this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
230 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3355 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Saturday isn’t just the deadline for Congress to fund the government. It’s also the day that the $24 billion pandemic-era program to prop up the nation’s struggling child care network comes to an end.

The elimination of that funding could result in some 70,000 child care centers closing across the United States, according to a report by the Century Foundation, a liberal think tank. As I wrote earlier this week, many of the centers that don’t shutter will have hard decisions to make—they’ll either have to raise the rates that families pay or reduce staff wages, which will lead to staff departures. Due to strict laws about adult-to-child ratios, fewer teachers would mean fewer classrooms can be open. And fewer classrooms could mean 3.2 million fewer child care slots, the Century Foundation report predicts.

Sen. Tim Scott’s grand solution to this ginormous problem? Lower taxes.

“Under the Biden Administration, the cost for day care has gone over $15,000 per child,” the South Carolina Republican said at the GOP presidential debate Wednesday night. “The way we fix that problem is to make sure that we actually cut taxes and give Americans more of their money back.”

His explanation is that by lowering parents’ taxes, they will have “more resources to make the decisions how to take care of their family.”

But the dilemma behind the looming child care crisis isn’t just that costs are too high; it’s that despite the high costs, staff pay is still abysmally low due to the number of workers centers need to employ to keep kids safe. This makes it very hard for child care centers to employ enough staff, stay profitable, and stay open.

As I wrote Tuesday:

Maintaining high staffing levels often means paying staff low wages, relative to other service industries. Nationally, the median wage for a childcare provider is just $13.71 per hour, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Thus, “the people doing the work still aren’t making a wage that they can take care of their own families,” Susan Gale Perry, the CEO of Childcare Aware of America, told me.

The solution also isn’t as simple as centers raising tuition, even if some parents can afford to pay more due to a slightly lower tax liability. In my earlier story, Melissa Colagrosso, the owner of a day care center in West Virginia, explained that 78 percent of kids at her business are from low-income families that qualify for a federal program that pays Colagrosso a lower tuition rate based on a sliding scale. In order to make up for the lower rates coming from those families, Colagrosso can raise rates on families paying full tuition, but not by so much that they are priced out of care.

Last year, Scott actually proposed a bill to expand eligibility for that federal program, the Child Care Development Block Grant. It theoretically would have made more families eligible for free or reduced-price child care and would have—again, in theory—capped child care costs for eligible families at 7 percent of their household income. But already, the CCDBG only serves 14 percent of the kids who qualify, due to limited funding from Congress.

The bill never advanced, probably because making it happen would require more federal funding, which either comes from deficit spending, cuts to other programs, or…you guessed it…raising taxes—the exact opposite of what Scott suggested on the debate stage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orclev@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You forgot:

There's not enough money to pay for basic government services -- CUT TAXES!!

There's not enough money to pay politicians anymore -- C... on second thought, maybe we should raise taxes a bit.