|
The Kerry-Edwards Child Care Plan
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
The following is my critique of the Kerry/Edwards Child Care plan. I hope to do a similar analysis of some of their other positions if I have the time. A copy that differs slighly for formatting reasons has been mailed to the Kerry/Edwards campaign. If I get a coherent response, I'll post it here.
The plan in full is available here: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/workfam.html
| quote: | The Kerry-Edwards Plan To Honor Work And Family
Plan Will Offer $800 in Additional Tax Cuts for Child Care and Quality Afterschool Programs for 3.5 Million Children
With more parents working longer hours and fewer parents at home full-time than ever before, millions of families need high-quality child care and afterschool programs. But today, good child care costs more than a public university. Demand for afterschool far outstrips supply, and even when programs are available, they often close before the end of the workday or add complicated transportation requirements to already overstretched parents. John Kerry and John Edwards will offer a new plan to make it easier for parents to balance work and family. Their plan would increase the child care tax credit, make it partially refundable to help moderate-income families, and help stay-at-home parents with infants. The Kerry-Edwards plan will also expand afterschool programs to serve 3.5 million children and to keep schools open until 6 pm each night, with good transportation options for hard-working families. |
Although I think that an increase in the child care tax credit does have some immediate benefits, it is my assertion that it fails to adequately address the underlying problem: irresponsible parenting practices. Having a child is a serious responsibility – and the best solution to deficient after-school programs is having a parent around instead. If both parents don’t have to work two full-time jobs, then this is far more plausible. However, I see little evidence to suggest that parents will actually use this additional credit to benefit their children rather than simply over-extending their new spendable income level the same way they did their old one.
I think a more successful program would involve giving a significant tax credit to individuals whose spouses are stay-at-home parents. Raising a child is a serious commitment of not only money, but also time. If you’re going to do the job right, you have to spend a lot of time with your child – and not just when they’re an infant either. You should be spending time with your children and being actively involved in their lives until they are prepared for adulthood. If the parents aren’t prepared for this commitment, they shouldn’t have children: and if they do nonetheless, they shouldn’t get a tax credit for their poor judgment and lack of consideration for their own child.
Instead of simply throwing money at the problem, the government needs to commit itself to providing a motivation for parents to partake in responsible parenting practices. While it is certainly asking a lot of any individual to give up his or her career in order to raise a child, this is a consideration that should be taken into account before a couple decides to have children. It is inconsiderate and selfish to have a child that you aren’t prepared to adequately raise.
My conclusions regarding the proposed after-school programs are similar. Under the Kerry plan, every responsible man and woman in this country who didn’t have children they weren’t prepared to properly raise would be paying an equal – or even greater – share of the cost of after-school programs needed as a safety-net for those children whose parents were irresponsible.
It should not be the general public which should bear the cost of some individuals’ irresponsibility. Rather, it should be the irresponsible parents themselves. If after-school programs are needed, and I believe they are, then they should be funded exclusively from the paychecks of the parents who chose to have children they don’t have time to raise. Rather than giving handouts to irresponsible parents and thereby encouraging irresponsible behavior, we ought to tax the paychecks of those parents for the cost of after-school programs necessary to keep their children off the streets and put those parents’ money towards their children’s well-being before they have a chance to spend it on houses or cars which are only in their price range when they rely on the government to support their family.
Personal decisions should be met with personal responsibility. Rather than giving benefits to families which fail to adequately meet their children’s needs, we need to encourage responsible parenting and, when necessary, tax those parents who fail to meet that standard for the costs of helping to support their children. Rather than simply burying the underlying problem which has created this issue under an expanded public bureaucracy, we need to address the fundamental lack of sound decision-making among those who are contemplating having children by ensuring that those who make poor decisions also bear the burden of responsibility. Only then can we genuinely assure the prosperity of not only today’s but also tomorrow’s families.
