Trump wants to pay couples $5,000 to have babies - Democrats want to throw out the idea with the bathwater
The White House has also reportedly fielded proposals about bestowing a 'National Medal of Motherhood' to mothers with six or more children.
Democrats, for their part, say they're supportive of ways to support new parents, but that Trump and his allies have the wrong approach.
'If you want to encourage families to have children and be serious about it, then you would work to lower costs, build economic security for families,' Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut told NBC News.
'There's a little incongruity here between talking about encouraging women to have more children and families to have more children and at the same time, really putting up enormous obstacles,' she added, pointing to Republican discussions to cut as much as $880 billion from Medicaid as part of budget negotiations.
Last week, the House Democratic Women's Caucus wrote to Trump, calling his potential baby boom ideas 'out of step with reality,' and at odds with the administration's moves cutting maternal health and child initiatives, firing maternal health and fertility researchers at the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, and proposing to defund the Head Start early education program.
Trump administration interest in increasing births comes as White House looks to cut health and early childhood spending (Getty)
'You've thrown our economy into chaos, making everyday essentials more expensive and making family budgeting nearly impossible,' the letter reads. 'This is not a 'pro-family' agenda.'
In early April, a group of Senate Democrats introduced a proposal to permanently increase the Child Tax Credit for middle- and low-income families, which was temporarily expanded during the pandemic.
'The expanded Child Tax Credit benefited 61 million American kids, helped cut childhood poverty nearly in half, and cut hunger by a quarter for families,' Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado wrote in a statement accompanying the proposal. 'Parents across Colorado told me it reduced their stress and made it easier for them to afford child care, rent, and school supplies. It was the best thing we've done for kids and families in generations.'
Experts say longer-term investments in healthcare, child care, and family leave will do more to support new families than a one-time payment, while bringing the U.S. in line with wealthy peer nations that typically offer far more social support for new parents.
'I had a baby a few months ago, and a one-time payment of $5,000 wouldn't do much if I didn't also have paid leave that let me keep my job, good health insurance, family support, incredible childcare and the kind of job that allows me to both provide for my family and be there for pickup,' Lily Roberts, managing director for inclusive growth at the Center for American Progress, toldThe Guardian. 'Every mom in America deserves that, and every dad does too.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US budget deficit forecast $1 trillion higher over next decade, watchdog says
By David Lawder WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. federal budget deficits will be nearly $1 trillion higher over the next decade than projected in January by the Congressional Budget Office as a result of tax and spending legislation and tariffs, a budget watchdog said on Wednesday. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's latest forecasts show a cumulative deficit of $22.7 trillion from fiscal 2026 to 2035, compared to the CBO's January forecast of $21.8 trillion, which was based on laws and policies that were in place before U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January. The CBO, Congress' non-partisan budget referee agency, said on Monday that it will not issue its customary mid-year budget update this year and will issue its next 10-year budget and economic outlook in early 2026, offering no explanation for the move. The CRFB, which advocates for deficit reduction, projected a $1.7 trillion deficit in fiscal 2025 or 5.6% of GDP, down slightly from $1.83 trillion in 2024 and the CBO's 2025 projection of $1.87 trillion in January. But it said deficits steadily rise over the decade, reaching $2.6 trillion or 5.9% of GDP by 2035. The new CRFB estimates include the budget effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act tax and spending bill, as well as Trump's tariffs that are currently in place. But like CBO, they do not include the dynamic economic effects on growth from these changes, a forecasting rule that has drawn criticism from the Trump administration. The group projects the tax cut and spending bill to increase deficits, including interest, by $4.6 trillion through 2035, adding another year to the CBO's $4.1 trillion cost estimate through 2034. But CRFB estimates that this will be offset by $3.4 trillion worth of extra import duty revenue over the next decade due to Trump's new tariffs that are currently in place. New rules restricting eligibility for health insurance subsidies will reduce deficits by another $100 billion through 2035, and Congress' rescission of prior funding to foreign aid, public broadcasting and other programs would save another $100 billion if sustained over a decade, CRFB said. Net interest payments on the national debt will total $14 trillion over the decade, CRFB projected, rising from nearly $1 trillion or 3.2% of GDP in 2025 to $1.8 trillion or 4.1% of GDP in 2035. TARIFF CHALLENGE The forecasts are based on legislative and tariff changes since January but keep CBO's economic forecasts unchanged. Under an alternative scenario forecast by CRFB, the budget picture looks far worse, boosting deficits nearly $7 trillion higher than the CBO baseline. This scenario would see a significant part of Trump's tariffs canceled if the Court of International Trade's ruling against many of Trump's new tariffs is upheld, cutting $2.4 trillion from revenues over a decade. The alternative scenario also assumes extension of a number of temporary tax cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including tax breaks on overtime, tips, Social Security income and car loan interest, higher state and local tax deduction allowances and full expensing of factory investments, adding $1.7 trillion to deficits over 10 years. CRFB's alternative scenario also ditches the CBO's projection of a decline in 10-year U.S. Treasury yields over the decade to about 3.8%. If that interest rate stays at the current level of about 4.3%, interest costs would grow by about $1.6 trillion through 2035, CRFB said. The total 2035 debt-to-GDP ratio would grow from 118% in the CBO January baseline to 120% under the CRFB's projected baseline scenario and 134% under the CRFB's alternative scenario. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 U.S. officials
The Trump administration revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former officials on Tuesday that it accused of "politicization or weaponization" to "advance personal, partisan or non-objective agendas." The big picture: National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard publicly released a memo naming the officials, which Mark Zaid, a lawyer who represents intelligence officers and who's suing the Trump administration to have his revoked security clearance restored, said may have broken the law. Driving the news: Gabbard accused the officials in an X post on the administration's latest move to revoke security clearances of "politicizing and manipulating intelligence, leaking classified intelligence without authorization, and/or committing intentional egregious violations of tradecraft standards." Neither the memo nor Gabbard's post detailed evidence on these claims, but among the intelligence community public servants included in the list are officials who were involved in assessments on Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and others who worked on national security under former Presidents Biden and Obama. Others signed a letter supporting the impeachment inquiry into President Trump on allegations that he pressured Ukraine, which far-right activist Laura Loomer amplified last month as she noted some still held security clearances. What they're saying: Zaid wrote on X in response to Gabbard's post: "Can you say 'Privacy Act violation'? I certainly can. Further proof of weaponization and politicization. The vast majority of these individuals are not household names & are dedicated public servants who have worked across multiple presidential administrations." He said in a Tuesday night email that information regarding someone's security clearance "is maintained in a protected Privacy Act System of records" and the government "cannot simply release that information without written consent from the individual or the existence of a Routine Use, which I do not believe exists for this purpose." Representatives for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not immediately respond to Axios' Tuesday evening request for comment on the matter. Of note: Loomer noted on X that she had previously called for the security clearance of one of those named in the memo to be revoked, adding: "Thank you, Tulsi! MORE SCALPS." That official worked under then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on an Intelligence Community Assessment that found Russia interfered in the first election that President Trump won, a conclusion that's received bipartisan support in Congress. However, Gabbard last month accused the Obama administration of a " manipulation of intelligence" around Russia's role in the 2016 election. Flashback: On his first day in office, President Trump revoked the security clearances of 51 former intelligence officials who signed a letter in 2020 saying emails from Hunter Biden's laptop carried "classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
San Francisco Chronicle
18 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
