Day Care is for KIDS!!

[Karlin]

This election issue has the core of political values attached to it - social, corporate, etc.

The kids need a decent place to spend the day.
We've neatly arranged things so a lot of Moms and Dads go to work and are not there to take care of the kids, but somehow the cost of kidcare is equal to a day's minimum wage.

If we want people to continue working, and kids in good care, we have to wriggle around that fact.

Canada COULD have day-care spaces available to all kids whose parents are at work, but we don't.

There COULD be government-run day-cares in every community, the employees could be paid decently, the kids getting excellant care... do we want less for them? That cost is significant, but with user-pay money and the reality of Fed.Govt surpluses, it might be a reasonable cost.

As it is, 'private day cares' are the only day-care we have, which avoids messy conflicts like wage parity and quality-of-care issues where the rich get the good stuff. We also get the capitalist value of investing in small business, self-employment, etc.

Kids of low-income families don't deserve better day-care - thats a personal value I hold to... but others feel if you want your kids to have the best, you need to try harder to get ahead so you have enough money...
Its impossible for everyone to be rich, and thats not the kids fault!!

So I would go for a govt. program of child care. The private system has been in place for 20 years, and its not providing enough spaces , or enough good wages, or enough profits for the owners.

Here is an article on Canadian child-care issues, by Linda McQuag

There are more than 1 million preschoolers in Canada whose mothers work outside the home. Do we know what's happening to these kids while their mothers work? We should. What's happening to them will determine many things about what kind of society we'll be living in a decade or two from now, including things like our productivity level and our crime rate.

If ever there was an area that cried out for thoughtful social policy, this is it.

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature5.cfm?REF=596

 

[Said1]

RE: Day Care is for KIDS!

I went with a lower wages because chasing mid to high income parents for money became depressing.

Homecare is a good option, but can be expensive too.

 

[Colpy]

This election issue has the core of political values attached to it - social, corporate, etc.

The kids need a decent place to spend the day.
We've neatly arranged things so a lot of Moms and Dads go to work and are not there to take care of the kids, but somehow the cost of kidcare is equal to a day's minimum wage.

If we want people to continue working, and kids in good care, we have to wriggle around that fact.

Canada COULD have day-care spaces available to all kids whose parents are at work, but we don't.

There COULD be government-run day-cares in every community, the employees could be paid decently, the kids getting excellant care... do we want less for them? That cost is significant, but with user-pay money and the reality of Fed.Govt surpluses, it might be a reasonable cost.

As it is, 'private day cares' are the only day-care we have, which avoids messy conflicts like wage parity and quality-of-care issues where the rich get the good stuff. We also get the capitalist value of investing in small business, self-employment, etc.

Kids of low-income families don't deserve better day-care - thats a personal value I hold to... but others feel if you want your kids to have the best, you need to try harder to get ahead so you have enough money...
Its impossible for everyone to be rich, and thats not the kids fault!!

So I would go for a govt. program of child care. The private system has been in place for 20 years, and its not providing enough spaces , or enough good wages, or enough profits for the owners.

Here is an article on Canadian child-care issues, by Linda McQuag

There are more than 1 million preschoolers in Canada whose mothers work outside the home. Do we know what's happening to these kids while their mothers work? We should. What's happening to them will determine many things about what kind of society we'll be living in a decade or two from now, including things like our productivity level and our crime rate.

If ever there was an area that cried out for thoughtful social policy, this is it.

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature5.cfm?REF=596

Nobody argues with the fact that people need help with childcare.

But what they need are options, not top-down dictated Big Brother wastefullness.

Look at the "compassionate care" program...........$69 million in administrative costs, $11 million actually spent where it was needed. Combine that with how our money went down the drain in adscam, and the efficientcy of the gun registry and HRDC etc, and I wouldn;t send the Liberals to the corner store to buy milk. Id would cost you $440.

What is needed is to give money to parents to spend it as they see fit. If the money is there, the spaces will follow, or parents will teanm up to care for their own kids.

Why can't the left let people spend their own money?

 

[Timetrvlr]

Karlin, I agree with what I think you meant to say;

Kids of low-income families don't deserve better day-care

I think you meant:

Kids of low-income families do deserve better day-care

. I'll even go farther, I think all kids deserve better day-care. It's the future of Canada we are talking about. Hilary Clinton once said "It takes a village to raise a child" and I think she was correct. In this case, I think it takes all of us to raise all our kids and do a good job of it. I think denying young families a tool they need to help their family is not right.

 

[Colpy]

Karlin, I agree with what I think you meant to say;

Kids of low-income families don't deserve better day-care

I think you meant:

Kids of low-income families do deserve better day-care

. I'll even go farther, I think all kids deserve better day-care. It's the future of Canada we are talking about. Hilary Clinton once said "It takes a village to raise a child" and I think she was correct. In this case, I think it takes all of us to raise all our kids and do a good job of it. I think denying young families a tool they need to help their family is not right.