| quote: | The Strains On Working Parents
Families Have Less Income. A two-parent family making $68,000 now spends three-quarters of their disposable income on health insurance, mortgage, cars, and taxes, up from about half their income three decades ago. [Warren & Tyagi, The Two-Income Trap, 2003]
Families Have Less Time. Since 1977, the number of hours worked by couples has increased on average 12 hours a week. That is 12 hours per week less to spend with children. [New America Foundation, 2003] |
While I don’t dispute the veracity of these claims, I question whether or not the three-quarters figure is due to necessity or poor budgeting. Most people – regardless of their economic status – commit an undue amount of income towards their mortgage and car by purchasing houses and cars of higher quality or size than not only is necessary for their functional needs, but also comes at the cost of things like, for example, money to pay for child care. This is a choice, not a requirement. Unless the Kerry campaign has some demonstrable evidence that families are forced to distribute their income in this manner rather than choosing to of their own volition, I don’t understand the relevance of this figure.
Similarly, I question whether or not parents are working more because they don't have a choice, or in order to pay for luxuries they don't need. Except for the very poorest families, which obviously weren't ready to have children at all, I doubt parents genuinely need to work those extra hours.
| quote: | Every Penny Paid For.
The Kerry-Edwards child care tax credit will be fully paid for by their proposals to close corporate tax shelters. Specifically to pay for the child care tax credit, John Kerry and John Edwards will codify the economic substance doctrine, which defines a tax shelter as any transaction that is conducted purely for tax reasons with no economic merit. In addition, John Kerry and John Edwards will close Enron-related tax shelters. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that these specific proposals will raise $20 billion over ten years [Joint Committee on Taxation, 3/3/04, JCX-15-04], the amount needed to pay for the child care credit. Under the Kerry-Edwards proposal, raising the expense limit to $5,000 costs about $8 billion; the remaining funding will first ensure that the child care credit is partially refundable, and then will in addition provide a tax credit for stay-at-home parents of infants. The Kerry-Edwards expansion in afterschool is financed through their Education Trust Fund, paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $200,000 per year. Specifically, the Kerry-Edwards afterschool program offers full-funding for the afterschool authorization in No Child Left Behind. |
While I support both of those tax measures, I don’t agree with the decision regarding their dispersal. If the funds gained by the prevention of tax-evading business practices and an elimination of George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy are to be used optimally, it would be better to put them towards objectives with the potential to create growth – such as tax credits for small businesses and middle class self-employed persons. If those funds are committed towards consumptive goals such as after-school programs and tax credits to irresponsible parents, then those goals are accomplished, for all intents and purposes, at the cost of those who could have used those funds to create a better, more prosperous, tomorrow. |
|
|
| GeneraLeePissed |
I do agree with you on some points. As for "irresponsible parents" and there right to breed I do not. First, Most families or couples start out with good intentions. For some raising a child responsibly is to provide anything for them. This includes working extra or a 2nd job to give them the opportunity or shot at a good school, fine clothes, friends, neighborhood, and overall environment. After all we are all products of our environments (with a few exeptions).
Second, I'm not sure if you took into consideration the "whole shabang". Your critique of the plan sounds like you live in a perfect world. Surrounded by loving parents that need some help. The truth is, that it is not. Now that being said let me explain. I'll give one example I don't have a lot of time at the moment. Divorce....many kids are left at a young age without the benefit of both parents. With both parents trying to make it, one paying for a house as well as the other. This is a case that child care is needed.
Third, lets not forget why the prices are so high for everyday child care. We have almost done it to ourselves. "Our kid fell on the playground and broke his arm. Proper attention wasn't afforded him so now we are going to sue." Sound right, right? You have said that we should not all have to pay for the irresponsible few. Well my friend, you already are.
The after school issue elludes all rational thinking. This kind of thing should have been left at a state level or municiple level instead of being used as a presidencial teeter totter.
