Child care crux of welfare debate

[Rose Siding]

Squabbles over child-care funding are likely to dominate this year's debate to reauthorize the nation's successful — but long expired — welfare reform program.

Washington Rep. Jim McDermott and other House Democrats say the House Republican welfare bill only allocates $1 billion in new mandatory child-care funding.

This is 10 percent of what is needed, Mr. McDermott said, citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis that says $11.6 billion could be needed in child-care subsidies over the next five years.
...
When President Clinton signed welfare reform in August 1996 there were 4.4 million families and 12.2 million individuals on welfare. Last week HHS announced the welfare figures as of June 2004 were 1.9 million families and 4.7 million individuals.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050213-121441-2245r.htm

[whistle]

1. Bush's great economic initiatives have moved 7.5million....

...individuals off welfare and into the ownership society. These people now own their poverty. The middle class is next with the abolishment of social security and and the bankruptcy of medicare/medicaid.

[ananda]

4. middle class & healthcare - mutually exclusive

«The middle class is next with the abolishment of social security and and the bankruptcy of medicare/medicaid.»

Yep. Just today an article in my local rag outlined the story of a middle class couple who do not have healthcare, and then cited new statistics showing that out of all Americans without health insurance, fully one-third are middle to upper class.

For the affluent, health insurance isn't cost effective; they feel as if they should just pay for healthcare in cash, directly.

For the middle class, serious health problems force them into insolvency and bankruptcy more often than not. Some even lose their jobs and COBRA only lasts 18 months.

This situation is turning out to be a vicious catch-22 because there is a direct relationship between the number of uninsured and the cost of insurance. The more uninsured there are, the higher the costs of healthcare and insurance become because those uninsured who access healthcare are generally sicker and put a huge financial burden on ER's and healthcare providers, who must absorb the cost and then pass it on in other ways.

Then there is privatization and laws protecting hmo's and big pharma, who are extracting their pounds of flesh, almost literally.

All this, thus proving the new Amerikan motto: Privatize profits, socialize costs.

Sue

[Kimber Scott]

2. When I ended up on welfare 16 years ago, what helped me the most

to get off was the 1 year of paid childcare. I was only on welfare for 17 months, but if I hadn't had the childcare assistance, it could have been years. I couldn't get an entry level job that paid enough to pay daycare. As it was, I was able to get my foot in the door and when my year was up, it was a big struggle, but I was making enough to pay the rent, buy groceries and pay the babysitter.

So many things happen when women can't afford childcare. Almost every night you hear on the news how some woman left her kids with her "boyfriend," so she could go to work, and he killed one, or molested one. It's a choice between that and staying home for a lot of people. I stayed home until they offered to pay my daycare. Thank God they did.

I have to add this on edit:

It boils my blood to think the people who don't want to help with childcare are the same people who don't want women to have the right to an abortion. I don't believe in abortion for myself, but by God, if that's the choice someone has to make because they don't have anybody to help them, including the state, to raise a child, they better have the option. Why do these people want to set these women and their children up for the horrors of having to have a stranger (new boyfriend) babysit their kids? Or, not being able to work because they don't have childcare and to top it off, to cut their welfare and food stamps. What do these people want? I don't see them lining up at the adoption agencies. They're practicing social Darwinism and they don't even believe in evolution.

[displacedtexan]

6. Not enough $ for childcare, but we need more kids to pay into Soc. Sec.???

Too weird for color TV.

Have you noticed that even the Bush voters aren't buying the lies and muddled messages on this topic?

When it affects them directly, they suddenly see the light.

[area51]

7. Well said. (n/t)

[flygal]

8. Here in E. Germany they have a pretty good system

It's not perfect, but they start pre-school at age 2. It's subsidized by the govt and the workers are very qualified. Not min. wage earners like the states. We pay 100Eur (about $130 US) for 5 hours a day, 5 days a week. Working moms get full-time for about the same cost.

Why can't the US get it's butt in gear and take care of people instead of just doing the name calling? It's not cradle to grave, it's just common sense.

[DBoon]

3. Child labor will take care of this

If holding down 3 jobs is "uniquely American", then what could be more American than sending the little tykes out to the sweatshop for a day of productive labor.

It will keep us competitive with third world economies (the ones we increasingly emulate) and save the kids from the liberal indoctrination of the public school system.

I wish I could say this is sarcasm, but the Bush administration is always one step ahead of the impossibly ridiculous

[rodeodance]

5. Repugs are more interested in caring for zygotes!!

[Kimber Scott]

9. I've figured it all out... Overpopulation among the poor, illegal

immigration and outsourcing all lead to the same pot of gold for the Republicans... CHEAP LABOR.