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

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less