Part of Obama’s economic stimulus package includes an expansion of the child tax credit for low income Americans. The Wall Street Journal outlines the plan here:

Mr. Obama’s advisers on Monday outlined a potential new feature of the plan to congressional aides, saying they would press for a tax change that would allow more families that earn too little to pay income taxes to claim at least some of the $1,000-per-child tax credit. That would amount to an income subsidy, since it would refund taxes they are too poor to pay.

The plan would grant an estimated 5.5 million poor children access to the credit for the first time, and expand the tax benefit for millions more poor children who currently qualify for only a partial credit, according to its advocates. The change has been sought by Democrats and some moderate Republicans for years.

As of Jan. 1, a household must earn $12,500 a year to be eligible to claim any of the child credit. The proposal under discussion would lower that threshold, likely to $3,000, a level favored by top House Democrats, at a possible cost to taxpayers of $18 billion, said individuals familiar with the discussions. Currently, a part-time working mother earning $5,000 a year would get no child credit. With a $3,000 threshold, she would get $300.

This change to the child tax credit is long overdue. Furthermore, the expansion is targeted to low-income Americans who are likely to spend those extra dollars on necessary household items. Thus, we can expect this provision to have an immediate effect on the economy.

Social networking sites have become a common fixture in our society. The Obama campaign’s use of social networking tools paved the way to the White House and has opened the door for creative governing and transparency.

It must be said, that not all politicians have really wrapped their minds around the latest outreach methods. Dana Milbank highlights a meeting of aspiring Republican National Committee chairmen in his column quoting Mike Duncan, current GOP chairman:

“We have to do it in the Facebook, with the Twittering, the different technology that young people are using today,” Duncan ventured.

He sounds sort of like our outgoing president, who once heard about “rumors on the internets.”  Um…not quite.  Maybe Duncan should spend more time with today’s youth. In fact a new study by Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine shows that more than 90 percent of teens have Internet access and about half of those with access to the web use social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook.

However, despite the myriad benefits of online social networking, it also poses many risks to young adults who are often still emotionally immature and impulsive.  In addition to being approached by online predators, many teens recently have lost jobs or scholarships because of things they have posted online.  More than half of the teens surveyed “mention drugs, alcohol, sex or violence on their MySpace pages.” Megan Moreno author of the study notes:

Online boasting also can make it seem as if everyone is drinking and having sex - which can pressure other teens to take risks.

Moreno, however found an interesting way to encourage these teens to clean up their pages…anonymous emails.

She targeted 190 teens in the Anacostia section of Washington, D.C., which has high rates of poverty, crime and HIV infection.

In her e-mail, “Dr. Meg” noted her concerns about content on the MySpace pages, Moreno writes in another paper in Archives. “You seemed to be quite open about sexual issues or other behaviors,” she wrote. “Are you sure that’s a good idea? After all, if I could see it, nearly anybody could.”

Her e-mail also gave information about sexually transmitted diseases.

Three months later, 14% of those who received Moreno’s e-mail had eliminated sexual references from their profiles, compared with 5% of those who didn’t get the e-mail, her study shows.

Those who received Moreno’s e-mail also were more likely to make their pages private.

Moreno says such e-mail is a promising way to reach high-risk teens, because they typically don’t see a doctor for regular medical care.

While 14% is still a low number, Moreno found one method that obviously helps teach kids the dangers that exist online.  For more information on the influence of media and teen behavior and how to keep kids safe in our interactive world, check out these studies from the Progressive Policy Institute.

Things will be light around here during the holidays. In the meantime, here is a link to an article about Obama’s new White House task force for working families. The group will be headed by Vice President Biden and will include members of the cabinet. According to the New York Times the task force:

is intended to focus on improving education and training for working Americans as well as protecting incomes and retirement security of the middle class.

This list leaves out one glaring ommission: work-family balance. On the campaign trail Obama pledged to restore work-family balance:

Obama and Biden will double funding for after-school programs, expand the Family Medical Leave Act, provide low-income families with a refundable tax credit to help with their child-care expenses, and encourage flexible work schedules.

This new task force is the perfect venue to address these issues. Let’s hope that they are high on the agenda.

******UPDATE******

Work family balance is on the task force’s agenda. It just wasn’t listed in the Times article.

Today is hump day, so that means it’s time once again to look at a social mobility success story. For this installment of “What Works Wednesdays” we will focus on the connection between fathers and child development. Research shows that fathers play a vital and irreplaceable role in their child’s wellbeing. It’s is no surprise that children with absent fathers are:

• Five times more likely to be poor
• 54 percent more likely to grow up poorer than their parents
• Have a greater chance of incarceration
• More likely to become pregnant as a teen
• More likely to drop out of school

Absent fathers put a strain not only on their immediate families, but on society at large. A recent study by the late Steven Nock and Christopher Einolf shows that fatherlessness cost society an alarming $99.8 billion in direct and indirect costs during fiscal year 2006.

