“Push to expand the Child Tax Credit to $5,000 per child, applied to payroll taxes and paid in installments, in the next tax bill.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
All three cited sources are reachable and each documents THIS promise's outcome; every quoted passage was confirmed verbatim. (1) Hawley's own Senate release (PRIMARY, Dec 17, 2024) shows he AUTHORED and unveiled a proposal containing all three promised features verbatim: "Increase the maximum value of the CTC to $5,000 per child, up from $2,000," "Allow parents to use the CTC to offset their payroll tax liability, in addition to income taxes," and receiving the CTC "as regular installments throughout the year." Because this is his own office originating his own proposal, it is genuine leadership (authored/led), not a mere vote or generic support — satisfying the CHAMPIONED bar. (2) The Washington Examiner article confirms the exact quote "I'd like to take it to $5,000, but any incremental increase would be tremendous," and describes Hawley as "long an advocate for a bigger child tax credit" actively pushing during the GOP tax-bill fight — evidencing sustained advocacy, not a single vote. (3) Wikipedia on OBBBA confirms the enacted law raised the CTC only from $2,000 to $2,200 with no payroll offset and no installments, so the substantive $5,000 goal failed in that vehicle. CHAMPIONED correctly captures that Hawley led the promised "push" with the exact features while the full policy was not enacted; FULL would overstate (goal not achieved) and PARTIAL would understate the authorship-level leadership. Outcome upheld.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.