Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress

Opinion

If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress
man in long sleeve shirt standing beside girl in pink tank top washing hands
Photo by CDC on Unsplash

The issues facing families with young children in our country are numerous and well-known. It’s our politics that’s been the problem.

We know that the share of the federal budget devoted to children is relatively small and declining as a share of spending. Parents frequently want different arrangements for care and work than they can afford or negotiate, and parents’ jobs may not leave enough time or flexibility to care for young children. The share of people having children is declining, with many citing cost concerns. People with children are citing higher levels of pessimism about the future that awaits their kids. But our divided politics has gotten in the way of addressing these challenges. Or so it seemed.


Last year, the Convergence Collaborative on Supports for Working Families convened regularly, representing the most ideologically diverse group of family policy leaders in recent memory, akin to the Congressionally-created National Commission on Children in 1987. Our group included representatives from the far left to the far right and ideological positions in between. It included representatives from think tanks, physicians, childcare providers, the private sector, and more. Most of us are parents ourselves.

Our work together uncovered that there is much more in common than meets the eye and many reforms that could generate a broad base of political support, even in a polarized political environment. Our 2024 report, In This Together, put forward an action agenda for employers, philanthropy, communities, and state and federal governments.

This month, many of us sent a letter to Congress recommending five areas of cross-partisan action, including:

(1) Create abipartisan commission at the federal level to support children and families.

(2) Enact a stable, predictable child-related cash benefit that primarily benefits low-to-moderate-income families.

(3) Design a holistic strategy of care options for parents of young children that reflect differing parental preferences and meet children’s needs.

(4) Create a baseline of federal protection and support for parents with newborns and newly adopted children.

(5) Improve federal fiscal responsibility and sustainability of benefits.

We are not alone in uncovering a broad consensus for family policy reform. Voters want it, too. In a new American Policy Ventures Post-Election Survey conducted by Echelon Insights, 83% of voters expressed support for a national program that would provide all employees access to paid family leave, and 79% of voters expressed support for providing childcare benefits to families with young children.

It’s over to Congress to listen.

Our partisan politics masks an underlying truth about children and families. We are in this together. How we nurture, care, and invest in America’s children today will shape our society tomorrow.


If you want to learn more, join us next week for the 2025 Policy Agenda for Family Flourishing event in Washington, DC!

Deep divisions make it increasingly difficult for Americans to work together to solve our biggest challenges. Since 2009, Convergence has been bringing together leaders, doers, citizens, and experts across ideological, political, and identity lines. Convergence drives solutions to critical challenges that would otherwise remain “stuck,” and the resulting societal impact improves lives.


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less