Why a ‘baby bonus’ is a bad idea

The birth rate has dropped significantly in America, and in order to combat what he sees as a looming depopulation crisis, President Trump has proposed giving a $5,000 “baby bonus” to new moms.

Another proposal calls on the government to fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles in order for them to understand when they are able to conceive.

“I don’t know if I want the government to get their grubby hands on that,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” says. “Should the government fund some kind of program to educate women about their cycles? I’m not sure. But women do need to know more about their cycles and how and when to get pregnant.”

Stuckey’s skepticism doesn’t stop at funding menstrual cycle education for women, but extends to the “baby bonus.”

“The biggest issue is not the depopulation crisis. I believe the biggest issue is the dissolution of the family, and a much deeper issue is the lack of desire to have children. And that is something that is spiritual, that is cultural, that is moral. It is not economic,” Stuckey explains.

“People say, ‘Oh well, people can’t afford housing today; people feel like they’re stretched thin with their budget,’ and all of that may be true. I’m not discounting that. And of course, financial problems can weigh heavily on a person and should to some degree determine the decisions we make,” she continues.

“However, there have been much more difficult economic times where families have said, ‘You know what, we are going to trust the Lord, and we feel that it is our obligation, and we desire to have children and we are going to figure it out,’ in much more turbulent times than today,” she adds.

Another issue with the proposal is that it appears to reward people for having kids — regardless of their marital status.

“I actually don’t think that we should be rewarding that. I think that actually could incentivize very bad and destructive behavior,” Stuckey says, before reading an excerpt from an article by Bethany Mandel in the New York Post.

“A one-time payout of $5,000 — an amount that wouldn’t even cover the cost of one of my births — isn’t a life raft, but a pat on the head as families struggle to stay afloat amid rising costs, child care shortages and a culture that undervalues parenting,” Mandel wrote.

“The problem isn’t just a drop in babies; it’s a drop in marriages. Since 1970, the U.S. marriage rate has fallen by 60%. While married couples (especially religious ones) still do have children — and statistically more sex than singletons do — there are simply far fewer of them today. So maybe instead of a $5,000 baby bonus, Trump should consider a one-time tax break for newlyweds,” she continued.

“I think that that’s a good idea,” Stuckey comments. “I’m not saying that the $5,000 proposal has absolutely no place, but indiscriminately giving that out to anyone who has a baby — again, I actually just don’t think that that would be a net positive.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.