On the flip side, if absent fathers create hardship, responsible dads create enormous benefits. That’s why a group of more than 450,000 dads have decided to volunteer in more than 800 schools as part of the Watch DOGS (Dads Of Great Students) initiative. These dads serve at least one day each year in a variety of school activities ranging from mentoring, to monitoring hallways and assisting in the lunchroom.

Last week, ABC’s World News Tonight featured this organization started by Jim Moore and Eric Snow, two Arkansas parents. These dads have not only seen a difference in their children, but in the many kids without active fathers. They are convinced:

the program helps many children who don’t have fathers at home.

“We know that when a child has an active male role model who is highly involved in their life, that those children are going to develop more fully — academically, emotionally and socially,” said Snow.

The National Educators Association also heralds the involvement of dad’s in schools. They note:

The more involved a father is with the student’s activities at school the greater the likelihood of the student’s success. The study actually indicated that when a father is involved with activities, the child is more likely to be a straight A student.

Responsible fatherhood and social mobility are inextricably linked.  Obviously, it is most beneficial when a child’s real dad is involved in their lives and their school, but often that is not the reality. Today, there are 25 million children in this country who live apart from their biological fathers.  Watch DOGS is just one example of a program that can help these kids.

This Friday, members of the Nebraska state legislature will convene in a special session to amended its now famous safe-haven law.  The law, signed by the governor this July, was intended to protect newborns. Like other state safe-haven laws, it allows parents to give up infants without fear of prosecution.

The wording in the Nebraska bill however, has created unintended consequences and opened a Pandora’s box revealing the troubles facing many desperate families. This particular law:

extended the protection to “children,” meaning up to age 18, rather than specifying a maximum age of a few days or months.

Since July, 35 children from all over the country, ranging in age from 5 to 17, have been dropped off at Nebraska hospitals. At first blush, you have to wonder what type of person could drive their child half way across the country to leave them as wards of the state. Yet, reading their stories reveals deep and tragic problems of mental health issues, insufficient family and economic support, and complete distress and desperation.

The Washington Post reports that:

Of the first 30 children abandoned in Nebraska, 27 had received mental health services; 28 came from single-parent homes; and 22 had a parent or guardian who had been jailed.

Clearly, Nebraska must make changes to its law. As states face severe budget deficits, they can’t afford to care for abandoned children from all over the country. Yet, this experience has exposed a wound that the entire nation must examine:

• How do we support parents and families so that they don’t find themselves in these situations?
• How do we make sure parents have better access to existing state support services?
• How do we increase respite care opportunities?
• How do we make sure psychiatric services are widely available?
• How do we promote strong marriages and best support single parents?
• How do we care for children of prisoners so that we can break the cycle of incarceration?

I write often about teenage pregnancy because I am convinced that reducing the number is a key spoke in the wheel of poverty reduction. However, unplanned pregnancies, regardless of the age of the mother, also put a strain on low-income families and society at large. The National Campaign reminds us of this in their newly released memo to elected officials:

While this spotlight has prompted a much-needed national conversation about teen pregnancy, the sobering news about-and fascination with-teen pregnancy masks three key ideas. First, few Americans understand that it’s not just teens that are having difficulty with pregnancy planning and prevention. In fact, at present, half of all pregnancies in the nation are unplanned and the majority are to adults not teens. Second, the decades-long argument over abortion has dominated the political debate at the expense of basic understanding of, and support for, contraception, which plays a critical role in helping those who are sexually active avoid unplanned pregnancy in the first place. Third, we have lost sight of the simple fact that when unplanned pregnancy is reduced so is abortion. Less unplanned pregnancy means fewer abortions-a fact that should help those on both sides of the abortion debate find common ground.

The memo also includes a series of questions for elected officials and other interested parties to consider such as, how do you prevent unplanned pregnancies, will preventing unplanned pregnancies lead to fewer abortions, what is the governments role in reducing unplanned pregnancies, etc.

It seems that at least one candidate is ready to honestly answer these questions. During a heated discussion on abortion during the final presidential debate on Wednesday, Sen. Obama made a point to highlight prevention as a way to reduce the number of abortions:

The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that — look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to — to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, “We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.”

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that’s where we can find some common ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion. I think it’s always a tragic situation.

Obama’s efforts to find common ground resonated with some voters.  And an Obama administration has the potential to focus our efforts on reducing unplanned pregnancies, which will not only mean a reduction in the number of abortions but as the National Campaign’s report also notes:

Reducing unplanned pregnancy will also mean less poverty, a better educated and prepared workforce, healthier children and families, and lower health care costs.

Both the political and the societal benefits of this common ground are tremendous.

The National Campaign released a good report examining the recent increase in teen births. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of teen births increased by 21,000, making it the largest single year increase since 1988-89. In this report, analysts answer the important questions, “is the increase real?” and if so, what “caused it?”

Here is a sample of their findings:

• The increase in teen birth rates was not a “sudden reversal but was proceeded by a slowing of the decline in 2004 and 2005.”

