year, with PEN America documenting 1,972 instances of bans across 37 districts.

"In a state with approximately 70 districts, this means that over half of all Florida school districts experienced banning activity," PEN noted in a recent report.

PEN, Penguin Random House, and a coalition of authors joined parents and students last year in filing a lawsuit against Escambia County in federal court, arguing that the mass removal of books from school libraries violates the plaintiffs' "rights to free speech and equal protection under the law."

A hearing in the case was scheduled to take place on Wednesday. Florida's Republican attorney is backing Escambia's school board.

"In a brief submitted by the state of Florida in support of Escambia, Attorney General Ashley Moody argued that the school board could ban books for any reason because the purpose of public school libraries is to 'convey the government's message,' and that can be accomplished through 'the removal of speech that the government disapproves,'" Legum noted Wednesday. "This is a novel argument about the purpose of school libraries.

In addition to Webster's Dictionary & Thesaurus for Students and The American Heritage Children's Dictionary, Escambia County is denying students access to biographies of former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the singer and songwriter Beyoncé, and talk show host Oprah Winfrey, according to a list obtained by the Florida Freedom to Read Project.

The list also includes The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank.

"The Escambia County School Board banned most of these books at the request of Vicki Baggett, a high school English teacher in the county," Legum reported. "Baggett is responsible for hundreds of challenges in Escambia County and neighboring counties."