As many costs for families, especially those with children, continue to rise faster than wages, a new public consultation survey by the Program for Public Consultation finds bipartisan majorities of Americans in the six swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as well as nationally, support federal government action.
The study found Republicans and Democrats are in favor of:
- Reinstating the higher pandemic-era child tax credit.
- Providing funding for free universal preschool.
- Subsidizing child care for low- and middle-income families.
- Creating a national 12-week paid family and medical leave program for all workers.
“There is strong bipartisan support for the Federal government taking a more active role in strengthening the support system for families, especially those with children,” said PPC Director Steven Kull.
This survey is the seventh entry in the Swing Six Issue Surveys being conducted in the run-up to the November election. It covers major policy issues across six swing states. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance. All Americans are invited to go through the same policymaking simulation as the survey sample.
Reinstating higher child tax credit
The annual tax credit provided to parents with children under the age of 18 was temporarily increased by Congress during the Covid pandemic, from a maximum credit of $2,000 per child to a maximum of $3,600 per child. The higher tax credit was also made fully refundable, so parents who did not pay income taxes still got the full benefit. Those changes expired in 2022.
Bipartisan majorities in every swing state support reinstating this pandemic-era credit (69 percent to 77 percent), including majorities of Republicans (60 percent to 71 percent) and Democrats (80 percent to 85 percent). Nationally, 74 percent are in favor, including 64 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats.
Respondents were informed in advance that the pandemic-era tax credit both reduced child poverty by about a third and significantly reduced federal revenues, and would likely have the same effects if reinstated.
In addition, majorities in every swing state (57 percent to 71 percent) support providing a $6,000 tax credit per child to parents of children under age 1, including majorities of Democrats (65 percent to 79 percent). However, views are more mixed among Republicans. Majorities of Republicans are in support in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan (60 percent to 66 percent), and they are statistically divided in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (47 percent to 53 percent). Nationally, 65 percent are in favor, including a modest majority of Republicans (55 percent) and a large majority of Democrats (75 percent).
Federal funding to support free universal preschool
A proposal for the federal government to provide $25 billion to help states or local governments that want to set up or expand free preschool programs, available to all children ages 3 and 4, is favored by 76 percent to 83 percent in the swing states. This includes majorities of Republicans (63 percent to 78 percent) and Democrats (90 percent to 94 percent). Nationally, a bipartisan majority of 82 percent is in favor (Republicans 74 percent, Democrats 92 percent).
Subsidizing child care for low and middle-income families
Bipartisan majorities in every swing state (74 percent to 80 percent) support the federal government providing funds to states that want it, to subsidize child care programs for young children so they are free for low-income parents. Middle-income parents would pay no more than 7 percent of their income. That support includes majorities of Republicans (63 percent to 72 percent) and Democrats (85 percent to 93 percent). Nationally, 76 percent are in favor (Republicans 66 percent, Democrats 88 percent).
Paid family and medical leave for all workers
Majorities in every swing state (68 percent to 75 percent) favor creating a national paid family and medical leave program that would:
- Require employers to allow all workers to take up to 12 weeks of leave.
- Provide workers on leave with two-thirds of their wages (up to $4,000 a month), with funds from a new 0.2 percent payroll tax on both employees and employers.
In the swing states, this proposal is favored by majorities of Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (55 percent to 67 percent), while Republicans are statistically divided in Nevada (52 percent). The proposal is favored by a majority of Democrats in all six states (81 percent to 86 percent). Nationally, 72 percent are in favor, including majorities of Republicans (61 percent) and Democrats (85 percent).
In advance, respondents were informed that current federal law requires most employers to allow most workers to take up to 12 weeks of family or medical leave, but this law does not apply to workers who are in small companies, are new to their job or work part-time. In addition, current law does not mandate that workers receive any pay while on leave. They were informed that, while not required, some employers provide paid family and medical leave to their workers. But currently, less than half of workers have access to such paid leave.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.