House Republicans, intent on increasing work requirements for assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and promoting marriage, have devised a new definition for “dependent child.” Currently, an adult has a dependent child if that child is under 18 years of age. Under the new proposed House definition for SNAP, once that child turns seven—usually someone in second grade—they could no longer be considered a dependent, with one exception.

The new House proposal also adds ten years to the time when the adult needs to continue working in order to receive SNAP benefits, from 54 to 64 years of age. However, it removes the work requirement if the adult with the dependent child is married and lives with someone who already complies with the new regulations. Unmarried couples with a child would not qualify for the exemption.

The new proposal would be part of Republicans’ legislation that would provide $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, largely benefiting the wealthy.

READ MORE: GOP ‘Voucher Scheme for the Wealthy’ Would Hand $5 Billion to Religious, Private Schools

The new bill refers to work requirements for “Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents,” or ABAWD. It reads:

“Specifically, this section would increase the age with which ABAWDs must continue working to qualify for SNAP to 64 (up from 54 currently); it changes the generic, functional definition of ‘dependent child’ for ABAWD purposes from under 18 years of age to under 7; and it carves out an exception to the work requirements for a person responsible for a child 7 years of age or older who is married and resides with an individual who complies with the SNAP work requirements.”

An April 30 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reveals that the GOP’s proposal “could take food away from millions of people in low-income households who are struggling to find steady work or who face substantial barriers to employment, including families with children.”

That report also notes that “the people who would be newly at risk of losing food assistance under the Johnson proposal include…1.4 million older adults aged 55 through 64 without children in their homes,” “More than 3 million adults who live with school-aged children,” “Veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and young people who have aged out of foster care,” and, “About 1.6 million people living in areas without enough jobs.”

The move also comes as states lower or remove protections for child workers.

Last year, the Center for American Progress published a report titled, “Project 2025 Would Exploit Child Labor by Allowing Minors To Work in Dangerous Conditions With Fewer Protections.”

READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’

Image via Reuters

Speaker Mike Johnson’s House Republicans want to insert a provision into their massive tax cuts bill that would create a system to hand private and religious schools $5 billion annually and wealthy donors yet another tax break.

Calling it an “unprecedented effort to use public money to pay for private education,” the Associated Press reports that it “would advance President Donald Trump’s agenda of establishing ‘universal school choice’ by providing families nationwide the option to give their children an education different from the one offered in their local public school.”

If enacted, the system would provide a vehicle for donors to donate cash or stocks, then receive full value via a tax credit —”100% of the contribution back in the form of a discount on their tax bills,” according to the AP. “It would allow stock holders to avoid paying taxes that would be levied if they donated or transferred the stock.”

READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’

Samantha Jacoby, Deputy Director of Federal Tax Policy with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities described it as “a new federal tax credit to subsidize private school vouchers — effectively the first nationwide voucher program.” She called it “a costly tax break for the wealthy [with] an egregious capital gains tax loophole.”

Jacoby added, “this is a much more generous tax break than the existing charitable deduction. The max benefit from the deduction is 37 cents per $ donated, but the voucher credit would make taxpayers fully whole; i.e., the federal government pays the full cost of the vouchers.”

Critics are blasting the proposal.

“Voters have never approved vouchers in any state,” noted public education advocate Mike DeGuire, Ph.D. “Now the Republican-led Congress wants to spend billions to gut public education with their voucher scheme for the wealthy.”

“Trump and his cronies want [to] kick 9 million vulnerable people off Medicaid to pay for (1) tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and (2) $5 BILLION to send to religious schools that are unaccountable to taxpayers,” observed constitutional attorney Andrew L. Seidel, a vice president at Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In 2019, then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos proposed a similar program, Education Freedom Scholarships, which was met with opposition by Democrats.

Then-U.S. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) called it “a shell game to fund private and religious schools and their providers using taxpayers as the middleman.”

READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections

Image via Shutterstock

Nearly two-thirds of Americans aren’t having babies due to the economy, according to a new poll.

According to a Harris-Guardian poll, many Americans are deciding against having children, with 65% saying that they’ve decided against having children because they’re worried about the economy and doubt they could afford it.

The poll also asked about other regular life milestones. Americans are also holding off on getting married (60%), buying a house (75%) or pursuing higher education (61%). It’s not just major events, either—65% said the cost of living had only gotten higher since January, and half said they were having difficulty paying for regular living expenses.

READ MORE: Nikki Haley: Frozen Embryos Are ‘Babies’

A majority of adults, 52%, blamed either tariffs (29%) or other government policies (23%) for causing their household economic woes. Only 4% blamed themselves, with another 6% blaming employers; 16% blamed something altogether different. The only group that largely felt the economy was getting better was Republicans; 33% said it was getting worse, compared to 73% of Democrats and 64% of independents.

The survey of 2,102 adult Americans was conducted between April 24-26. The margin of error is 2.5%.

America’s birth rate has been declining since the 1950s, barring a small bump between 1978 and 1988, according to Macrotrends. In the last 40 years, the number of live births has fallen from a peak of 15.5 live births per 1,000 people in 1988 to 12.01 births in 2024.

The Trump administration has urged Americans to have more children. In April, President Donald Trump floated the idea of giving out a “baby bonus” of $5,000 to new parents, according to CBS News.

While not as generous, the House GOP’s first draft of the budget includes $1,000 to be placed in “MAGA accounts” for new babies, according to Raw Story. The $1,000 could come in handy for new parents—but a May 9 report from CBS estimates Trump’s tariffs have added $1,000 to the cost of raising a child. (This does not take into account Monday’s announcement of reduced tariffs on Chinese goods.)

Declining birth rates could lead to an imbalance of demographics. As Americans get older, there are fewer young people to fill their shoes in the workplace. Fewer workers means lower tax revenue, and aging typically means an increase in health care costs, as Mike Walden, Reynolds Distinguished Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University, points out.

It’s not all downsides, however. Walden says lower birth rates could also lessen competition for good housing. It could also lead to less traffic congestion, less waste and more land for food production.

Image via Shutterstock