Overall I respect your views with exeptions, the term "irresponsible" is used to loosely. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by GeneraLeePissed
I do agree with you on some points. As for "irresponsible parents" and there right to breed I do not. First, Most families or couples start out with good intentions. For some raising a child responsibly is to provide anything for them. This includes working extra or a 2nd job to give them the opportunity or shot at a good school, fine clothes, friends, neighborhood, and overall environment. After all we are all products of our environments (with a few exeptions). |
I'm sure they do start out with the best of intentions. But if they actually believe that buying their children expensive clothing is going to do more for adequately raising the child than spending time with them and helping them develop their social, intellectual, and physical capabilities in a loving family environment, they obviously are grossly misguided in their assessment that having a child is compatible with "good intentions," are they not?
Given that a veritable plethora of sociological and psychological data indicate almost universally that, aside from basic necessities, the most important investment a parent can make for their children is an investment of time spent actually raising them, I can only assume that either such parents have chosen not to educate themselves on the topic of child-rearing before partaking in their "right to breed," or that they've chosen to ignore the mountains of available scientific, educational, and sociological data indicating that their presence in the home is a necessity to properly raise their child.
In either case, they are obviously wholly misguided or unprepared for the full responsibility of parenthood - in which case, by definition, their decisions are ir-responsible.
| quote: | | Second, I'm not sure if you took into consideration the "whole shabang". Your critique of the plan sounds like you live in a perfect world. Surrounded by loving parents that need some help. The truth is, that it is not. Now that being said let me explain. I'll give one example I don't have a lot of time at the moment. Divorce....many kids are left at a young age without the benefit of both parents. With both parents trying to make it, one paying for a house as well as the other. This is a case that child care is needed. |
Once again, divorce (and most situations like it) is not a result of an irresistable force moving against the parents and preventing them from properly raising their children. If one or both parents choose to selfishly abandon their parental responsibility in favor of petty personal differences or conflicting personal goals, I don't believe those parents ought to receive public subsidy for their choice to abandon their child. Believe it or not, there are still couples in this world which choose to stay together to properly raise their children, even though they would otherwise divorce. Imagine that: actually following through on a commitment of responsibility for one's prior actions. I could use a certain i-word to describe those who choose to renege on that commitment, but I don't want to beat a dead horse here any more than I already have.
There are some circumstances, such as the death of one parent, in which the use of child care might be unavoidable. In these extreme situations, I wouldn't be opposed to significant tax breaks to allow the parent to pay for the needed services. However, implementing the policy for all parents inappropriately rewards those parents who have placed themselves in this position not due to tragedy, but due to poor planning, selfish decisions, and incompetent parenting. That isn't how I want my tax dollars spent.
| quote: | | Third, lets not forget why the prices are so high for everyday child care. We have almost done it to ourselves. "Our kid fell on the playground and broke his arm. Proper attention wasn't afforded him so now we are going to sue." Sound right, right? You have said that we should not all have to pay for the irresponsible few. Well my friend, you already are. |
I'm completely in favor of tort reform, but I don't see how exacerbating the problem by further public subsidizing of the child care industry would be beneficial: either to the children whose parents are encouraged to dump them off with strangers instead of raising them in a loving family environment, or to the taxpayer who never did a thing to encourage families to put themselves in this position. The only people who seem to benefit, to me, are those parents who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to adequately support and raise those children that they voluntarily undertook to bring into this world.
Perhaps John Kerry is willing to sacrifice the notion of personal responsibility in order to garner support from the ever-growing population of part-time parents, but I'd prefer to vote for a President who points the finger at the people who cause the problem instead of bailing them out at the cost of everyone else.
| quote: | | The after school issue elludes all rational thinking. This kind of thing should have been left at a state level or municiple level instead of being used as a presidencial teeter totter. |
I agree with that, it's not exactly a "hot button" issue in my opinion either and shouldn't be an issue of federal policy.
| quote: | | Overall I respect your views with exeptions, the term "irresponsible" is used to loosely. |
Don't agree with you there but I appreciate your intelligent and respectful response. |
|
|
| JM |
WOW...
i agree with it all you wrote Arbiter... parents definitely need to take responsibility for their decisions to have children, and the burden should not be put on the general public to take care of certain parents' kids.
>JM< |
|
|
|
|
