According to government data and independent research, the payments that began in July, providing hundreds of dollars a month for most families, have been crucial in helping millions of American families cover expenses such as food, rent, and child care. They have also prevented millions of children from falling into poverty and boosted the US economy with billions of dollars. However, as the latest wave of coronavirus cases keeps people at home and threatens to lead to more furloughs, this benefit - an extension of the current child tax credit - is coming to an end. Economists are concerned that the combination of expiring aid and increasing cases could slow down the economic recovery and bring significant hardship to families already struggling near the poverty line. Anna Lara, a mother of two young children from Huntington, West Virginia, expressed her anxiety about the upcoming challenges and the impact it will have on her family. Lara, 32, who lost her job during the pandemic, is finding it difficult to adjust to not having the extra assistance for parents. Despite her partner keeping his job, the couple relied on the child benefit to make ends meet during a time of reduced income and rising prices. Lara emphasized the importance of not worrying in front of children, and the extra cushion provided by the benefit helped alleviate their financial stress. The end of this assistance is just one of many benefits cliffs Americans have faced as pandemic aid programs have expired, including the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses which ended in March. Unemployment benefits ceased in September, or even earlier in certain states. The federal eviction moratorium ended during the summer. The final round of stimulus payments was distributed to Americans in the spring. In comparison to these initiatives, the reduction in the child tax credit is relatively minor. The Treasury Department disbursed approximately $80 billion in checks and direct deposits over a six-month period, providing up to $300 per child each month. The child benefit program, which was approved as part of the American Rescue Plan, was not intended to be temporary according to its supporters. Despite being initially approved for a single year, many progressives hoped that the program would continue due to its popularity. However, polls have shown a divided public opinion on whether the program should be extended, with views differing based on political and generational factors. The expanded tax credit did not convince Sen Joe Manchin, who is crucial in the decision-making process, to support President Joe Biden's climate, tax, and social policy bill due to concerns about its cost and structure. Without Manchin's backing, the Build Back Better Act cannot move forward in the evenly divided Senate. Many supporters of the child benefit are disappointed by this outcome, as the program has been widely regarded as successful. According to researchers at Columbia University, the payments have significantly reduced child poverty rates, with 3.8 million children being kept out of poverty in November alone. Additionally, other studies have shown that the benefit has decreased hunger, alleviated financial stress, and boosted consumer spending in rural states that received higher amounts per capita. In the spring, Congress made three key changes to the existing child tax credit. Firstly, they increased the maximum benefit amount to $3,600 per child, up from $2,000. Secondly, they started distributing the credit in monthly payments directly to recipients' bank accounts, making it similar to children's allowances in Europe. Lastly, the bill ensured that millions who previously couldn't fully benefit from the credit due to low income could now do so, a change known as "full refundability." This change was especially important as it meant that a significant number of children, including many Black and Hispanic children and those raised by single mothers, were now able to receive the full credit amount. Biden's proposal aimed to make the child tax credit provision permanent, as explained by Megan Curran, director of policy at Columbia's Center on Poverty and Social Policy. She emphasized the positive impact of the policy in reducing child poverty and food insecurity, stating that it was a success story that should not be halted prematurely. Additionally, the expanded tax credit benefits not only low-income families but also middle-class and wealthier families, with couples earning up to $150,000 eligible for the full $3,600 benefit. Critics of the policy, such as Manchin, have argued that it is not logical to provide assistance to families who are relatively well-off. Many supporters of the credit are willing to restrict its availability to wealthier households as long as it remains accessible to poorer ones. Manchin has expressed doubts about the effectiveness of giving unconditional cash payments and has raised concerns about recipients potentially using the money on opioids, as reported by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by a source familiar with the discussion. However, a survey conducted by the Census Bureau revealed that most recipients used the money for essential items like food and clothing, with some saving or paying off debt. Other surveys have yielded similar findings. One of Manchin's constituents, Lara, experienced a fortunate timing when she received the first monthly check last year. Her dishwasher had recently broken, and the $550 monthly payment from the federal government enabled her family to replace it. Lara, who has a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son and whose partner earns around $40,000 annually, stated that the family had always been living on the brink of need - not poor but never able to save enough for anything beyond a small setback. She mentioned that the monthly child benefit allowed them to step back slightly from the edge, enabling her to purchase new shoes and a car seat for her daughter, stock up on laundry detergent on sale, and repair the brakes on her car. She expressed her amazement that none of the dash lights were on. Some researchers have raised concerns about the effectiveness of the policy in the long run. Bruce D Meyer, an economist at the University of Chicago who specializes in studying poverty, has suggested that while direct cash payments during the pandemic were beneficial, a permanent policy of providing unconditional cash to parents could have unintended negative effects. He and his co-authors recently published a working paper that found the child benefit might discourage people from working, as it removed work incentives previously included in the tax credit. Meyer explained that the initial goal was to provide cash to individuals during the pandemic to help with financial struggles, but now there are concerns about the potential impact on work behavior. He said that it is important to focus on the long-term effects of the new child benefit, particularly its impact on labor supply. Despite some initial concerns, studies have not found any evidence that the benefit discourages people from working. In fact, some researchers believe it could actually encourage more people to work by making child care more affordable for parents. Samuel Hammond from the Niskanen Center in Washington stated that the child benefit could have positive economic effects, such as increasing consumer spending by $27 billion and creating 500,000 full-time jobs. The greatest impact is expected in rural, Republican-voting states with larger families and lower incomes. Some Republican critics, like Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, believe that the expanded child tax credit has increased government spending too much. They argue that giving people more money to spend during a supply chain shortage is contributing to inflation. However, many economists doubt that the tax credit is a significant factor in causing high inflation. They point out that the tax credit is relatively small compared to the economy and earlier pandemic aid. Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, described the tax credit as a noninflationary program that focuses on necessities, not luxuries. People who receive the benefit argue that inflation is a reason to keep it, as they have noticed prices rising for groceries, utilities, and gas, putting a strain on their budgets. She mentioned that currently, both of her vehicles require fuel, and she is unable to fill up the car. However, she is not worried as she has groceries at home and her children can play outside.