Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323152434
label
White House Wire on Child Care 4/28/89 [OA 6347]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323152434
contentType
document
title
White House Wire on Child Care 4/28/89 [OA 6347]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13666-001
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323152434
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
fbd0c6ee7b879f08
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13666
Folder ID Number:
13666-001
Folder Title:
White House Wire on Child Care 4/28/89 [OA 6347]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
18
7
7
cm - Thanks MK ((Grant/Martin)) call me 8 gecention
April 26, 1989
a:wire428
THE WHITE HOUSE WIRE
ON CHILD CARE
April 28, 1989
ADMINISTRATION'S CHILD CARE PLAN TARGETS LOW-INCOME PARENTS
On March 15, President Bush sent legislation to the
Congress, the "Working Family Child Care Assistance Act of 1989,"
and the "Head Start Amendments of 1989." These bills represent a
significant, fiscally responsible step toward meeting the
President's commitment to empower parents, especially low-income
parents, to make critical decisions about their children's care.
The Working Family Child Care Assistance Act: Low-income
families in which a parent works would be eligible for a tax
credit of up to $1,000 per child under age four. It would be
made refundable, and thus available to families who have no
income tax liability. This will make 2.5 million families
eligible for the credit initially, 3.5 million when the credit is
fully implemented. In addition, the current child care credit
would be made refundable as well, qualifying another 1 million
families. Two-parent families in which one parent stays at home
to care for the children, single working parents and dual-earner
couples with children would all benefit from the credit.
Families would be free to choose the kind of child care that best
suits their needs -- care through relatives, neighbors, child
care centers or religiously-affiliated care.
The Head Start Amendments of 1989: FY 1990 authorization for
Head Start would be increased by $250 million, to pay for the
enrollment of up to 95,000 more poor four-year olds. The
proposed expansion would increase the range of choices available
to poor families in meeting their child care needs, but it would
also do much more. Through a comprehensive approach that
provides educational, medical, nutritional and social services to
children at risk of falling behind, Head Start gives poor
children a better start in life.
SECRETARY OF LABOR DOLE TESTIFIES ON THE PRESIDENT'S BILL
On April 19, 1989, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole
testified before the Senate Finance Committee in support of the
Administration's child care proposal. The Secretary outlined the
guiding principles behind the President's program:
1. More parental choice -- Parents are the best judge of
quality care and know what is in their childrens' best interest.
2. Encourages options -- Federal policy should increase, not
decrease, the range of options available to parents.
3. Non-discrimination -- The Federal government should not
discriminate against those families who sacrifice the income of a
second career for the mother to stay at home to care for their
children.
4. Targeted to the poorest families -- Assistance should be
targeted to low-income families, particularly those with
children.
The Secretary added that at the President's direction, the
Department of Labor will study the extent to which market
barriers or failures prevent employers from obtaining liability
insurance necessary to provide child care at or near their
employees' worksites.
TAKE A LOOK AT THE FACTS: ABC BILL IS NOT THE ANSWER FOR PARENTS
The Democratic leadership has proposed the "Act for Better
Childcare," with Senator Dodd as its principle sponsor. This
bill, "ABC," does not meet the President's principles for
improving child care options and parental choice:
Parental choice: ABC puts its trust in government, not
parents. No money goes directly to parents. All money goes to
the States. The States then fund providers, not parents, through
grants, contracts, and certificates that they, not parents,
arrange and approve. It is the States, not parents, who
ultimately make decisions on the care children will receive.
Encourages options: ABC imposes federal requirements on all
providers who receive public assistance -- federal, state,
county, city or other local government. These costly
requirements will put some current child care providers out of
business, keep potential providers from offering care, and drive
up the cost of care available for all parents. Parents who want
to their children to receive religiously-affiliated child care
could not receive aid under ABC -- this includes all caretakers,
including relatives.
In fact, parents could not use their ABC eligibility to have
anyone other than a grandparent, aunt or uncle care for their
children in the children's own home -- unless (1) the State rules
in each individual case that the person was an "eligible child
care provider," (2) the person and his/her home meets Federal
standards, and (3) the person submits to governmental grant,
contract and paperwork requirements.
Non-discrimination: ABC serves two parent families only if
both parents are employed, perpetuating the discrimination
against two parent families in which one parent stays at home to
care for the children.
Targeted to families most in need: ABC is not targeted and
would serve only a fraction of families most in need. Families
with incomes more than 4 times the poverty level are eligible for
ABC, yet only a small number of eligible children would receive
care -- 6 percent according to the sponsors' estimates. Only one
million children, according to the sponsors' would receive child
care services from the States -- far less than the number of
children in the 3.5 million families that would initially benefit
from the President's tax credit proposals.
MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT CHILD CARE TODAY
MYTH: Most children are being cared for in day care centers.
FACT: Less than 10% of children under 5 are cared for in child
care centers. Only 46% of children under five have employed
mothers. of those who work, the great majority use relatives or
neighbors as child care givers. Women with very young children
are likely to prefer to care for children themselves; the
President's proposals will shift the economics of work and child
care in their favor.
MYTH: Only wealthy families can afford for a parent to stay home
to care for the children.
FACT: The median income of two parent/two income families in 1986
was $38,346 compared to $25,803 for traditional two parent/one-
earner families. These families are making significant
sacrifices in income to allow one parent to stay home with small
children. Eighty-three percent of children in center-based care
come from two-earner families. Subsidies to center-based care
(such as ABC offers) offer financial assistance to families that
are already comparatively better off.
MYTH: Federal day care standards are necessary because day care
is a largely unregulated field.
FACT: All states currently regulate day care to some extent. For
example, all states mandate that large group day care facilities
be licensed and more than half of the states require regulation
of small neighborhood providers caring for five or fewer
children. However, federal standards in this area in the past
have not worked. Congress, realizing this, prohibited
implementation of day care standards in 1980.
MYTH: Religiously-affiliated day care will benefit from new
federal day care program.
FACT: Nearly one-third of day care centers are religiously-
affiliated. Direct government assistance (such as through ABC)
implies that these facilities must drop religious components of
their curriculum to receive assistance. Under current Supreme
Court interpretations of the Establishment Clause, these
facilities may be wholly ineligible for assistance, just as
religious elementary schools are precluded from direct
assistance.
MYTH: Unregulated day care is unhealthy and unsafe for children.
FACT: The typical "unregulated" day care provider is a mother
caring for her child along with one or two other neighborhood
children. In day care centers, the average ratio of staff to a
child is five to one. Accord to a HHS report, The National
Daycare Home Study, regulated providers are less likely to be
caring for their own children, have a greater number of children
to supervise, and charge higher prices than unregulated
caregivers.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: 4-25-89
TO: MK
FROM: Holly
The attached is for:
Per our conversation
Per your request
Information
Review & Comment
Direct Response
Appropriate Action
Draft Reply
Signature
File
Other
Please Return By
Comments: child care info
policy contacts: Hanns Kuttner X6563
+ Rae Nelson X 7777
in OMB: Barbara selfridge X 6150
DRAFT-4/25
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON CHILD CARE
The changing nature of American society heightens the need for
quality, affordable, accessible child care. President Bush wants
parents to have the choice and the power to select the best,
safest environment for their children. The President believes
that child care is a family issue. His child care proposals
reflect his belief in the family as a primary force in building a
better America.
MYTH:
MOST CHILDREN ARE BEING CARED FOR IN DAY CARE CENTERS
FACT:
Only 46% of children under the age of five have
employed mothers. Of those who work, the great majority use
relatives or neighbors as child care givers. Less than 10% of
children under the age of 5 are cared for in child care centers.
Women with very young children are likely to prefer to care for
their children themselves; the President's proposals will shift
the economics of work and child care in their favor.
MYTH:
ONLY WEALTHY FAMILIES CAN AFFORD FOR A PARENT TO STAY
HOME TO CARE FOR THE CHILDREN
FACT:
The median income of two parent/two income families in
1986 was $38,346 compared to $25,803 for traditional two
parent/one-earner families. These families are making
significant sacrifices in income to allow one parent to stay
home with small children. Eighty-three percent of children in
center-based care come from two-earner families. Subsidies to
center-based care offer financial assistance to families that are
already comparatively better off.
MYTH:
THERE IS A CRITICAL SHORTAGE OF DAY CARE IN AMERICA
TODAY
FACT:
In reality, the day care industry is expanding (from
4,400 centers in 1960 to 39,929 centers today). Even so,
national day care chains such as Gerber and Kindercare report
average vacancies of 30 percent [NOTE: need to verify]. While
the cost of a full-time sitter or commercial day care has
increased prohibitively, the cost of "family day care" has
increased only slightly in real terms over the last ten years.
MYTH:
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CURRENTLY SPENDS LITTLE ON DAY
CARE
FACT:
The 1988 costs of current child care programs and tax
credits are more than $6.9 billion. However, currently the
federal government provides twice as much assistance to each
child in a family choosing formal day care as for traditional
families where one parent remains at home. [Under the ABC bill,
this ratio would rise to three to one.]
DRAFT-4/25
MYTH:
FEDERAL DAY CARE STANDARDS ARE NECESSARY BECAUSE DAY
CARE IS A LARGELY UNREGULATED FIELD
FACT:
All states currently regulate day care to some extent.
For example, all states mandate that large group day care
facilities be licensed and more than half of the states require
regulation of small neighborhood providers caring for five or
fewer children. However, federal standards in this area in the
past have not worked. Congress, realizing this, prohibited
implementation of day care standards in 1980. Also, ABC only
regulates providers enrolling children aided by federal program
dollars. It would do nothing about unlicensed facilities.
MYTH:
NEW FEDERAL PROGRAMS CAN BRING SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO
THE DAY CARE SITUATION
FACT:
The dollars provided through new direct programs, like
ABC, can only have a marginal impact. The best estimates for the
cost of realizing the ABC view of child care on a National basis
is $75-$100 billion per year. The $2.5 billion requested by ABC
and the smaller amounts that could be appropriated show that ABC
is a series of hollow promises. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that only one in eighteen children eligible would be
assisted by a $2.5 billion program.
MYTH:
CHURCH-AFFILIATED DAY CARE WILL BENEFIT FROM NEW
FEDERAL DAY CARE PROGRAM
FACT:
Nearly one-third of day care centers are church-
affiliated. Direct government assistance implies that these
facilities must drop religious components of their curriculum to
receive assistance. Under current Supreme Court interpretations
of the Establishment Clause, these facilities may be wholly
ineligible for assistance, just as religious elementary schools
are precluded from direct assistance.
MYTH:
UNREGULATED DAY CARE IS UNHEALTHY AND UNSAFE FOR
CHILDREN
FACT:
The typical "unregulated" day care provider is a mother
caring for her child along with one or two other neighborhood
children. In day care centers, the average ratio of staff to a
child is five to one. According to a Department of Health and
Human Services report, The National Daycare Home Study,
regulated providers are less likely to be caring for their own
children, have a greater number of children to supervise, and
charge higher prices than unregulated carers. The study also
reports that unlicensed, neighborhood facilities pose less of a
danger to a child of catching infectious disease than do larger
unregulated facilities.
ABC: A RAW DEAL FOR AMERICA'S FAMILIES
(Supplement to "ABC and the President's Principles")
DOES NOT TRUST PARENTS TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR THEIR
CHILDREN
ABC's principal sponsor (Senator Dodd) has said of the
President's tax credit approach, "You could spend it on beer if
you wanted."
Reveals the philosophy underlying ABC: parents cannot be
trusted.
-- Is unfair and demeaning to low income working families who are
doing their best to care for their children.
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST RELIGIOUS-BASED CARE
ABC's report language specifically rejects " a narrow,
technical interpretation that sectarian activities are permitted
so long as no financial assistance under this Act is used for the
sectarian activities."
"Under the committee's broad interpretation, an entity receiving
any form of financial assistance under the Act shall not include
any sectarian activities, worship or instruction in providing embodies
child care services under this Act
Section
19
(a)
the
Committee's intent that all aspects of child care services
provided by an entity receiving financial assistance under this
Act be completely non-sectarian in nature and content."
This language covers all caretakers, including relatives.
REDUCES AVAILABLE CHILD CARE AND INCREASES COSTS
A study of the original version of ABC done by the "Child Care
Review" provides an indication of the effects of ABC on parents
who use child care centers:
-- Would raise the cost of center care for parents by nearly $1.2
billion a year, an average of $6.76 per child per week or $351
per child per year.
-- The increase for some parents would be as much as $25 per
child per week because the bill affects states differently.
Parents in 10 Southern States and Ohio, Rhode Island, Hawaii
and Utah would be particularly hard hit.
12,630 licensed child care facilities -- over 20 percent of
licensed centers in operation -- would close.
Similarly a study done by researchers in North Carolina estimates
that the annual, per child cost of center care under federally
mandated standards similar to those likely to result from ABC
would be $5300. This is:
-- Triple the per child subsidy for care that underlies the ABC
sponsors' estimate of the number of children served in the
first year. [70 percent of $2.5 billion = $1.75 billion.
Divided by the one million children the sponsor say this bill
would subsidize = $1750 per child.]
-- Almost double the $3000 that ABC's sponsors cite as the annual
cost of care per child.
-- More than double the median annual cost that families who pay
for care report that they spend on child care arrangements for
all of their children. [$1950 -- $2106]
ABC would affect the price and availability of family-based care
even more than center-based care. For the care ABC regulates, it
would:
-- Establish intrusive licensing and inspection procedures.
Unannounced State inspections would not be limited to the
providers' normal business hours nor to the portion of the
home used for child care.
-- Establish a basis for State inspectors to require
modifications to homes in order to make them like structures
built specifically for institutional child care.
-- Require family-based providers to make written policies and
program goals available to parents.
BUDGET BUSTER
Using the sponsors' own assumptions about the number of children
who are eligible and the number who would receive care in the
first year, the cost of fully funding ABC would be $30-40 billion
a year. But ABC will drive up costs and reduce availability of
care so that the full cost of ABC could easily be 2 to 3 times as
much -- $60 billion to more than $100 billion a year.
THE PRESIDENT'S PRINCIPLES AND ABC
Principle: Parents are best able to make decisions about their
children, and they should have the discretion to do SO.
Assistance should go directly to parents. They, not the
government, should choose the child care they consider best for
the children.
ABC puts its trust in government, not parents.
O
No money goes directly to parents. All money goes to
the States.
O
The States fund providers, not parents, through grants,
contracts and certificates that they, not parents, arrange or
approve. It is the States, not parents, who ultimately make
decisions on the care children will receive.
O
In the first year alone $750 million is authorized for
activities other than childrens' care, including $200 million for
State administrative expenses.
Principle: Federal policy should not discriminate against two
parent families in which one parent works at home to care for
their children.
ABC serves two parent families only if both parents are employed,
perpetuating the discrimination against two parent families in
which one parent stays at home to care for the children.
Principle: Federal policy should increase, not decrease, the
range of choices available to parents.
ABC decreases the range of choice available to parents.
O
ABC imposes federal requirements on all providers who
receive public assistance -- federal, state, county, city or
other local government. These costly requirements will put some
current child providers out of business, keep potential providers
from offering care, and drive up the cost of care available for
all parents.
o
Parents who want to send their children to child care
programs which teach religious values could not receive aid under
ABC.
*ABC does not authorize vouchers, and use of certificates require
a written agreement between the State, the provider and the
parent.
A THE OF IS OF UNUM STATE THE UNITED
The White House
Office of Public Affairs
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 17, 1989
MEMORANDUM TO AGENCY PULBIC AFFAIRS HEADS
FROM: CHRISS WINSTON cw
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR
COMMUNICATIONS
SUBJECT: AGENCY WEEKLY PACKAGE
Enclosed in this week's mailing, you will find a
highlight of the week's events at the White House and
Agencies, editorial summaries from across the nation
and the President's first major address on foreign
policy. We have also included a fact sheet on
childcare highlighting the President's proposal.
Please note, Secretary Dole will testify on the subject
of childcare before the Senate Finance Committee on
Wednesday.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
Holly Williamson at 456-2245.
AT THE WHITE HOUSE
Monday April 17
President Bush and Secretary Derwinski will travel to Detroit,
Michigan where the President will give his first major foreign
policy address on the subject of Poland and Eastern Europe.
The President will meet with British Foreign Secretary Howe.
The President and Lionel Hampton will be interviewed by Jet
magazine. It will be a retrospective look at the President's
childhood and his travels with his father and famous jazz
performer, Lionel Hampton.
Tuesday April 18
The President will address the National Conference of the
Buildings and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
The President will meet with Evangelical leaders at the White
House.
Wednesday April 19
President Bush will meet with King Hussein of Jordan and attend a
dinner that evening in honor of the King.
Thursday April 20
The President will hold a Rose Garden reception in honor of the
women's NCAA basketball champions -- the Tennessee Lady
Volunteers.
President Bush will sign an executive order on the Space Council
with Vice President Quayle.
The President will meet with Prime Minister Esquivel of Belize.
AT THE AGENCIES
On April 17, Secretary Kemp will participate in a ceremony at
HUD, commemorating Fair Housing Month.
Secretary Kemp will appear on McNeil-Lehrer News Report on April
17, addressing drugs in public housing. A written report from
public housing agencies on evicting drug users and dealers from
public housing will be released on April 16.
On April 17, Ambassador Hills will participate in an on the
record discussion of international trade with the Time Newstour
Group.
On April 18, the President will go to the Agriculture Department
to participate in a radio interview on the Administration's farm
policies. The interview will be fed live to over 950 radio
networks and radio stations serving the farm community and it
will be monitored by a gathering of the department's 200-member
press corps.
On April 18, Secretary Sullivan will hold a morning press
conference announcing proposed regulations to implement the Job
Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program. This
will be the first of several regulations needed to carry out the
Family Support Act of 1988. The JOBS program primarily will
benefit low-income single mothers and their families.
On April 18, Secretary Lujan will address the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) Advisory Board Policy Committee.
On April 18 and 19, Secretary Dole will testify on the
Administration's childcare proposal before the Senate Finance
Committee.
Secretary Cavazos will be interviewed by Reader's Digest, on
April 19.
On April 20, EPA Administrator Reilly, will mark the event of
Earth Day -- April 22 -- with an address to the National Press
Club, announcing EPA's radon in school program.
On April 21, Secretary Mosbacher will appear on the PBS "Nightly
Business Report" television program.
Secretary Baker will meet with the following people this week:
British Foreign Secretary Howe, Honduran Presidential Candidate
Rafael Callejas and King Hussein of Jordan.
This week's edition of Time magazine will have a feature story on
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.
REPORTS
USDA will release estimates of the value of U.S. farmland. This
annual report is based on a survey taken around February 1. The
results have widespread interest as indicators of the financial
condition of farmers, rural banks and the rural economy. U.S.
farmland value is expected to be up 5-7 percent over the past
year.
On April 26, the Supreme Court will hold oral argument in Webster
V. Reproductive Health Services. The case involves a Missouri
abortion statute that was struck down by a federal district court
and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The government has joined the State of Missouri (which is
appealing the Eighth Circuit decision) in urging the Court to
reconsider and overrule Roe V. Wade. The case will be argued on
behalf of the government by former Solicitor General Charles
Fried.
The Treasury Department, in consultation with the Federal
Reserve, will submit to the Congress by April 15, a 6-month
update of the report on U.S. international economic and exchange
rate policies.
On April 18, the Consumer Price Index for March will be released.
Figures on Housing Starts will also be available.
On April 15, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
in conjunction with the National Association of Elementary School
Principals released Becoming A Nation of Readers: What
Principals Can Do. The publication is the third in the Becoming
A Nation of Readers series. The forward is by First Lady Barbara
Bush.
On April 12, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted out HR
1595, which would decontrol natural gas prices by January 1,
1993. Sponsors intend to bring bill to floor on suspension
calendar. Comparable action on a Senate bill is expected in the
near future.
SOME OPINIONS FROM OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY
"During President Bush's first few weeks in office, Washington
observers fussed that he wasn't doing anything
Now, it seems
clear Bush and his key advisors really have had a few things
going. Even as they've taken their lumps from the critics,
they've been negotiating compromises." -- Chicago Tribune, 4/3
Headline: "Good going, Mr. Bush": "The most notable aspect of
this still nascent strategy is the novel, sometimes bold ways in
which the compromise card has been played. In some cases it
comes when the political adversary least expects it. Other times
the compromise consists of uncharacteristic policy modification.
Regardless of timing or manner in which a compromise is applied,
what is common in each use is that it addresses authentic
political and societal concerns
in the debate over the control of automatic weapons, the
President surprised even the most astute political scientists in
how he redirected his actions to accommodate the changing desires
of the public
What this ability to compromise does show is that Bush
appears to be a president who sees the public good as something
more than a political or ideological battle won. -- column by
Jonathan Gaffney, Chicago Tribune, 4/6
FSX DEAL:
Headline: "Good Deal": "President Bush has prudently overruled
the protectionist sentiment within his own administration and
approved U.S. participation in the joint development of the new
Japanese FSX advanced jet fighter. Now it is Congress' turn to
stand up to the protectionists
"
-- San Diego Union, 3/26
CONTRA ACCORD:
"The ability to take a calculated risk is one of the marks of
leadership
Bush and Baker, working against a partisan
political disadvantage and a recent history of anti-White House
sentiment, have done what they could to provide a realistic
alternative." -- Omaha World-Herald, 3/30
"
Bush and congressional Democrats have taken a major step
toward bipartisanship in foreign policy
It's appropriate, and
encouraging, that this mutual commitment has emerged over the
most divisive U.S. foreign policy issue of recent times.'