• In 2006, the teen birth rate increased among white, black and Hispanic teenagers among the 15-17 and 18-19 age groups. The increase was not limited to any particular subgroup.

• We can’t rule out changes in population composition (changes from immigration patterns) as a potential and partial reason for the increase in teen birth rates.

• Data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey shows that there has been an increase in reliance on condoms by high school girls and a decline in the reliance on the birth control pill.

• The weakened economy may have played a role in teen birth rates.

• Changes in public policies such as a decrease in funding for family planning services through Title X, the move toward abstinence-only sex education, and decreased health insurance coverage may have led to the increase.

As the next administration outlines their poverty reduction strategies, combating teen pregnancy must be a priority.

For too long there has been an unnecessary debate over the causes of and solutions for the poverty that affects our inner cities.  Conservatives focus primarily on the role of families while liberals focus on the role of government. The truth is that both play an important role.  We only need to look at the mess we are dealing with on Wall Street to realize that government can and should play an important role in ensuring our economy works well for everyone and not just a few.

But the family structure is a vital societal institution that no government support can ever replace. That’s why I was excited to read Adam Serwer’s article this week in the American Prospect - a publication that falls on the left in the progressive media spectrum - about the importance of fatherhood initiatives especially in low-income African American communities. Sewer highlights Barack Obama’s Father’s Day speech as an example of a new Democratic interest in family structure. He correctly writes:

For years, conservatives have shrugged off public-policy solutions to black poverty, arguing that cultural problems with marriage and fatherhood are primarily to blame. Liberals, hobbled by a desire to avoid alienating black voters, failed to acknowledge their own public-policy failures and ensuing cultural problems as contributors to black poverty. In short, conservatives blame the breakdown of the black family, and liberals blame the breakdown of the system.

Neither explanation adequately explains the dilemma or provides for a solution, but together they effected a stalemate on an issue that remains a low priority in the minds of most lawmakers. John McWhorter, a self-identified centrist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute who sees fatherlessness as one of the causes of lingering poverty in the black community, was glad Obama gave the speech. “The sad fact is that fatherlessness does not stand out in the popular imagination as an emergency in the way that, say, poverty or Jim Crow did in the ’60s,” McWhorter says. No matter what the reaction, Obama’s speech brought fatherlessness to the forefront of public debate.

If elected, Barack Obama can play a unique role in ushering in a new generation of responsible fathers. Given his previous work on the issue, including his work with Sen. Evan Bayh on the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Family Act, we have every reason to believe he will tackle this issue head on and move the debate beyond the traditional family or government argument.  An Obama administration would provide men with the government support they need but also demand from them that they take responsibility for themselves and their families.

First Focus, a bipartisan children’s policy and advocacy organization, released a new book entitled Big Ideas for Children this week. As they rightfully note, “we have seen no ‘big ideas’ for children during this campaign season.” This product aims to raise the visibility of the issues facing the next generation and includes a compilation of proposals geared toward improving the lives of America’s kids.

For full disclosure, I co-authored one of the chapters with a colleague.  Aside from that chapter, there are some really thoughtful and interesting ideas, so check them out.

After some controversy surrounding when Gov. Sarah Palin would face the media, the McCain Campaign announced that she will have her first major interview with ABC World News Tonight’s Charles Gibson later this week.

Though we don’t know the exact day and time of the ABC interview, the Washington Post reports that it “will coincide with the deployment of her older son, Track, with his Army unit to Iraq.” If this is true, then we can probably expect to see Palin on World News Tonight on Thursday, Sept. 11.

Palin has arguably become America’s most famous working mother since she was introduced to a national audience as McCain’s running mate about ten days ago.  In fact, as of last Wednesday the Alaska governor had “generated more US-based internet search traffic than Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Michael Phelps and Barack Obama combined.”

Since that time, the media frenzy has looked into her past, her family, her record and her public service.  I’m sure we will hear many questions from Gibson about the issues and questions that have arisen from this media autopsy.  But since she is the first potential vice president nominee who is also a working mom, I think it’s also important that we learn more about her vision for working moms and families across America.

In order to help Gibson prepare for his interview, here are a few questions he should consider adding to the mix:

• Gov. Palin, clearly you understand the difficult task of raising a family and having a career. Yet, many American mothers do not have the luxury of keeping a crib in their offices. What do you think is the role of the government in helping Americans find a balance between work and family?

• More on that question, Gov. Palin. If your son is sick, you have the option to take the day off and not worry about losing wages. However, low-income mothers do not have that same luxury? Nearly 80 percent of low-wage workers get no paid sick days. For some moms, that means choosing between sending a child to school sick and having enough money for the week to buy medicine? What would you do to help these parents?

• America now knows about your large family and admires your strong bond. I read recently that like many families, your extended family pitches in with the childcare when you and Todd both have work obligations. Sadly, many families, especially low income families don’t have back up support. Do you have any plans to make quality childcare affordable for working families?