Warren, Progressives And Childcare – Do They All Hate Their Own Children?

4
934

Elizabeth Warren is suggesting that all Americans would like to be able to send their children off to be cared for by someone else. So much so that they’d like the Federal government to make it so. So much so much so that they’d like all to be poorer to make it so. Someone really does need to study the relationships progressives have with their own children, don’t they? For there are some people who quite like having their own children around rather than farming them out to someone poorer and darker to take care of.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren is set to release a sweeping universal child care plan on Tuesday that would guarantee child care from birth until the time children enter school.

It simply surprises that there is such a general insistence. As above, some people quite like their own children. So much so that some even give up their jobs, careers, in order to have and raise them.

No, voluntarily.

To some degree, child care is a bipartisan issue, although some voters may balk at the size and cost of Warren’s proposal. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump offered up child care plans during the 2016 election.

I’m unconvinced it should be a bipartisan issue. Whether or not to have children is a choice these days. People should carry the costs of their choices. It isn’t true that everyone else should be forced to pay the cost of your choices either.

Thus, children means childcare costs, OK. Well, who should bear those costs? The parents, obviously enough, they’re the ones blessed with the children. They’re also the only people with either the information or the motivation to work out whether outside childcare is the solution or one or other of them not going to work is.

Then of course Warren’s plan becomes truly scary:

According to Warren’s campaign, her child care proposal would create a federal program that establishes a network of public and family-run centers.

The Feds are going to, centrally, open a national network? For kiddy care we want what, 10 to 50 inmates, no more. They want this to cover 12 million brats. And one central office in Washington DC is going to do this? In a nation of 320 million people? For that is how I read “public center”. They’re not just talking about a voucher to cash at anywhere registered. They’re really thinking of government run outposts across the nation.

Imagine day care being offered as the US Post Office does customer satisfaction. That is scary, isn’t it?

4
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
thammondThruppennybitJonathan HarstonRhoda Klapp Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation
expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

That’s the tenth amendment, which AFAIK has not been repealed. It is however ‘more honoured in the breach than the observance.’

Jonathan Harston
Guest
Jonathan Harston

They’re aspiring to be a nation of toffs who farm their kids off to boarding school, and winding it all the way down to birth. Push, push, wah! thanks ma’m, you’ll see them again in 18 years. Didn’t I read a novel along these lines?

Thruppennybit
Guest
Thruppennybit

Seems a bit futile to be planning this when they know the babies (along with everyone else) will all be dead in 12 years.
Or is she and her friend AOC exaggerating about the “climate catastrophe”? Surely not.

thammond
Guest
thammond

The simple, basic problem is that the simple, basic maths can never work. To pay for child-care you need to pay pre-tax salary from post-tax salary. That can only work if either you earn a lot more than a pre-tax salary in childcare, or you share childcare with a largish number of others. But the latter is not possible because people like Nick Clegg (at least in the UK) decided that was just not right. We could even look at real numbers – 23 million children under five in the US. So let’s say an average of five children per… Read more »