Sacramento Bee, 3/29
"By stepping away from military force and toward diplomacy, Bush
may yet be successful in coaxing democratic concessions in
Nicaragua. " -- Minneapolis Star Tribune, 3/30
EDUCATION INITIATIVE:
"The way is now clear for President Bush to be the Education
President through his wholehearted endorsement of parental choice
in public schools. It's an idea whose time has come and, if
President Bush rides this horse all the way around the
schoolyard, he can not only claim his crown as the Education
President but also achieve real reform in the disaster area of
the public schools." -- column by Phyllis Schlafly, Manchester
Union-Leader, 4/4
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 15, 1989
FACT SHEET
BUILDING A BETTER AMERICA:
PRESIDENT BUSH'S CHILD CARE PROPOSALS
Today the President submitted to the Congress legislation
needed to implement three elements of his four-part plan for
child care. The fourth component of the plan, a study by the
Department of Labor to determine whether market barriers or
failures are preventing employers from obtaining liability
insurance necessary to provide child care on or near their
employees' work-sites, already is underway. It will be
completed before the end of the year.
The legislation transmitted to the Congress, the "Working
Family Child Care Assistance Act of 1989" and the "Head Start
Amendments of 1989," represents a significant, fiscally
responsible step toward meeting the President's commitment to
empower parents, especially low-income parents, to make
critical decisions about their children's care.
A Philosophy Based Upon Parental Choice
The President's philosophy on child care was spelled out
in his February 9, 1989, Message to the Congress, "Building a
Better America."
"My philosophy with respect to child care is to put
choice in the hands of parents and not in the hands of
the State
I will build a policy around parental
choice. Particularly we must find a way to put a greater
range of choices in the hands of low-income parents --
because they face the greatest -difficulty in meeting the
demands of work and family."
Building upon this philosophy, the legislation sent to
the Congress today embodies four important principles:
1.
Parents, who are best able to make decisions about
their children's care, should have the discretion to
make these decisions.
New Federal support for child care should go directly to
parents. They, rather than bureaucracies or providers, should
control the disposition of funds and decide what the greatest
needs are for their children.
2.
Federal policy should not discriminate against
parents who work at home.
Federal policy now largely ignores the contributions and
sacrifices in income made by two-parent families in which one
spouse works at home to care for their children. Federal
policy must correct this discrimination.
more
(OVER)
2
3.
Federal policies should act to increase, not
decrease, the range of child care choices available
to parents.
There is no such thing as "one size fits all" child care.
Some parents want child care provided in the atmosphere of
religious values, while others seek the familiarity, warmth,
and informality of care by relatives, friends, and neighbors.
Still others may prefer center-based care. Federal policy
should expand the range of choices available to parents, not
limit them by biasing Federal support toward one kind of care.
Costly Federal regulations would increase the cost and reduce
the supply of care available to parents.
4.
New Federal assistance should be targeted to
families most in need.
Balancing the competing demands of work and family life
is often hardest for low-income families with young children.
In a period of fiscal constraint, scarce Federal resources
must be provided to these families, who are most in need.
The Working Family Child Care Assistance Act of 1989
This legislative proposal includes two major changes to
the tax code designed to provide needed assistance directly to
low-income families to assist them in meeting their child care
needs.
New Child Tax Credit
Low-income families in which a parent works would be
eligible for a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child under
age four. It would be refundable, and thus available to
families who have no income tax liability. The credit would
equal 14 percent of earnings up to the maximum credit of
$1,000 per child. It would be phased out over a $5,000 range.
In tax year 1990, the credit would be phased out as taxpayers'
incomes increased from $8,000 to $13,000. This phaseout range
would increase to between $15,000 and $20,000 by 1994.
O
2.5 million families would be eligible for the
credit initially; 3.5 million, when the credit was
fully implemented.
O
Two-parent families in which one parent stays at
home to care for the children, single working
parents and dual-earner couples with children would
all benefit from the credit.
o
Families would be free to choose the kind of child
care that best suits their needs -- care through
churches, relatives, neighbors, or child care
centers.
O
The credit would be provided in addition to the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and would be
available, as the EITC is, in advance as a payment
in parents' paychecks.
more
3
Refundable Dependent and Child Care Tax Credit
The current credit would be made refundable so that low-
income working families with little or no Federal income tax
liability would benefit fully from it.
An additional one million families would benefit
from this proposal.
o
The primary beneficiaries would be low-income,
single working parents who incur child care expenses
in order to work but who, unlike higher-income
parents, do not now receive assistance in meeting
these expenses through the tax code.
The current credit would be an alternative to the
new child credit. For each eligible child, parents
could claim the one credit that best meets their
needs and circumstances.
The cost of the two proposals is estimated at
$187 million for FY 1990, increasing to $2.5 billion by
FY 1993.
The Head Start Amendments of 1989
This legislative proposal would increase the FY 1990
authorization for Head Start to provide $250 million more than
the FY 1989 appropriations level.
o
This increased funding would enable Head Start to
meet the President's commitment to serve more poor
four-year-olds.
The proposed expansion would increase the range of
choices available to poor families in meeting their
child care needs, but it would also do much more.
Through a comprehensive approach that provides
educational, medical, nutritional, and social
services to children at risk of falling behind, Head
Start gives poor children a better start in life.
The newly participating four-year-olds would be able
to carry the gains made in Head Start directly into
kindergarten.
o
Because Head Start emphasizes parental and community
involvement, the President's proposal would also
benefit the families of the newly participating
children and afford concerned volunteers the
opportunity to devote time and effort to improving
the lives of some of our nation's most vulnerable
citizens.
o
Up to 95,000 more poor four-year-old children and
their families could be served, increasing by a
third the number of poor children in this age group
participating in Head Start.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 17, 1989
FACT SHEET
Support for Polish Reforms
Overall
O
The U.S. initiative encourages eight specific new steps to
support Polish political and economic reforms, as these take
root over time.
--
Each step is designed to encourage sound economic
policies and political reforms.
--
Each economic step contains its own conditionality;
there is no untied aid or unconditional credits.
We have been consulting with the Congress, the
Polish-American community and our Allies and friends about
the elements of the initiative.
Specific Elements
Private Business Agreement
--
Poland's private business sector is relatively small
(6% of non-agricultural GNP) but growing rapidly. Some
leading entrepreneurs have ties to Solidarity.
--
A government-to-government private business agreement
could serve as a vehicle for direct links between
Polish and U.S. business.
:
The Commerce Department, Small Business Administration
and U.S. small business and entrepreneurial
associations will have roles in this initiative.
- more -
- 2 -
O
Exchanges
--
The U.S. will explore new exchanges, training and
educational programs to support the private sector.
--
The Roundtable agreements provide for establishment of
independent political, economic and professional
associations. These are already springing up.
--
Creative programs would be modest in cost but could
have a major impact.
Debt swaps
--
The USG will encourage voluntary debt-equity swaps for
private sector investment in Polish enterprises or for
participation in environmental, education or other
humanitarian projects.
--
Under such a scheme, the prospective investor (which
may be a commercial bank itself) purchases outstanding
bank debt, usually at a discount, in secondary markets
and then redeems that debt at or near full value in
local currency from official financial institutions in
Poland. The investor then uses the proceeds to buy
equity shares in a local enterprise.
--
In a debt for nature transaction, the mechanism is
similar except that the group purchasing the debt
would, with the approval of the Polish Government, use
the local currency proceeds for environmental projects.
--
We understand that both commercial banks and
environmental groups are interested in debt-equity
swaps in Poland.
o
GSP for Poland
--
The U.S. will begin the legislative process to accord
Generalized Systems of Preferences benefits to Poland.
--
GSP provides duty free entry for a number of goods from
beneficiary countries. Poland's per capita income is
under the qualifying ceiling.
- more -
- 3 -
--
GSP would facilitate Poland's ability to service and
repay its debt.
--
We will work closely with Solidarity as we proceed.
o
OPIC for Poland
--
As Solidarity is legally registered, the U.S. will seek
legislation to authorize the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC) to operate in Poland.
--
OPIC provides political risk insurance for U.S.
overseas private investment, and has project financing
authority as well.
-- OPIC programs would encourage commercially-viable
arrangements that take advantage of Poland's
liberalized foreign investment law. It could support
cooperation with Poland's private sector.
-- Once authorized, OPIC and the Polish Government will
negotiate an investment incentives agreement detailing
OPIC's rights and the GOP's responsibilities for
OPIC-assisted investment.
--
In the absence of GSP, OPIC would make an independent
determination that Poland is taking steps to adopt and
implement worker rights. We will work closely with
Solidarity.
O
IFC
--
The U.S. will consider, on their merits, viable private
sector loans by the International Finance Corporation, of
support for Poland's private sector.
--
One IFC loan was approved for Poland last fall (about
$14 million).
O
Paris Club
--
The U.S. will indicate to its Allies in the Paris Club
willingness to consider a substantial rescheduling of
Poland's official debt.
- more -
- 4 -
--
This process will assist Poland to regularize its
external finances.
-- The mechanism for this process is the Paris Club, an
informal group of creditor nations.
--
Most of Poland's $39 billion debt is to official
creditors ($2.4 billion to the U.S. -- mostly Commodity
Credit Corporation and ExIm Bank).
--
The terms and timing of a rescheduling will depend on
several factors, including Poland's progress in working
with the IMF and in introducing sound economic
policies.
--
Poland has had several reschedulings, but is currently
not meeting its payments. We would want an agreement
on a repayment schedule that Poland would meet.
O
IMF
--
The. U.S. believes that the Roundtable Accords will
clear the way for Poland to work with the IMF to
develop a program which supports sound, market-oriented
economic policies.
--
Poland has been a member of the Fund since 1986. Since
that time, Poland has had regular consultations with the
Fund staff.
--
A stand-by agreement would provide discipline,
direction and conditional resources to Polish economic
reform and adjustment efforts.
# # #
U.S. Sanctions on Poland 1981 - 87
Date
Measure
Status
12/81
Science and Technology:
New agreement not signed
New agreement signed
September 1987
Suspension of travel for
Lifted August 1984
Polish scientist
12/81
Fishing:
Suspended privileges in
Lifted January 1984
U.S. waters
12/81
Civil Aviation:
Suspended Lot's landing
Lifted August 1984
rights
12/81
Credits:
Suspended Poland's eligibility
O
Lifted February 1987
for official credits
12/81
Technology Transfer:
No exceptions policy on COCOM
licensing of less sophisticated
exports to Poland
1/82
Debt Rescheduling:
Suspended renegotiation
Lifted March 1984
of Poland's official debt
10/82
MFN Suspension:
Lifted February 1987
1982/83
IMF/IBRD Entry:
Delayed Action
Lifted December 1984
Poland joined both
June 1986
1985
High-level Contacts:
Restricted GOP contacts to
Lifted September 1986
office director level
There are no standing U.S. Sanctions against Poland.
Roundtable Agreements
The Roundtable Accords consist of overall agreements on
political, trade union and economic reform, and several
specialized agreements.
Solidarity, Rural Solidarity and the independent students'
union will be legalized.
Political reforms include:
--
free elections (this June) to a new Senate with
legislative and veto powers;
--
a division of seats (60% regime; 35% opposition; 5%
official Catholic groups) in the lower chamber of
Parliament.
--
establishment of a new office of the President, with
broad but limited powers (the Roundtable includes
explicit limits on the President's ability to declare
martial law);
--
establishment of a free opposition press, which should
include daily and weekly newspapers and some agreed
access to the electronic media;
--
a liberalized law on independent associations,
including political associations.
Agreement on economic reform has been much tougher. Both
sides agree on the need for market reforms.
The Accords are unprecedented for a communist country.
Solidarity and the Polish government, both concerned about
Poland's economic situation, have repeatedly stated their
intention to appeal for Western economic support.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
UNTIL 12:00 NOON
MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1989
TEXT OF REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE CITIZENS OF HAMTRAMCK, MICHIGAN
Hamtramck City Hall
Hamtramck, Michigan
April 17, 1989
Americans are not mildly sympathetic spectators of events in
Poland. We are bound to Poland by a very special bond, a bond of
blood, of culture and shared values. So it is only natural that,
as dramatic change comes to Poland, we share the aspirations and
excitement of the Polish people.
In my Inaugural address, I spoke of the new breeze of freedom
gaining strength around the world. "In man's heart," I said, "if
not in fact, the day of the dictator is over. The totalitarian
era is passing, its old ideas blown away like leaves from an
ancient lifeless tree."
I spoke of the spreading recognition that prosperity can only
come from a free market and the creative genius of the
individual. I spoke of the new potency of democratic ideas -- of
free speech, free elections and the exercise of free will.
We should not be surprised that the ideas of democracy are
returning with renewed force in Europe -- the homeland of
philosophers of freedom whose ideals have been so fully realized
in America. Victor Hugo said: "An invasion of armies can be
resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." My friends,
liberty is an idea whose time has come in Eastern Europe.
For almost half a century, the suppression of freedom in Eastern
Europe, sustained by the military power of the Soviet Union, has
kept nation from nation, neighbor from neighbor. As East and
West seek to reduce arms, it must not be forgotten that arms are
a symptom, not a source, of tension. The true source of tension
is the imposed and unnatural division of Europe.
How can there be stability and security in Europe and the world
as long as nations and people are denied the right to determine
their future -- a right explicitly promised them by agreements
among the victorious powers at the end of World War Two? How can
there be stability and security in Europe as long as nations,
which once stood proudly at the front rank of industrial powers,
are impoverished by a discredited ideology and stifling
authoritarianism? The United States has never accepted the
legitimacy of Europe's division. We accept no spheres of
influence that deny the sovereign rights of nations.
Yet the winds of change are shaping a new European destiny.
Western Europe is resurgent. Eastern Europe is awakening to
yearnings for democracy, independence and prosperity. In the
Soviet Union itself, we are encouraged by the sound of voices
long silent, and the sight of the rulers consulting the ruled.
We see "new thinking" in some aspects of Soviet foreign policy.
We are hopeful that these stirrings presage meaningful, lasting
and more far-reaching change.
- more -
2
Let no one doubt the sincerity of the American people and their
government in our desire to see reform succeed in the Soviet
Union. We welcome the changes that have taken place, and we will
continue to encourage greater recognition of human rights, market
incentives and elections.
East and West are negotiating on a broad range of issues, from
arms reductions to the environment. But the Cold War began in
Eastern Europe; if it is to end, it will end in this crucible of
world conflict -- and it must end. The American people want to
see East and Central Europe free, prosperous and at peace. With
prudence, realism and patience, we seek to promote the evolution
of freedom -- the opportunities sparked by the Helsinki accords
and deepening East-West contact.
In recent years, we have improved relations with countries in the
region. In each case, we looked for progress in its
international posture and internal practices -- in human rights,
cultural openness, emigration issues, opposition to terrorism.
While we want relations to improve, there are certain acts we
will not condone or accept -- behavior that can shift relations
in the wrong direction: Human rights abuses, technology theft,
and hostile intelligence or foreign policy actions against us.
Some regimes are now seeking to win popular legitimacy through
reforms. In Hungary, a new leadership is experimenting with
reforms that may permit a political pluralism that only a few
years ago would have been unthinkable. And in Poland, on
April 5, Solidarity leader Lech Walesa and Interior Minister
Kiszczak signed agreements that, if faithfully implemented, will
be a watershed in the postwar history of Eastern Europe.
Under the auspices of the Roundtable agreements, the free trade
union Solidarity will be formally restored, a free opposition
press will be legalized, independent political and other free
associations will be permitted, and elections for a new Polish
Senate will be held. These agreements testify to the realism of
General Jaruzelski and his colleagues. And they are inspiring
testimony to the spiritual guidance of the Catholic Church, the
indomitable spirit of the Polish people -- and the strength and
wisdom of Lech Walesa.
Poland faces, and will continue to face for some time, severe
economic problems. A modern French writer observed that
communism is not another form of economics. It is the death of
economics. In Poland, an economic system crippled by the
inefficiencies of central planning, almost proved the death of
initiative and enterprise. Almost. But economic reforms can
still give free rein to the enterprising impulse and creative
spirit of the Polish people.
The Polish people understand the magnitude of this challenge.
Democratic forces in Poland have asked for the moral, political
and economic support of the West. And the West will respond.
My Administration is completing a thorough review of our policies
toward Poland and all of Eastern Europe.
I have carefully considered ways the United States can help
Poland. We will not act unconditionally. We will not offer
unsound credits. We will not offer aid without requiring sound
economic practices in return. We must remember that Poland is
still a member of the Warsaw Pact. We must take no steps that
compromise the security of the West.
The Congress, the Polish-American community, the American labor
movement, our allies and international financial institutions,
must work in concert if Polish democracy is to take root anew,
and sustain itself. We can and must answer this call to freedom.
And it is particularly appropriate, here in Hamtramck, for me to
- more -
3
salute the members and leaders of the American labor movement fo:
hanging tough with Solidarity through its darkest days.
The Poles are now taking concrete steps that deserve our active
support. I have decided on specific steps by the United States,
carefully chosen to recognize reforms underway, and to encourage
reforms yet to come once Solidarity is legal:
-- I will ask Congress to join me in providing Poland acces
to our Generalized System of Preferences, which offers selective
tariff relief to beneficiary countries.
-- We will work with our allies and friends in the Paris
Club to develop sustainable new schedules for Poland to repay it
debt, easing a heavy burden so that a free market can grow.
-- I will also ask Congress to join me in authorizing the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation to operate in Poland, to
the benefit of both Polish and U.S. investors.
-- We will propose negotiations for a private business
agreement with Poland to encourage cooperation between U.S. firm
and Poland's private businesses. Both sides can benefit.
-- The United States will continue to consider supporting,
on their merits, viable loans to the private-sector by the
International Finance Corporation.
-- We believe that the Roundtable agreements clear the way
for Poland to be able to work with the International Monetary
Fund on programs that support sound, new, market-oriented
economic policies.
-- We will encourage business and private non-profit groups
to develop innovative programs to swap Polish debt for equity in
Polish enterprises; and for charitable, humanitarian and
environmental projects.
-- We will support imaginative educational, cultural and
training programs to help liberate the creative energies of the
Polish people.
When I visited Poland in September 1987, I told Chairman
Jaruzelski and Lech Walesa that the American people and
government would respond quickly and imaginatively to significar
internal reform of the kind we see now. Both of them valued tha
assurance. So it is especially gratifying for me to witness the
changes now taking place in Poland, and to announce these
important changes in U.S. policy. The United States keeps its
promises.
If Poland's experiment succeeds, other countries may follow.
While we must still differentiate among the nations of Eastern
Europe, Poland offers two lessons for all. First, there can be
no progress without significant political and economic
liberalization. Second, help from the West will come in concer
with liberalization. Our friends and European allies share thi.
philosophy.
The West can now be bold in proposing a vision of the European
future: We dream of the day when there will be no barriers to
the free movement of people, goods and ideas. We dream of the
day when Eastern European peoples will be free to choose their
system of government and to vote for the party of their choice
regular, contested elections. We dream of the day when Eastern
European countries will be free to choose their own peaceful
course in the world, including closer ties with Western Europe.
And we envision an Eastern Europe in which the Soviet Union has
renounced military intervention as an instrument of its policy
- more -
4
on any pretext. We share an unwavering conviction that one day
all the peoples of Europe will live in freedom.
Next month, at a summit of the North Atlantic Alliance, the
leaders of the Western democracies will discuss these concerns.
These are not bilateral issues between the United States and the
Soviet Union. They are, rather, the concern of all the Western
allies, calling for common approaches. The Soviet Union should
understand, in turn, that a free democratic Eastern Europe as we
envision it would threaten no one and no country. Such an
evolution would imply, and reinforce, the further improvement of
East-West relations in all dimensions -- arms reductions,
political relations, trade -- in ways that enhance the safety and
well-being of all of Europe. There is no other way.
What has brought us to this opening? The unity and strength of
the democracies, and something else -- the bold new thinking in
the Soviet Union; the innate desire for freedom in the hearts of
all men. We will not waver in our dedication to freedom now. If
we are wise, united and ready to seize the moment, we will be
remembered as the generation that helped all of Europe find its
destiny in freedom.
Two centuries ago, a Polish patriot named Thaddeus Kosciuszko
came to these American shores to stand for freedom. Let us honor
and remember this hero of our own struggle for freedom by
extending our hand to those who work the shipyards of Gdansk, and
walk the cobbled streets of Warsaw. Let us recall the words of
the Poles who struggled for independence: "For your freedom and
ours." Let us support the peaceful evolution of democracy in
Poland. The cause of liberty knows no limits; the friends of
freedom, no borders.
