President Donald Trump says it’s time to get busy.
Speaking at a Women’s History Month event in Washington, D.C. on March 26, President Trump said that in the budget reconciliation bill that the House and Senate are working on, there will be incentives to boost fertility, stating, “we’re going to have tremendous … goodies in the bag for women, too… between the fertilization and all of the other things that we’re talking about… it’s going to be great.”
Trump added, “Fertilization… I’m still very proud of it. I don’t care. I’ll be known as the fertilization president that — that’s okay. That’s not bad… I’ve been called much worse. Actually, I like it.”
While the President did not provide specifics, the New York Times’ Caroline Kitchener reported on April 21 that the White House and Congress are considering a number of proposals that might potentially bring up the birth rate: “The White House has been hearing out a chorus of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans to get married and have more children, an early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda pushed by many of its allies on the right to reverse declining birthrates and push conservative family values. One proposal shared with aides would reserve 30 percent of scholarships for the Fulbright program, the prestigious, government-backed international fellowship, for applicants who are married or have children. Another would give a $5,000 cash ‘baby bonus’ to every American mother after delivery. A third calls on the government to fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles — in part so they can better understand when they are ovulating and able to conceive.”
President Trump has spoken on the issue before. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2023, Trump also expressed support for what he was calling “baby bonuses,” stating, “We will support baby bonuses for a new baby boom! I want a baby boom! You men are so lucky out there — you are so lucky, men.”
Since birth control was approved by the FDA in 1960, when there were 3.65 births per woman, the U.S. has not been replacing its population. The latest birth rate numbers from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) show just 1.61 live births per woman in 2023, the lowest ever on record in the U.S.
In the meantime, almost 1 million Americans over the age of 65 without a disability are leaving the labor force every year and now total 33.2 million. And with 27.6 million 55-to-64-year-olds in the labor force the numbers leaving the labor force over the next decade will only be accelerating.
As a result, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest data on job openings for the month of March showed 7.56 million job openings nationwide, which is more than the number of people unemployed, which stands at 7 million. In fact, the ratio of unemployed to job openings was less than one from January 2018 through February 2020, was interrupted by the short but steep Covid recession of 2020, and then persisted again from May 2021 through the present. The growing labor shortages are unquestionably a result of population decline.
Since January 2021, the U.S. population has grown by 9.5 million, according to data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Of that, 7.3 million has been an increase in the foreign-born population over the age of 16. The implication is that the native-born population is only growing by about 500,000 a year and that once the Baby Boomers sadly begin passing away in masse, it will begin falling, perhaps forever.
According to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2023, 76 million women attended college, including 16.75 million with some college, 12.6 million with associate’s degrees, 28.2 million with bachelor’s degrees and 18.4 million with master’s degrees or above. Comparatively, only 67.9 million men have attended college, including 16.1 million with some college, 10.87 million with associate’s degrees, 25.25 million with bachelor’s degrees and 15.75 million with master’s degrees or above.
The end result of birth control are the deferred decisions on getting married and having children.
Put another way, since 1960, the birth rate has averaged just 2.09 babies per woman. With just 211.8 million 16-to-64-year-olds — that is, the population born after 1960 — and about 202 million being native-born (Migrationpolicy.org estimates 18 percent of the 50 million foreign-born Americans are over the age of 65), if the fertility rate had remained about 3.65 births per woman, the native-born working age population today might be more like 369 million (I cheated and asked Grok, so, take that with a grain of salt).
Assuming that means fewer women would have participated in the labor force, but that more men would participate, that the overall labor participation rate would be 59 percent today as it was then instead of the current 62.5 percent, then today’s civilian labor force over the age of 16 would be more like 247.2 million (adding in 29.5 million foreign-born persons over the age of 16) instead of the current 170 million.
Anyone looking for answers to the ballooning $36 trillion national debt need look no further. If there had been an extra 77.2 million taxpayers, there might be $7.2 trillion of budget receipts instead of just $4.9 trillion in the current baseline, assuming the current $29,200 per person in the labor force ratio today held.
Instead of a $1.9 trillion budget deficit, there might be a $325 billion budget surplus, and instead of $36 trillion, the national debt today might be more like $5 trillion (I cheated again).
So, there is an actual cost that can be calculated from birth control and pushing women into the labor force. There are potentially 167 million fewer Americans, there is more than $30 trillion additional debt and we only raised the labor participation rate from 59 percent in 1960 to 62.5 percent today, since while more women work, fewer men work, too.
But, given the advent of birth control, and the subsidy for college education — the average cost of a degree is about $80,000, which are subsidized by the Department of Education and financial aid — that’s the amount any contemplated incentive has to compete that resulted in fewer marriages, children and ultimately workers to the U.S. economy, that is, labor shortages.
Looking at other countries could be instructive. For example, Hungary is implementing a lifetime tax exemption for mothers with two or more children. But is that enough to turn Hungary’s 1.3 births per woman fertility rate? And is it the right policy? Stay-at-home mothers already work much less than their childless counterparts, and so they already pay less income tax. The benefits would be felt later in life when the children age and perhaps the mother wants to re-enter the labor force.
An alternative approach might be to front-load massive tax credits into a child’s earlier, pre-school years, for example, $40,000 per baby, with $20,000 upfront and $4,000 a year for each of the following five years. The idea would be to foster a baby boom. Additional consideration could be given to incentivizing marriage, say, an additional $10,000 upfront for married couples having new children.
That could reduce the overall cost, although it would still be costly, $450 billion for every 10 million new babies, assuming equal amounts of single and married households. On the other hand, babies who grow up and enter the workforce end up paying in excess of $50,000 on taxes throughout their careers, so it would end up paying for itself.
Whereas, the $5,000 subsidy per new baby — one of the proposals discussed in the New York Times piece — might not actually incentivize women to change their behavior. Which sounds like a better deal to you: $80,000 for college and you get a career, or $5,000 once (that might cover baby clothes, diapers and food for a year) and then you potentially struggle financially to take care of the child after that?
If the fertility rate gets back above 2 babies per woman, then the policy was successful. If it doesn’t, then the incentive was not big enough. That is, if you try to do it on the cheap it might not work and then you just end up subsidizing babies who would have been born anyway. Unfortunately, with a prospective policy such as this, you won’t know it’s not working until a few years in.
Robert Romano is the Executive Director of Americans for Limited Government Foundation.
