What a $1,000 baby bond buys, and why one and done isn't enough
A new federal proposal included in the administration's 'one, big, beautiful' bill would provide a one-time deposit of $1,000 to every child born between 2025 and 2028 through Trump Accounts — previously known as the Money Account for Growth and Advancement, or MAGA Accounts.
While the name has changed, the underlying proposal remains the same. It's a welcome sign that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to recognize the value of starting early when it comes to building financial security.
There's longstanding bipartisan support for investing in children from birth. Back in 2006, then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) introduced a Portable Lifelong Universal Savings Account — a PLUS Account — modeled after the federal thrift savings plan, with an initial $1,000 deposit and a $5,000 annual contribution limit.
More recently, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act, commonly known as baby bonds, which would seed $1,000 into an account for every child born after Dec. 31, 2023.
The most recent Trump Account draws from a proposal by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and would invest that $1,000 in an index fund.
It's been nearly two decades since that first proposal, and Congress is still circling the same starting number. Imagine how much stronger families could be today if, instead of restarting the conversation, we had built on it.
There's broad recognition that raising a family has never been more expensive and that the rising cost of essentials is contributing to declining birth rates. Recent estimates show that families spend between $15,000 to $21,000 in a child's first year alone, covering diapers, formula, baby gear, and child care. These aren't optional extras, they're baseline costs of parenthood.
Baby food and formula costs rose 8.7 percent from January 2023 to January 2024, outpacing overall inflation. Diapers remain a major strain on household budgets, with 1 in 3 struggling to afford them even before the pandemic, and 1 in 4 now reporting they've had to miss work or school due to diaper needs.
Child care is another overwhelming expense. In nearly every state, the cost of full-time infant care exceeds $14,000 a year, which is more than 10 percent of median household income. KPMG estimates that the cost of daycare and preschool has surged by 263 percent since 1990. On top of that, tariffs could raise prices on cribs, car seats and strollers by as much as 128 percent, according to S&P Global.
These are basic safety items, not luxury goods, and they're increasingly out of reach.
None of these costs can be meaningfully addressed by a one-time Trump Account, or by baby bonds or PLUS Accounts alone, but they shape the reality into which these proposals are introduced.
Families grappling with steep costs today are far less likely to contribute to long-term savings accounts, even with a $1,000 head start. That's why policies like the Trump Account must be viewed not as stand-alone solutions, but as part of a comprehensive strategy to help families meet today's demands while planning for tomorrow's opportunities.
The Trump Account would represent a step forward in how the government invests in family and long-term financial stability. It shares a key idea with prior proposals: the earlier the investment, the greater the return.
There are, however, important differences in design. Baby bonds were proposed as government-funded accounts invested in a bond with an anticipated 3 percent annual return, receiving ongoing contributions, especially for children from households with limited financial resources, and these distinctions are a constructive differentiator.
The Trump Account, by comparison, offers a one-time government deposit to be invested in an index fund, which has the potential for a higher rate of annual return, and because it is tied to the stock market, also carries additional risk.
As a one-time deposit, it is not yet a full solution because it lacks the consistent annual investment to make its potential a meaningful tool for financial growth for children who are born into families without wealth.
This ongoing investment matters. With inflation driving up prices and wages failing to keep pace, families need more than symbolic gestures. They need tools that build over time and bridge the gap between short-term help and long-term financial security.
This is not just about individual families. It's about national economic potential. The Institute for Women's Policy Research estimates that if women participated in the workforce at the same rate as men, it could add $4.3 trillion to the U.S. economy this year.
But that participation depends on the affordability of child care, baby essentials and family stability, areas where rising costs continue to hold parents back.
The Trump Account reflects growing awareness that financial opportunity begins at birth. But if we're serious about building economic resilience, we must ensure that early investments are designed to grow and to last.
Ongoing investment, like in the baby bonds and PLUS Account proposals, offers a path forward that is practical, scalable and rooted in research.
If we want to give every child a real chance at economic mobility, it's not just about when and where we invest. It's about how we follow through.