# # #
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH HANFORD DOLE
SECRETARY OF LABOR
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
APRIL 19, 1989
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Administration's proposals on child
care assistance for working families.
Children are the nation's most precious resource, one that
the American people must invest in wisely. The quality of life
of our nation's families, and the continued competitiveness of
America in a global marketplace, are both dependent on the care
we provide our children.
A number of dramatic changes have occurred over the past
decade which demonstrate the very real need for a public policy
on child care which is sensitive to the tremendous diversity in
working families across America.
While almost 30% of married couples with children under age
14 remain in so-called traditional families, where one parent
stays at home with the children, there has been a dramatic
increase in the number of families where both parents work
outside the home.
2
Women have entered the workforce at an astonishing rate in
the past several decades. Approximately two-thirds of mothers
with children under high school age are now in the workforce in
either full-time or part-time jobs.
There has also been a substantial increase in the number of
families which are supported by a single parent, with
particularly acute needs among low-income families headed
women.
All of these working families have important child care
needs. Needs that are individual, needs that are compelling,
needs that are important to the well-being of the child, the
family, and the employer. In responding to the child care needs
of working families, the President developed a proposal based on
four important principles.
MORE PARENTAL CHOICE
The first principle of the President's proposal recognizes
the differing circumstances of today's families and provides a
policy which offers parents -- the real child care experts -- a
choice in the child care which is best suited to their needs.
Parents are the best judge of quality care and know what is in
the best interest of their children.
3
For those parents who need child care because they work
outside the home, again diversity is the order of the day.
Parents want choices and are expressing their preferences.
According to a 1984-1985 Census Report, more then one half of
26.5 million children under age 15 with employed mothers are in
school most of the time their mothers are at work. One million
of these are latch-key children. of the remaining 12.6 million
children not in school most of the time their mothers are at
work, more than one half (54%) are cared for by relatives. Some
23% are cared for by non-relatives in the child's own home or
another home; 19% are in day care centers that include churches,
community and non-profit centers. But people work part-time,
full-time, night-shift, day-shift, swing-shift -- one size does
not fit all. Parents seek child care supervised by people who
share their values.
As you can see, there is a complex mosaic from which parents
choose. The President's proposal is designed to enhance parental
choice within that mosaic.
ENCOURAGES OPTIONS
Thus, the President's second principle is that federal
policy should increase, not decrease, the range of options
available to parents. The federal government should not become
involved in licensing decisions, and federal financial support
4
should not be made contingent upon state licensing decisions.
Churches play a vital role in making child care available.
Neighbors, friends and family members can provide excellent care.
Our policy should not discriminate against them as child care
providers, nor drive them out of the market by imposing federally
mandated standards and paperwork requirements on them. Such
federal intrusion will decrease the supply of care and increase
costs for parents. Federal policy should expand the range of
choices available to parents, not limit them through biasing
federal support toward one kind of care.
NON-DISCRIMINATION
The President's third principle recognizes the fact that
there are 7.6 million married couples with children today -- some
30% -- in which one of the parents remains home to care for their
children. These families care for 7.4 million children under the
age of six and 7 million children between the ages of six and
thirteen. It is the Administration's belief that in charting a
course for public policy in child care, the federal government
should not discriminate against these families who sacrifice the
income of a second career for the mother to stay at home to care
for their children. Our tax credit may provide the marginal
assistance for the low-income mother who would prefer to be at
home with her children, but feels she needs to work to make ends
meet. This tax credit may empower her to reach that goal.
5
TARGETED TO POOREST FAMILIES
Child care assistance is a concern particularly for those
parents who have the fewest resources and thus the fewest choices
in making child care arrangements -- low-income parents. The
President's fourth principle is that assistance should be
targeted to low-income families, particularly those with young
children.
The federal government currently provides assistance to
families through five provisions of tax law: 1) the personal and
dependency exemptions, 2) the standard deduction 3) the earned
income tax credit, 4) the dependent care tax credit, and 5) the
employee exclusion for child care benefits. As I will explain
shortly, the President proposes to amend the tax law further to
target more assistance to low-income families with children to
help them meet their child care needs. The federal government
also provides child care services and assistance through a
variety of programs, the largest of which include the Social
Services Block Grant and child care feeding program.
The newest federal legislation to respond to child care
needs of parents is the excellent Family Support Act, which
emerged from this committee. The Family Support Act recognizes
6
that child care is a key for low-income families to become
independent of welfare. It provides welfare parents access to
child care, transportation and other services necessary to
participate in an education or training program or work. It also
provides twelve months of "transitional" child care to AFDC
recipients who leave the rolls due to work.
In addition to these tax credits and services, the federal
government provides educational, medical, nutritional, and social
services to young disadvantaged children through the Head Start
program.
Overall, the federal government already spends about $7
billion on Head Start and child care through tax expenditures and
more than forty specific programs and services. As I think
you'll agree, federal involvement in child care is broad and
responds to a wide variety of needs.
But states, localities, and private employers have also
responded to changing demands in the workforce through child care
assistance. Twenty-nine states already provide child care
assistance to parents through their tax codes. Fifteen states
provide resource and referral information to parents and
employers regarding local child care options.
7
The realities of the workplace have encouraged some private
employers to offer assistance in child care, as well. With the
American workforce growing at a slower rate, and business
competing for workers, every benefit counts. By the year 2000,
women will comprise over three-fifths of the new workforce, and
almost half of the workforce will be women. More businesses are
beginning to realize that child care needs must be met if they
are to compete in an increasingly tight labor market.
A recent Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of workplaces
with ten employees or more determined that some 61% had one or
more work practices, such as flexible work schedules and on-site
care, which help parents care for their children.
Employers have responded enthusiastically to a program which
the Department of Labor has recently developed. The Work and
Family Clearinghouse is a computerized system used to assist
employers in identifying the most appropriate policies for
responding to the dependent care needs of their employees seeking
to balance dual responsibilities of work and family. Such family
responsive policies have favorable "bottom line" implications for
employers -- particularly in such areas as productivity, labor-
management relations and the ability to recruit and retrain the
most competent workers in the projected tight labor market of the
future. Information on some 70 successful employer programs can
8
be accessed by businesses across the nation which are interested
in providing child care assistance of their own.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few moments to describe
the specific provisions of the Administration's proposals,
founded on the four principles I described earlier. They contain
four distinct parts which together enhance the range of parental
choices in child care.
Additional Assistance through the Tax Code.
1. Child Tax Credit. Assistance to low-income families,
containing at least one employed parent, would be expanded by
making a tax credit available to families with children under age
four. The tax credit would equal 14% of earnings up to a maximum
of $1,000 per child. The maximum credit would be phased out,
initially for families with income between $8,000 and $13,000,
and by 1994 for incomes between $15,000 and $20,000. The credit
would be refundable and would be effective for tax years
beginning January 1, 1990. Families would have the option of
receiving the refund in advance through a payment added to each
paycheck.
9
2.
Refundability of Dependent Care Tax Credit. The President's
initiative recognizes the unique needs of work-related child care
expenses by maintaining the current dependent care tax credit
(DCTC). In addition, this tax credit for child care expenses
incurred would be made refundable so that low-income families,
including those with no tax liability, can get the benefit of the
credit. Families eligible for both the new credit and the
dependent care credit for the same child could choose whichever
of the two credits best suits their needs. The refundable
dependent care credit would be effective for tax years beginning
January 1, 1990.
Parents want and need to make important choices about how to
best care for their children. Together, these tax credits
provide the greatest flexibility for family choice, and put more
dollars directly into the hands of low-income families eligible
for the credits. The tax credits allow parents to influence the
direction of the market.
While some proposals call for considerable government
intervention in the market, the tax credit approach is an
excellent way to provide assistance without extensive
administrative overhead and regulation.
Some proposals advocate that our children march lock-step to
an institution where Washington sets the rules. But families
10
have the basic responsibility for the care of their children. We
must carefully support the role of the family in choosing the
best care. The child care needs of working Americans can best be
met by providing assistance to parents, not to providers; through
state and local regulations, not federal standards; through
community-based and public-private partnerships, not federal
bureaucracies; and by parental involvement, not federally
mandated procedures.
Excessive and costly government intrusion is the hardest on
those least able to afford its impact -- low-income families.
3. Expansion of Head Start. The President also has proposed a
dramatic increase of $250 million in funding for the Head Start
program. These funds would be used to enroll up to 95,000 more
poor four-year-olds in the program.
Head Start, of course, is much more than child care.
However, this expansion would increase the range of child care
choices to poor families, while giving their children a better
start in life.
4. Liability Study. In addition, at the President's direction,
I have undertaken a study to determine the extent to which market
barriers or failures prevent employers from obtaining liability
insurance necessary to provide child care on or near their
11
employees' worksites. A working group has been established at
the Department of Labor to gather information about the problem
on a nationwide basis. If our efforts uncover significant
barriers standing in the way of insuring prospective child care
providers, we will recommend possible ways to address the
problem.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration stands ready to work with
you to craft acceptable legislation which is based on the four
principles I have outlined today. I look forward to that
opportunity and I hope we can begin such a dialogue in the coming
days.
# # #
DRAFT
4/24
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON CHILD CARE
The changing nature of American society heightens the need for
quality, affordable, accessible child care. President Bush wants
parents to have the choice and the power to select the best, safest
environment for their children. The President believes that child
care is a family issue. His child care proposals reflect his belief
in the family as a primary force in building a better America.
MYTH: TODAY'S WOMEN DON'T WANT TO STAY HOME WITH THEIR CHILDREN
FACT: The traditional family in today's society is far from
obsolete. In reality, more than 80 percent of [mothers] state
they would prefer to stay home with their children if they
could afford to. In addition, less than one pre-school child
in three has a year-round, full-time employed mother.
MYTH: ONLY WEALTHY FAMILIES CAN AFFORD FOR A PARENT TO STAY HOME TO
CARE FOR THE CHILDREN
FACT: The median income of two parent/two income families in
1986 was $38,346 compared to $25,803 for traditional
two parent/one-earner families. And approximately 83 percent
of children under five in day care are from two-earner
families. What exists today is one group of families who
choose two earners in order to achieve a higher financial
standard of living and another who choose economic sacrifice
so that one parent can stay home with small children. [Sound
pro-family, pro-child government policy/President Bush's
proposals] should respect both of these options.
MYTH: THERE IS A CRITICAL SHORTAGE OF DAY CARE IN AMERICA TODAY
FACT: In fact the day-care industry is expanding (from 4,400 centers
in 1960 to 39,929 centers today). Even so, national daycare
chains such as Gerber and Kindercare report average vacancies
of 30 percent. While the cost of a full-time sitter or
commercial day care has increased prohibitively, the costs of
"family day care" and group center have increased only
slightly in real terms over the last ten years.
MYTH: THE GOVERNMENT CURRENTLY SPENDS LITTLE ON CHILD CARE
FACT: The 1988 costs of current child care programs and tax credits
are more than $6,900,000. However, currently the federal
government provides twice as much assistance to each child in
a family choosing formal daycare as for traditional families
where one parent remains at home. [Under the ABC bill, this
ratio would rise to three to one.]
DRAFT
4/24
MYTH: STATE LICENSING OF CHILD CARE WILL HELP AVAILABILITY AND
AFFORDABILITY
FACT: While it is sound policy for states to require that large day
care centers be licensed, the major results of many states'
zoning codes and health regulation is to limit the choice and
restrict the supply of child care. [President Bush's] child
care proposals seek to expand, not restrict, parents' options
by providing funds directly to parents allowing them to choose
the type of care appropriate for their family.
MYTH: THOSE SUPPORTING [TAX CREDIT PROPOSALS] OPPOSE WORKING WOMEN
FACT: It is a recognized truth that women are playing an expanded
and vital role in the workplace and in professions throughout
our society. However, women also should have the right to
temporarily step out of the mainstream workforce to raise
their children. Reducing the confiscation of family income by
taxation is a sensible and sound approach to enabling mothers
to stay at home with their children if they so choose.
MYTH: CHURCH-AFFILIATED DAYCARE IS PROTECTED UNDER THE ABC BILL
FACT: Nearly one-third of daycare centers are church-affiliated.
Direct government subsidization of daycare as proposed by ABC
would have a severely negative impact on these centers; any
daycare center which provided religious values to children
through prayers, stories, or songs would be denied government
support. The loss would be felt most tragically in the inner
city where churches play a crucial role in helping break the
cycle of poverty and giving disadvantaged youth hope for the
future. Under President Bush's tax credit policy, parents who
wish to use tax credit funds for religious care can choose to
do SO.
MYTH: UNREGULATED FAMILY DAYCARE IS UNHEALTHY AND UNSAFE FOR
CHILDREN
FACT: The typical "unregulated" daycare provider is a mother caring
for her children as well as one or two other neighborhood
children. According to a Department of Health and Human
Services report, The National Daycare Home Study, regulated
providers were less likely to be caring for their own
children, had a greater number of children to supervise, and
charged higher prices than unregulated carers. The study also
reported that unlicensed, neighborhood facilities pose less of
a danger of a child catching infectious disease than do larger
unregulated facilities.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH HANFORD DOLE
SECRETARY OF LABOR
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
APRIL 19, 1989
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Administration's proposal on child
care assistance for the working family.
The future belongs to our children. They are the nation's
most precious resource, one that the American people must invest
in wisely. The quality of life of our nation's families, and the
continued competitiveness of America in a global marketplace, are
both dependent on the opportunities and experiences we are able
to offer our children.
A number of dramatic changes have occurred over the past
decade which demonstrate the very real need for a public policy
on child care which is sensitive to the tremendous diversity in
working families across America.
While almost 30% of married couples remain in so-called
traditional families, where one parent stays at home with the
children, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of
families where both parents work outside the home.
Women have entered the workforce at an astonishing rate in
the past several decades. Approximately two-thirds of mothers
with children under high school age are now in the workforce.
There has also been a substantial increase in the number of
families which are supported by only a single parent, with
particularly acute needs among low income families headed by
women (an increase from 23% in 1959 to 49% last year).
All of these working families have important
responsibilities for child care. The first principle of the
President's proposal recognizes the differing circumstances of
today's family and provides a policy which offers diversity in
choosing the child care best suited to their needs.
For those parents who need child care because they work
outside the home, again diversity is the order of the day.
There are 26.5 million children with working mothers, of whom one
half are in school most of the time. of the remaining 12.6
million children not in school most of the time, more than one
half (54%) are cared for by relatives. Some 23% are cared for by
non-relatives in the child's own home or another home; 20% are in
day care centers that include churches, community and non-profit
centers. The remaining 3% (500,000) of children take care of
themselves.
As you can see, there is a wide mosaic from which parents
choose. The President's proposal is designed to preserve that
mosaic. Thus, his second principle, that federal policy should
increase, not decrease, the range of options available to
parents. The Federal government should not become involved in
licensing decisions, and federal financial support should not be
made contingent upon state licensing decisions. Local
governments are perfectly capable of addressing licensing issues.
Churches play a vital role in making child care available.
Neighbors and family members can provide excellent care. Our
policy should not discriminate against them as child care
providers, and potentially drive them out of the market by
mandating federally-imposed standards, which increase costs.
The President's third principle recognizes the fact that
there are 7.6 million families --some 30%-- today in which one of
the parents remains home to care for their children. These
families care for 7.4 million children under the age of six and 7
million children between the ages of six and thirteen. It is the
Administration's belief that in charting a course for public
policy in child care, the Federal government should not
discriminate against these families because of their decision to
care for their own children.
still the demand for child care is great. And it is
certainly a concern among those who are least able to pay for it
-- low and moderate income parents.
The Federal government currently provides assistance to low
income parents through five provisions of tax law: 1) the
personal and dependency exemptions, 2) the standard deduction, 3)
the earned income tax credit, 4) the dependent care tax credit,
and 5) the employee exclusion for child care benefits. The
Federal government also provides child care services and
assistance through the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA),
Social Services Block Grant, Vocational Education, AFDC, WIN and
numerous other programs.
The newest Federal legislation to respond to child care
needs of parents is the Family Support Act, which emerged from
this Committee. The Family Support Act recognizes that child
care is a key for low-income families to become independent of
welfare, and it guarantees welfare mothers access to child care,
transportation and other services that are necessary to
participate in an education or training program or work.
In addition to these tax credits and services, the Federal
government provides direct services to young children through the
Head Start program.
Overall, the Federal government spends about $7 billion on
child care through tax expenditures and specific programs and
services. As I think you'll agree, Federal involvement in child
care is broad and responds to a wide variety of needs.
Any additional federal support for child care should be
targeted, then, to those most in need. The Administration's
fourth principle targets low income families, particularly those
with very young, because they face the greatest difficulty in
meeting the child care needs of their children. Our plan will
help all low income families with young children, not just those
who participate in government sponsored child care.
These principles are the foundation for the President's
proposal. The President has made it clear that he will be
flexible on the details, but firm on his devotion to those
principles.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL
The Administration's proposal contains four distinct parts
which together enhance the range of parental choice in child
care:
1.
Assistance to low income families would be expanded by
making a refundable tax credit available to families
with children under age four. The tax credit would
equal 14% of earnings up to a maximum of $1,000 per
child. The maximum credit would be phased out
gradually, initially for families with income between
$8,000 and $13,000, and by 1994 for incomes between
$15,000 and $20,000.
2.
The current child and dependent tax credit would be
made refurdable so that low income families, including
those who have no tax liability can get the benefit of
the credit.
3.
The resources available to the Head Start program would
be expanded by $250 million over the current level.
This expansion would increase the range of child care
choices to poor families and meet the President's
commitment to include more poor four year-olds in this
program. In fiscal year 1990, these funds would extend
the ladder of opportunity to as many as 95,000 more
children who most need the assistance Head Start
offers.
4.
In addition, at the President's direction, I have
underatken a study to determine the extent to which
market barriers or failures prevent employers from
obtaining liability insurance necessary to provide
child care on or near their employees' worksites.
March 16, 1989
Memorandum
Re: The President's Child Care Proposal: Arguments Pro and Con
That Have Appeared In The Media
CON
"
Bush plan does not help families in which no one works,
and it pays the most to low-income families who earn the
most. " -- NBC (Connie Chung) 3/15/89
"Critics call the President's plan a giveaway program that
would not help create new day care." -- CBS (Wyatt Andrews)
3/15/89
"White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater conceded there was
no guarantee that the assistance ... would actually be used
for child care. " -- Reuters (Michael Gelb) 3/15/89
"You can go out and spend it on beer if you wanted to. " --
Sen. Dodd, numerous sources.
The Dodd plan is "far broader," covering low- and middle-
income families and older children. -- ABC (Peter Jennings)
3/15/89
"To propose a $1000 Federal tax credit and call it child
care is to be misleading. Twenty dollars a week is not
what I call help." -- Sen. Dodd, numerous sources.
"Bush's child-care program makes no effort to regulate the
quality of child-care arrangements
...
Unlike the Bush
proposal, the Dodd measure would set standards for day-care
providers. " -- LA Times 3/16/89 (James Gerstenzang)
The Dodd bill is "bipartisan legislation. " -- UPI (Eliot
Brenner) 3/16/89
MBC
etcal events
(more)
2-2-2
If
O
Sen. Dodd and Labor Committee Chairman Edward
Kennedy
helped forge a delicate compromise allowing
federal funds to support church-based day-care programs that
meet certain standards. The compromise united powerful
groups like the National Education Association and the
United States Catholic Conference behind the legislation."
-- Wall Street Journal (Cathy Trost and Gerald F. Seib)
3/16/89.
"It [the Democratic proposal] would make non-sectarian
church-based child care fully eligible for assistance, a
point that complicated efforts to pass the legislation last
year. " -- UPI (Eliot Brenner) 3/16/89
PRO
O
The Bush plan "would give qualifiying families the tax
credit whether they sent children to organized day care, to
relatives or to no day care at all
The Senate plan would
give cash benefits to low-income families, but only in cases
where children actually go to licensed and regulated child
care programs. " -- CBS (Wyatt Andrews) 3/15/89
O
"Mr. Bush
said the essence of his tax-credit plan is
'parental choice.
His approach
provides benefits to
parents who choose to stay at home and care for their
children themselves, as well as to those who work: " --
Wall Street Journal (Cathy Trost and Gerald F. Seib)
3/16/89.
o
"Sen. Hatch, who is a co-sponsor of the bill, warned of
further battles over standards, which he thinks should
remain a state responsibility.
:
Wall Street Journal
(Cathy Trost and Gerald F. Seib) 3/16/89.
O
"And Sen. Nancy Kassebaum called the bill 'economically
troubling' because of the "growing escalation of costs"
associated with it." -- Wall Street Journal (Cathy Trost
and Gerald F. Seib) 3/16/89.
