A Progressive Framework for Family Policy: Reducing Costs for What Matters Most (Part II)
This is Part Two of that two-part set of posts. Part I on daycare abundance was last week and you can find it here. This is about five other policy ideas outside of daycare that can make raising children more affordable.
Single-stair Reform and Family Style Apartments
Building codes that mandate two staircases in residential buildings over three stories have quietly become one of America's most significant barriers to family-suitable housing. This requirement forces the ubiquitous "double-loaded corridor" design (a hallway with units on either side) which works for hotels but fails families.
Unlike countries like France (16 stories), Norway (8 stories), and many others that permit single-stair buildings at much greater heights, our requirements drastically limit what can be built, especially on the small urban lots where housing is needed most.
This may seem like a purely technical thing but it isn’t. Allowing apartment buildings to have only one staircase (conditional on other fire safety measures) would create tremendous benefits for families. Point-access buildings, or single-stair apartments, enable better ventilation and natural light, more diverse unit layouts catering to family needs (like having a master bedroom with two smaller children's rooms), and eliminate wasted corridor space that drives up costs. Most crucially, single-stair buildings make previously "unbuildable" small or irregular lots viable for development.
This isn't about compromising safety. It bears repeating that no one is calling for buildings that are not fire-safe, but there’s more than one way to do fire safety, as point access block buildings around the world and in Seattle show. Notably too, this reform especially benefits small-scale developers who can create "missing middle" housing in established neighborhoods with good schools and amenities.
For Democrats serious about affordability, single-stair reform represents a promising approach. It reduces unnecessary regulation to create more housing options while letting families decide what works for them. By enabling more gentle density where people want to live, we can help families find suitable homes without pushing them out of where they would like to live. That's policy that genuinely values families in both word and deed.
Urban Families Need Safe Cities
For families, public safety and accessible transit aren't just quality-of-life matters; they're fundamental cost-of-living issues. When neighborhoods become unsafe or transit systems deteriorate, families face impossible choices and higher costs.
Democratic-run cities must reject this destructive false choice between compassion and order. The far left’s defund-the-police idea fails families spectacularly. Parents cannot raise children in neighborhoods where people are doing hard drugs, where brazen shoplifting goes unpunished, where there’s graffiti everywhere, or where transit systems become de facto homeless shelters. These conditions don't just diminish quality of life, they create a hidden tax on families forced to pay a premium just to live somewhere functional.
The New Yorker had a poignant cover on this, echoing a viral thread from January. Democrats should takeNicole’s challenge seriously and adopt the opposite approach of Ian’s.
Democrats must embrace what most Americans already know: functional cities require both effective policing, safe public spaces, and functional transit. There's nothing progressive about allowing disorder that drives working families from our cities.
When we fail at these basics, we effectively price families out, forcing them into expensive inner suburbs or lengthy commutes from further out.
Urban progressives should measure success not by ideological purity tests but by whether families of moderate means can live safely in our cities. That means rejecting both the right’s war on cities and the absolutist voices on the left who dismiss normal people’s frustration when urban life becomes disordered.
Expanded Child Tax Credit
The debate around childcare and family structure has become unnecessarily polarized. Polling reveals a striking truth: American families haveremarkably diverse preferences for balancing work and childcare. Some prefer one parent at home full-time; others want both parents working with paid childcare; many want hybrid arrangements using part-time work and family care.
Given this diversity, versatile policies that can help families across these different arrangements are very much to the good. An expanded, refundable child tax credit (CTC) does exactly that by providing direct financial support while remaining neutral on family structure. By supporting family choice rather than dictating family structure, we avoid needless culture war battles while delivering real economic relief.
The temporary 2021 CTC expansion under the American Rescue Plan proved this approach works. By increasing the credit to $3,600 for children under six and making it fully refundable, the policy lifted more than two million children out of poverty. Research shows such expansions also improve health outcomes and future earnings potential. That has unfortunately expired but redoing even some of that could be very helpful. Increasing the CTC by $500 for children under six would cost about $15 billion per year.
Patrick T. Brown has floated another good idea that Democrats should consider. We could make reforms to refundability calculations, such as changing the phase-in rate to per-child rather than per-tax-unit, allowing the credit to start with the first dollar earned, and removing artificial caps on refundable amounts. These changes would cost roughly $9 billion while preserving work requirements and primarily benefiting moderate-income families earning $10,000-$30,000.
Baby Bonus
Over at Niskanen, Leah Libresco Sargeant recently wrote a terrific report on baby bonuses. This is an idea that Democrats should pick up and run with. In an era of declining birth rates and increasing costs, America needs a practical approach to support families during the critical first year of a child's life. A baby bonus (a one-time payment of $2,000 delivered shortly after birth) would be a direct way to help families navigate the substantial financial shock that comes with welcoming a new child.
Unlike the CTC, which parents cannot claim until the following tax season, a baby bonus provides immediate support when families need it most. The timing is crucial. Studies show household income drops significantly right around birth, creating a perfect storm of increased expenses and decreased earnings precisely when parents are least equipped to handle it.
A universal baby bonus would cost approximately $7.7 billion annually, a modest investment compared to other programs and compared to benefits delivered. A version with a gentle phase-in (20% starting from the first dollar earned, reaching the full benefit at $10,000 of earnings) would cost even less at $5.3 billion. Either approach would provide a critical floor of support for all families while remaining budget-conscious.
This approach has been tested successfully in peer nations like Australia and New Zealand, where baby bonuses have complemented other family benefits for over two decades. These countries found that universal benefits allow parents flexibility to use funds where they need it the most, whether for baby supplies, housing expenses, or effectively creating their own paid family leave when none is available.
For families ineligible for existing paid leave programs or who cannot afford to take unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a baby bonus becomes particularly valuable. It helps students, caregivers transitioning back to work, and those in jobs without leave benefits to prioritize those critical first months with their newborn without facing financial catastrophe.
A baby bonus isn't just good fiscal policy. It's a powerful signal that America values families and recognizes the challenges of modern parenthood. It's a promise that when parents take on the responsibility of bringing a new child into the world, they won't face that journey alone.
Parental Leave
While the CTC expansion and baby bonus would benefit all families, the reality remains that many American workers face impossible choices after welcoming a child. 70% of fathers return to work mere days after childbirth, primarily out of financial necessity. A targeted paid parental leave program provides a solution that addresses this problem without breaking the bank.
A narrowly focused approach concentrating on low-income families (those below 325% of the federal poverty level) delivers the most benefit where it's needed most. At approximately $4.3 billion annually, this plan costs less than 0.1% of federal outlays while providing critical support to those least likely to have employer-provided paid leave.
This approach recognizes a fundamental reality: workers in the bottom wage quartile have dramatically less access to paid family leave (only 6% vs. 24% in the top quartile). The graduated benefit structure would provide 80% wage replacement for the lowest-income households while gradually phasing out benefits ensures support goes to those who truly cannot afford unpaid time off. It's precisely this kind of balanced, socially moderate approach that can win bipartisan support while making a meaningful difference in the lives of working families who need it most.
We Have This, Trump Has Atrocious Budget Cuts
Between these two parts, I’ve laid out ten Pro-Family reforms Democrats should embrace:
1) Zoning Reform for Daycares
2) Tax Credits for Childcare
3) Occupational Licensing Reform for Childcare
4) More Au Pairs
5) Small Reforms to Child-Teacher Ratio Requirements
6) Single-Stair
7) Safe, Usable Public Spaces
8) Expanded CTC
9) Baby Bonus
10) Targeted Paid Parental Leave
The progressive framework for family policy I've outlined is anchored in core American values: humans are good, children are good, families are good. These aren't hollow platitudes but guiding principles for policy that helps families thrive. Each proposal, from single-stair housing reform to targeted paid leave, represents a strategic, optimistic, fiscally responsible investment in America's families.
This approach stands in stark contrast to the President's budget proposals. While he claims to champion families, he is advocating for massive cuts to programs that help families. He wants to cut Section 8 housing vouchers. His tariffs are making essentials for babies -and much else- more expensive. He has fired everyone at the Low Income Heating Assistance Program. These are just three of many possible examples. These cuts would devastate the very infrastructure families rely on: safe neighborhoods, good schools, reliable transit, and affordable housing. Such measures force impossible choices on parents, effectively taxing family formation by making it financially unsustainable for many.
True family policy doesn't just pay lip service to family values while pulling the rug out from under parents. It recognizes that strategic investments in family wellbeing yield tremendous returns, not just in dollars and cents, but in the flourishing of the next generation. A progressive abundance agenda makes raising children easier and more affordable, allowing more Americans to form the families they hope for. That's not just good policy; it's good values in action.
-GW