Marisa Calderon is the president and CEO of Prosperity Now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
32 minutes ago
2 women marry in Mexico's embassy in Guatemala fueling a debate over same-sex marriage
GUATEMALA CITY -- Two Mexican women were married inside the grounds of Mexico's embassy in Guatemala on Friday, sparking anger in a nation that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and debate over diplomatic sovereignty. The ceremony held in the embassy gardens was intended to celebrate Pride Month, which is celebrated every June, and the consulate said the marriage marked a step toward inclusion, respect and equality for all. "We celebrate love without borders," wrote the embassy in a post on the social media platform X. 'This is the first civil wedding of a same-sex couple at the Embassy of Mexico in Guatemala. It's a right granted to all individuals when both are Mexican citizens.' Shortly after, the ceremony sparked an outcry among conservative politicians in Guatemala, a largely Catholic country and one of a handful in Latin America that still doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. While such marriages aren't explicitly prohibited, Guatemalan law only refers to unions between a man and a woman. Allan Rodríguez, the head of the VAMOS party bloc and ally of former president Alejandro Giammattei, was among those to reject the wedding, writing in a statement that 'although the act may be protected under external jurisdictions, it clearly contradicts Guatemala's current legal framework.' According to the congressman, the properties where embassies are located 'are not foreign territory; they merely enjoy diplomatic privileges" and therefore are not a part of the Mexican state. He claimed considering them as such would "violate constitutional principles of sovereignty, territorial unity, and the rule of law.' Rodríguez, a former president of Congress, is sanctioned by the United States for obstructing anti-corruption efforts and undermining democracy in Guatemala. The office of progressive President Bernardo Arévalo said that under international law embassies like Mexico's "have territorial immunity and operate under the jurisdiction of the state they represent.' 'In this case, it is an activity carried out by the Mexican Consulate in Guatemala and aimed at Mexican citizens. Therefore, it is exclusively the responsibility of the Government of Mexico, through its diplomatic representation, to comment or speak on the matter," the embassy statement said. Still, debate only continued on, with Elmer Palencia, a congressman for the VALOR party, created by the daughter of a former dictator, called the marriage, 'not an act of inclusion, but a provocation.' "Out of respect for the host country, Mexico should refrain from that narrative. Guatemalan sovereignty and social institutions deserve that respect,' he said. Constitutional lawyer Edgar Ortíz contradicted the conservative politicians, saying the marriage doesn't violate Guatemala's sovereignty and complies with the Vienna Convention, which establishes that what happens on diplomatic premises 'are not subject to the host state's jurisdiction.' He noted that Guatemala's constitution establishes that the country will govern following international principles. 'In no way are Guatemala's laws being altered; the effects of this marriage will occur in Mexico, which does recognize same-sex marriage,' he said. 'Rather," he added, 'it is the Guatemalan lawmakers who are violating sovereignty, by interfering in Mexico's affairs and trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. That seems far more discourteous.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Takeaways from AP's investigation of US death benefits program for public safety officers
A federal program that provides benefits to families of police officers and firefighters who die and become disabled on duty is rapidly growing while facing criticism for increasing delays in deciding claims. Congress created the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program in 1976 to guarantee that the spouses and children of officers who put their lives on the line would receive financial support. But repeated expansions in eligibility approved by Congress, including three passed in the last five years, have made the program more popular and complex to administer. Critics say the program fails some families by taking too long to grant or deny benefits and making inconsistent rulings. An Associated Press analysis found that hundreds of families are waiting years to learn whether they qualify for payments, and more are ultimately being denied. For one widow, payment came just as she'd given up hope New Jersey widow Sharline Volcy learned this month that she'd been awarded the benefits, more than 3 1/2 years after her husband, Ronald Donat, died while training at the Gwinnett County Police Academy in Georgia. Volcy said she was grateful for the aid, which will provide some financial security and help pay for her two daughters to go to college. But she said the long wait was stressful, when she was told time and again the claim remained under review and ultimately saw her inquiries ignored. 'They told me they didn't know how long it would take because they don't have a deadline. That's the hardest thing to hear,' she said. 'I felt defeated.' She said lawyers didn't want to take the case, and a plea for help to her congressperson went nowhere. She said she'd given up hope and was lucky she had a job as an airport gate agent in the meantime. The benefits program isn't meeting its timeframe goal Volcy's experience isn't unique, and some cases take longer. As of late April, more than 120 claims by surviving relatives or disabled first responders have been awaiting initial determinations or rulings on their appeals for more than five years, according AP's findings. About a dozen have waited over a decade for an answer. The program has a goal of making determinations within one year but has not taken steps to track its progress, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. But roughly three in 10 cases have not met that timeframe in recent years. As of late late April, 900 claims had been pending longer than one year. That includes claims from nearly every state. Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to require the program to make determinations within 270 days. The denial rate for benefits is up, too Over the last year, the denial rate has increased, with roughly one in three death and disability claims getting rejected. Applicants can appeal to a hearing officer and then the director if they choose, but that isn't common. Many say they can't afford attorneys or want to get on with their lives. Justice Department officials, who oversee the program, say they're making complicated decisions about whether cases meet legal criteria. 'Death and disability claims involving complex medical and causation issues, voluminous evidence and conflicting medical opinions, take longer to determine, as do claims in various stages of appeal,' they said in a statement. Claims have doubled in recent years The program started as a simple $50,000 payout for the families of officers who were fatally shot on duty or died as a result of other violence or dangers. But Congress expanded the program in 1990 to cover some first responders who were disabled on duty, which made some determinations harder to reach. A 1998 law added educational benefits for the spouses and children of those deceased and disabled officers. Since 2020, Congress has passed three laws making many other types of deaths and disabilities eligible, including deaths related to COVID-19, deaths and injuries of those working rescue and cleanup operations after the September 2001 attacks, and responders who committed suicide under certain circumstances. Annual claims have more than doubled in the last five years, from 500 in 2019 to roughly 1,200 today. Critics say a key partnership creates a conflict of interest While many applicants have criticized the increasing delays, the leading group that represents the relatives of officers who die on duty has been silent. Critics say that's because the group, Concerns of Police Survivors, has a financial incentive not to criticize the program, which has awarded it tens of millions of dollars in grant funding in recent decades. The Missouri-based nonprofit recently received a new $6 million grant from the program to for its work with deceased officers' relatives, including counseling, hosting memorial events, educating agencies about the program and assisting with claims. The group's founder and retired executive director, Suzie Sawyer, said she was warned many years ago that fighting too hard for claimants could jeopardize its grant funding. But current spokesperson Sara Slone said advocacy isn't the group's mission and that it works 'hand in hand' with PSOB to assist applicants and provide education about benefits. One widow's fight has been remarkable, supporters say Lisa Afolayan's husband died after a training exercise at the Border Patrol academy more than 16 years ago, but she's still fighting the program for benefits. An autopsy found that Nate Afolayan died from heat illness after completing a 1.5-mile test run in 88 degree heat, at a high altitude in the New Mexico desert. The program had awarded benefits to families after similar training deaths, dating back to an officer who died at an academy in 1988. But its independent investigation blamed Nate's death on sickle cell trait, a genetic condition that's usually benign but has been linked to rare exertion-related deaths in police, military and sports training. The program denied Lisa's claim and her subsequent appeals, arguing the death wasn't the result of heat along and didn't qualify. The program stood by its denial in 2024, even after a federal appeals court said it may have failed to adequately consider the weather's role and violated a law barring discrimination on the basis of genetic information.