(more)
3-3-3
"Assistance should go directly to the parents. " President
Bush, quoted in USA Today (Jessica Lee and Michelle Healy)
3/16/89 and other sources.
"During the campaign, Mr. Bush said [the Democratic]
proposal would have required the licensing of
grandmothers
"
-- The Washington Times (Jeremiah 'Leary)
3/16/89
"The federal government should not become involved in
licensing decisions and federal financial support should not
be made contingent on state licensing issues. Neighbors and
other family members can provide excellent care. If
--
President Bush, quoted in The Washington Times (Jeremiah
O' Leary) 3/16/89
"The federal money would be dispersed to the states and they
would be required to distribute at least 70 percent in
direct subsidies to eligible families. The remaining funds
would go to administer the program and increasing the supply
and quality of day-care facilities. If -- Washington Times
(Jeremiah O'Leary) 3/16/89
"The Senate measure reflected a bill that died on the Senate
floor last fall in a filibuster." -- UPI (Eliot Brenner)
3/16/89
The Democratic plan was "endorsed by unsuccessful
Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis
"
--
Reuters (Michael Gelb) 3/15/89
The Bush tax credit "would be refundable in order to be
available to families without tax liabilities
"
--
Reuters (Michael Gelb) 3/15/89
"Bush also asked Congress for an additioanl $250 million for
the Head Start program. " -- Reuters (Michael Gelb) 3/15/89
"Church-based day care centers might also be ineligible for
government funding under the Democratic plan because of
Constitutional limits on government assistance to religious
organizations. -- Reuters (Michael Gelb) 3/15/89
If
this maximizes options and it does not eliminate the
more formal day-care centers and child- care centers. II
--
AP, 3/15/89
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01a. Memo
Barbara Selfridge to Holly Selfridge, re: Child Care
04/25/89
P5
Materials. (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File, Backup
Open on Expiration of PRA
Subseries:
(Document Follows)
WHORM Cat.:
By (NLGB) on 4/5/2005
File Location:
White House Wire on Child Care 4/28/89
Date Closed:
9/23/2004
OA/ID Number:
06347
FOIA/SYS Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2004-2265-S
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
MR Case #:
Appeal Case #:
MR Disposition:
Appeal Disposition:
Disposition Date:
Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advise between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
April 25, 1989
To: Holly Williamson
From: Barbara Selfridge
Subj: Child Care Materials
Attached are copies of the pieces that were in clearance with
some notes on them.
Some points that you might want to take into account in the piece
your office is doing:
O DOL did not like the tone of the ABC "Raw Deal" piece, as
we discussed by phone this morning. They would opt for less
inflamatory language and drop the Dodd quote completely.
o Their concern on the quantity piece is that it focuses so
much on liscensed care when the administration is trying to
downplay that kind of care. (Unfortunately that is the only
kind of care we have much info. on. In a piece like the one
your office is doing where there is other info. in the paper
that might not stick out so much.) I have included in that
package a quote they sent over from the DOL study that is
useful -- it makes the point about quantity but does note
the existence of spot shortages.
o People have also expressed concern that Administration
materials be sensitive to the use of "church-based" care
because that can be taken as meaning only Christian care.
Religiously-based care or religiously affiliated care might
be better terms.
1
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01b. Report
Re: ABC: A Raw Deal for America's Families. (2 pp.)
n.d.
P-8
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Speech File, Backup
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
By (NLGB) on 4/5/2005
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
White House Wire on Child Care 4/28/89
Date Closed:
9/23/2004
OA/ID Number:
06347
FOIA/SYS Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2004-2265-S
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
MR Case #:
Appeal Case #:
MR Disposition:
Appeal Disposition:
Disposition Date:
Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRAJ
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advise between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
Cleanic
ABC: A RAW DEAL FOR AMERICA'S FAMILIES
(Supplement to "ABC and the President's Principles")
DOES NOT TRUST PARENTS TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR THEIR
CHILDREN
ABC's principal sponsor (Senator Dodd) has said of the
dassn't
President's tax credit approach, "You could spend it on beer if
you wanted."
-- Reveals the philosophy underlying ABC: parents cannot be
trusted.
-- Is unfair and demeaning to low income working families who are
doing their best to care for their children.
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST RELIGIOUS-BASED CARE
ABC's report language specifically rejects " a narrow,
technical interpretation that sectarian activities are permitted
so long as no financial assistance under this Act is used for the
sectarian activities."
"Under the committee's broad interpretation, an entity receiving
any form of financial assistance under the Act shall not include
any sectarian activities, worship or instruction in providing
child care services under this Act
Section 19 (a) embodies the
Committee's intent that all aspects of child care services
provided by an entity receiving financial assistance under this
Act be completely non-sectarian in nature and content."
This language covers all caretakers, including relatives.
REDUCES AVAILABLE CHILD CARE AND INCREASES COSTS
A study of the original version of ABC done by the "Child Care
usE
Review" provides an indication of the effects of ABC on parents
who use child care centers:
North enalia
-- Would raise the cost of center care for parents by nearly $1.2
study or
billion a year, an average of $6.76 per child per week or $351
carefully
per child per year.
Evp uplaxine
that their
The increase for some parents would be as much as $25 per
child per week because the bill affects states differently.
was dovel
Parents in 10 Southern States and Ohio, Rhode Island, Hawaii
and Utah would be particularly hard hit.
on +so
12,630 licensed child care facilities -- over 20 percent of
licensed centers in operation -- would close.
at
now
Similarly a study done by researchers in North Carolina estimates
that the annual, per child cost of center care under federally
mandated standards similar to those likely to result from ABC
would be $5300. This is:
-- Triple the per child subsidy for care that underlies the ABC
sponsors' estimate of the number of children served in the
first year. [70 percent of $2.5 billion = $1.75 billion.
Divided by the one million children the sponsor say this bill
would subsidize = $1750 per child.]
-- Almost double the $3000 that ABC's sponsors cite as the annual
cost of care per child.
-- More than double the median annual cost that families who pay
for care report that they spend on child care arrangements for
all of their children. [$1950 -- $2106]
ABC would affect the price and availability of family-based care
even more than center-based care. For the care ABC regulates, it
would:
-- Establish intrusive licensing and inspection procedures.
Dout
Unannounced State inspections would not be limited to the
we
providers' normal business hours nor to the portion of the
home used for child care.
-- Establish a basis for State inspectors to require
modifications to homes in order to make them like structures
built specifically for institutional child care.
-- Require family-based providers to make written policies and
program goals available to parents.
BUDGET BUSTER
Using the sponsors' own assumptions about the number of children
who are eligible and the number who would receive care in the
first year, the cost of fully funding ABC would be $30-40 billion
a year. But ABC will drive up costs and reduce availability of
care so that the full cost of ABC could easily be 2 to 3 times as
much -- $60 billion to more than $100 billion a year.
Inclearance
AVAILABILITY OF CHILD CARE
There is no evidence of a general, national shortage of available
child care.
O
A comprehensive Department of Labor study of child care
examined data on demographic and economic trends, Federal
programs providing financial assistance for child care, tax
and regulatory policy at State and local levels, actions by
employers and labor unions, and workplace trends. They
concluded:
Considerable concern has been raised that a
"shortage" of child care exists. This report
finds no evidence in support of the contention
that there is a general, national shortage of
available child care. (Department of Labor, "Child
Care: A Workforce Issue, 1988)
O
A 1984-85 Census survey of the 26.5 million children
under age 15 with working mothers counted 0.5 million
school-age children -- only 1.8 percent of the total -- as
caring for themselves most of the time their mothers were at
work. Another Census study specifically concerned with
after-school care confirms that survey. ("Who's Minding the
Kids?" 1987; "After-School Care of School-Age Children:
December 1984,' 1987)
Commonly cited "evidence" of a shortage does not hold up under
scrutiny.
O
Comparisons of the number of slots in licensed child
care facilities with the number of children of working
mothers are misleading because:
-- More than half of all children of working mothers
are cared for by their relatives and their own parents
(typically the father, while the mother works). Of the
12.6 million children under age 15 with working mothers,
54 percent were cared for by their parents or relatives
most of the time their mother was working.
-- Half of the States specifically exempt small,
family day care homes from regulation. Consequently
this source of child care -- which serves almost as many
children as child-care centers -- is not counted in the
tally of licensed slots. ("Who's Minding the Kids?";
National Day Care Home Study, 1981; Gwen Morgan, "The
State of State Child Care Regulation," 1987)
P04
DO 24.89 05:55 PM
Photocopy-Preservation
Over the last ten years, the number of licensed day care centers
and family day care providers has grown. From studies we have
learned that changes have occurred in child care arrangements for
preschoolers during the past twenty years. The following chart
graphically illustrates that point.
Lorus
CARE OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN.
1965 - 1985
70
62
60
56
55
50
48
40
percent
30
23 23 22
23
20
16
15
15
13
10
7 6 6
6
0
Family Day Care
insurt at
at
Relative
Sitter
Day Care Center
1965
1977
1982
1985
inserex
3
S- or Vacancytrip
top
page
The concern that a shortage exists, national in scope and
susceptible only to Federal remedy, seems unsupported by the
data. Local day care center waiting lists (a doubtful yardstick
due to parents applying to multiple providers) and individual
parents' difficulties arranging care seem to account for the
perception of an insufficient supply. That anecdotal evidence,
documented in newspapers and legislative hearings, may indicate
spot shortages of care, however, perhaps reflecting increased
local demands not yet met by a larger supply.
Child Can workforce Lasue
Rept of the Secretary's 160 Task force
o
Long waiting lists for some centers do not prove a
general shortage, either.
-- Parents will often put their names on several
lists, particularly for low-cost or popular child-care
centers. Some centers, rather than advertising, use
waiting lists to enroll children not placed there by
child welfare agencies. And many of the centers that
maintain waiting lists admit that they do not cull the
lists regularly, so the length of the lists is of little
consequence. (Mathematica, "The Child Care Challenge:
What Parents Need and What Is Available in Three
Metropolitan Areas," 1989*)
There is no general shortage of slots in child care centers. The
number of slots has grown dramatically and prices have not risen
significantly, as they would have if there were a shortage of
center care.
0
The number and capacity of child care centers in
operation has doubled in the past decade.
1976
1986
Number of Licensed
18,300
39,900
Centers
Licensed Capacity
1.0 million 2.1 million
Sources: Hofferth and Phillips, "Child Care in the United
States," 1987; Prosser, "Day Care Centers,' 1986.
0
Weekly family expenditures for center-based care have
risen little if at all.
--
The average weekly payment, per family, was $19.56
in 1975 and $14.12-$19.15 in 1985, expressed in 1975
dollars. (Hofferth, National Institute for Child Health
and Human Development, Testimony on "Child Care in the
United States, Select Committee on Children, Youth and
Families, July 1987.)
*Note that the summary of this report contains assertions with
little or no basis in the study's data, such as welfare reform
causing a shortage of child-care slots and a shortage of
center-based care for infants.
There are vacancies in both child care centers and family day
care homes.
O
For child-care centers participating in the federal
Child Care Food Program:
--
Half had vacancy rates greater than 9 percent.
--
32 percent had vacancy rates of more than 20
percent. (Abt Associates, "Study of the Child Care Food
Program," 1988)
O
The National Child Care Association, a group of
proprietary child care centers, has estimated that there is a
14-30 percent vacancy rate among its membership. (Testimony
before the House Education and Labor Committee, April 1989)
0
In California, there is an 18 percent vacancy rate among
licensed family day care homes and a 12 percent vacancy rate
among all child-care centers. (California Child Care
Resource and Referral Network, "Inventory of Child Care
Facilities," 1987)
Many employers have adopted practices services or benefits to
facilitate child care.
O
63 percent of workplaces with ten or more employees have
adopted policies that facilitate child care.
Percent of Employers Who Facilitate Child Care
Number of Employees at Workplace All
10-49
50-249
250 or more
Workplaces
Work Schedule and
62
58
59
61
Leave Policies
Benefits or
9
15
32
Services
11
Any of Above
63
62
68
63
Source: "BLS Reports on Employer Child-Care Practices," USDL
News 88-7, 1988.
FOURTEEN MYTHS
ABOUT
FAMILIES AND CHILDCARE
by
Robert Rector
Policy Analyst
The Heritage Foundation
(202-546-4400)
The following is a draft copy on article
to be published in a forthcoming issue of
The Harvard Journal on Legislation
Fourteen Myths about Families and Childcare
by Robert Rector
Introduction
The federal government is currently entangled in a heated debate
over national childcare policy. At the root of this controversy
lie five central questions:
1) Should a national childcare policy be restricted to
children of employed mothers? Should it discriminate
against and exclude families which make an economic
sacrifice so that one parent may remain at home to care for
young children? More specifically, should traditional
families, where the mother remains at home to raise infant
children, be taxed to pay for government-sponsored daycare
for families where both parents work?
2) In supporting employed mothers, what types of daycare
should be included? Should government aid be limited to
mothers who place their children in formal daycare centers?
Should mothers who use informal modes of daycare by
relatives and neighbors be excluded from government support?
This question is especially pertinent since the informal
daycare system in the U.S. is, in fact, far more extensive
than the formal, institutional daycare system.
3) Who should get the money? Should funds be provided
directly to parents through tax relief to meet family
priorities as determined by parents? or should funds go to
social service institutions and bureaucracies to meet
priorities selected by a few members of Congress? In other
words, who best knows how to spend limited resources to meet
family needs: millions of parents or a few dozen
Congressional staffers and bureaucrats? Who will spend
funds to meet family needs most efficiently: parents or
bureaucrats?
4) What income levels should be assisted? Should assistance
be targeted to low income families or should we set in
motion a vast new middle class entitlement?
5) Should the government embrace a policy which diminishes
the role of religious values in American society and
restricts the ability of parents, who so desire, to have
their children raised in a religious environment--especially
when less coercive and more pluralistic alternatives are
readily available?
In answering the above questions, we must accept the simple
policy rule: that whatever modes of childrearing the government
chooses to subsidize will be utilized increasingly. If the
government chooses to subsidize a limited range of childcare
options, the use of these options will inevitably expand even if
parents would have chosen other alternatives in the absence of
government intervention.
The recent childcare debate has focused on heavily publicized
schemes, such as the Act for Better Childcare (ABC), which would
subsidize formal institutional childcare arrangements that are
currently used by less than one pre-school child in ten. 1 The
vast majority of families with children would be taxed to finance
the flow of resources into government-sponsored daycare centers.
The policy confrontation clearly pits the preferences and well-
being of most families with children against the financial
interests and "advanced" social vision of certain segments of the
daycare industry and child development community.
Helping Families With Children: An Analogy
The following analogy contrasts the basic differences between
liberal and conservative approaches to aiding families with young
children. Suppose the government wanted to help parents feed
their children. On the one hand, the government could give
families greater income through tax cuts and cash payments to
very low income families. On the other hand, the government
could set up a chain of government restaurants or heavily
subsidize non-profit restaurants in selected communities.
The government restaurant could provide "fed burgers" to the
public. If the "fed burgers" were free or if their price was
heavily subsidized, families would use the restaurant and there
would even be waiting lines. We would then see advocates from
the "fed burger" industry arriving in Washington claiming the
waiting lines at the government restaurant showed a pent up
public demand for "fed burgers" which was not being satisfied.
The advocates would tell us that the only way to help parents
feed their children was to get more money and go out and build
more government restaurants. None of this, of course, would
indicate that parents actually preferred government cuisine, or
that such a policy was either an efficient or fair approach to
helping families feed themselves.
The situation in childcare is quite similar. Liberals
want to channel funds to government-sponsored daycare centers.
Conservatives want to provide tax relief and cash assistance to
families with young children and to allow parents to choose how
the funds should be spent: either on a wide variety of types of
daycare, or to help the family stay afloat financially while the
mother cares for the children at home. While the correct policy
for helping to feed children seems obvious, many find the daycare
issue more confusing. Much of the confusion stems from a number
of basic misconceptions about families and the daycare industry.
To help eliminate some of these misconceptions this paper will
examine fourteen myths about families and daycare.
Myth #1 The Traditional Family Is Obsolete
According to those who favor a massive increase in government-
sponsored daycare in the United States, the "traditional
family, " where the father is employed while the mother remains
at home to care for children, is a thing of the past.
Congressional daycare advocates such as Senator Dodd (D.--Conn.),
state that while a mother caring for her own pre-school children
is clearly a social ideal, it is an antiquated one. Nearly all
young children, we are told, either are or soon will be in some
form of professional daycare. The notion that parental care of
young children is passe in a modern society allows daycare
proponents rhetorically to treat the interests of the daycare
industry and interests of families and children as if they were
identical.
But the traditional family is far from obsolete. Information
provided in the a 1987 Census Bureau Report, Who's Minding the
Kids shows that only 46 percent of children under five have
employed mothers. 2 Interestingly, less than one pre-school child
in three has a mother employed full-time, and less than one in
five has a mother employed full-time throughout the year. 3
Traditional parental care of young children is not only the most
common form of care of young children, it is clearly the
overwhelming preference of parents. More than 80 percent of
mothers state that they would prefer to stay at home with their
own children if they could afford to do so. And by a ratio of
two to one mothers under age 44 state that they do not regard the
increased enrollment of young children in daycare centers in
recent years as a positive development.
4
Myth #2 Traditional Families Are Affluent
A second myth is that those traditional families which do exist
are affluent. Families which use daycare, we are led to believe,
do so out of "economic necessity," while other families have the
"luxury" of allowing a mother to remain at home. 5 Again the
argument collides headfirst with social reality. While employed
single mothers clearly do use daycare through economic necessity,
some 80 percent of the pre-school children using daycare come
from two parent/two earner families. The median income of two
parent/two earner families in 1986 was $38,346, about 50 percent
more than the median income of traditional families. 6
Even more striking, when we compare the average family where both
parents are employed with the average traditional family where
only the father is employed while the mother remains in the home,
we find that the husband's salary in both types of families is
roughly the same. In other words, the average traditional family
is not significantly more affluent then the average two parent/
two earner family even when the earnings of the second spouse in
the two earner family are ignored. 7
There are not two types of families in the U.S., one of which
uses daycare from "economic necessity,' " while the other has the
luxury of choice in childrearing. Rather, there are two types of
families in our society with two different kinds of family
priorities. One group of families chooses to put both parents in
the workforce in order to achieve a higher financial standard of
living. The other group of families, starting from similar
financial circumstances, chooses to make an economic sacrifice SO
that one parent can remain at home to care for infant children.
A pro-family, pro-child government policy should honor both of
these options; it should not exclude or discriminate against
those parents who choose parental care over institutional care
for their children.
Many traditional families are, in fact, among the least affluent
of America's families. Few would recognize that among families
with pre-school children with incomes below $15,000 per year,
there are more traditional families than families headed by
employed single mothers. 8 Ignored by the media and most social
scientists, these low income traditional families are "America's
forgotten families.' Their needs should be a high priority in
any government policy for families with children. But under
daycare subsidy schemes, such as the Act for Better Childcare,
these low income traditional families are not assisted, but are
taxed to provide daycare subsidies for families earning up to
$47,000 per year.
9
1950s
Myth #3 It Now Takes Two Salaries To Obtain The Same Standard of
Living Which Ozzie and Harriet Had On One Salary
Another common argument by daycare advocacy groups is that the
standard of living which was the norm in the 1950s can only be
maintained by families today if both parents work. Daycare, the
argument runs, has become a modern economic necessity in the
struggle to hold the line against declining living standards.
Again, this simply is not so. Today, the median income of
husbands after adjusting for inflation is 40 percent higher than
that of traditional families in 1955. In families where the
husband and wife both work full-time, the median income is 270
percent higher--again after adjusting for inflation--than the
median income of traditional families in the 1950's. 10
This pattern holds true even for housing costs--correctly
regarded as a major burden on today's families. In nominal
terms, husbands' incomes increased by 435 percent between 1955
and 1985. In the same period the average nominal cost of a home
purchase, holding all changes and improvements in home quality
constant, increased by only 264 percent. 11
What we have experienced over the last 30 years is not a decline
in earnings capacity, but a profound upward "revolution of
expectations" in living standards. In the process, we have
largely forgotten what the income level and standard of living of
the preceding generations actually was.
Chart 1
End of the Ozzie and Harriet Family?
Does it take two incomes to give families
the standard of living that one used to?
45000
40000
$44,666
35000
$38,346
30000
25000
20000
$24,390
15000
$ 17, 693
10000
5000
0
Traditional Family
Husband's Earnings
Dual-Earner Family
Dual-Earner Family,
1955
1986
1986
Full-time 1986
(Median family
(Median husband's
(Median family
(Median family
income, only
earnings for all
income with both
income with both
husband working.)
married couples.)
spouses working.)
spouses working
full-time.)
(All figures in 1986 Dollars.)
SOURCE: See footnote 10.
As already noted, the overwhelming majority of pre-schoolers
using daycare come from two parent/two earner families. Today's
families where both spouses work enjoy, on average, a standard of
living more than twice that of the "Ozzie and Harriet"
generation. It is important that the government assist those
families where the mother is employed, but it is equally
important that the government not ignore or discriminate against
families which have chosen to "make do" at a lower level of
income so that one parent can remain at home to raise young
children.
