The payments that began in July, providing hundreds of dollars a month for most families, have been crucial in helping many American families afford basic necessities such as food, rent, and child care. These payments have also lifted millions of children out of poverty and boosted the US economy with billions of dollars, according to government data and independent research. However, now that this benefit, an extension of the child tax credit, is coming to an end, it comes at a time when a new surge of coronavirus cases is forcing people to stay home from work and potentially leading to more furloughs. Economists are concerned that the combination of expiring aid and increasing cases could slow down the economic recovery and bring significant hardship to millions of families who are already struggling near the poverty line. For many, like Anna Lara, a mother of two in West Virginia, the thought of the support ending is causing anxiety and fear for what lies ahead. Lara, 32, who lost her job during the pandemic, expressed that it will be difficult to go back to not having the extra assistance for parents. With the cost of child care increasing, she has been unable to return to work while her partner has been able to keep his job. The child benefit helped the couple make ends meet during a time of reduced income and rising prices. Lara emphasized the importance of not worrying in front of children, and how the extra cushion provided by the benefit allowed them to worry less. The end of this assistance is part of a pattern of benefits coming to an abrupt end, such as the Paycheck Protection Program which supported many small businesses and ended in March. Unemployment benefits ceased in September, and in some states even earlier. The federal eviction moratorium expired during the summer. The most recent stimulus payments were distributed to Americans' bank accounts in the spring. Compared to those initiatives, the reduction in the child tax credit is relatively minor. The Treasury Department disbursed approximately $80 billion over a six-month period through checks and direct deposits, providing up to $300 per child each month. The child benefit program, unlike many other pandemic response programs, was not meant to be temporary according to its supporters. It was approved by Congress as part of the American Rescue Plan for one year, but many progressives believed it would become permanent due to its popularity. However, polls show that public opinion on extending the program is divided along partisan and generational lines, with some supporting and others opposing it. The expanded tax credit did not convince Sen Joe Manchin, who is crucial in passing President Joe Biden's bill due to his concerns about the cost and structure of the program. Without Manchin's support, the Build Back Better Act cannot move forward in the Senate. Many are frustrated by this as the child benefit program has been successful in reducing child poverty and improving financial well-being for recipients. In the spring, Congress expanded the child tax credit in three main ways. First, they increased the maximum benefit per child from $2,000 to $3,600. Second, they started distributing the credit in monthly payments, which are usually deposited directly into recipients' bank accounts, making it similar to children's allowances in Europe. Finally, the bill allowed millions of people who previously didn't qualify for the full benefit to now be eligible, thanks to a change known as "full refundability." This change was especially important as without it, a significant number of children, including many Black and Hispanic children and those being raised by single mothers, were not receiving the full credit. Biden's proposal would have made the child tax credit provision permanent, according to Megan Curran, director of policy at Columbia's Center on Poverty and Social Policy. Curran emphasized that the policy has been successful in reducing child poverty and food insufficiency. Additionally, the expanded tax credit benefits not just the poor, as even couples earning up to $150,000 a year could receive the full $3,600 benefit. Wealthier families also qualify for the original $2,000 credit. Critics of the policy, such as Manchin, have argued that providing aid to families who are relatively well-off doesn't make much sense. Some supporters of the credit suggest limiting its availability to wealthier households while maintaining it for poorer ones. Manchin has expressed doubts about unconditional cash payments and has raised concerns about recipients potentially spending the money on opioids. However, a survey by the Census Bureau revealed that most recipients used the money for essentials like food and clothing, with many also saving or paying off debt. Other surveys have shown similar findings. One of Manchin's constituents, Lara, received her first monthly check last year at a crucial time. Her dishwasher had broken just days earlier, and the $550 a month from the federal government allowed her and her family to replace it. Lara, who has a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son, and whose partner earns about $40,000 a year, expressed that the family has always lived on the brink of financial need, never able to save enough to handle more than a small setback. The monthly child benefit has helped them move further away from financial instability. It has enabled her to purchase new shoes and a car seat for her daughter, stock up on laundry detergent when it's on sale, and repair the brakes on her car. She remarked that it was remarkable that none of the dashboard lights were illuminated. Some experts have raised concerns about the effectiveness of the policy, especially in the long run. Bruce D Meyer, an economist at the University of Chicago who specializes in poverty research, pointed out that while providing direct cash payments during the pandemic was justified, implementing a permanent policy of unconditional cash assistance to parents could have unintended negative consequences. According to Meyer and his colleagues' recent working paper, the child benefit could potentially discourage employment due to the removal of work incentives that were previously included in the tax credit. Meyer explained that initially, the main goal was to provide financial assistance to individuals during the pandemic-induced economic crisis. He stated that the focus should be on the long-term impacts, particularly on labor supply. Despite some concerns, research has not shown a significant impact on discouraging people from working due to the new child benefit. Some experts believe it could actually encourage more people to work by helping parents afford child care. Samuel Hammond of the Niskanen Center in Washington stated that the child tax credit is likely to enable work, with no evidence to the contrary. He also believes the child benefit could have broader economic benefits, estimating an increase in consumer spending and job creation. The largest impact of the benefit would be seen in rural states with larger families and lower incomes. Some Republican critics, like Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, believe that the expanded child tax credit has led to increased government spending, contributing to inflation by giving people more money to spend during a strained supply chain. However, many economists do not think the tax credit has significantly impacted high inflation, as it is small compared to the economy and previous pandemic aid. Chief economist Joe Brusuelas called it a noninflationary programme focused on necessities, not luxuries. Those receiving the benefit argue that inflation is a reason to keep it, as prices for groceries, utilities, and gas have been rising, making budgets tighter. She stated, "At the moment, I need to fill up both of my vehicles with gas, but I am unable to do so. However, I have groceries at home and the children can play outside, so it's not a big issue."