There's a new push making the rounds in Washington, dressed up in patriotic packaging. The idea? Handing every new mom in America a $5,000 "baby bonus" in hopes of reversing our plummeting birth rate. Sunny Hostin on The View thinks something else may be at work here. "There was a 1% increase in U.S. births. That increase was with Hispanic and Asian mothers… They seem to be more concerned about a decrease in other populations." Oh, brother. Fact check on her data? Surprisingly, accurate. Fact check on the racial bias? False. The proposal is for ALL mothers, not just whites. 

In 2023, the U.S. birth rate dropped to an all-time low of 1.62 births per woman overall, according to CDC data. Politicians are nervous, and understandably so. A shrinking population would mean fewer workers and taxpayers and potential economic instability. Reports suggest the Trump administration is floating the idea as a one-time payment to encourage childbirth. The estimated cost? Around $17.9 billion annually, assuming 3.6 million births. That's a hefty bill, especially for a country with a $30 trillion national debt. But beyond the cost, the real question is this: would it work?

Probably not. 

Similar policies elsewhere haven't lived up to the hype. Australia introduced a baby bonus in 2004, and while there was a short-term bump in the birth rate, it began falling again soon after. Parents shifted due dates to be eligible for the bonus, with the negative secondary consequence that hospital resources were overburdened in that period. 

In the U.S., a $5,000 check hardly dents the cost of having a child. Childbirth alone costs about $19,000 on average, with families paying around $3,000 out-of-pocket. And raising a child to age 18 runs more than $310,000 for a middle-income household. Some estimates even place it closer to $389,000. That $5,000? Gone before you even finish furnishing the nursery. 

Also, why not just not take the money from the parents in the first place? Trump's proposal to increase the tax credit to $5,000 for new parents isn't perfect, but it's a far better solution than welfare. Also, are the type of people who decide to have a baby to collect cash the kind of parents you want to encourage anyway? Government incentives like this risk turning something deeply personal into a financial transaction. Encouraging people to have kids primarily for money can backfire. It may lead to rushed or unprepared parenthood and, in some tragic cases, neglect. 

Another concern is inflation. Like government handouts during the pandemic drove up prices, baby bonuses could inflate healthcare costs as providers anticipate the payout and raise fees. And because everyone gets the same amount, wealthier families could pocket it, while low-income parents face higher and higher costs.

That said, birth rates do matter. And there are more innovative ways to address the issue—ways that don't involve federal payouts. For example, history shows that birth rates can rebound naturally as economic conditions improve. Look at countries like Czechia, Romania, and Bulgaria. All three saw fertility rate increases of more than 35 percent between 2002 and 2022. None of them did it through flashy baby bonuses. They focused on improving family policies, expanding access to reproductive technologies, and creating economic stability.

Czechia's total fertility rate rose from 1.15 to 1.64 during that period. Romania jumped from 1.27 to 1.71, and Bulgaria from 1.23 to 1.65. These countries prove that birth rates can bounce back when people feel confident they can afford and support a family, not when the government cuts them a one-time check. In the U.S., we saw a slight bump in birth rates between 2020 and 2021 despite the economic fallout from COVID-19. Locking couples down together spurred reproduction. It may suggest that cultural and economic factors matter more than financial incentives.

Some states and cities are experimenting with ongoing support programs, like Flint, Michigan's Rx Kids, which gives pregnant women $1,500 during pregnancy and $500 per month afterward. New York's Bridge Project provides low-income mothers monthly payments to help raise their children. These programs offer more targeted and sustained support. While they may not be ideal from a conservative perspective, they are at least state-level initiatives where oversight is more likely than at the federal level. 

The honest answer lies in market-based reforms. Cut taxes so families can keep more of what they earn. Deregulate housing and childcare so those services become more affordable. Encourage competition and innovation in healthcare to drive down costs. America doesn't need a baby bonus. It needs economic freedom. When families can grow and thrive without burdensome costs and bureaucratic interference, the birth rate will take care of itself.

We don't need more gimmicks. We need more liberty.