What young families need is the option to make their own choices in daycare, not top-down instruction on what is right.

The Conservative plan is a step in the right direction, although I would like to see more money directed specifically at the working poor.

 

[Roy]

What young families need is the option to make their own choices in daycare, not top-down instruction on what is right.

The Conservative plan is a step in the right direction, although I would like to see more money directed specifically at the working poor.

i agree with you colpy, it is a better plan than the liberals have, however it is not perfect. my older sister who has a kid thinks that it is a better plan as well, and believes that it will lead to workplaces creating onsite daycare for employes.

Daycare is importaint because we need to encourage a higher birth rate,it is very low and we would not be growing if it we didn't have our high immigration levels.

 

[TenPenny]

Well, since Linda McQuaig is so fecking concerned with what happens withe everyone else's kids, I'll pass on the fact that my kids, before school, went to a woman we met with and got references for, so we knew that she was as good a parent as we were, if not better.

So Linda, there ya go. I'm so glad you're concerned. Now what about all the kids who stay home with their parents; are you checking out the parents, too?

 

[LeftCoast]

RE: Day Care is for KIDS!

The Conservative plan does nothing for single parents. $1200 per year is not enough to forego the income and stay home and raise your children. Neither is it enough to pay for daycare.

Statscan shows that 85% or single parents have their children in daycare. Statscan also reported that in 2001 53% of women with children under 5 are in the workforce, a whopping 26% increase from 42% in 1995. It is likely this trend is continuing, so by 2005 it is probably fair to estimate that over 60% of women with children under 5 are probably in the workforce. Martin's plan provides a better benefit to working women.

The Liberal plan also repects provincial autonomy. While daycare is not an exclusive provincial power, it likely falls under early education which is a provincial responsibility. The liberal plan transfers the funds to the provincial governments to use for both early childhood learning and subsidized daycare. Now if a province feels the best way to subsidize daycare is to give money to parents, that is their right.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Day Care is for KIDS!

While daycare is not an exclusive provincial power...

Can you expand on this for me? Thanks.

 

[missile]

My daughter has 2 children and had a hard time getting off Welfare because most jobs she could get paid far too little to pay for the daycare. It took until they reached schoolage for her to take a real job.So,paid daycare would have taken her off welfare 4 years sooner.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

Only 25% of Canadians use registered day care centres.

The Liberal plan leaves out 75% of parents.

I'm surprised we are even trying to compare the CPC plan with the fictional Liberal one. When does a broken promise "really" become a broken promise. This is the fourth ot fifth time the Liberals are "promising" the exact same day care program since 1993. If they didn't keep their promise the first four times, I wouldn't hold my breath this time around. After all, they will need to "promise" the day care program during the next election too.

Your choice for day care is either the CPC one or nothing at all. Don't take my word for it, just look at the Liberals platform over the past 12 years. Day care has been front and center since the red book days.

 

[Colpy]

Only 25% of Canadians use registered day care centres.

The Liberal plan leaves out 75% of parents.

I'm surprised we are even trying to compare the CPC plan with the fictional Liberal one. When does a broken promise "really" become a broken promise. This is the fourth ot fifth time the Liberals are "promising" the exact same day care program since 1993. If they didn't keep their promise the first four times, I wouldn't hold my breath this time around. After all, they will need to "promise" the day care program during the next election too.

Your choice for day care is either the CPC one or nothing at all. Don't take my word for it, just look at the Liberals platform over the past 12 years. Day care has been front and center since the red book days.

Actually, according to the National Post, the Liberal plan will support 250,000 daycare spaces.

There are 2 million kids under six in Canada.

Thats 12 1/2 %, or one in eight.

So perhaps 13% of families with kids under six benefit, 87% are left out, at a cost of a billion bucks a year. And guess who'll get the spaces? Those with influence, those who work straight 9 to 5, those who know how to insist, how to play the system. The ones that least need it, middle class professionals. This is a welfare program for the well-to-do.

VERY GOOD!

Harper's plan not only benefits everybody with young children, it also seeks to encourage companies to create on-site daycare by offering monetary incentives.

Harper has it all over the other parties on this issue.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Day Care is for KIDS!

Harper's plan isn't a day care plan at all. It's a baby bonus designed to entice those who can already afford for one parent to stay at home. Just another example of the Beaver Cleaver fantasy world that Harper lives in...completely out of touch with the majority of Canadians.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Day Care is for KIDS!