3 hours ago
US Senate seeks to add expanded compensation for nuclear radiation victims to tax bill
WASHINGTON -- A program to compensate people exposed to radiation from past nuclear weapons testing and manufacturing could be restarted and expanded under a provision added by U.S. senators to the major tax and budget policy bill. The language added Thursday to the Senate version of the massive tax bill would overhaul the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which was originally enacted in 1990 and expired about a year ago. The law compensated people in about a dozen western states who developed serious illnesses from nuclear testing and manufacturing stemming from World War II-era efforts to develop the atomic bomb. The new Senate provision would expand the coverage to states including Missouri and Tennessee, among other places. It would also cover a wider range of illnesses. The program's limited scope in the West has led Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri to push for its expansion to include uranium sites in St. Louis and victims in other states. His advocacy led the Senate to twice pass a major overhaul of the program, but it stalled in the U.S. House amid concerns about its cost. Without an agreement over the program's scope in Congress, the program lapsed. Hawley said the new language compensates many more people, but at a far lower cost than previous legislation. 'These folks deserve to be recognized for the sacrifices they made and compensated when the government has poisoned them without telling them, without helping them, without making it right," Hawley said Friday. 'This is a chance, finally, to make it right.' Still, the new provision's pathway remains uncertain when the House considers the Senate's changes. While there is broad Senate support for the payments, it is unclear how the addition of Hawley's legislation will be received by cost-conscious Republicans as they barrel toward a self-imposed July 4 deadline for the overall tax bill. House leaders are waiting to see what comes out of the Senate before deciding whether they might make further changes or simply try to pass the Senate bill and send it to President Donald Trump's desk. St. Louis played a key role processing uranium as the United States developed a nuclear weapons program that was vital for winning World War II. But that effort exposed workers and nearby residents to radiation, with lingering issues remaining to this day. An elementary school was closed down a few years ago because of radioactive material found on site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains years away from finishing environmental cleanup work. An investigation by The Associated Press, The Missouri Independent and MuckRock found the federal government and companies responsible for nuclear bomb production and atomic waste storage sites in the St. Louis area in the mid-20th century were aware of health risks, spills, improperly stored contaminants and other problems but often ignored them. Nuclear waste contaminated Coldwater Creek, and those who live nearby worry their cancers and other severe illnesses are connected. It's difficult to definitively link specific illnesses with the waste, but advocates for an expanded compensation program said there's evidence it made people sick years later. After the report by the AP and others, Hawley said sick St. Louis residents deserved help, too. He was joined by Dawn Chapman, co-founder of Just Moms STL, which brought attention to local nuclear contamination. She has called St. Louis a 'national sacrifice zone.' 'Many of us have had extreme amounts of devastation in the form of illnesses in our families,' Chapman said Friday. The provision added Thursday would also expand coverage areas in several states for those exposed to radioactive contamination that blew downwind from government sites. In New Mexico, for example, advocates have sought to expand the program for people near the spot where the first Manhattan Project-era bomb was tested. These residents didn't know the blast was why ash had fallen. It poised water, crops and livestock. Attention for these 'downwinders' rose following the release of the film Oppenheimer. 'Our federal government has a moral responsibility to support Americans that helped defend our country — and it has a moral responsibility to include all people who were exposed. That begins with reauthorizing RECA and amending it to include those who have been left out for far too long,' said Sen. Martin Heinrich, Democrat of New Mexico. Prior to the addition of the radiation compensation measure, Hawley had so far withheld support for the overall tax package, questioning cuts to Medicaid programs and the potential effects on rural hospitals and low income residents. He said he still wants to see improvements in the package, but added that help for radiation victims was essential. 'It would be very hard for me to vote for a bill that doesn't include (the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act). This is extremely, extremely important to me," Hawley said. ___
