Even though the plan benefits wealthy people—which is something the GOP loves—it's so expensive that it's unlikely to succeed in Congress.
Below is what happened on Trump's 24h day in office. You can find out what damage was done every other day so far on the Saddest Calendar on the Internet.
Last week, handsome Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau discussed the integral role of women in the workforce at the White House, and Ivanka Trump, seated next to him, "swooned." This photo-op makes sense, as Ivanka has long positioned herself as an advocate for working woman; she has reportedly said that advocating for women will be her central focus in Washington, and her personal website is billed as "the ultimate destination for Women Who Work."
In accordance with this advocacy role, she's been working on a child-care plan, according to a report published this morning on Bloomberg, and she even met with members of both the House and Senate last week. Unfortunately, the plan could cost up to $500 billion, making the Republican-dominated Congress unlikely to support it, and it would disproportionately benefit wealthy, dual-income families.
With Ivanka's proposed plan, individuals who earn less than $250,000 a year or couples who earn less than $500,000 would be able to deduct the cost of child care expenses from their income taxes. "Lower-income families without tax liability would get a rebate for their expenses in the form of a larger earned income tax credit," the article reads.
Economist Alan Cole describes the proposal as "generous and broad," noting that "almost everyone with young children will get some benefit from it." However, he cautions, "the largest benefits will go to relatively affluent dual-income families using paid child care." In other words, the people spending most on child care, who need the least help affording it, will be the ones to benefit most.
In accordance with all her father's stances, this plan would benefit the rich and do virtually nothing for working class parents, who suffer the most under America's current child-care crisis. In a 2015 report from the Economic Policy Institute, the authors found that "the high cost of child care means that a full-time, full-year minimum-wage worker with one child falls far below the family budget threshold in all 618 family budget areas—even after adjusting for higher state and city minimum wages." In Illinois, for example, the average annual cost of infant care is $1,080 per month and costs 19.6 percent more than average rent (the state is 8th out of 50 states and D.C. for having the most expensive infant care).
But none of this really matters, apparently. Unsurprisingly, the House GOP leaders did not mention child care in their tax-reform blueprint from June 2016, and therefore, this proposal is not a priority.