jump to navigation

Pelosi vs. …..well, Moi, on Childcare Reform November 18, 2011

Posted by geoff in News.
trackback

Princess Nancy, having thoroughly mucked up healthcare, turns her attention to childcare:

Of the need for child-care legislation, she says, “I could never get a babysitter — have five kids in six years and no one wants to come to your house. . . . And everywhere I go, women say the same thing” about how hard it is to find the kind of reliable care that would make their family lives calmer and work lives more productive. When it comes to “unleashing women” in a way that would boost the economy, she says, “this is a missing link.”

Naturally this will require expansion of government’s budget, staffing, and intrusion into the private sector.

But let’s put aside the blatant sexism of Pelosi’s presumption that only women care about, and are affected by, childcare. And let’s ignore the fact that men have suffered much larger unemployment rates than women in this recession, so it’s “unleashing men” that should concern us. No, let’s take her statement at face value and look at how the government can help its citizens with childcare problems.

First, the problem I’ve seen is not finding “reliable care,” it’s finding “reliable, affordable care.” To make childcare more affordable, we can simply increase the maximum tax credit for those with lower adjusted gross incomes. The maximum credit is currently 35% of childcare expenses, so let’s bump that up to 50%. We can always increase it again later if that’s not enough.

Voila – easily implemented, no government expansion, existing childcare businesses aren’t threatened, and the cost to taxpayers will likely be lower.

But wait, there’s more.


School hours have been one of my longstanding pet peeves. Look, the standard working day is 8am to 5pm. I think it’s obvious that in a sane system, school hours should be based around the standard work day. That means that school hours should be something like 7:30am to 5:30pm, allowing parents to easily drop their kids off and pick them up.

Is that not obvious? I don’t know how the current silliness ever got started, but I suspect it had something to do with rural kids needing to get home to do chores. Not particularly relevant, these days.

Consider the additional benefits:

  • No more latchkey children (i.e., reduced risk of kids getting into trouble)
  • Reduces TV/video game time at home
  • Some additional time can be spent on supervised play or athletics, cutting down child obesity and getting the wiggles out of the kids so that they are more attentive in class
  • Kids can do their homework at school, with teachers at hand, which means:
    • No more schlepping books back and forth
    • No more forgotten assignments
    • No more leaving completed assignments at home
  • No mo smarty-pants lauras noticing my poor editing

Obviously teachers may not enjoy the notion of a 10 hour day, but it’s entirely possible that managing the hours It’s also not unusual in other industries for people who have long breaks from their job (like summer vacation) to pull extended hours while they’re working. this should help them reduce the amount of work they do at home, and I’d be willing to bump their pay up a bit, since my productivity will have been improved (hey, Nancy said that would happen).

And once again, no new government programs or agencies.

Comments»

1. Michael - November 18, 2011

I’ve often wondered why the most powerful union in America represents people who only have a part-time job, and expect to be tenured.

2. joe buzz - November 18, 2011

If she was the least bit connected with her community and or god forbid a church, she would have no trouble at all finding reliable, affordable child care. But, I guess that is far too out there for someone like SanFranNan.

3. daveintexas - November 18, 2011

Mom could stay home with em.

4. lauraw - November 18, 2011

No mo? But I like mo.

5. xbradtc - November 18, 2011

There used to be a very reliable source of child care…

Parents.

6. geoff - November 18, 2011

No mo? But I like mo.

Fixed it, more or less.

7. lauraw - November 18, 2011

Heee heeeheee

8. Lipstick - November 19, 2011

Here’s an idea: Don’t have kids until you can afford to have mom stay home and raise them.

9. daveintexas - November 19, 2011

We couldn’t afford that, but we did it anyway.

10. geoff - November 19, 2011

Don’t have kids until you can afford to have mom stay home and raise them.

*snicker* You have no idea how much kids cost, do you. If we didn’t have two incomes, there’s no way we could have done it.

11. kevl - November 19, 2011

I’m with Lips and Dave on this one. I had my kids and stayed home with them for over ten years. Eventually I worked nights and weekends teaching classes and Mr Kevlar was home with the chitlins.

