Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

In swing states, D's and R's favor federal action to help families

Survey finds support for higher child tax credit, universal preschool, subsidized child care, paid leave

Child tax credit written on a paper.
designer491/Getty Images

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).

    Bar chart showing support for $6,000 child tax creditpublicconsultation.org

    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).

    Bar chart showing support for free universal preschoolpublicconsultation.org

    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).

    Bar chart showing support ofr subsidizing child carepublicconsultation.org

    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.


    Read More

    An empty grocery cart in a market.

    NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

    Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

    Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

    Issue Introduction

    Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

    During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    ​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

    (Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

    Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

    For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

    What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

    Keep ReadingShow less
    White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

    Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

    Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

    Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

    Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

    This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

    Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

    SDI Productions/Getty Images

    Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

    In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

    Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

    Keep ReadingShow less