Christine, my response. . .
Oh, Terrence, don't you think you are being a bit reactionary or something?
NO.
The new daycare proposals do use tax dollars, but they have absolutely nothing to do with putting children into camps. It's just a fact in America that most mothers work. Of course, few of the mothers here at SI do, but most of the women in America who work and have children love them very much, but because of economic necessity must work outside the home. You are not going to put the genie back into the bottle, or return America to the idealized fifties, when, incidentally, many women were trapped in abusive marriages, and felt stifled and miserable. Sure, there are things wrong with our society, but there always have been. Daycare is something that can be improved.
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE 50s? NOT ME, THAT'S THE NEWS MEDIA'S HANGUP. I ADVOCATE 1776.
Unfortunately, daycare facilities in America are horrendously varied in quality, and child neglect and abuse is rampant there. You can idealize things all you want, but the realities are different. A whole lot of evidence shows that children in QUALITY daycare, particularly very poor children, have much improved chances.
<The cost to the society is huge if children don't turn out well.>
THAT'S TRUE. . . LOOK AT THE GENERATION WHO GREW UP UNDER FDR AND THE CHILDREN OF THE 60s.
Some people here think before they post, and think for themselves brilliantly, sorting through information and then deciding what is relevant, and they are good writers (and spellers), and even if I totally disagree with their ideas or philosophies, like I do with Freddy's most of the time, I have tremendous respect for their intellectual breadth and depth, and love to read their posts. And then there are some people -- weren't you just talking about parrots--who just spew forth the latest hateful claptrap that caught their extremely limited imaginations.
Anyway, as an example of what I'm talking about--the bias that just oozes out as ignorance, stupidity, deliberate misrepresentation the facts and just plain hatred--here is the recent news report about the daycare proposals from the Myrtle Beach News, and then what the Libertarians have to say about them. (I'LL BE INTERESTED TO READ THAT SINCE YOU SAY YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN!)
AND THERE IS A 3RD TYPE -- THE GROWING NUMBER OF KNUCKLEHEADS WHO EXPECT A GOVERNMENT HAND-OUT OR SOLUTION TO CHALLENGES. THET EXPECT IT FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE - THEY THINK IT IS THEIR RIGHT AND THEY EXPECT TAXES TO ALWAYS BE THERE TO SUPPORT IT. THEY BELIEVE AMERICA IS EMBODIED BY THE PHILOSOPHIES OF FDR AND JFK AND DISMISS JEFFERSON AND THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
------------------------------------------------
By Tony Pugh
SUN NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - The child-care concerns of working families took center stage Thursday when President Clinton announced plans to train and keep more day-care teachers and weed out unfit caregivers.
<In one of his major initiatives this year, Clinton, with first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, vowed to work with businesses and state governments to make all child care safe, affordable and accessible.>
EVEN IF PRIVATE BUSINESS AND STATES DO SO UNDER GOVERNMENT COERCION.
<Calling child care a ''silent crisis,'' Hillary Clinton>
HILLARY COUL'VE BEEN CONSIDERED A "SILENT CRISIS" BUT SHE HAS TOO BIG A MOUTH.
said, ''The federal government has a role to play but so does state government, business and labor, the nonprofit and religious community, school systems, individual citizens and especially parents.''
Clinton also said he will use his 1998 State of the Union address in January to outline further improvements in childcare. The plan could include proposals increasing the primary $3.1 billion federal outlay for childcare for the poor, expanding tax credits for adults with children, and expanding the Family Medical Leave Act to allow for doctors' appointments and visits with school and childcare teachers.
WHY NOT JUST ELIMINATE THE TAXES AND LET THE INDIVIDUAL PARENTS DECIDE?
<Numerous studies have shown>
HOW MANY OF THESE STUDIES WERE GOVERNMENT-FUNDED? WHO STANDS TO BENEFIT FROM THE STUDIES (OTHER THAN CHILDREN WHICH ARE, POLITICALLY, A SECONDARY ISSUE). ARE THE STUDIES OBJECTIVE - OR WERE THEY COMMISSIONED WITH AN AGENDA?
that many of America's 93,200 childcare facilities provide poor or mediocre care that, in some cases, threatens the health and safety of young children. Because of this, working parents from all economic backgrounds face a daunting task when seeking care for their children, Clinton said. ''Especially in a day and age when most parents work, nothing is more important than finding childcare that is affordable, accessible and safe,'' Clinton said. ''It is America's next great frontier in strengthening our families and our future.''
MOST PARENTS BOTH NOW HAVE TO WORK BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT MISMANAGEMENT OF THE ECONOMY OVER THE PAST 80 YEARS WHICH RESULTED IN (AMONG OTHER THINGS) A TRASHED AMERICAN DOLLAR WHOSE 1996 VALUE IS ONLY 2.5 % OF WHAT IT WAS IN 1900. THEN TO ADD CRIME TO INJURY, THE GOVERNMENTS (FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND CITY) TAX THE HELL OUT OF WHAT IS LEFT.
To address the high turnover and low pay of day-care workers, Clinton proposed a $300 million scholarship fund to train up to 250,000 workers. The fund would make $1,500 available to educate any provider who agrees to remain in the field at least a year after completing coursework. These workers also would receive a cash bonus paid for by the fund and their employers. The proposal is meant to curb the estimated 36 percent turnover rate among day-care workers each year.
Under the plan, which would require approval by Congress, the federal government would contribute at least $250 million toward the fund. The rest would come from private or state or local government funds.
<Another proposal, requiring congressional and state ratification would make it easier to check the criminal backgrounds of prospective child-care workers. Under that crime compact, which Clinton submitted to Congress on Thursday, states would agree to share any criminal records of child-care applicants. Such a law would make it easier to weed-out unfit providers and cut reliance on FBI criminal records, which are often incomplete and can take months to get.>
WHICH MEANS AN INTRUSIVE BACK-GROUND CHECK ON EVERY PERSON - ANOTHER INFRINGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY.
After-school care programs will also get a boost under Clinton's plan. A federal volunteer agency, the Corporation for National Service, has offered to help train staff at these programs.
<Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin will oversee a committee of mostly business leaders to explore ways that companies can provide more child-care centers or help employees pay for care.>
AT WHOSE EXPENSE? THE COMPANIES WILL PASS THE NEW COSTS ON TO THE CONSUMER IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES FOR THEIR GOODS AND SERVICES.
Marcy Whitebook, co-director of the National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force, a resource and advocacy group for child-care workers, said the proposals are a good first step.
''I definitely think we're moving in the right direction,'' Whitebook said. ''Together, these are the kinds of pieces we need to assure that we have a top-notch work force taking care of our young children.''
THE QUESTION REMAINS, HOW HAS THE USA PAINTED ITSELF INTO THIS CORNER WHERE A GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED "WORKFORCE" IS NOW BEING ADVOCATED TO CARE FOR AND RAISE CHILDREN INSTEAD OF THE PARENTS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
Hillary Clinton's new federal child-care program is "Big Mother" government, charge Libertarians.
WASHINGTON, DC -- Hillary Clinton wants more children. Specifically, she wants your children, the Libertarian Party warned today.
"Forget about Big Brother watching you -- it's time to start worrying about Big Mother watching your kids," charged Steve Dasbach, national chairman of the Libertarian Party.
"The First Lady wants to be the nation's Babysitter-In-Chief -- and she's not going to stop until she gets an army of government-paid, government-trained day-care bureaucrats taking care of America's children."
OTHER EXAMPLES WERE/ARE: SOCIALIST SWEDEN, THE FORMER USSR AND THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
At last week's White House conference on childcare, Bill and Hillary Clinton unveiled a new $250 million federal program to "solve" the problem of day-care. It included taxpayer-financed scholarships for day-care workers and day-care subsidies for low-income parents.
While Hillary stopped short of endorsing a large-scale federal childcare program, at least one of her guest experts at the conference advocated a $100-billion-a-year, tax-subsidized federal day-care program.
"The 'Village' people are back," said Dasbach, referring to the coercive communitarianism espoused in Hillary's book, It Takes a Village. "Hillary and her friends seem to believe that a parent's love can be replaced by an army of government-trained day-care bureaucrats -- paid for with our tax dollars."
The White House conference was called to discuss possible solutions to the problem of
affordable day-care. According to a 1994 Census report, 13% of preschool children are cared for in day-care centers.
Dasbach acknowledged that childcare costs -- which average $74 per week -- can pose a hardship for many working parents.
WHY NOT JUST GIVE A TAX CREDIT TO THE PARENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF THEIR ANNUAL CHILDCARE EXPENSES? OR BETTER YET, ELIMINATE INCOME TAX ALTOGETHER.
"But it's simply not fair for politicians to punish parents who stay at home with their kids by saddling them with other people's babysitting bills," he said. "And getting the federal government more involved in raising our children is not a responsible solution.
TRUE. BUT THEN THE GOVERNMENT WASN'T DESIGNED TO BE FAIR. . . IT WAS SUPPOSED TO STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S WAY.
"After all, do we want government day-care centers that have the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles; the compassion of the BATF; the reliability of the Post Office; and the customer service of the IRS?" he asked.
SARCASTICALLY BRILLIANT, BUT TRUE.
Ironically, government can play a role in making child care more affordable, Dasbach said -- but not the way Hillary thinks.
"Politicians can make day-care bills disappear overnight for millions of American families simply by lowering our tax burden," he said. "If the government quit seizing half of the average American family's income, millions of mothers or fathers who wanted to stay home to care for their children could afford to do so, instead of having to work.
"It's perverse for the same government that caused this problem in the first place to offer to solve it by sending our children off to government day-care warehouses -- and making us pay for the privilege."
Dasbach acknowledged that despite his criticism, Hillary was right about one thing.
"Raising children sometimes does take a village," he said. "But it's the kind of village that we have already: Voluntary. A village of families, friends, and neighbors who care for each other's children. In America's village, we don't need tax-subsidized compassion, federal baby-sitting diplomas, or Big Mother watching our kids."
Father Terrence |