Harper's plan isn't a day care plan at all. It's a baby bonus designed to entice those who can already afford for one parent to stay at home. Just another example of the Beaver Cleaver fantasy world that Harper lives in...completely out of touch with the majority of Canadians.

Now there's some spinning goin' on!

The fact remains, Rev, that only the Harper plan would help all parents, and the other plans would largely benefit the well-to-do.

And, I have to challenge the inconsistency of your argument. One minute $25 per week is a pittance, not worthy of mention.

The next minute $25 a week is enough to make Mom don a girdle and over-the-knee skirt, and stay home to bake pot roast for her man.

Which is it?

Also, daycare is aimed only at 9 to 5 workers. Lower paying jobs are overwhelmingly NOT 9 to 5, something no one but the CPC seems to have considered.

Once again, the Liberal plan is welfare for the well-to-do.

 

[bevvyd]

OK, so just what is needed for daycare.

1. Affordability
2. Availability
3. Location
4. Quality of care
5. Flexibility

Please add more if you think of any.

Now what do we currently have?

1. Licensed Daycare centres
2. Licensed Daycare homes
3. Unlicensed Daycare homes
4. Not enough of all of the above

I believe all of them can receive subsidies for certain individuals. But that is a provincial thing and it certainly doesn't apply to every space or every kid.

As a working parent what do I need?

1. Affordable Quality Professional daycare
2. Programs for my children
3. Close to school, close to home, close to work

I think we need to do this in steps. First we need to train more people in ECE so that centres can take in more kids. Then we need some sort of certification program which would allow centres to receive subsidies from the government, have the money bypass the parents and go straight to the daycare centres, where the kids are. Every family would be required to pay X per day or x per 1/2 day and the rest could be billed to the government for obtaining a federal daycare subisidy.

Having this come as a tax credit won't get more kids into daycare. How is a low income parent supposed to 'bank' X dollars at income tax time for future needs, when they have so many other immediate needs?

 

[Summer]

RE: Day Care is for KIDS!

Bevvyd, that's an excellent post, and spot on.

 

[anood]

yes!

 

[bevvyd]

Thanks for that Summer, I don't need daycare any more but when I did I personally chose the Daycare centres. If someone gets sick, goes on holidays, or their husband doesn't want them doing it anymore, or a host of other reasons private daycare providers have to cancel for didn't affect me any longer once I put my kids into a Centre. I shopped around and found the perfect place, I'm just so glad that my kids thought so too.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The fact remains, Rev, that only the Harper plan would help all parents, and the other plans would largely benefit the well-to-do.

And, I have to challenge the inconsistency of your argument. One minute $25 per week is a pittance, not worthy of mention.

There's no inconsistency there, Colpy. Perhaps you need to hire a scribe to do your reading and writing for you.

It's a baby bonus designed to entice those who can already afford for one parent to stay at home.

Perhaps you can explain how that's inconsistent with Harper offering only a pittance? Nice attempt at misrepresenting what I said though, Colpy.

Harper is offering roughly equivalent to what the family allowance was a quarter of a century ago. He's trying to buy the votes of those who can already afford for one parent to stay at home. He's hopelessly mired in a past that never existed.

 

[Colpy]

The fact remains, Rev, that only the Harper plan would help all parents, and the other plans would largely benefit the well-to-do.

And, I have to challenge the inconsistency of your argument. One minute $25 per week is a pittance, not worthy of mention.

There's no inconsistency there, Colpy. Perhaps you need to hire a scribe to do your reading and writing for you.

It's a baby bonus designed to entice those who can already afford for one parent to stay at home.

Perhaps you can explain how that's inconsistent with Harper offering only a pittance? Nice attempt at misrepresenting what I said though, Colpy.

Harper is offering roughly equivalent to what the family allowance was a quarter of a century ago. He's trying to buy the votes of those who can already afford for one parent to stay at home. He's hopelessly mired in a past that never existed.

You are right, I did misread that. Sorry.

But you have not addressed the fact that the Liberal plan would help less than one quarter of parents, and they would overwhelmingly be the ones that least needed it, for all the reasons I listed before.

AND, the people I know that had one parent stay home COULDN'T afford it in any conventional sense, they did it because they thought it was the best way, and they made the necessary sacrifices. In my own case, that meant no vehicle, no chance of buying a home, no vacation trips, no eating out, very few beers , a 2 mile walk to work, and 45 to 60 hour work weeks.

My friends that had one parent stay at home were the ones with small single incomes. It seems to me that lower income families, with non-professional parents, are more likely to make sacrifices for one parent to stay home. Professionals, with their investment in education, (to say nothing of the tie-in between self-worth and career) are much LESS apt to have a parent stay home, IMHO.

I would like to see Harper's plan focused on low income families, and the benefit doubled, but even as it is, it is by far the best plan offered.