Hillary wants to change childcare in the US. An excerpt for the Washington Post,
Clinton intends to accomplish the 10 percent cap with tax credits and subsidized child care, according to her campaign. Details on how the plan would be funded and executed will come later this year, aides said.
A proposal last year from the Center for American Progress, a policy idea wellspring for Democrats, could offer a clue. Carmel Martin, CAP’s vice president of policy, said she has advised the Clinton campaign on child-care issues.
CAP recommended creating a new child-care tax credit, worth up to $14,000 per child. Under the plan, which would target low- and middle-income families, the tax credit would be advanced to parents on a monthly basis and paid directly to child-care provider. The centers, meanwhile, would qualify to receive federal money only if they complied with the state’s quality standards.
The market alone can’t fix affordability and quality issues in American child care, Martin said. A government investment into the system, she said, would boost the current and future labor force.
What is happening here? This will be the final emancipation of women. They will be able to work (and naturally have totally awesome careers), and be subsidized for doing so. Supposedly this is about children and families, but in reality it is about women. There will no longer be the need for the wife to be part-time, she will be as much of a breadwinner as the husband. Consider the implications of this. As a side note, if this does come to pass, I would expect that the so called pay-gap reduces in size, and that we would hear less complaining about it. One can hope.
Of course, there is the question as to how this will be paid for? It will cost a very large amount. Taxes will be raised. There will be lots of men’s taxes that will go up. There will be many men who will be paying for their own children’s childcare, as well as lots of others children’s childcare. But of course, the Government pays for the childcare, so it is really calling the shots; surely not the father of the children.
So it difficult to see where men fit into this scheme, other than paying for it.
On another note, nobody cares for your children as much as you do. Why is there such a push to get women out the house further? Surely it is not for the children. I once worked in a working class neighborhood, and had a coworker who lived there. The Dads worked and the Moms stayed home with the children, for it was not worth their while to have a job and pay child support. The children were very well adjusted. The coworker moved to a higher priced area, where both parents worked at high paying jobs in order to afford it. The children in the neighborhood were much well adjusted. He was sorry that he moved.
So, do we want an expensive program that probably has a net negative impact on children? Because, it is all about the children, isn’t it?