Myth #4 The Shortage of Daycare
The current cry of daycare advocates is that the daycare industry
has not expanded quickly enough to meet demands. They see a
chronic economic bottleneck in the daycare industry, and call for
direct government subsidization to create the new daycare
"infrastructure". But there is no evidence of a bottleneck in
the supply of daycare: the day-care industry is expanding
rapidly The number of children in formal group care centers
increased from 141,000 to 2.1 million, or 1500 percent, between
1960 and 1986. The number of centers also grew, from 4400 to
39,929. There are at least another 1.6 million small, unlicensed
neighborhood providers. 12
Moreover, if the demand for daycare had exceeded the supply, the
price of daycare would increase rapidly. This has not occurred.
The constant dollar cost of formal centers and neighborhood
providers has remained the same, or increased only slightly in
the last 10 years.
13
Daycare advocacy groups cite waiting lists at some daycare
centers as proof of shortages and a bottleneck in supply. But
other centers in the same communities report vacancies.
Facilities with waiting lists are, almost invariably, those with
government subsidies which are charging below market rates. Any
organization using direct government subsidies to offer any good
or service, from hamburgers to daycare, to the public at below
market rates will inevitably develop a "waiting list. But such
a waiting list, clearly, should not be interpreted as evidence of
an overall supply shortage.
A recent survey by the Labor Department, entitled Childcare: A
Workforce Issue, supported this conclusion. It stated:
Considerable concern has been raised that a "shortage"
of child care exists. This report finds no evidence in
support of the contention that there is a general,
national shortage of available care. 14
Gerber and Kindercare, national daycare chains, report average
vacancy rates of 30 percent. A preliminary survey by the
National Childcare Association, which represents private sector
daycare providers, finds an average vacancy rate of between 15
and 30 percent within a variety of states across the country.
15
Gary Neugebauer, publisher of The Childcare Information Exchange
states that across the U.S. there are, in fact, currently two
licensed daycare slots for each child in a daycare center. 16
In
many areas it would be accurate to speak of a daycare "glut"
rather than a shortage.
However, many families do face a perceived "shortage" of daycare
in the sense that they would like more daycare options or better
quality care than they can afford. Obviously, though, families
face this same "shortage" in varying degrees for all products and
services. The solution is not for the government to establish a
daycare "infrastructure," II just as it would be inappropriate for
the government to create a "restaurant infrastructure." Instead,
the government should provide tax relief to parents to allow them
Res
Bysh
to have more money to spend on daycare (if they so choose).
Myth #5 The "Magic Dollar" Argument
Much of the controversy over recent daycare legislation has
focused on the issue of whether funds should be provided directly
to parents or should be given to daycare centers. The Act for
Better Childcare provides for a "trickle down" daycare strategy,
in which funds are passed through multiple layers of bureaucracy
and eventually doled out largely as grants, to daycare centers.
This cumbersome "trickle down" funding--providing money to
virtually everyone but parents--is rationalized as follows:
funds given directly to daycare centers from the government will
cause an increase in supply, while the same funds given to
parents to spend in daycare centers will not cause supply to
increase. Thus, one dollar given as a direct grant to a daycare
center, we are to believe, assumes a "magic" quality which causes
the "daycare infrastructure" to expand; the same dollar given to
parents who spend it in a daycare center has no impact on supply,
but will only increase costs.
No evidence has ever been presented to justify this peculiar
notion. Economic logic and history, of course, indicate exactly
the opposite: direct bureaucratic subsidization of a service is
the least efficient way of meeting a public need. It virtually
guarantees swollen administrative costs, salary escalation, and
general inefficiency. For example, public housing units
constructed directly with government funds generally cost 40
percent more and are of lower quality than similar units
constructed in the private sector.
On the other hand, giving funds directly to parents introduces an
intrinsic quality control mechanism. It insures that funds are
properly targeted, e.g., monies go to facilities which parents
have chosen as most appropriate to meet the needs of their
children, not to a handful of centers which are adept at pulling
political strings and jumping through loops of bureaucratic red
tape. Giving funds directly to parents means that daycare
providers must compete for the funds; parents will direct their
funds toward daycare providers which offer the best quality care
at the lowest cost.
If the government decided it wanted to help families purchase
refrigerators, the last thing it would do would be to provide
direct subsidies to bureaucratically-selected appliance stores on
the theory that this would expand supply and lower prices. The
same logic applies to daycare; the key to a sound childcare
policy is to increase the income of parents, not the income of
daycare centers.
Myth #6 The Prevalent Use of Daycare Centers
Contrary to popular wisdom, the use of daycare centers is, at
present, quite rare. As noted, over half of children under age
five in the U.S. reside in homes where the mother is not
employed. But even in families where the mother is employed, use
of formal institutional daycare is relatively rare. Seven
percent of young children are cared for by "tag team" parents,
Chart 2
Patterns of Childcare for Children Under Five
11% - Group
daycare center
13% - Informal care
by non-relatives
54% - Mother is
not employed
11% - Other relatives
7% - Tag-team parents
4% - Doubletime mother
24% - Care by
non-relatives
76% - Care by parents
and relatives
29% - Mother is
employed full-time
54% - Mother is
not employed
17% - Mother is
employed part-time
SOURCE: See footnotes 2 and 3.
where the mother and father work different shifts and the father
cares for the children in the mother's absence. Another four
percent of pre-school children are cared for by "double time"
mothers, who earn income at home while caring for their own
children; many of these mothers are employed as informal daycare
providers for other children in the neighborhood. Finally, an
additional eleven percent of children under five are cared for by
grandmothers, aunts, or other relatives while the child's mother
works. This means that, overall, three out of four pre-school
children are in parental or relative care during the course of
the average day.
17
Only one child in four is customarily in non-relative care. And
even among these children, care by formal institutions is not the
norm. Instead, a majority are cared for in neighbors' homes or
through other informal arrangements; there is no evidence
indicating that parents are dissatisfied with informal daycare
arrangements. Overall, among children under five, only 11
percent are placed in formal daycare centers while the mother
works.
Despite the relative rarity of institutional daycare, recent
legislation to cope with the daycare "crisis" restricts all
assistance to formal licensed daycare facilities. Employed
mothers using fathers, grandmothers, and neighbors to care for
their young children would receive no support. Thus, roughly
three out of four pre-school children with employed mothers would
be denied assistance. 18
A genuine childcare policy--which meets the needs of parents and
children, rather than the special interests of the daycare
industry and the formal child development community--would seek
to expand, not restrict parents' options in childcare. Such a
policy would provide funds directly to parents, allowing them to
choose the type of care which was most appropriate to their
needs rather than bureaucratically pre-selecting the type of care
which should be subsidized.
Myth #7 The Latch Key Crisis.
In recent years, cries of alarm have been sounded about the
increasing numbers of "latch key" children: young school age
children who are left alone without parental supervision for
extended periods before and after school. For example, the
Children's Defense Fund has claimed that there are at least 7
million latch key children under age 13 in the U.S.
However, a Census Bureau survey of childcare arrangements in 1984
shows that both the extent and the character of the latch key
phenomenon have been misrepresented. Census data indicate that
there are approximately 2.1 million latch key children between
the ages of 5 and 13 who are left without adult supervision for
at least brief periods before and after school. Most of these
children are over age 10. Only two percent of school-age
children under age 10 care for themselves either before or after
school. Among children aged 5 to 7, the figure is even smaller:
less than one percent are in self-care before or after school.
Another two percent in this age group are cared for by another
child under age 14, generally an older brother or sister.
Contrary to popular accounts, latch key children remain without
adult supervision for only short periods. Among children under
10--who care for themselves or are cared for by a sibling under
14--a third are alone for less than one hour each day; 89
percent are alone for less than two hours.
Table: Numbers of Latch Key Children
Age Level
Children in Self-Care
Children Cared for
by Another Child
less than 14 Years
Old
Five to
69,595
(0.75%)
217,923
(2.36%)
Seven
Eight
76,637
(2.52%)
111,915
(3.68%)
Nine
160,949
(5.17%)
75,960
(2.44%)
Source: Virginia Cain and Sandra L. Hofferth, "Parental Choice
of Self-Care for School-Age Children,' p. 25.
While some have argued that latch key children are concentrated
among low income families--particularly families headed by single
working mothers, forced by economic necessity to leave their
children unattended--the facts again show otherwise. Latch key
children are found disproportionately among intact two parent
families and among families with higher incomes. Moreover, latch
key children disproportionately tend to be white, to live in the
suburbs, and to have better educated parents.
In an in-depth study of latch key children, Drs. Virginia Cain
and Sandra Hofferth of the National Institutes of Health found
that parents are selective in determining whether or not to have
a child care for himself or herself. The maturity of the child
and the relative security of the neighborhood, rather than
economic necessity, appear to be the prime factors in the
decision. 19
This does not mean that latch key children pose no potential
problem. In particular, the 307,000 children under age 10 who
are in self care (roughly four children for each elementary
school) are a cause for some concern. But the scope of the
problem is clearly limited and can be dealt with at the local
level; there is no nationwide "crisis" requiring establishment of
a new federal program, with new federal monies. The appropriate
response by local governments would be modest programs providing
before and after school supervision inside the elementary school.
Such programs should be funded by user fees paid by the
relatively small number of parents who would benefit from the
service; exceptions to the user fee principle could be made for
very low income families.
Myth #8 The Government Spends Little On Daycare
Another common misconception is that the federal government
provides scant funding for daycare. Yet in 1986 the federal
government spent, through tax credits and direct outlays, $5.6
billion per year on daycare. This amounted to over 35 percent of
the total nationwide spending on daycare ($15 billion per year),
both public and private. 20 It is likely that at least part of
the recent increase of mothers with young children in the labor
force is due to the high degree of federal subsidization of
daycare use.
The federal government already provides roughly twice as much
financial assistance, through tax exemptions and credits, for
each young child in a family using formal daycare, as it does for
a young child in a traditional family where one parent remains at
home. If the Act for Better Childcare bill were passed, this
ratio would rise to three to one.
Myth #9 Daycare And The Impending "Labor Shortage"
One of the arguments advanced in favor of promoting the entry of
mothers with toddlers into the labor force is the impending
"labor shortage" of the mid-1990s. Certain segments of the
business community have developed an interest in erecting a
taxpayer financed "daycare infrastructure" to stave off or
mitigate the future "labor shortage. 21 But even a cursory
understanding of the principles of micro-economics demonstrates
that an enduring shortage of any service or commodity is
impossible in a free market. A shortage persists only briefly
until the price of the good (in this case, the wage rate) rises
and a new equilibrium price is established where supply matches
demand.
Under economic analysis, the "labor shortage" argument should be
re-phrased as follows: over the next decade, the demand for
labor will increase more rapidly than supply which will cause
real wages to rise rapidly. The increase in wages can be
forestalled or minimized if the government artificially
stimulates an increase in the supply of young mothers in the
labor force through taxpayer subsidies for daycare.
The labor shortage/daycare argument is little more than
camouflage for policies designed to restrain the growth in real
wages, particularly among female workers. While it is easy to
see why this issue has piqued the interests of some parts of
American industry, it is difficult to see how anyone could
represent this policy as meeting the interests of workers,
families, mothers and children.
Myth #10 Unregulated Family Daycare Is Harmful To Children
There are two basic types of daycare providers: "group care
centers" which care for more than six children, and "family
daycare providers" caring for six children or less. While
everyone agrees that group care centers should be licensed--and
all states do in fact license such centers--some states do not
attempt to license smaller family daycare providers. Even in
states which do impose licensing and registration requirements,
a majority of small family daycare providers remain unlicensed
and unregulated. Overall, approximately 90 percent of the
estimated 1.75 million family daycare providers in the U.S
operate without a license. 22
Advocates of institutional care have for years tried to argue
that unlicensed neighborhood family daycare providers are less
safe and less healthy than large regulated daycare centers. All
available scientific evidence flatly contradicts this claim.
Indeed, much evidence suggests the opposite. The nationally
publicized cases of sexual abuse in daycare, such as The West
Point Daycare Center and the McMartin School in California, for
example, occurred in large, fully regulated daycare centers.
The National Daycare Home Study, conducted for the Department of
Health and Human Services found no indication that unregulated
family daycare was harmful or dangerous. It concluded that
family daycare was:
"stable, warm, and stimulating
[it] caters
successfully to the developmentally appropriate needs
of the children in care; parents who use family
daycare report it satisfactorily meets their child care
needs
[the study's] observers were consistently
impressed by the care they saw regardless of
regulatory status. 23
The typical unregulated family daycare provider is a mother
taking care of one child of her own as well as one or two other
children from the neighborhood. The study found that
unregulated providers were more likely to comply with state
regulations concerning adult/child ratios for children of
different ages than were licensed daycare providers. Unregulated
providers, according to the study, were governed by a "self-
regulating mechanism" concerning the number of children, in their
care: the more of her own children a mother cared for, the fewer
outside children she would take in. The average caregiver/child
ratio in unlicensed family care is far lower than in the most
strictly regulated daycare centers.
The HHS study found significant differences between regulated and
unregulated family daycare providers. Regulated providers: are
less likely to be caring for their own children; have more
children under their care; and charge higher prices. These women
clearly regard childcare as an occupation. In contrast,
unregulated providers are primarily engaged in caring for their
own children; they care for one or more neighborhood children as
a modest means of supplementing the family's income. Very often
mothers in unlicensed homes have begun providing daycare not at
their own initiative, but because neighbors and relatives have
asked them to do so.
According to the HHS study, unregulated family care providers
have the following characteristics:
O Over half of the parents with children in unregulated
family daycare had known the caregiver for six months or
longer before placing their children in the provider's care.
O One-third of parents with children in unregulated care
stated that they had a close personal friendship with the
caregiver; another third regarded the caregiver as a casual
friend.
O Over half of the children in unregulated family daycare
lived within a few blocks of the caregiver's home.
O Over three-fourths of parents said that their children had
a "loving" relationship with the caregiver, and 22 percent
said their children had a "friendly" relationship.
Most users of unregulated family daycare were satisfied with
their daycare arrangements; only 17 percent of the parents stated
that they would prefer to place their children in daycare
centers. By comparison, a quarter of the parents with children
in regulated family daycare stated that they would prefer less
formal daycare by relatives or non-relatives. (The survey did
not provide data on the number of parents with children in group
daycare centers who would prefer less formal arrangements.) 24
The HHS study strongly contested the view that family daycare,
either regulated or unregulated, was largely "custodial". 25 The
study found a high level of teaching activities and interactive
play in family daycare; activities such as television watching
were infrequent. Moreover, given that unregulated providers have
fewer children under their care, the average child in an
unregulated home spent more time in direct interaction with
adults than the average child in a regulated home. Despite a
lack of formal training of caregivers, the average non-resident
child in an unregulated setting spent more time in constructive
teaching/developmental activities with the caregiver than did the
average child in regulated family care. 26
Unlicensed family daycare poses far less of a threat to a child's
health than does care in a larger group care centers.
Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control have found that
"large, licensed daycare centers
are major transmission centers
for hepatitis, severe diarrhea and other diseases. 27
Diseases
picked up in large daycare centers are passed on to parents and
siblings; Dr. Stephen Hadler, of the Centers for Disease Control
has estimated that 14 percent of all infectious hepatitis cases
in the U.S. are acquired through daycare facilities. Other
daycare diseases include haemophilus influenzae infection, which
can cause meningitis, pneumonia, arthritis and blood and skin
infections and cytomegalovirus infection which does not harm the
daycare infant but can be transmitted to a pregnant 28 mother,
resulting in birth defects to the unborn fetus.
Medical research demonstrates unequivocally that daycare centers
are a primary cause of childhood meningitis. Doctors Stephen
Redmond and Michael Pichichero analyzed meningitis incidence in
Monroe County, New York.
29
They
found
that
children,
younger
than one year, had 12.2 times greater chance of contracting a
meningitis attack if they were cared for at a daycare center
rather than at home. For children one to two years old, daycare
use increased the relative risk by 7.2 times, and for three and
four year olds, it was 3.8 times higher. While the overall rate
of meningitis, among children in the general population, is 40 to
60 per 100,000 per year, the Monroe County study found that
nearly one percent of the children in daycare centers under the
age of one suffered a meningitis attack each year.
Based on the age specific meningitis attack rates attributable to
daycare centers in the Redmond and Pichichero study, it would be
reasonable to conclude that use of daycare centers, at the
present time, results in an additional 3,100 meningitis cases per
annum nationwide. 30 Roughly one tenth of meningitis victims
will die and another third will suffer long term neurological
damage.
Smaller, generally unlicensed, neighborhood facilities pose less
of a threat of infectious disease than do large regulated
facilities, because larger centers place more children in contact
with each other thereby raising each child's risk of contracting
infectious diseases. In particular, the incidence of meningitis
is directly proportional to the size of the daycare center and
decreases dramatically if there are less than three children in
the daycare setting. 31 "The larger the center or the longer the
hours, the greater the chance [of infectious disease occurring],
states Dr. Hadler. 32
Finally, it is ironic that the types of daycare which are most
likely to be cited as in "shortage" (i.e., infant care and part-
time care) are the services most likely to be provided by
unlicensed family daycare. But proposed daycare policies, such
as the ABC bill, would vehemently deny any assistance to mothers
which use informal neighborhood care. Moreover, they would
impose a tight web of government regulations which would make it
much more difficult for unregulated caregivers to operate. Such
policies would clearly restrict, rather than expand, parents'
childcare options, and would undermine the health of American
children; they are emanations of the narrow financial interests
of the professional child development/daycare industry and have
nothing to do with the interests of parents and children.
Myth #11 Daycare Regulation Has No Impact On Daycare Cost or
Supply
There is general agreement that states, not the federal
government, should set standards for primary and secondary
schools. State or local authorities determine proper classroom
size, teacher/pupil ratios, and teacher qualifications. But
while states apparently can be entrusted to regulate schools,
when it comes to daycare, we are warned, state authority must be
pre-empted by the federal government.
The recently proposed Act for Better Childcare, for example,
would impose federal daycare regulations. These federal
regulations would force half the states to dramatically raise
staff/child ratios in daycare centers, and would stipulate that
no state could ever ease its current daycare regulations, even
if those regulations exceeded federal norms.
While the ABC bill allegedly intends to expand daycare supply,
the unavoidable fact is that stringent daycare regulation raises
daycare costs and restricts supply. The following chart shows
the current relationship between daycare regulation and daycare
supply in states across the nation. 33 Clearly, those states with
more stringent standards for staff/child ratios have less daycare
relative to their populations. Advocates of stricter regulation
vociferously deny this obvious relationship.
One study of the regulatory impact of the ABC bill found that it
would raise daycare costs nationwide by $1.2 billion and result
in the closing of roughly 20 percent of the daycare centers in
the U.S. Ironically, southern states, which have the largest
supply of daycare per capita, would be hardest hit. In these
states, the increase in costs due to federal regulation would
exceed the federal subsidies from ABC entering the states. 34
The perceived "shortage" of care is most severe in states where
excessive regulation has caused daycare costs to skyrocket.
There is an obvious and delicate tradeoff between daycare
regulatory standards and the costs and availability of daycare.
State legislators, for the most part, have grappled
conscientiously with the issue for many years. The recent
cavalier attitude of federal legislators who have proposed
blanket federal regulation of the daycare industry without even
the most cursory analysis of the impact of their own proposals
demonstrates why a legislative division of labor between the
levels of government is needed--and why regulatory issues of this
sort should be kept at the state level.
Chart 3
Effect of Lower Child-Staff Ratios on Day Care Availability
50
45
40
35
Licensed Day Care Slots
as a Percentage of Pre-School Children
30
25
20
00
15
10
5
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
State Regulated Child-Staff Ratios for Pre-School Children
The X-axis represents the average staff-child ratio for children aged one to five set
by existing regulation within each state. The Y-axis represents the number of
licensed daycare slots within a state as a percentage of the number of children
under age five within that state. Each dot on the graph shows the current daycare
situation within a particular state. The line on the graph was calculated by linear
regression and shows the average mathamatical relationship between the child-staff
ratio dictated by state regulations and the number of daycare slots available. Data
used in the graph were derived from "Are State Standards Too High for Child Care?"
in Child Care Review, April 1987.
Myth #12 Daycare And Welfare Dependence
Daycare advocates often argue that a shortage of daycare
facilities keeps mothers on AFDC from working. Again, a
misconception. AFDC mothers are already guaranteed daycare
payments of up to $175 per month per child or the average cost of
daycare in their locality. In many states, an AFDC mother can
work full-time at a minimum wage job, receive the full daycare
subsidy, and still remain eligible for Medicaid and partial AFDC
benefits. A mother working at the minimum wage in such
circumstances would have an income that exceeded the poverty
level even after deducting for the cost of daycare.
But despite these provisions, few AFDC mothers work. The reasons
for the lack of work and for long term welfare dependence are
very complex.