Money was tight, but we did just fine. It has nothing to do with luck; we planned it that way. Kids aren’t really that expensive when you’re not paying for daycare.

12. Anonymous - November 19, 2011

Teachers may not enjoy a 10 hour day?

What about the kids? Last time I checked, public schools are the biggest drone-producing government machines in the country.

13. daveintexas - November 19, 2011

If you think about it, expanding school time is also expanding government, just a different version than childcare.

Mrs. Dave stayed home with the kids until school age for youngest, and after that she taught school (again) so youngest could go and come with her. When I look back on it, we were dirt poor but it worked and we were pretty happy about the whole thing.

14. geoff - November 19, 2011

Last time I checked, public schools are the biggest drone-producing government machines in the country.

Yes, but the additional time would be spent in exercise and homework, minimizing the negative impacts.

If you think about it, expanding school time is also expanding government, just a different version than childcare.

It’s expanding the budget, but that happens on a local level. There are no new agencies and no impact on the federal budget. Unlike federal daycare centers or an agency to administer federal payments to recipients.

Money was tight, but we did just fine. It has nothing to do with luck; we planned it that way. Kids aren’t really that expensive when you’re not paying for daycare.

I dunno – they’re both about $1K/month right now, and neither of them are in daycare. And now that my son is getting his permit, we can expect a healthy boost in insurance premiums. When they were little and needed daycare we sent them to Montessori school – that was $600 – $750/month. My wife was bringing in about twice that in take home pay, and we were still scrounging.

Of course, we lived in SoCal at the time, so everything was pretty expensive.

15. kevl - November 19, 2011

Well I can’t agree with keeping them in school ten hours a day, but I certainly understand that kids cost money.

It’s not easy no matter what route you take, and it never really ends.

16. Mrs. Peel - November 19, 2011

Don’t have kids until you can afford to have mom stay home and raise them

Well, there’s only the one 100% effective method of birth control, and it’s not practical when you’re married. I used it for 28 years and it worked just fine; I stopped using it for 3 days and got pregnant. Sometimes it works like that.

We could make it, just barely, on one income, but that income would be mine. I did suggest that Will consider being a SAHD, but he didn’t care for the idea. Some men don’t.

I see where geoff is coming from, but I would have hated having to stay at school another two hours. School was pretty horrible for me. And I couldn’t have finished my homework in the extra two hours, either; I generally had 5-6 hours/day and 20 hours/weekend of homework.

17. kevl - November 19, 2011

That’s too much homeworks. Yikes.

18. daveintexas - November 19, 2011

>> It’s expanding the budget, but that happens on a local level. There are no new agencies and no impact on the federal budget. Unlike federal daycare centers or an agency to administer federal payments to recipients.

Maybe in Colorado. Every where else in the 56 states there are dollars that flow from the feds to school districts. I see no reason to welcome expansion of that, particularly if it involves meals and SEIU workers.

19. OBF - November 19, 2011

“Children are an heritage of the Lord. Blessed is the man that hath his quiver full.”

Best advice I ever got on raising children was to love one end and change the other. It didn’t take long to figure out which end was which.

Snookie-poo stayed home to be a mom. There is no way I will ever be able to repay her for her sacrifices in this life and probably not in the next one either….but it going to be fun trying!

20. OBF - November 19, 2011

Sorry about my typos – fat fingers and a dull mind.

21. kevl - November 19, 2011

That Bible and its phallic symbols. Sheesh.

22. geoff - November 20, 2011

Every where else in the 56 states there are dollars that flow from the feds to school districts.

Feh. The federal contribution went from 3% of school budgets pre-NCLB to 8% post-NCLB. Not really significant. Most people make a big deal about federal spending in schools, but it’s not that important.

Not that anybody’s willing to part with it, of course.

I think we should make it clear to the teachers’ union, though, that if they abandon the NCLB testing criteria, they abandon the federal funding as well. That should slow them down a bit.

23. daveintexas - November 20, 2011

My quiver is full too.

24. Retired Geezer - November 20, 2011

My quiver is full of water too.

FIFY


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: