Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, October 10, 2021

President Biden's social policy legislation aims to address a problem that weighs on many families - and the teachers and child care centers serving them. To understand the problems Democrats hope to solve with their supersized plan to make child care better and more affordable, ... many parents spend more for care than they do for mortgages, yet teachers get paid like fast food workers and centers cannot hire enough staff.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Until their elder son started kindergarten this fall, Jessica and Matt Lolley paid almost $2,000 a month for their two boys' care - roughly a third of their income and far more than their payments on their three-bedroom house. But one of the teachers who watched the boys earns so little - $10 an hour - that she spends half her time working at Starbucks, where the pay is 50 percent higher and includes health insurance.

Democrats describe the problem as a fundamental market failure " it simply costs more to provide care than many families can afford " and are pushing an unusually ambitious plan to bridge the gap with federal subsidies.

The huge social policy bill being pushed by President Biden would cap families' child care expenses at 7 percent of their income, offer large subsidies to child care centers, and require the centers to raise wages in hopes of improving teacher quality. A version before the House would cost $250 billion over a decade and raise annual spending fivefold or more within a few years. An additional $200 billion would provide universal prekindergarten.

"This would be the biggest investment in the history of child care," said Stephanie Schmit, a child care expert at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a research group that supports the measure. "For too long, parents have had to struggle with the high cost of care, while child care providers have been incredibly undervalued and underpaid. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do right for everyone."

As Democrats describe it, child care is an issue not just of family finance but of macroeconomics (parents need it to join the work force); brain development (much of which happens before children start school); and racial equity (the low-paid work force is disproportionately composed of minorities).

And Republicans universally oppose these efforts by touting their usual false troika of boogeymen; socialism, regulation, and inflation. Yet again - mainly due to Republican recalcitrance - the United States finds itself near the bottom of countries who support young child care.
In the developed world, the United States is an outlier in its low levels of financial support for young children's care - something Democrats, with their safety net spending bill, are trying to change. The U.S. spends 0.2 percent of its G.D.P. on child care for children 2 and under - which amounts to about $200 a year for most families, in the form of a once-a-year tax credit for parents who pay for care.

The other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development spend an average of 0.7 percent of G.D.P. on toddlers, mainly through heavily subsidized child care. Denmark, for example, spends $23,140 annually per child on care for children 2 and under.

www.nytimes.com

Just another example of US exceptionalism at the wrong end of the metrics. And be sure to thank a Republican for keeping us there while cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires continues to be their main obsessive focus.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-10-10 10:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

All the usual dopes whine about people not going back to work - well, this is one thing that's stopping them.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-10-10 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Wives stay home. Husband's work. Republican 101.

It's not a problem for traditional family's with one breadwinner. Make the bosses pay more so mom's can stay home where they belong.

Simple, it's greedy capitalism's problem. Women with kids need to take care of them.Make the corporations pay more so families can be intact like it was in the good old days.

#3 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-10-10 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Boo-tober:
www.youtube.com

#4 | Posted by LesWit at 2021-10-11 02:36 AM | Reply

It's not the governments job to try and solve every needy problem of the people.

#5 | Posted by boaz at 2021-10-11 09:53 AM | Reply

It's not the governments job to try and solve every needy problem of the people.

#5 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2021-10-11 09:53 AM | FLAG: PPPPFFFFTTTTT

You never earned a nickel without government assistance and you know it Boazo.

You were hired to protect us and yet you didn't protect us from a few Arabs with box cutters and pair of trillion-dollar wars lost in the aftermath. All that chest-thumping for nothing.

Obviously, you didn't do your jobs well enough and all the while you still drew a paycheck with benefits.

Ironically you still do.


#6 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2021-10-11 11:34 AM | Reply

I'll show you the math

If (both spouses income-childcare) >= single spouse income, you continue to pay for childcare. If a single spouse income is higher, then one parent stays home and one works

This isn't really a difficult choice. Matt and Jessica made a rational choice based on multiple factors, including the well-being of their children and their financial status.

It sounds to me like the argument is that it's unfair for them to have to spend that money on their children, when they could be spending it on something else.

Maybe a better answer, a more European answer, would be to let parents deduct a portion of their childcare from their taxes, as well as using the EITC to go towards paying for family childcare.

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-10-11 11:35 AM | Reply

"It's not the governments job to try and solve every needy problem of the people."

The government can solve it. They just have to do it in a way that retains the moral hazards associated with implementing new social programs. Taxpayers don't need to be on the hook for providing day care for an LDS family that wants to have ten kids.

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-10-11 11:37 AM | Reply

It's not the governments job to try and solve every needy problem of the people.
#5 | POSTED BY BOAZ

This is where you say charity should step up.

But charity hasn't stepped up.

It sure seems like your only way of solving problems is saying they aren't your problems,
your government's problems, or your charity's problems.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-11 11:46 AM | Reply

"This is where you say charity should step up."

Charity is for people in need.

Making $72k a year doesn't suggest that these people fit that description.

#10 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-10-11 12:03 PM | Reply

I pay $37k a year in rent, $6k a year in electricity, and ~$3k for heating oil.

Should someone be helping me out?

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-10-11 12:05 PM | Reply

As a side, my wife didn't work as a teacher when the kids were little. The amount of money she would have made would have provided a net gain of less than $1k per month after childcare costs. It was more value added for her to stay with the kids.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-10-11 12:07 PM | Reply

"Should someone be helping me out?"

Uncle Sam already steals from the taxpayers at gunpoint to help you out.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-11 12:14 PM | Reply

"Charity is for people in need.
Making $72k a year doesn't suggest that these people fit that description."

Fair point.
So is there no need at all then?

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-11 12:17 PM | Reply

"Uncle Sam already steals from the taxpayers at gunpoint to help you out."

Helping me out?

Paying my salary is helping me out?

Helping me out would be giving me something without me giving anything in return.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-10-11 02:50 PM | Reply

"Paying my salary is helping me out?"

You don't find your voluntary employment, funded by taxpayers held at gunpoint, to be helpful?

The simple fact that you voluntarily entered into such an economic contracts clearly indicates that you do find it to be beneficial. Helpful, even. There would be no other reason for you as a rational economic actor to do so.

The alternative is your economic philosophy is bunk. Which it usually is, but probably not here.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-11 03:30 PM | Reply

"You don't find your voluntary employment, funded by taxpayers held at gunpoint, to be helpful?"

No, it's not helpful.

Helpful would be the government taking money at gunpoint and giving it to me without asking anything in return.

Just like helpful would be going in to work every day and not asking anything from the taxpayers in return for that work.

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-10-11 03:44 PM | Reply

"The alternative is your economic philosophy is bunk."

Economics is not a philosophy. Which means that I can't have an economic philosophy.

You too much conflate Marx with economics.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-10-11 03:45 PM | Reply

Economics is no hard science. How one reads the same data is philosophical. The conclusions drawn vary with outlook.

You know better madbummmer.

#19 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-10-11 10:31 PM | Reply

Can democracy survive in a society where you spend less money by staying home and raising your children instead of paying someone else to care for them while you work?

#20 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-10-12 12:34 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort