When the president announced the child accounts for children born between 2025-2028, there were many reactions to the accounts and underlying reasons for creating this social welfare program.
These accounts appear to attempt to address several issues: the country’s financial insecurity, declining workforce, low birth rate, declining investment in education.
These accounts and new social welfare program are, at its core, an overly simplistic response to decades of short-term policy consequences by states and the federal government’s elected officials as it relates to serving the country’s fiscal health.
Fiscal policy is the responsibility of the legislative branch. The legislative branch creates fiscal policy that, if designed effectively, creates opportunities for long-term, financial health for today’s and future generations.
However, especially since the 2008 recession, austerity policies to reduce government spending have created challenging realities for many in our country and state. These various measures cut budgets for schools, healthcare and other public areas. At the same time budgets are cut, the services continue, even if reduced, which creates impacts on local communities.
While the 2008 recession created hardships for companies, the people were also impacted. And the austerity measures created by various governmental levels additional harm to the people.
The budget cuts to social programs, schools (and funding of afterschool programs/sports) and healthcare cost increased the financial burden onto families, communities and healthcare providers create conditions where services were reduced and some industries laid off employees.
As criminal justice experts will tell us, when people are not employed, educated, and social services are not functioning to their policy’s intent, people tend to turn to criminal acts because when all aspects of society fail, the criminal justice system will catch everyone.
If the aspects of society fail and the criminal justice system catches everyone, how are these individuals able to work? How can they add value to society? And, if these individuals are not able to provide societal goods, how can they support their families? As a natural reaction, families and communities become poorer as more and more people become a cost burden rather than a financial value add.
Let us also consider the low birth rate that Georgia and the entire country is experiencing. One can argue that 2019’s abortion law was created to increase birth rates in Georgia by limiting access to abortion, a medical procedure. Yet, how can you increase the birth rates in a state where at least half of the counties in Georgia do not have an OB-GYN and/or pediatrician?
How can we effectively treat pregnant mothers then the child, once born, if the state lacks appropriate medical care? There are many social determinants of health that create challenges to women while pregnant including preeclampsia, low-birth weight in the born children, and maternal mortality. Are we asking/telling for more women to birth children in a state without adequate healthcare for the women and children?
Of course, all of these children need to be educated.
Georgia, along with many states and the federal government, cut the budget for education over the years. Education is the responsibility of the state and Georgia’s State Constitution. Article VIII of Georgia’s Constitution notes public education will be free in Georgia “prior to college or post-secondary level.” While the state constitution discusses funding, we are clear the majority of the funding comes from property taxes and based on other factors, property taxes/home values depend on social factors, redlining and the value associated with communities.
The Peach Pulse
Become a founding subscriber
Get PeachPol’s exclusive Georgia political reporting and analysis — and lock in your founding subscriber rate as long as your subscription remains active.
Therefore, education, which is considered an anchor for upward mobility is compromised. Yet, if education is not properly funded in communities — sometimes the same communities that experience hardship for other underfunding programs, how are we to improve people’s lived conditions.
All of these services bring us to these child accounts.
Are we to accept the government or philanthropy have money to give every child $1,000 born between 2025 and 2028? Are we to accept that this $1,000 enticement to increase the birth rate in Georgia and the country will incentivize women to give birth to more children?
It is curious how $1,000 will change the minds of women in counties without an OB-GYN.
It is curious how $1,000 will change the minds of mothers in counties without a pediatrician.
It is curious how $1,000 will change the minds of mothers in counties where unemployment is high.
Where the nearest grocery store is a car ride away because there is no public transportation.
Where because the economy is low, mass incarceration allows for employment in the areas while others have economic challenges because parents are not in the homes.
Overall, how is this short-term $1,000 child account enticing when other factors from gestation to birth to living in society cost more than what $1,000 can provide?
Proponents of these accounts point to the amount of money a child could have at age 18. Yet, this money is dependent on many factors. Because the account is not a saving account, more of a stock portfolio because the account is tied to the stock market, the funds are dependent on the market’s performance.
Additionally, parents and the parents’ employer(s) can add to the account, if that program is offered from the employer. Yet, this also depends on the disposable income of the parents and whether or not the employer(s) have such a program.
What if we invest our current tax dollars into existing programs that help communities and newborns to have the future these accounts promise?
What if we used our tax dollars to ensure communities are healthy that will encourage a stable workforce?
What if we fully and intentionally educated communities to prepare for the current and future job markets?
What if we provided functioning healthcare such that parents and children have a healthy start to be able to create long-term viability?
What if the current programs were fully and intentionally funded so we will not need another social program to address existing policy gaps?
What if we filled the existing gaps? And if we did, perhaps we would not need another program promising $1,000 for only three years of births.
Then what happens to the minor children born before 2025 or after 2028, do we not have the same care to offer their parents $1,000 for their children to have an account?
Fundamentally, what is the purpose of these accounts? It appears to be a distraction against the basic services and programs our tax dollars were supposed to already address — that we are not properly funding and addressing.
I challenge all of us, elected officials, those seeking elected office, and fellow citizens to be more mindful of these short-term, seemingly haphazard, ‘policies’ and focus on what we already have and how we should be thoughtful in improving the current because, perhaps, another program is unnecessary.
Tammy R. Greer has a PhD in political science and teaches public policy.