35
The evidence is clear, however, that a lack of
daycare centers and funds to pay for care have never been major
determining factors in welfare dependence.
The data from controlled experiments are striking. In Gary,
Indiana, an income-maintenance experiment provided free, high-
quality daycare to welfare mothers in school or working, and
subsidized care to other low-income families. Only 15 percent of
the eligible children were enrolled at the program's height. In
similar experiments in Seattle-Denver only three percent of low-
income mothers not working cited daycare as the reason. Despite
the provision of heavily subsidized daycare, there was only a six
percent increase in Seattle in the use of licensed day care
centers and homes during the course of the experiment, and no
increase in use in Denver.
36
Similar studies also show that when daycare arrangements are
disrupted low income mothers are able readily to find
alternatives. In South Carolina, when the daycare facility used
by a number of low income women shut down, nearly all continued
working and located new care for their children within a few
days.
37
The recent study of workfare programs by the Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) in Arkansas reinforces
these conclusions. 38 Over half of the welfare mothers required
to participate in the Arkansas experiment had children between
three and six. But no evidence was found that a lack of daycare
prevented women from participating in the highly successful
workfare experiment. Women in the Arkansas program were required
to arrange their own day care. Most mothers used, and seemed to
prefer, informal care arrangements. The Manager of Work Programs
for the state of Arkansas, Clarence V. Boyd, stated:
We did not find that a lack of child care inhibited
large numbers of AFDC recipients from participating in
the program
We tried to encourage mothers to make
their own arrangements. The mother is best able to
determine what care is most appropriate for her needs
and the needs of her child.
39
The evidence suggests that when AFDC mothers work, they prefer
informal care arrangements, particularly by relatives. 40
AFDC
mothers in the inner city, generally have abundant and strong
kinship networks in their neighborhoods; one fourth of non-
employed welfare mothers actually have another adult female
present in the household with them. 41 These informal familial
and kinship networks in inner city neighborhoods provide an ideal
daycare resource which can help families in escaping from welfare
dependence and poverty. Public policy should find ways to
strengthen these networks rather than disparaging them as most
professional daycare advocates do.
Myth #13 Daycare And Religion
Under most daycare subsidy schemes, grants would flow from the
federal government to daycare centers. But nearly one-third of
daycare centers are church-affiliated; many include significant
religious instruction in their programs. 42 A very objectionable
aspect of the direct government subsidization of daycare is its
negative effect on religious daycare centers. In order to
maintain the separation of church and state, any daycare center
which actively provided religious values to children through
prayers, stories, and songs would be denied government funds.
Such centers would be forced either to purge the religious
content from their programs or to compete without subsidies
against heavily-subsidized secular facilities, thus being driven
out of much of the market.
The negative impact on religious daycare could be especially
tragic in the inner city where many parents would prefer to have
their children raised in a religious environment. The churches
of the inner city and their influence on the lives of the young
play a crucial role in helping the disadvantaged escape from
poverty and despair. Among black male teenagers in the inner
city today, those with religious values are 47 percent less
likely to drop out of school; 54 percent less likely to use
drugs; and 50 percent less likely to engage in criminal
activities. 43
It is imperative that public policy not make it more difficult
for poor parents to put their children in religious daycare if
they wish to do SO. Under policies which provide direct federal
grants to daycare centers, the availability of religious daycare
would diminish, and parents desiring religious care would be
discriminated against, receiving no assistance. Under a general
tax credit policy for families with young children, parents who
wished to use tax credit funds for religious care could do so. A
policy of tax credits to parents would also alleviate the
concerns of liberals who object to direct federal funding of
religious institutions even if the funded activity is
secularized.
Myth #14 Conservative Tax Credit Proposals Are A Sexist Plot
There is a suspicion that behind the daycare debate lurks a
secret goal of the troglodyte right to keep American women
barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. But even within
conservative ranks, there is an almost universal recognition
that women do and should play an ever larger and indispensable
role in the professions and throughout the economy. The
conservative movement in the U.S. and abroad is studded with
brilliant and assertive female leaders.
The question at hand is not whether women should work, but
whether women should have the right to temporarily step out of
the workforce to raise their children. It is not a question of
whether women's place is in the home, but whether a baby's place
is in the home, and whether government policy should actively
discourage homerearing of children. (This is a question that
will be especially important to female blue collar and service
workers who are likely to find a few years at home with infant
children to be a more rewarding experience than an unremitting
"career" on the factory floor.)
A very large percentage of families are currently following a
"sequencing" strategy of childrearing. Women work full-time up
to the birth of the first child; after that birth, the mother
works full or part-time until the birth of the second child.
With two pre-schoolers in the household, daycare becomes far less
feasible and desirable, and the mother leaves the labor force and
remains at home to care for the two children. When the older
child reaches school age, the second child is placed in daycare
and the mother reenters the labor force. Note that a
"sequencing" family is most economically vulnerable when it has
two pre-school children at home. This is precisely the point at
which daycare subsidy schemes would deny all support to the
family. However, under conservative tax credit policies, the
family is supported throughout each stage of the sequencing
process.
The conservative/liberal battlelines on the daycare issue have
become confused. In her recent book, The Second Stage, Betty
Friedan writes, "We should move for some very simple aids that
make it possible for mothers (or fathers) who want to stay at
home and take care of their own children to do so, with some
economic compensation that might make a difference. "44 The most
obvious way to enable more mothers to do this is to reduce the
present rapacious confiscation of family income by taxation.
The Real Problem Facing America's Families: Over-Taxation
If the federal government really wants to help families with
young children, it should re-focus its attention on the real
problem facing families today: over-taxation. Government policy
used to protect families with children from excessive taxation
recognizing that such families were the cornerstone of America's
future. But that pro-family tax policy has long since
disappeared.
In 1948, a family of four at median family income paid 2 percent
of its income to the federal government in taxes--today that same
family pays roughly 24 percent. 45 This means, for example, that
a family earning $30,000 per year pays between $7,000 and $8,000
in taxes to the federal government. The average federal tax
burden, in fact, nearly equals the average share of the family
income contributed by working mothers. Yet as we know, most
mothers state that they would prefer to stay home with their
children, at least temporarily, if they could afford to SO. In
far too many cases, mothers with young children are being forced
into the workforce to compensate for the loss of family income
due to burgeoning tax rates.
Nor is this problem restricted to the middle class. Even low
income families face high tax burdens. A truck driver struggling
to support a wife and two infant children on $15,000 per year
pays an astounding $2,335 in federal taxes. Often the government
follows the enlightened policy of taxing low income families back
into poverty.
The growth of government spending and taxation has
disproportionately affected families with children. Between 1960
and 1984, the average income tax rate for single persons and
married couples with no children did not increase, but for a
married couple with two children it climbed 43 percent; for a
family with four children, tax rates soared 233 percent. 46 The
primary cause of this growing anti-family distortion of the tax
code has been the eroding value of the personal exemption. In
1948, a personal exemption of $600 equalled 42 of the average
personal, per capita. income, which was then $1,434. Over the next
three and one-half decades, the personal exemption lagged far
behind while incomes rose and inflation undermined the dollar's
value. The tax reform legislation of 1986 did raise the value of
the exemption finally to $2,000, but this has only partially
offset the decline of the preceding thirty years. To have the
same value relative to income as it had in 1948, today's personal
exemption would have to be raised to $6,468.
In no small measure, the "Great Society" has been funded by an
ever larger tax burden on families with children; we have taxed
the future to finance the present. The growing use of daycare,
with its ancillary problems, by millions of families who would
prefer other arrangements for their children is a direct
consequence of the government's tax policy.
Tax Credit Policies
President Bush and others have proposed taking the first steps
toward reducing the family tax burden by offering tax cuts to
families with young children. While the liberal ABC bill offers
daycare subsidies to families earning up to $47,000, the
conservative "toddler tax credit" proposals focus on initial
assistance on low income families. In general, the tax credit
polices would offer a $1,000 tax cut per preschool child to
families earning less than $20,000. (President Bush has promised
to make the tax credit available to families above $20,000 when
this becomes financially feasible.) Very low income families who
pay little in taxes would receive equivalent cash assistance
through an expanded earned income tax credit. 47 The policy would
not be restricted to families using daycare and parents would be
free to use the funds as they chose.
Chart 4
Value of Personal Income Tax Exemption Measured in Constant Dollars
50000
45000
40000
35000
1988 Constant Dollars
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Year
Dollar value of personal exemptions in the federal income tax for a family of four, in constant 1988 dollars.
Per capita gross national product, in constant 1988 dollars.
Chart 5
Ratio of Value of Personal Income Tax Exemptions to Per Capita Gross National Product
10.5
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
Ratio
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Year
Value of personal exemptions for a family of four divided by per capita gross national product.
SOURCE: For both charts, Joseph A. Pechman, "Federal Tax Policy", 5th ed., (Washington, D.C.: The
Brookings Institution, 1987) pp. 313-4, and data from The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The childcare tax credit proposals have received criticisms
based on misunderstanding. First, some have argued that tax
relief will do little to help low income families since they do
not pay taxes. But low income families do pay taxes: family of
three earning $12,000, for example, currently pays $1,300 in
federal taxes. And the child care tax credit policy would
provide significant cash assistance as well. Families would not
need to wait for a tax refund at the end of the year; income and
social security tax withholding from the weekly pay check would
be reduced or eliminated, and government cash supplements would
also be provided through the regular pay check.
48
Second, critics have charged that the tax credit proposals do not
really provide for choice in childcare because a $1,000 per
child would not enable the average mother to quit her job and
remain at home with her children. But the tax cut may make it
more attractive for many mothers working at low wages to remain
at home since the net gain from employment for such women after
day-care costs and other work related expenses may be relatively
low. The tax cut could enable other mothers to work less and
spend more time with their children if they chose. Equally
important, the tax credit would give desperately needed tax
relief to hundreds of thousands of low income traditional
families who are presently struggling to keep their heads above
water on one salary while the mother remains at home to care for
infant children.
Finally, critics contend that a $1000 per child tax cut is not
sufficient to pay for the full cost of day-care in a formal day-
care center, which averages about $3000 per year. But this
criticism ignores the $1.5 billion in day-care subsidies which
the federal government already provides to low income families
through existing programs. Combined with the $1,000 per child
tax credit these funds should be sufficient to pay for the full
cost of daycare for pre-school children in low income families.
Conclusion
It is impossible to ignore the trendiness in the current daycare
debate. It seems our society can accept only one stereotype of
women at a time. In the 1950s all mothers were supposed to be
at home baking cookies. In the 1980s all mothers are supposed
to have degrees in bio-chemistry; they are supposed to be
employed full-time from their early twenties until they retire.
When they have a child, they are supposed to stay with the child
for a few weeks and then plunk it in à daycare center for 40 or
more hours per week, and get back to things that are really
important.
But most mothers today do not fit this stereotype--nor do they
want to. We need a more humane model for helping families with
young children meet their needs. And we need a more humane model
for helping young women integrate careers and motherhood over a
life time. That model should be rooted in parental choice, and
not in a one dimensional policy of subsidizing the use of daycare
centers.
Much of the political momentum behind the current daycare debate
stems from the fact that conventional wisdom on this issue is
completely inaccurate. Traditional parental care for children
has not disappeared; it remains the most common form of pre-
school care and is overwhelmingly preferred by American parents.
Families practicing traditional parental care are not more
affluent than the rest of society, and there are large numbers of
very low income traditional families. Lobbying interests in
Washington would have us believe that daycare centers are the
wave of the future. But use of daycare centers is rare,
employed mothers exercise a wide range of childcare options
including care by neighbors and relatives. Informal care by
neighbors and relatives is not unhealthy; in many respects,
informal care is better for children than care in large daycare
centers. Finally, there is not an iota of evidence indicating a
market failure or structural bottleneck in the daycare industry
and justifying direct government funding of a "daycare
infrastructure."
At the same time the basic economic reality underlying much of
the childcare controversy remains largely unrecognized. Among
American households, families with young children have the lowest
per capita incomes; yet these families face extremely high tax
burdens. Federal taxation on families with children has grown by
1200 percent over the last generation. The key to helping
families is not to tax them further while offering them another
round of "free" benefits. The key is to allow families to keep
more of their own earnings.
At heart it is a matter of human freedom. The central question
is not "who shall care for the children?" It is, rather, "who
shall decide who cares for the children?" Parents--not
bureaucrats--khow best how to use their own money to meet family
needs. Parents--not political elites--should determine how their
own children should be raised.
1. The Act For Better Childcare introduced by Congressman Dale
Kildee (D--Mich.) and Senator Christopher Dodd (D--Conn.) would
provide $10 billion over four years in grants to daycare
centers. Daycare advocates acknowledge these funds represent a
mere foot in the door toward the creation of a much bigger
daycare system costing as much as $85 billion per annum. See
Robert Rector, "The American Family and Day-Care," The Heritage
Foundation Issue Bulletin, No. 138, April 6, 1988, and Robert
Rector, "The "ABC" Child Care Bill: An Attempt to Bureaucratize
Motherhood, The Heritage Foundation Issue Bulletin, No. 145,
October 6, 1988.
2. The Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Who's
Minding the Kids?, Household Studies, Series P-70, No. 9,
(Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1987.)
The data for this Census report were collected through a survey
conducted from December 1984 to March 1985. The Census report
includes only children with employed mothers; to determine
children in different childcare arrangements as a percentage of
all young children in the population, the children under five in
Who's Minding the Kids? have been divided by the total number of
children under age five in January 1985. The procedure is
consistent with the original process used by the Census to
estimate the aggregate number of children in different types of
daycare from the original survey sample. See Robert Rector, "The
American Family and Day-care," Heritage Foundation Issue
Bulletin, No. 138, pp. 16-17. See also The Bureau of the
Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Current Population Report,
Series P-20, No. 423, Marital Status and Living Arrangements:
March 1987, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1988), p. 43, which provides similar data on children for 1987:
55% of children under six live with one or more non-employed parents.
3. The number of children with mother's employed full-time is
derived from Who's Minding the Kids, op. cit., p. 2. The number
with mothers who are employed full-time full year has been
calculated based on data provided in Douglas Besharov and
Michelle M. Dally, "One Policy for Working Moms Won't Fit All",
The Wall Street Journal, October 29, 1986. Besharov's data show
that only 70 percent of full-time mothers with young children are
employed full-time year round.
4. In a 1987 poll, 88 percent of mothers with children under age
18 agreed with the statement that "If I could afford it, I would
rather be at home with my children." By nearly a two-to-one
margin, women under age 44 said that they did not regard the
increase of children in day-care as positive. Source: "Opinion
Roundup," in Public Opinion, July/August 1988.
5. Barbara Reisman, Amy J. Moore, and Karen Fitzgerald, Child
Care: The Bottom Line, (New York: The Child Care Action Campaign,
1988), p. 31.
6. The Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series
P60, No. 159, Money Income of Households, Families, and Persons
in the United States: 1986, (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1988), p.58
7. In 1986, husband and wife families where only the husband was
employed, the mean husband's salary was $29,556. In husband and
wife families where both spouses are employed, the mean
husband's salary was $27,074. Thus, there was an eight percent
difference in the husbands' incomes. Source: Bureau of the
Census, Current Population Reports, Series P60 No. 159, op. cit.
p. 83.; and unpublished Bureau of the Census data for 1986.
8. In 1986, among families with incomes below $15,000, there were
839,000 traditional families with at least with one child under
age six. Calculations based on unpublished Census Bureau data.
9. See Robert Rector, "The american Family and Day-care", op
cit., and Robert Rector, "The 'ABC' Child Care Bill: An Attempt
to Bureaucratize Motherhood", op. cit.
10. Data for 1955 are from: U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to
1970, Bicentennial Edition, Part 1, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1975), p. 296, series G183. Data for
1986 are estimated from: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current
Population Reports, Series P60, No. 159, Money Income of
Households, Families, and Persons in the United States: 1986
op. cit., pp. 58 and 83.
11. Data sources for incomes: U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to
1970, Bicentennial Edition, Part 1, op. cit., p. 296, series
G183; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports,
Series P60, No. 156, Money Income of Households, Families, and
Persons in the United States: 1985, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1987), p. 296. Housing costs: U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished data
from the Consumer Price Index.
12. Susan Rose-Ackerman, "Unintended Consequences: Regulating
the Quality of Subsidized Day-care," Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1983), p. 15. Sandra L. Hofferth
and Deborah A. Phillip, "Child Care in the United States, 1970 to
1995," Journal of Family and Marriage, August 1987, p. 565.
13. Sandra L. Hofferth, Statement before the Select Committee on
Children, Youth, and Families, July 1987, p. 9.
14. U.S. Department of Labor, Child Care: A Workforce Issue,
Executive Summary, Report of the Secretary's Task Force, p. 10.
15. Interview with William Tobin, representative of the National
Child Care Association, November 30, 1988.
16. David Kelly, "Hands off Child Care: Further Federal
Involvement Would be Counterproductive, Costly," Barron's,
January 2 1989, p. 9.
17. William R. Mattox, Jr., "Who Will Care for the Children?",
Family Policy, May/June 1988, p.2.
18. Proponents of the Act for Better Childcare claim the act
would promote choice because it contains a minor daycare voucher
provision. But the voucher could be used only in licensed
daycare facilities which comprise only a quarter of the daycare
in use. The prospect that the availability of federal funds
will entice many more unregulated family daycare providers to
become licensed has not been borne out by the prior experience
with the Social Services Block Grant and Child Care Food Program.
Even the above overstates the degree of choice which would
exist under the Act for Better Childcare. Prior experience shows
that only a small part of the funds, if any, would be
voucherized. Most of the monies would be channelled as direct
grants to a small fraction of licensed daycare facilities. The
intent of the ABC legislation with respect to parental choice can
be recognized from the amendments which were stricken from the
bill. One amendment, offered in full mark-up hearing in the
House Committee on Education and Labor, provided eligible parents
with an option of either placing their children in a daycare
center subsidized by direct grants or receiving vouchers of
equivalent value to be used in any licensed facility of the
parent's choice. The authors of the ABC bill strenuously opposed
this amendment and it was rejected by a nearly unanimous vote of
the Democratic majority on the committee.
19. Virginia S. Cain and Sandra L. Hofferth, "Parental Choice of
Self-Care for School Age Children," paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Population Association of America, Chicago,
Illinois, May 1987.
20. Data on private and public expenditures in daycare are not
available for the same base year. The Who's Minding the Kids?
report estimated total private expenditures at $11.1 billion per
annum based on a sample taken in the spring of 1985. The Labor
Department's Child Care: A Workforce Issue lists $2.51 billion in
direct federal outlays in 1986. Assuming that private
expenditures increased by 15 percent between 1985 and 1986,
combined federal and private spending in 1986 would have equalled
$15.2 billion. Federal reimbursements of private daycare
expenditures through the Dependent Care Tax Credit were valued
at $3.17 billion in 1986. Thus federal outlays and tax credit
expenditures together equalled $5.67 billion or roughly 37
percent of overall daycare spending. Data on state and local
government expenditures are not available.
21. Reisman, et al., p. 54.
22. Hofferth, p. 565.
23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Final Report
of the National Day Care Home Study, Volume 1: Summary of
Findings, September 1981, pp. 82 and 124.
24. The Final Report of the National Day Care Home Study, Volume
4: Parent Component, table 5.32.
25. The Final Report of the National Day Care Home Study, Volume
2: Research Report, p.375.
26. The National Day Care Home Study volumes correctly note that
caregivers in regulated family daycare homes spend a greater
percentage of their time in constructive interaction with the
children in their care than do caregivers in unregulated
settings. But the caregiver's time in a regulated home is
divided among more children. The smaller number of children in
unregulated homes actually means that each individual child in
the unregulated homes spent more time in direct positive/
developmental interaction with the caregiver than did the average
child in regulated family care facilities. See the correlation
coefficients measuring the behavior of individual children and
the interactions of caregivers with individual children in Final
Report of the National Day Care Home Study, Volume 3: Observation
Component, pp. D-3 through D-108.
27. Thomas E. Ricks, "Researchers Say Day-Care Centers Are
Implicated in Spread of Disease,' The Wall Street Journal,
September 5, 1984.
28. Ron Haskins, Ph.D. and Jonathan Kotch, M.D., "Day Care and
Illness: Evidence, Costs, and Public Policy," Pediatrics,
Supplement, Vol. 77, No. 6, June 1986, pp. 951-982.
29. Stephen R. Redmond, M.D. and Michael E. Pichichero, M.D.,
"Hemophilus influenzae Type b Disease: An Epidemiologic Study
With Special Reference to Day-care Centers," Journal of the
American Medical Association, Vol. 252, No. 18, November 9, 1984,
pp. 2581-2584.
30. The Redmond and Pichichero research provides meningitis
attack rate per 100,000 for daycare children at specific ages.
It also provides a meningitis attack rate per 100,000 non-daycare
children in the same age groups. Applying the net differences in
attack rates per age group to the total number of children in
each age category in daycare centers nationwide yields an
estimated total of 3,100 meningitis cases per annum attributable
to daycare centers. The specific age breakdown of children in
daycare centers was taken from Who's Minding the Kids?, op. cit..
31. Gregory R. Istre, M.D., Judy S. Conner, Claire V. Broome,
M.D., Allen Hightower, M.S., and Richard S. Hopkins, M.D., "Risk
Factors for Primary Invasive Haemophilus influenzae disease:
Increased Risk From Day Care Attendance and School-aged Household
Members," The Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 106, No. 2, February
1985, pp. 190-195.
32. Ibid.
33. Simple corelation coefficient of the variables, regulated
child/staff ratio and daycare slots per child in the state, was .51.
34. "The Impact of the Federal Regulations in the ABC Bill,"
Child Care Review, April/May, 1988, pp. 5-8.
35. Lawrence M. Mead, Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations
of Citizenship, (New York: The Free Press, 1986).
36. Suzanne H. Woolsey, "Pied-Piper Politics and the Child-care
Debate," Daedelus, Spring 1977, p. 135.
37. Ibid.
38. Daniel Friedlander et al., Arkansas: Final Report on the
Work Program in Two Counties (New York: Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation, 1985).
39. Interview with Clarence V. Boyd, April 18, 1988.
40. Woolsey, op. cit.
41. Lorelei Brush, "Child Care Used by Working Women in the AFDC
Population: an Analysis of the SIPP Data Base", October 15, 1987,
paper prepared for the Office of Planning and Evaluation,
Department of Health and Human Services, p. 24.
42. Dr. Robert L. Maddox, Executive Director of Americans United
for Separation of Church and State, "Americans United Press
Release,' dated July 29, 1988.
43. Michael Novak, The New Consensus on Family and Welfare,
(Washington, D.C.: The American Enterprise Institute, 1987), p.
34.
44. Quoted in Deborah Fallows, "The Politics of Motherhood," The
Washington Monthly, June 85, p. 48.
45. Tax rates presented in this paper include the income tax,
the employee share of Social Security tax, and the employer
share of Social Security tax. These taxes are generally
recognized to be direct taxes on a parent's wages. The combined
Family p ade?" The
X oredit as too a refundable
credit
ero were M hings UD to $7, 00 The credit is
THING sove 10,000. Childrar tax credit
roposed hisin the earned Inco e tax credit to 28
vings for families with one pre-school child and 40
Them
rnings for familier with not OR te-school chi
A
would not need to THE me tax year
delved credit which DAS x
1-7-
3t
employe
lover-so
X
these 3 three't
ESA
or Glimin
you rediate
atents
Life ene
hald
**
AVAILABILITY OF CHILD CARE
There is no evidence of a general, national shortage of available
child care.
o
A comprehensive Department of Labor study of child care
examined data on demographic and economic trends, Federal
programs providing financial assistance for child care, tax
and regulatory policy at State and local levels, actions by
employers and labor unions, and workplace trends. They
concluded:
Considerable concern has been raised that a
"shortage" of child care exists. This report
finds no evidence in support of the contention
that there is a general, national shortage of
available child care. (Department of Labor, "Child
Care: A Workforce Issue, " 1988)
o
A 1984-85 Census survey of the 26.5 million children
under age 15 with working mothers counted 0.5 million
school-age children -- only 1.8 percent of the total -- as
caring for themselves most of the time their mothers were at
work. Another Census study specifically concerned with
after-school care confirms that survey. ("Who's Minding the
Kids?" 1987; "After-School Care of School-Age Children:
December 1984, 1987)
Commonly cited "evidence" of a shortage does not hold up under
scrutiny.
O
Comparisons of the number of slots in licensed child
care facilities with the number of children of working
mothers are misleading because:
--
More than half of all children of working mothers
are cared for by their relatives and their own parents
(typically the father, while the mother works). Of the
12.6 million children under age 15 with working mothers,
54 percent were cared for by their parents or relatives
most of the time their mother was working.
-- Half of the States specifically exempt small,
family day care homes from regulation. Consequently
this source of child care -- which serves almost as many
children as child-care centers -- is not counted in the
tally of licensed slots. ("Who's Minding the Kids?";
National Day Care Home Study, 1981; Gwen Morgan, "The
State of State Child Care Regulation," 1987)
o
Long waiting lists for some centers do not prove a
general shortage, either.
-- Parents will often put their names on several
lists, particularly for low-cost or popular child-care
centers. Some centers, rather than advertising, use
waiting lists to enroll children not placed there by
child welfare agencies. And many of the centers that
maintain waiting lists admit that they do not cull the
lists regularly, so the length of the lists is of little
consequence. (Mathematica, "The Child Care Challenge:
What Parents Need and What Is Available in Three
Metropolitan Areas," 1989*)
There is no general shortage of slots in child care centers. The
number of slots has grown dramatically and prices have not risen
significantly, as they would have if there were a shortage of
center care.
O
The number and capacity of child care centers in
operation has doubled in the past decade.
1976
1986
Number of Licensed
18,300
39,900
Centers
Licensed Capacity
1.0 million 2.1 million
Sources: Hofferth and Phillips, "Child Care in the United
States," 1987; Prosser, "Day Care Centers,' 1986.
o
Weekly family expenditures for center-based care have
risen little if at all.
-- The average weekly payment, per family, was $19.56
in 1975 and $14.12-$19.15 in 1985, expressed in 1975
dollars. (Hofferth, National Institute for Child Health
and Human Development, Testimony on "Child Care in the
United States, Select Committee on Children, Youth and
Families, July 1987.)
*Note that the summary of this report contains assertions with
little or no basis in the study's data, such as welfare reform
causing a shortage of child-care slots and a shortage of
center-based care for infants.
There are vacancies in both child care centers and family day
care homes.
O
For child-care centers participating in the federal
Child Care Food Program:
--
Half had vacancy rates greater than 9 percent.
--
32 percent had vacancy rates of more than 20
percent. (Abt Associates, "Study of the Child Care Food
Program,' 1988)
O
The National Child Care Association, a group of
proprietary child care centers, has estimated that there is a
14-30 percent vacancy rate among its membership. (Testimony
before the House Education and Labor Committee, April 1989)
0
In California, there is an 18 percent vacancy rate among
licensed family day care homes and a 12 percent vacancy rate
among all child-care centers. (California Child Care
Resource and Referral Network, "Inventory of Child Care
Facilities, 1987)
Many employers have adopted practices services or benefits to
facilitate child care.
O
63 percent of workplaces with ten or more employees have
adopted policies that facilitate child care.
Percent of Employers Who Facilitate Child Care
Number of Employees at Workplace All
10-49
50-249
250 or more
Workplaces
Work Schedule and
62
58
59
61
Leave Policies
Benefits or
9
15
32
11
Services
Any of Above
63
62
68
63
Source: "BLS Reports on Employer Child-Care Practices," USDL
News 88-7, 1988.
QUALITY CHILD CARE
The contention that quality can be assured only if there are Federal
standards, to be used as a basis for licensing child care providers,
is not well-grounded in fact.
o
"It has been tacitly assumed that licensed providers supply
a better quality of service than do unlicensed providers, so many
proposals have been made to establish and enforce child care
standards. But in fact no empirical evidence exists to support that
assumption." (Institute on Poverty, Focus, Spring 1989)
O
"Research on child care has been fraught with methodological
problems preventing generalizations from the results and leading to
inconsistencies in some of the findings. In spite of hundreds of
studies, quality remains an illusive concept. (Ooms and Herendeen,
"Briefing paper for Family Impact Seminar, 1989)
The assumption that unlicensed care necessarily is bad care is not
borne out by the facts either.
O
Almost half (47-48 percent) of all care for preschool
children of working mothers is provided by relatives, including
fathers, grandparents and in some cases the mother herself while she
is working. It is hard to argue that care by relatives is not
"quality" care. (U.S. Census, "Who's Minding the Kids?" 1987;
Congressional Research Service,' Child Day Care: Patterns of Use
Among Families with Preschool Children," 1988)
O
About 77 percent of all preschool children are cared for in
informal arrangements that generally are not licensed, while formal
center-based care is used by a minority of parents -- regardless of
their income levels. Because there is no evidence of a national
shortage of center care, parents' extensive use of non-center care
must reflect their judgment that it is of good quality. (Census,
"Who's Minding the Kids?"; CRS, "Child Day Care")
O
Low child-to-caregiver ratios and small group size, which
proponents of Federal standards and licensing believe are two of the
best indicators of quality care, are actually more common in informal
care than in formal care, as shown in the chart below.
Care Arrangement
Informal
Formal
Care
Care
Characteristics
Family
Child
of Care, by
Own Home
Relative
Day Care
Nursery
Care
Age of Child
Parent
Other
Home
Home
School
Center
Median Number
of Children
Per Adult
0-1 yrs
1
1
1
2
4.8
4
2 yrs
1
1
1.5
3.1
4.8
5
3-4 yrs
1
1
1
3
7.5
7.2
Median Number
of Children
Per Group
0-1 yrs
1
1
1
2.3
6
9.2
2 yrs
1
1.3
1.3
3.73
11.4
9.6
3-4 yrs
1
1
1
3.4
14
14.6
Source: Rand, "What Parents Pay For: Quality of Child Care and Child
Care Cost, " 1988.
Because many family day care homes are not licensed, the assertion
often is made that they provide low quality care. That simply is not
the case.
O
A study by Abt Associates and the Stanford Research
Institute, the only national study to date to include unlicensed
homes, found that family based care was stable, warm and
stimulating parents who use family day-care report it
satisfactorily meets their child care needs
[The study's] observers
were consistently impressed by the care they saw regardless of family
status." (National Day Care Home Study, 1981)
O
Higher income families, who presumably are not as
constrained in their child care choices by cost considerations, use
family day care more than lower income families, suggesting that
parental choice of this type of child care reflects parents' beliefs
that it is quality care (see table below).
Use of Family Day Care Homes: Primary Care Arrangements of
Youngest Child Under Age 5 in Families with Employed Mothers
Family Income as a Percentage
Percentage of Children in
of Poverty Threshold
Family Day Care
Below 200%
16.4%
200% to 400%
25.9%
400% & over
29.2%
Source: Congressional Research Service, "Child Day Care," December
1988
Academics, task forces and professional interest groups focus on
regulatable aspects of care, but other factors may well be more
important.
o
"Child care that parents assess as high quality may not have
the easily observed structural characteristics on which licensing
agencies focus
A secure and loving environment and emotional and
intellectual growth may weigh more heavily in parents' decisions than
counts of children and adults
Licensing agencies attempt to
safeguard the quality of child care provided in the marketplace. Yet
our results suggest that the structural elements that are currently
the focus of licensing are, in fact, irrelevant in terms of what
parents demand from child care." (Rand, "What Parents Pay For:
Quality of Child Care and Child Care Costs," 1988)
Research now available on regulatable aspects of care is not
generalizable and has produced conflicting results on the importance
of these aspects of care, such as child-to-caregiver ratios. It is
clear, however, that mandating child-to-caregiver ratios would raise
the cost and reduce the availability of care.
O
"Most of the research linking the [regulatable]
characteristics of child care quality with developmental outcomes has
come as a result of studies which evaluated the results of quality
within a specific type of care, while studies which have focused on
variation across types of care are more rare." (Silverberg,
"Nonmaternal Care: Implications for Children and Parents, 1988)
o
Research on centers' child-to-caregiver ratios, a
characteristic which is fundamental to proposals for Federal
standards, has been contradictory. For example,
-- In an early phase of the National Day Care Study of
center-based care, low child-to-caregiver ratios were found to be
linked statistically with favorable scores on tests of child
development. Yet when the same study later randomly assigned
children to centers (which avoids the bias that may result from
parental selection of providers), the children in centers with low
ratios did not score better. (National Day Care Study, 1981)
-- While Howes (1987) has suggested that low child-to-staff
ratios are associated with increased social competence in children,
Clarke-Stewart (1987) has reached the opposite conclusion.
o
Despite continuing interest, no research has systematically
linked regulatable characteristics with the risk of injury to
children or with sexual abuse. For example, the National Day Care
Study tried to relate regulatable characteristics to injuries, but
did not succeed. "Nursery Crimes" (Finkelhor, Williams and Burns,
1978) was unable to compare abuse rates in licensed and unlicensed
care. It did find that 82 percent of facilities with substantiated
instances of sexual abuse had been inspected in the preceding twelve
months.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
(80
TO:
BOBBIE KILBERG
FROM:
LORNA GLADSTONE
RE:
MEETING ON CHILD CARE, APRIL 18,1989
These are excerpts from the Family Circle article I was talking
about, and might give someone some ideas? The article is
entitled America's Most Caring Corporations or words to that
effect.
1. CAMPBELL SOUP, Camden, New Jersey, 48% women employees.
Provide on-site care. Enroll 115 children.
2. CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL, Stamford Connecticut, Paper goods.
18% women employees. Day-care across from
headquarters.
3. IBM, Armonk , N.Y., 30% women. Child care referral service.
4. MERCK & co., Rahway, N. J., 38% women employees. Provided
start-up money for day-care near headquarters
and have committed to 500,000 for expansion.
5. NCNB, Charlotte, N.C., 75% women. Child-care resource and
referral service.
6. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., San Francisco, CA. 22% women.
Option to pay child care expenses with pre-
tax dollars (up to $5,000).
7. PROCTOR & GAMBLE, Cincinnati, Ohio, 32% 2 day care centers-
depending on ability to pay. Child care
resource and reference service that also
trains and recruits providers.
8. STRIDE RITE, Cambridge, MA, 60% women. Company-sponsored day
care in 1971. Second one in 1983. Planning
a third one in Bedford. Cost of $7,000 a
year per child shared by the company, parent
and in some cases MA Dept. Soc. Sciences.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
9. 3 M, Minneapolis, MINN, 33% women. During summer, Xmas and
Easter vacations, school-age children of 3M
employees attend a science-enrichment camp a
cooperative venture of 3M, the Science Museum
of Minnesota and a local YMCA. Also trial
program with hospitals to provide sick-child
care at home. Full time child-care
administrator who oversees 3M's several
programs in child-care and counsels parents.
BUILDING A BETTER AMERICA
APRIL 24, 1989
SUMMARY
Since President Bush took office, he has addressed a series
of tough issues, meeting both urgent short-term priorities and
working toward solutions to the long-term challenges facing the
nation. Relying on basic American principles -- traditional
family values, choice, accountability, fairness, excellence,
peace through strength -- the President is building a better
America by:
1. Keeping the economy strong -- with no new taxes
2. Seizing international opportunities for peace
3. Investing in our future
4. Working for a kinder, gentler America
Keeping the Economy Strong -- With No New Taxes
Record economic growth -- 76 months of economic expansion.
Nearly 20 million new jobs have been created, and the
unemployment rate is now at its lowest since December, 1973.
Real median family income set a new record in 1987 and
continues to grow.
A comprehensive budget proposal sent to the Congress and an
unprecedented bipartisan agreement with the Congress reached
on the budget reducing the Federal budget deficit, meeting
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction targets with no new
taxes
A comprehensive plan to rescue the Savings and Loan industry
which has cleared the Senate
An initiative for cutting the capital gains tax rate sent to
the Congress to encourage investment and create jobs and
opportunity
In the Uruguay Round of GATT trade negotiations, substantial
progress has been made by the Administration toward reducing
trade barriers to U.S. exports
A plan for raising the minimum wage to $4.25 coupled with a
six month training wage
Seizing International Opportunities for Peace
The signing of a bipartisan accord with the Congress on
Central America
The initiation of a dialogue with the Soviet Union.
Secretary Baker met with Foreign Minister Shevardnadze in
March, and these talks will continue when the two meet next
in Moscow
An eight-step program to support Polish political and
economic reforms
Intensive Presidential consultations with the leaders of 34
nations, including 18 bilateral meetings held during the
Asia trip
A plan to strengthen the international response to Third
World debt
Comprehensive foreign policy and defense strategy reviews
initiated
Investing in Our Future
Improving Education
A comprehensive legislative package for educational
excellence sent to the Congress
Protecting our Environment
A multi-agency commitment to oversee the Alaskan oil spill
cleanup effort
The development of Clean Air Act revisions, with provisions
for control of acid rain and other problems
An announcement of an effort to seek legislative authority
to ban hazardous waste exports, where agreements do not
exist for their safe disposal
A call for the worldwide phaseout of CFCs by the year 2000
A plan of action to identify and prioritize clean up of
defense and civilian radioactive waste
A legislative proposal, already enacted by the House, to
deregulate natural gas by January 1, 1993
Fighting Drugs and Crime
A major $6 billion anti-drug abuse initiative focusing on
education, rehabilitation, interdiction and enforcement
Action in response to the drug emergency in the District of
Columbia, including enforcement support, more prison space,
and stepped-up efforts in prevention and rehabilitation
A temporary suspension of imports of certain types of semi-
automatic weapons
Action to modify lease and grievance procedures to
facilitate eviction of those involved in drug related
criminal activity from public housing
New aviation security initiatives announced by the Secretary
of Transportation, to counteract terrorism in the skies
Working for a Kinder, Gentler America
Child Care
A child care initiative to give low and moderate income
working families greater choice and flexibility in meeting
their child care needs
Legislation to increase the FY 1990 authorization for Head
Start by $250 million to help up to 95,000 more 4-year olds
National Service
The creation of the Office of National Service in the White
House, and leadership in the Administration's initiative on
volunteerism
Welfare Reform and Medicaid
Quick action to implement major welfare reform legislation
that will help reduce long-term welfare dependency
Expansion of the Medicaid program to serve more pregnant
women, infants, and children
Homelessness
An initiative to provide over $1 billion in federal
resources to help end homelessness and pave the way to jobs,
permanent housing and health care
Ethics and Civil Rights
A comprehensive ethics proposal to make uniform the
standards among all three branches of government
Whistleblower protection legislation, now law, to strengthen
the rights of those who report misdeeds and mismanagement
Enforcement of the new Fair Housing Laws, to fully prosecute
those discriminating in housing opportunities on the basis
of religion, race, age, ethnicity, handicap or family status
Support by the Department of Justice for the objectives of
the Hate Crimes Bill, which provides for the collection of
data about crimes motivated by race, religion, ethnicity or
sexual orientation
President Bush has set an agenda for the country. He is
orienting us as a nation toward the future -- building a better
America -- keeping America strong and at peace. Leadership is
the ability to see the shape of things to come, to address
tomorrow's challenges today. George Bush is preparing the nation
for the 21st Century.
APR 19 '89 13:36 NAM HEADQUARTERS
P.2/5
NAM
NAM STATEMENT ON FEDERAL CHILD CARE LEGISLATION
April 19, 1989
The National Association of Manufacturers believes that the threshhold
issue in the debate on federal child care legislation is preserving
the ability of business, individuals and local government entities
alike to select the child care options which are responsive to the
widely varying child care needs in the United States.
Federal child care initiatives should enhance, not restrict, child
care options available to business and to families of all income
levels. Child care legislation should not limit parental choice by
promoting a particular type of child care. Equally important, it
should provide federal financial assistance to those families at the
lowest end of the income scale.
Employers, too, should have the opportunity to match child care
benefits with their employees' diverse needs which vary with
geographic location, workforce composition and employee preferences,
among other factors. Realistic incentives are an important tool in
assisting business to address these needs. NAM members are already
working to meet employee child care needs by implementing a broad
range of child care benefits, including resource and referral
programs, on-site and near-site centers, cafeteria plan child care
options, dependent care accounts to allow pre-tax dollars to be used
for child care, child care consortia and flexible work scheduling.
Since child care needs vary by company as well as by location, federal
child care initiatives should not emphasize one type of employer
provided child care program over another.
NAM urges Congress to facilitate employer provided child care options
by supporting initiatives that encourage flexible benefits programs.
Flexible benefit plans permit employees to select their benefits
according to individual needs and assist business in helping to
control spiralling benefits costs, which presently account for 45
percent of compensation costs in the manufacturing industry. Federal
child care legislation should not restrict child care options
available to families through their employers.
The NAM supports a dual-pronged approach to improving access to child
care, combining tax credits for those who need them most, the working
poor, with enhanced discretionary spending. Existing tax credit
mechanisms afford the most economic means of assisting lower income
working families with child care expenses.
The NAM also believes that limited fiscal resources for federal
assistance programs dictate placing a realistic income cap on
eligibility for child care tax credits. An income cap would help
ensure that those genuinely in need of federal assistance would in
fact receive it.
APR 19 '89 13:37 NAM HEADQUARTERS
P.3/5
In addition to enhanced funding for Head Start programs included in
President Bush's and other congressional proposals, the NAM recommends
limited increase of federal funding available to states for expansion
and development of child care services. State governments should have
broad discretion in determining how these funds are to be used, as
they can best determine local needs. Enhancement of child care
programs and facilities should be shared by the public and private
sector, subject to the reality of financial constraints.
