Secure Our Children Act¶
Policy Rationale¶
Published January 2026¶
Design Philosophy¶
The Secure Our Children Act rests on four foundational principles that distinguish it from previous child benefit expansions: the child-centered benefit, universality of contribution, adequacy of benefit, and durability of structure.
The Child-Centered Benefit¶
SOCA begins from a simple premise: the credit is for the child, not the parent. Children do not choose their parents. They do not choose their family's income level, employment status, or economic circumstances. A child born to billionaires did not earn that fortune; a child born into poverty did not cause that condition. Support for children should recognize this fundamental reality.
This principle has a concrete policy implication: SOCA provides the same benefit amount for every qualifying child regardless of parental income. There is no phase-out based on household earnings. Every child from birth through age 17 receives identical support: $3,600 annually for children under 6, $3,000 for children 6-17, plus the $2,000 Birth Support Payment.
Progressivity -- the principle that those with greater means should contribute more -- is handled entirely through the Child Security Contribution's rate structure. High-earning families are substantial net contributors to the program even while their children receive the same benefit as every other child. This design achieves progressivity without conditioning child support on parental circumstances.
Universality of Contribution¶
SOCA establishes that supporting the next generation is a shared national responsibility. Every American who earns income contributes to the Child Security Contribution -- not because children are a "burden" to be distributed, but because a society that invests in its children reaps collective returns in economic productivity, social stability, and democratic vitality. The contribution is universal but progressive: everyone participates, but those with greater means contribute proportionally more through the income-based kicker.
This represents a philosophical departure from general-revenue funding, which treats child benefits as discretionary spending competing with defense, infrastructure, and every other government priority. Instead, the Child Security Contribution creates a dedicated social compact: Americans contribute to child security throughout their working lives, and children receive support regardless of whether their parents happened to have earned income in any particular year.
Adequacy of Benefit¶
A child benefit that lifts children from deep poverty into less-deep poverty fails as policy and fails as politics. SOCA's benefit levels -- $3,600 for children under 6 and $3,000 for children 6-17 -- were calibrated to meaningfully improve family economic security, not merely to check a box. Combined with the $2,000 Birth Support Payment, SOCA provides support scaled to actual family costs during the most resource-intensive and economically vulnerable periods of child-rearing.
The age-differentiated structure reflects the research consensus that early childhood represents both the highest cost period (requiring intensive care, often with a parent reducing work) and the highest-return period for developmental investment. The Birth Support Payment addresses the acute income shock surrounding childbirth, when household earnings decline precisely as expenses increase.
Durability of Structure¶
The 2021 expanded child tax credit demonstrated what ambitious child policy could achieve -- and what happens when it expires. The one-year expansion reduced child poverty to historic lows; its expiration reversed those gains almost immediately. SOCA is designed from the outset for permanence.
The no-sunset provision is necessary but not sufficient. Permanence requires fiscal durability (dedicated funding that doesn't compete in annual appropriations battles), political durability (broad-based contribution creating stakeholder investment), and administrative durability (systems built for ongoing operation rather than emergency improvisation). The Child Security Contribution and automatic rate adjustment mechanism together create a self-sustaining structure that can weather political and economic cycles.
Problem Analysis¶
The Persistence of Child Poverty¶
The United States tolerates higher child poverty rates than virtually any peer nation. Before the 2021 expansion, approximately 10 million children lived in poverty, with over 3 million in deep poverty. The temporary expansion demonstrated these outcomes are not inevitable -- child poverty dropped by nearly half during the brief period of enhanced benefits. The policy choice to let the expansion expire was also a choice to accept the poverty rates that followed.
The pre-2021 child tax credit structure embodied a contradiction: it offered the least support to children in the poorest families. The earned income requirement meant families with little or no wage income -- including those with unemployed parents, parents caring for family members, parents with disabilities, and parents in deep poverty -- received reduced or zero benefits. The children most in need received the least help.
The Birth Income Shock¶
The period surrounding childbirth represents a distinct economic crisis for American families. Research documents average household income declines exceeding 10 percent during the birth month, with single mothers experiencing earnings drops of approximately 31 percent in surrounding months. This decline occurs precisely when expenses increase: medical costs, childcare needs, housing adjustments, and the thousand other costs of welcoming a new child.
Other developed nations address this shock through paid family leave, birth grants, or both. The United States lacks comprehensive paid leave and provides no birth-specific cash support. Families navigate the income-expense squeeze through savings drawdown (if available), debt accumulation, or going without. The stress falls hardest on lower-income families with fewer resources to buffer the shock.
The Fiscal Vulnerability of Child Policy¶
Child benefits funded from general revenue face relentless political pressure. Every budget cycle, child programs compete against politically powerful interests for limited discretionary resources. The result is chronic underfunding, arbitrary expirations, and policy instability that undermines program effectiveness and family planning.
The 2021 experience is instructive. Despite demonstrated poverty-reduction impact, the enhanced credit was not extended because competing budget priorities and deficit concerns prevailed. Children -- who do not vote, do not lobby, and do not make campaign contributions -- lost. A funding mechanism that removes child benefits from annual budget politics is essential to durability.
