Trump's Spending Bill Includes $1,000 Baby Bond Scheme Called 'Maga Accounts' - Something Democrats Proposed During Last Administration

When the child turns 18 they can use the money and interest accrued for education, buying a home, or starting a business.

As part of President Trump’s “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” included is a proposed measure that would establish a “MAGA Account” for children, otherwise known as Baby Bonds.

The is proposal is officially called "Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement." The idea is to essentially give every U.S. citizen child born between January 1st, 2025, and December 31st, 2028, a $1,000 government-funded investment account at their birth. The funds would be invested in low-cost index funds. Families are limited to investing $5,000 annually. When the child turns 18 they can use the money and interest accrued for education, buying a home, or starting a business. Withdrawals for non-approved purposes before age 30 would incur income tax and a 10% penalty.

The idea was pitched by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who told Semafor earlier this month:

“The case I made to my colleagues is: We should ask ourselves in this bill, what will be the legacy that people will remember and talk about 10 years from now, 20, 30, 40 years from now?” This would create accounts for “every child born in America to help them begin the journey of savings and benefit from the wonders of compound interest,” he added.

Interestingly enough, this is a similar scheme Democrats proposed during the Biden-Harris administration in 2023, The WinePress reported at the time. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker (D) and Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley introduced their Baby Bond program, and included Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The bill was called The American Opportunity Accounts Act, which basically proposes that the federal government will provide a $1,000 check in the form of a bond in the newborn’s name, adding $2,000 to each child’s name annually until they are 18, with 3% interest earned each year as well. However, the lowest income earning families would receive $2,000 for each child and the denomination will increase all the way down to zero if a family begins to earn more or too much.

When it’s all said and done, a child who received the full amount would have accumulated a little over $46,000 that could be redeemed, which those reps and senators backing that 2023 bill believed would help children from low-income families get a jumpstart into adulthood, and get their foot in the door for low-cost housing and education.

The bond brackets in the bill

However, Dean Karayanis of the New York Sun explained why he thinks that bill was flawed and is not addressing the current inflationary problems:

Why not confront the larger problem instead of making children wait 18 years for relief as inflation eats away at their bonds’ value? It’s because tax reform isn’t a sexy topic for politicians, but showing up with a check in the maternity ward makes them heroes.

Ms. Pressley’s statement cited the legislation’s “common sense reforms to federal estate and inheritance taxes, including restoring the estate tax to 2009 levels.” It’s clever political rhetoric, but if the bonds’ wisdom is self-evident, why must those with means be compelled to fund them?

From time immemorial, the common-sense thing has been that parents get to decide where they bequeath the fruits of a lifetime spent working to build something for the next generation. The government stepping in to seize a portion of their wealth isn’t “reform,” it’s robbery.

If the bill passes into law and a family farmer wishes to pass on the land to his children, the government will step in to ensure some of that nest egg is shunted off to the children of others. This will only incentivize them to safeguard their wealth, since human beings are dynamic.

When the wealthy don’t sit still and pay the higher tax rate, Ms. Pressley’s description of the Baby Bonds as “paid for” will ring hollow, leaving taxpayers — as with so many similar programs in the past — on the hook to make up the shortfall long after the signing ceremony at the White House ends with the dolling out of ceremonial pens.

Although reducing the wealth gap and expanding opportunity are worthy goals, choosing to offer relief to a select group two decades from now is more political stunt than panacea. If the tax code is the problem, Congress has the power to change it for everyone today, but unlike Baby Bonds, that wouldn’t make Big Government the hand that rocks the cradle.

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

The reason I even bothered to bring this up is because, once again, if Democrats do it then it’s evil and terrible, but when Republicans and Trump say it then it’s amazing. It’s just like that executive order Trump signed to implement price controls on drugs, an identical practice Kamala Harris campaigned on.

Trump Implements Price Controls On Pharmaceuticals - A Similar Policy Kamala Harris Campaigned On, That Everyone Called "Communist"

As I said on Monday, this is why the country is doomed because the script can be flipped on a whim and the masses will just go along with it. Made to love something one minute and then hate it the next. Incredible.

For obvious reasons, this would be inflationary. The Treasury would have borrow money from the Federal Reserve, the money creators, and they would then buy that debt to keep bond yields from spiking, and from that new fake money is created, digits on a screen.

Psalm 10:7 His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.

I also have to wonder that with this administration moving the nation to embrace cryptocurrencies and tokenization, this scheme could involve these accounts being tethered to stablecoins and are only accessible from some special crypto wallet or digital wallet. Just a theory.

---

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.