The payments, which began in July and were hundreds of dollars per month for most families, have assisted millions of American families in covering expenses such as food, rent, and child care. These payments have also helped prevent many children from living in poverty and have contributed billions of dollars to the US economy. However, this benefit, an extension of the current child tax credit, is ending at a time when a new wave of coronavirus cases is emerging, causing people to stay home from work and possibly leading to more furloughs. Economists are concerned that the combination of expiring aid and increasing cases could negatively impact the economic recovery and create significant challenges for families already living near the poverty line. Anna Lara, a mother of two in West Virginia, expressed her fear and uncertainty about the upcoming months without this financial assistance. Lara, 32, expressed her concern about not being able to go back to the way things were before losing her job during the pandemic. With the rising costs of child care, she has struggled to return to work while her partner has managed to keep his job. The child benefit they received helped them make ends meet during a time of reduced income and increasing prices. Lara emphasized the importance of not worrying in front of children, and the extra cushion provided by the benefit helped alleviate some of that stress. The discontinuation of this assistance for parents is just one in a series of "cliffs" that Americans have faced as pandemic aid programs have come to an end, such as the Paycheck Protection Program which ended in March. Unemployment benefits ceased in September and in some states even earlier. The federal eviction moratorium came to an end during the summer. The final round of stimulus payments were received by Americans in the spring. In comparison to those initiatives, the reduction in the child tax credit is minor. The Treasury Department distributed approximately $80 billion in checks and direct deposits over a period of six months, providing up to $300 per child monthly. 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 for one year as part of the American Rescue Plan, but many hoped it would continue 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, whose opinion was crucial, as he had concerns about the cost and structure of President Joe Biden's climate, tax, and social policy bill. Without Manchin's support, the Build Back Better Act cannot move forward in the Senate. Supporters of the child benefit are disappointed by this outcome, as the program has been successful in keeping millions of children out of poverty and improving overall well-being. In the spring, Congress expanded the child tax credit in three ways. Firstly, they increased the amount to $3,600 per child 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 allowed millions of low-income individuals to access the full benefit of the credit, a change referred to as "full refundability." This change was especially important as it ensured that a significant portion of children, including many Black and Hispanic children and those raised by single mothers, were receiving the full credit amount. 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, the child tax credit has been a successful policy in reducing child poverty and food insufficiency. This credit is not only for low-income families, as even couples earning up to $150,000 a year can benefit from the full $3,600 credit. Wealthier families also qualify for the original $2,000 credit. Critics of the policy, such as Manchin, believe it is not logical to provide assistance to families who are already financially stable. Some supporters of the credit are willing to restrict it to wealthier households in exchange for keeping it available to poorer families. Manchin has expressed doubts about giving unconditional cash payments, citing concerns that recipients may misuse the funds on opioids. However, a Census Bureau survey 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, received her first monthly check last year at a very convenient time. Her dishwasher had just broken, and the $550 a month that she and her family received from the federal government allowed them 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, mentioned that their family had always lived "right on the edge of need" - not poor, but never able to save enough for unexpected expenses. She stated that the monthly child benefit helped them move a little further away from financial instability. This benefit allowed her to purchase new shoes and a car seat for her daughter, stock up on laundry detergent during sales, and fix the brakes on her car. “It's incredible that none of the dashboard lights are illuminated,” she remarked. Some experts have raised doubts about the effectiveness of the policy, especially in the long run. Bruce D Meyer, an economist at the University of Chicago specializing in poverty research, suggested that while direct cash payments during the peak of the pandemic were necessary, a permanent plan of giving unconditional cash to parents could have unforeseen consequences. He and his colleagues recently published a study indicating that the child benefit might discourage individuals from working, partly due to the removal of work incentives found in the previous tax credit system. Meyer explained, “Initially, our main goal was to provide financial assistance to individuals in need during the economic downturn and ensure they could afford basic necessities.” He stated that it is important to focus on the long-term impacts of the new child benefit, particularly on labor supply. However, studies have not shown that the benefit discourages people from working, and some believe it may actually encourage more people to work by helping parents afford child care. Samuel Hammond from the Niskanen Center in Washington stated that the child tax credit is likely to enable work in the current labor market, with no evidence to the contrary. He also believes the child benefit could have broader economic benefits, estimating that it could increase consumer spending by $27 billion nationally and create 500,000 full-time jobs. The greatest impact would be felt in rural states with larger families and lower incomes. Some Republican critics, such as Senator 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 in a strained supply chain. However, many economists doubt that the tax credit has significantly impacted inflation, as it is relatively small compared to the economy and previous pandemic aid. Chief economist Joe Brusuelas argues that the tax credit is noninflationary, as it is focused on necessities rather than luxuries. Those benefiting from the credit argue that inflation is a reason to keep it, as they have seen prices rise for groceries, utilities, and gas, putting a strain on their budgets. She mentioned that at the moment, both of her vehicles require gas and she is unable to fill up the car. However, she is not too worried as she has groceries at home and the children can entertain themselves outdoors.