Alternatives Considered¶
Retained Earnings Requirement¶
One alternative would maintain some earned income requirement while reducing its harshness. SOCA rejects this approach because it perpetuates exclusion of the poorest children, imposes administrative burden with minimal anti-abuse value, and conflicts with the support rationale -- if child benefits exist because children need support, conditioning that support on parental earnings contradicts the policy's purpose.
General Revenue Funding¶
The pre-existing child tax credit was funded from general revenue, as was the 2021 expansion. SOCA rejects general revenue funding because it dooms the benefit to instability (every year, child benefits must be defended against competing priorities), fails to create stakeholder investment, and lacks transparency about what child security costs and delivers.
Income-Based Phase-Out¶
An earlier version of SOCA included income-based phase-out thresholds. SOCA eliminates the phase-out because the credit is for the child (not the parent), progressivity is achieved through the contribution side, phase-outs create marriage penalties and administrative complexity, and universal child benefits have proven political durability in international models.
Provision-by-Provision Rationale¶
Credit Amount and Age Structure¶
The $3,600/$3,000 amounts for young children versus older children reflect cost and developmental research. Child care costs are highest for children under 6, when parents face the work/care tradeoff most acutely. Developmental returns to investment are also highest in early childhood. These amounts were calibrated to provide meaningful poverty-reduction impact -- at $300 per month, a family with one young child receives support equivalent to approximately 15 percent of the federal poverty line.
Full Refundability Without Earnings Requirement¶
By making the credit fully refundable without regard to earned income, SOCA ensures every child receives support regardless of parental employment status. Many zero-earner families include caregivers, people with disabilities, people between jobs, and people in deep poverty who face barriers to employment. Their children are not served by exclusion. More fundamentally, the benefit goes to children, not parents.
Universal Benefit Without Phase-Out¶
SOCA provides the full credit amount to every qualifying child regardless of parental income. Every child under 6 receives $3,600; every child 6-17 receives $3,000. No calculations, no cliffs, no marriage penalty considerations. High-income families are net contributors to the program through the Child Security Contribution; they receive the same benefit for their children because children's worthiness of support does not depend on their parents' earnings.
Monthly Advance Payments¶
Lump-sum tax refunds fail to match the rhythm of family expenses. Rent is due monthly; groceries are purchased weekly. The 2021 experience demonstrated monthly payments are feasible and valued. Regular, predictable income allows family budgeting and reduces reliance on high-cost credit to bridge cash flow gaps.
Birth Support Payment¶
The $2,000 Birth Support Payment addresses the acute income shock surrounding childbirth. The advance payment option (up to 60 days before due date) allows families to prepare rather than scrambling afterward. The stillbirth and infant loss provisions reflect compassion -- families experiencing loss should not face financial injury added to emotional trauma.
Child Security Contribution Structure¶
The 1.50% base rate on all AGI plus 3.00% kicker above $500,000 ($1,000,000 joint) balances universal participation, progressivity, and revenue adequacy. Based on cost modeling, these rates generate approximately $270 billion annually against program costs of approximately $257 billion, providing full funding plus approximately 5% surplus for the Family Security Stabilization Account.
Automatic Rate Adjustment Mechanism¶
Programs that require routine Congressional action for basic maintenance become hostage to unrelated political dynamics. The two-year trigger prevents overreaction to single-year fluctuations while allowing timely response to sustained imbalances. The bounds (1.10%-1.90% base; 2.20%-3.80% kicker) permit approximately 25 percent adjustment in either direction before requiring Congressional intervention.
Separation from APSA¶
The strict separation between the Family Security Stabilization Account and the American Prosperity Contribution (funding APSA) is essential to both programs' political durability. Separate streams maintain clarity about who contributes what and who receives what from each program.
Addressing Concerns¶
"This Is a New Tax"¶
The Child Security Contribution is indeed a new levy. But dedicated funding provides stability, creates stakeholder investment, and forces honest accounting that general revenue funding cannot match. The contribution rate is modest -- at 1.50 percent, a median household earning $75,000 contributes about $1,125 annually, roughly equivalent to four months of the enhanced benefit for a single child.
"It Subsidizes Non-Work"¶
This concern rests on the assumption that adult behavior should determine child welfare. SOCA rejects this premise. Children do not choose their parents' employment status. Moreover, empirical evidence does not support significant work disincentives from unconditional child benefits -- international experience and the 2021 expanded credit produced no measurable reduction in employment.
"Why Should Wealthy Families Receive Child Benefits?"¶
A child born to wealthy parents did not choose those circumstances and is no less a child than one born into poverty. Moreover, wealthy families are massive net contributors to the program. A household earning $1,000,000 contributes $15,000-$60,000 while receiving $6,000 for two children. The program is deeply progressive even though every child receives the same benefit.
Conclusion¶
SOCA represents a deliberate architectural choice: to build child benefit policy on a foundation capable of bearing permanent weight. The combination of adequate benefits, universal contribution, and self-stabilizing funding mechanisms creates a structure that can endure political and economic cycles without constant reconstruction.
The alternative is the status quo -- periodic expansions followed by expirations, political battles every budget cycle, and outcomes that treat millions of children as acceptable casualties of political dysfunction. SOCA offers a different path: a national commitment to child security, funded through shared responsibility, designed for permanence, and extended to every child equally because every child deserves no less.
Prepared by: Albert E. Ramos Director, The American Policy Architecture Institute
Contact: info@policyarchitecture.org Website: www.policyarchitecture.org