The extent to which liability insurance is a barrier to market entry
for child care providers should be explored in the interest of
broadening access to all types of child care. The NAM supports
President Bush's proposal that the Secretary of Labor make this
determination before recommending specific steps to reduce liability
exposure.
The most workable and universally beneficial child care legislation
would retain and promote flexibility of programs and choices for
employees and employers; would enable state governments to determine
the most efficient use of child care funding; and target for
assistance those lower income families for whom child care is key to
their participation in the workforce.
APR 19 '89 13:37 NAM HEADQUARTERS
P.4/5
MAM
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
NEWS
89-58
NEWS CONTACTS:
LAURA BROWN (202) 637-3087
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DIANE GENEROUS (202) 637-3133
NAM SUPPORTS LOW INCOME TAX CREDITS AND MORE FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE
WASHINGTON, DC, April 19, 1989 -- The National Association of
Manufacturers, calling today for improved access to child care, urged
Congress to move forward on child care tax credits for the working
poor and limited spending increases for Head Start and state child
care initiatives.
The NAM also asked Congress to facilitate employer provided child
care by encouraging flexible benefits programs.
"American families, especially low income workers, face a variety
of child care needs. It's in everyone's best interest for business
and government to work together -- not at odds -- to increase child
care opportunities for our workers," commented Alexander B.
Trowbridge, NAM'S president.
Trowbridge called for "federal child care initiatives that enhance,
not restrict, options available to business and to families of all
income levels."
"Child care legislation should not limit parental choice by
promoting a particular type of child care," he continued. "Equally
important, it should provide federal financial assistance to those
families at the lowest end of the income scale."
Trowbridge said limited fiscal resources dictate placing a
realistic income cap on eligibility for child care tax credits, "to
ensure that those genuinely in need of federal assistance in fact
receive it."
1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 1500 " NORTH LOBBY, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1703
APR 19 '89 13:37 NAM HEADQUARTERS
P.5/5
He added that while NAM member companies already are working to
meet employee child care needs through a broad range of child care
benefits, "Realistic incentives are needed to spur business to do even
more to help working families."
Trowbridge went on to praise flexible benefit plans, saying they
not only help employers tailor benefits to employees' needs, but also
help business to control spiralling benefit costs, which now account
for 45 percent of compensation costs in the manufacturing industry.
Commenting on the numerous child care bills under consideration,
Trowbridge said President Bush's proposal is "a good first step" for
improving child care. Sen. Dodd's "ABC" bill, he added, "limits
parental choice, is unrealistically expensive, and will drive up child
care costs. It's just not the right answer to our child care needs."
NAM member companies account for 85 percent of the manufactured
products and manufacturing jobs in the United States. Since its
founding in 1895, NAM has advocated policies that promote economic
growth and efficiency in American industry.
APR 18 ' 89 17:44
EAGLE FORUM
PAGE 02
To Holly FAX-456-6218 Williamson
The
Phyllis Schlafly Report
VOL. 21, NO. 10, SECTION 2
BOX 618, ALTON, ILLINOIS 62002
MAY, 1986
Exposing the Myths About Child Care
1. Is traditional mother care of children in the home a
Mothers in professional jobs are about three times more likely
thing of the past?
to put their children in professional group care than are
According to Who's Minding the Kids?, a 1987 Census
mothers in blue collar or service worker jobs.
Bureau report, only 45 percent of children under five have
mothers in the labor force. Fewer than one child in three has a
5. Would federal day care bills help the poor and needy?
mother employed full-time, and fewer than one in five has a
The Dodd-Kildee bill promotes a policy of "Robin Hood in
mother employed full-time throughout the year. Even when
reverse," taxing hard-pressed traditional single-earner families
the mother is employed, many families prefer to have the child
to provide subsidized day care for affluent professional
cared for by grandparents, or other adult family members,
couples. Over 80 percent of young children using day care
rather than professional day care providers. Nearly half of the
come from affluent two-parent/two-earner families. The
young children whose mothers are employed are cared for by
median income for these families is nearly 50 percent higher
adult family members or relatives.
than for two-parent/single-earner families. Traditional single-
earner families would not benefit from Dodd-Kildee, but
2. Do Americans want government-licensed day care?
would pay higher taxes to fund the program.
Paid professional day care of the kind envisioned in the
Dodd-Kildee bill is used by only a small minority of American
6. What is the problem about child care costs?
families. Overall, only one young child in three in the U.S.
The problem is not a lack of professional day care but an
receives any form of paid day care. No more than one in ten
erosion of family income due to a tax code that is increasingly
attends professional day care centers of the sort that would be
biased against dependent children. A genuine pro-children
subsidized in the Dodd-Kildee bill.
policy would focus on providing tax relief to families, rather
than taxing them to provide subsidized day care services to
3. When parents need day care, what kind do they prefer?
generally more affluent parents. The Dodd-Kildee bill dis-
In the face of costly and arbitrary government red tape,
criminates against families in which the mother, often at
most family day care providers take the simplest course: they
considerable financial sacrifice, remains at home to care for
operate without a license in the so-called underground
her own young children.
market. As many as 95 percent of the nation's 1.75 million
neighborhood providers are unlicensed and unregulated.
7. Is there a critical shortage of day care?
Unlicensed day care provided by women well known within
There is no persistent shortage of day care in the U.S.
their neighborhoods often is preferred by parents because it is
Day care is one of the most rapidly growing industries in the
less impersonal, less expensive, and more convenient.
economy. Over the last 25 years, the number of spaces for
children in day care centers has expanded at a rate of nearly 10
4. Who uses day care high-income or low-income families?
percent per annum. Occasional shortages are due largely to
Some 83 percent of children under five in day care are from
excessive regulation, not a lack of willing providers. By
two-parent/two-carner families. The median income for such
demanding stricter federal regulation, the Dodd-Kildee bill
families in the U.S. is $38,346. The median income of a
would reduce rather than expand the supply of day care. The
traditional two-parent family with one earner, on the other
Dodd-Kildee bill would help bureaucrats and social service
hand. is $25,803. Most of the benefits of the existing
providers far more than families.
dependent care tax credit go to families with incomes over
Between 1960 and 1986, the number of children in formal
$30,000 per year. When lower income families use day care,
group care centers skyrocketed by 1,500 percent from
normally they do not use professional group care facilities of
141,000 to 2.1 million. The number of centers grew from
the kind that would be subsidized in the Dodd-Kildee bill.
4,400 to 39,929. There are at least another 1.65 million
They are more likely to use care by a relative or neighbor.
unlicensed neighborhood day care providers.
APR 18 '89 17:45
EAGLE FORUM
PAGE 03
If there were shortages and constraints in the supply of day
scale providers out of business, and which would subsidize
care, prices would increase sharply. But in general the cost of
primarily large professional day care centers, would under-
day care, measured in constant dollars, has stayed relatively
mine the health of American children.
unchanged for the past decade. While the cost of hiring a
10. How would the Dodd-Kildee ABC Bill subsidize day care?
full-time sitter to care for a child in one's home has increased,
The Dodd-Kildee bill proposes a "trickle-down" strategy,
the costs of "family day care" providers and group care centers
filtering the funds through multiple layers of expensive federal
have remained constant or increased only slightly in real terms
and state bureaucracy in order ultimately to subsidize
over the last ten years.
government-selected day care centers at the local level. Even
when the funds actually reach local day care centers, there is
8. Does state licensing help or hurt availability and
nothing to prevent them from being swallowed up by
affordability?
increased salaries and supervisory costs.
All states require large-scale group day care centers to be
At the federal level, the bill would create a "National
licensed. This is reasonable. More than half the states also
Advisory Committee on Child Care Standards" and an
regulate small neighborhood or what is known as "family day
"Office of the Administrator of Child Care" in the Department
care" providers caring for five children or fewer. In some
of Health and Human Services. A new bureaucracy would
states, if an adult cares for even one unrelated child outside the
allocate monies among states, monitor and approve state
child's home, the adult is judged to be operating a "day care
"comprehensive day care plans," and enforce extensive new
facility" and must obtain a license.
federal regulations. At the state level, an array of governmental
In theory, these regulations are meant to protect children. In
and quasi-governmental organizations would be created and
practice, they often are the product of an arbitrary bureaucracy
sustained by taxpayer funds. These would include 100
and have little or nothing to do with the quality or safety of
permanent day care commissions mandated in the legislation,
day care. The major effect of zoning codes, building, and
new day care planning offices, day care referral agencies, day
health regulations is, in many cases, to restrict supply. Often,
care inspectors and regulators, and a new national network of
building codes designed for restaurants and orphanages are
training centers for day care providers.
applied to small neighborhood family day care providers,
To be eligible for funding, each state would have to comply
forcing expensive structural changes that make it uneconomic
with new federal regulations and provide 20 percent matching
to provide day care services.
funds. States would not be required to provide federal funds to
In Texas, for instance, neighborhood providers can be
all day care providers, only to selected institutions. Which
required to install three stainless-steel sinks and a vent over the
organizations receive such aid surely will be determined in
stove. In California, family day care homes have been
great part by local bureaucratic politics.
required to install sprinkler systems and fire-retardant walls;
While the Dodd-Kildee bill contains a minor provision
one woman, seeking to expand enrollment in her six-child day
allowing states to provide day care vouchers, which would
care home, was told that she would have to install separate
stimulate consumer choice, no state is required to provide
bathrooms for boys and girls and the bathrooms would have
vouchers. Vouchers are mentioned in only two paragraphs of
to be made large enough to accommodate wheelchairs. In
the 63-page bill. In practice, little if any of the Dodd-Kildee
state after state, day care providers have been cited for absurd
funding would reach parents in the form of vouchers.
or bizarre regulatory abuses.
11. How would Dodd-Kildee affect neighborhood day
9. Should unlicensed day care be abolished?
care that does NOT receive federal funds?
There is no systematic evidence that day care by unlicensed
The bill would set "minimum" federal standards and
providers is in general less safe or less healthy than care in large
regulations in day care. Each state accepting Dodd-Kildee
regulated day care centers. Indeed, the evidence suggests the
funds would be required to enforce these federal regulations.
opposite. Nationally publicized cases of alleged sexual abuse
The state would be allowed to retain its own regulations only
in day care, such as those involving the West Point Daycare
to the extent that they were more stringent than the
Center and the McMartin School in California, have occurred
corresponding federal standards. Each state, moreover, would
in large fully regulated day care centers. Studies show that
be required to hold all its day care providers to federal
smaller "family day care" providers are generally more
standards, not simply those receiving federal funds. Thus the
attentive to children's emotional needs than larger group
bill would attempt to bring all 1.65 million informal,
unlicensed neighborhood providers, as well as all church-
centers.
The most significant threat to the health of young children
based day care and group care centers, under federal control.
in day care is the spread of contagious diseases. Smaller,
All day care personnel, including neighborhood providers
generally unlicensed, neighborhood facilities pose less threat
and church-based day care, would be forced to receive at least
than do large, regulated facilities. Dr. Stephen Hadler of the
two days "training" each year in government-authorized
Centers for Disease Control explains that larger centers place
training centers. All states would have to set maximum
more children in contact with each other, thereby increasing
child/staff ratios for group care centers equal to the current
the chances of contracting serious infectious diseases. Says
nationwide median child/staff standards. Thus in half of the
Hadler: "The larger the center or the longer the hours, the
states, day care centers would be required to raise existing staff
greater the chance [of infectious disease occurring]." Policies
levels, immediately sharply boosting cost per child enrolled.
like those proposed in the Dodd-Kildec bill, which would
"Minimum" federal day care standards also would be
tighten the net of day care regulations, driving many small
developed by the new National Advisory Committee on Child
APR 18 89 17:46
EAGLE FORUM
PAGE. 04
Care Standards. Two-thirds of the members of this body would
grace over their milk and cookies. In any room used for day
be selected by Congress and one-third by the President. These
care within such an institution, religious pictures and images
minimum standards would establish additional child/staff
would have to be turned to the wall or covered with sheets to
ratio requirements, more stringent educational and training
hide them from children's eyes. Religious day care centers
qualifications for all day care workers nationwide, and
receiving funds would be barred from favoring members of
additional health and building safety regulations. The Commit-
their own faith when hiring child care workers. All religious
tee also could establish federal curriculum requirements for day
day care centers, even those which refused federal funding,
care, although the bill does not require that it do so.
would be subject to federal regulations concerning the educa-
tional and professional qualifications of day care staff, child/
12. Would the Dodd-Kildee bill improve the quality of
staff ratios, and possibly curriculum.
day care?
Even if the extremely offensive provisions of section 20
Higher staff/child ratios would raise costs dramatically. But
were struck from the bill, the impact would differ little. Any
the 1979 National Day-Care Study commissioned by the
program of direct subsidization of day care, or even the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare found very
provision of day care vouchers, ultimately will restrict the
little correlation between staff/child ratios and quality.
activities of religious day care centers. Such a program will
Operators of day care centers in California point out that state
tend to force religious institutions to abandon the day care
credentialing rules, requiring day care workers to have
field by placing them at an economic disadvantage.
completed college course work in child development, signifi-
Church-run centers in the inner city would be the greatest
cantly raise salary costs while barring many competent and
victims of this no-religion policy. While early childhood
caring persons from employment — nearly all mothers and
development strategies touted in the Dodd-Kildee plan are
grandmothers are deemed unfit to work in day care centers.
seldom of enduring benefit to vantaged children, religious
institutions and the strong moral values they inculcate have an
13. Who does the Dodd-Kildee bill discriminate against?
unchallengeable record in helping inner city youth escape
The 54 percent of children under five whose mothers are not
from drug addiction, illiteracy, and poverty.
employed would receive no benefits from the Dodd-Kildee
15. What does the Federal Government now spend on
proposal. Even among those children who receive day care,
child care?
only a small number would receive assistance through the
The 1988 costs of current Federal Child Care Programs and
Dodd-Kildee bill. Funds that trickled down through the
Tax Credits are more than $6,900,000,000. Current tax
bureaucratic labyrinth would be channeled primarily toward
credits benefit primarily high-income families. All other child
professional group care centers. Children who receive care from
care expenditures benefit primarily families on welfare. Low-
relatives or from the millions of unlicensed neighborhood
and middle-income families are taxed but not benefited. The
providers would be ineligible for assistance; together these two
breakdown is listed below in millions of dollars:
groups comprise roughly 75 percent of all young children in day
Tax Credits
care. Overall, no more than one young child in ten would be
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
$3,920
likely to receive subsidized care under the Dodd-Kildee plan.
Employer-Provided Child Care Tax Credit
65
The Dodd-Kildee bill would take from the poor to give to
Non-profit Child Care Center Tax Exemption
3
the wealthy. Over 80 percent of day care users are two-
Child Care/Early Education
parent/two-earner families whose median income is nearly 50
Head Start
1,206
percent higher than the income of traditional two-parent/
Child Care Food Program
582
single-earner families. Though children of needy single
Special Education Preschool Services
219
working mothers also would receive subsidized care, they are
Dependent Care Planning and Development
8
only a small percentage of the children using day care.
Special Milk Program
4
The Dodd-Kildee bill does attempt to ensure that subsidized
Child Development Associate Scholarship Program
1
care goes only to families with incomes below 115 percent of the
Welfare and Job Training - Child Care Expenses
state median for families of comparable size. BUT such a limit
Food Stamps
50
would include many families with high incomes. In California,
Aid to Families With Dependent Children
44
for instance, a family of four with an income of $41,656 would
Housing Assistance
18
be eligible; in Maryland the limit would be $46,063; in New
Work Incentive Program
9
Jersey $46,929. Moreover, two-earner families with incomes
Job Training Partnership Act
9
above the 115 percent threshold already receive billions of
Vocational Education
1
dollars in day care subsidies through the current day care tax
Student Financial Aid - Child Care Expenses
65
credit. The bill would not require that any specific percentage of
Social Services/Community Development Funding
its funds be targeted to low income families.
Social Services Block Grants (Title XX)
660
Community Development Block Grant
35
14. How would the Dodd-Kildee bill eliminate religious
Child Welfare Programs
1+
day care?
The information in Questions 1-14 was taken from Issue Bufletin #138 called "The
A day care center in a religious institution which receives
American Family and Day Care" by Robert Rector published by the Heritage
any Dodd-Kildee funding, either directly or through vouchers,
Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002. The
information in Question 15 was taken from the House Education & Labor
is prohibited from providing any religious influence on the
Committee testimony of Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute,
children in its care. This means that children could not say
1150 17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
APR 18 '89 17:47
EAGLE FORUM
PAGE. 05
Five Principles of Good Child Care Policy
Good Child Care Proposals
Excerpts from the Testimony of
1. The Child Care Income Tax Reform, H.R. 3944 and S. 2187.
U.S. Secretary of Education William J. Bennett*
Sponsors: Rep. Clyde Holloway (R-LA) and Sen. Malcolm
Let me present the fundamental principles that I believe
Wallop (R-WY).
should guide our efforts in the development of public policies
A $150 to $400 tax credit for all children below
bearing on child care.
mandatory school age, on a scale that gives the greater
1. Any government policy or program in the area of child
amount to low- income families.
care should be judged by one standard above all others: Does
The credit is refundable at the lower income levels up to
the policy or program under consideration strengthen or
the amount paid in Social Security taxes.
weaken, over the long term, the vital social institutions -
The above would replace the existing Child and
especially the family - that bear primary responsibility for the
Dependent Care Credit.
nurture and protection of our children? In our society, families
have the basic responsibility for the care of children.
2. The Toddler Tax Credit, H.R. 4434.
I am disturbed by some of the child care proposals now
Sponsor: Rep. Richard T. Schulze (R-PA).
pending before Congress. They seem, however unintention-
A $750 tax credit for each child under age 6 in families
ally, to put families to one side; they seem to accept as
with annual incomes over $13,000 to be applied against
inevitable the declining importance and role of the family; and
federal income and Social Security taxes; refundable if tax
they seem more concerned with creating new structures than
credits exceed the tax due.
with supporting the very best structures possible for our
For families with annual incomes below $8,000 a year, a
children: our families. Finally and fundamentally, child care is
cash refundable Earned Income Tax Credit for Young
a family issue.
Children under age 6 (EITC/YC) of $15 for the first child
2. When we analyze child care policies, we must be sensitive
for each $100 earned by the parent, and $10 for each
to whether our policies discriminate against families that
additional child for each $100 earned by the parent.
choose to have a parent stay at home to care for their children.
The choice as to whether a parent, particularly a parent with
Adjust the amounts incrementally for families with
annual incomes between $8,000 and $13,000.
young children, should or should not seek employment out of
The above would replace the existing Child and
the home must be made by each family. The government
Dependent Care Credit for children under age 6. The
should not bias that choice through its policies.
existing Dependent Care Credit would be retained for
Many of the child care proposals now before Congress
children over age 6.
address themselves only to the situation of two working parents
or a single working parent. These proposals would take tax
dollars from all families - including families in which the
3. The Family Care Package of 1988, H.R. 4219.
mother or father, often at considerable financial sacrifice, stays
Sponsor: Rep. Philip M. Crane (R-IL).
at home to care for their children - and spend them in most
A $5,000 tax exemption for dependents under age 6.
cases on families where both parents are working, many of
A $4,000 tax exemption for dependents between age 6
whom are financially better off. Government policies should be
and age 18.
neutral toward the choice of child care arrangements.
A $5,000 tax exemption for handicapped dependents.
3. For those parents who do choose non-parental care for
A $4,000 tax exemption for dependents over age 55.
their children, we should insist on fair and equal treatment for
The above more generous exemptions would replace the
the various types of child care available to them. Government
Child and Dependent Care Credit, which would be
programs should not favor or promote day care in a secular
repealed.
setting over day care in a religious one, or institutional care
over informal care. Parents should be able to make decisions
All three of the above bills meet the five tests proposed by
of the kind of child care they want, and the government should
Secretary Bennett. They respect the family, they do not
respect their choice.
discriminate against mothers who care for their own children,
4. When we do spend public money, we should consider
they accord 100% freedom of choice to families in selecting
targeting funds on those most in need - on lower-income
child care, they advantage low-income families, and they do
families.
not create or expand a bureaucracy.
5. In seeking to improve the care for our children, we should
Ask your Congressmen and Senators to co-sponsor all
resist the temptation to set up government programs that will
three bills.
result in overlapping responsibilities and ever-growing bureauc-
racies. In particular, we must avoid the all-too-familiar pattern
The Phyllis Schlafly Report
of establishing a federal program that manages to spend large
Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002
ISSN0556-0152
amounts of taxpayer money without actually benefiting those
Published monthly by The Eagle Trust Fund, Box 618, Alton,
who most deserve help, or that ends up funding bureaucracies
Illinois 62002. Second Class Postage Paid at Alton. Illinois.
rather than benefiting the intended recipients.
Postmaster: Address Corrections should be sent to the Phyllis
Schlafly Report, Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002.
before the House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittes on Human
Subscription Price: $15 per year. Extra copies available: 50
cents each; 4 copies $1; 30 copies $5; 100 copies $10.
Resources, April 21, 1988.
** TOTAL PAGE. 05 **