. . . it’s the Obama/Hillary ‘way’!!
Big Wall Street Journal story Saturday:
SOARING CHILD-CARE COSTS SQUEEZE FAMILIES
In the usual format for journalistic spin to promote a ‘progressive’ agenda item, the Journal offers some really heart-rending, “real life” vignettes on how tough life is and why the government must do more.
Also, in the usual liberal journalistic style the reporters attempt to seek out examples of those individuals or families victimized and hardest hit by whatever the latest shortcomings of our society might be.
This one is a story of how outlays for child care have risen “nearly twice as fast as inflation since 2009” (Doesn’t it seem like here in ‘Lake Woebegone’ every good and service has risen “twice as fast as inflation” ?)
As an example of how badly Americans are suffering from this most recently discovered societal calamity, the Journal’s diligent research has found the Malki Karkowsky family in Kensington, MD.
Now the Karkowsky’s are thankful that they can provide food and clothing for themselves and their 1 and 3-year-old children, but they sadly lament that there’s nothing left “for the extras”.
These folks “aspire” to buy a home, but they report that “saving is difficult”. Mrs. Karkowsky, the Journal discloses, is a “nonprofit executive” and her husband is a school-teacher ( almost certainly an underpaid one). Their plight is such that, as a way to cut costs, the family “moved farther away from the (Missus’s) job in downtown Washington.” The move, according to Mrs. Karkowsky, saved $350 a month, “but she noted that that doesn’t even cover a week of day care”.
If we may stop here for a moment to comment on the Karkowsky’s dire predicament, and perhaps offer some helpful advice:
As is usually the case with these types of breathless “reportage”, the facts readers are given is sparse. We don’t know what the family’s total income is, nor do we know the scale of their rental housing (some of us have perhaps more expensive tastes than might seem needed and in accord with our other personal decisions, living standards and budget allocations.). Further, the “extras” referred to are not defined. (Again, for some of us, an occasional night out, dinner and a movie, is considered “an extra”; for others, a Mediterranean Cruise and a couple of weeks in the Bahamas each year might be considered indispensable “extras”).
One suggestion we might make: As Mrs. Karkowsky assesses the family’s situation, she might need to review her current career aspirations. As noted, we have no clue as to how much , as a “nonprofit executive” she is paid, working in Washington, DC. We do know from her that their current day care bill exceeds $350 a week. That’s in the neighborhood of $20,000 a year. Perhaps Mrs. Karkowsky, or her husband, might consider putting one’s career aspirations on hold until the children are raised.
Our estimate would suggest that the Karkowskys might save as much as $20,000 in child care in addition to her daily transportation costs as well incidental expenses. She would also be assured that her children were receiving the best of care. If Mr. Karkowsky’s job as a teacher pays less than a “nonprofit executive position”,…well, you know, he might choose as many men have, to be the ‘stay at home parent’.
That brings us to LaToya Caldwell. The Journal’s reporter found Ms. Caldwell in Kansas City, working as a “shift supervisor” at a Wendy’s. Hers is a story of struggle and hardship. She makes $10 an hour but finds it difficult to “meet even the most basic needs for her 5 children”.
Care for Ms. Caldwell’s two youngest–“when she can afford it”– accounts for about a quarter of her take-home pay. That makes it “difficult to afford rent, utility bills, and clothes and shoes for her children.
“Sometimes, I can’t send them to day care because I don’t have enough money”, she said, forcing her to ask neighbors or family members to watch them. Ms. Caldwell has ” searched for better-paying employment, but said, “These jobs are all that’s available.”
Again, may we comment. Admittedly this is a story of struggle and woe. One cannot help but be moved by LaToya Caldwell’s difficult circumstances. A single mother (apparently from the narrative) trying to raise 5 kids on pay below the minimum wage demanded these days by unions and their Democratic party benefactors.
Noting that she must often turn to “neighbors or family members” to watch her youngest, we wonder where the father(s) of the children are. Of course, the Journal does not address this question. Nor does it answer other questions a reader might have.
Does Ms. Caldwell not receive any child support from the father(s)? In addition to her pay, isn’t this single mother eligible for housing assistance, child care benefits, the Earned Income Tax Credit which pays more than $6,000 per year? And there’s the ubiquitous “EBT” (“food stamps”). And if Caldwell lives in Kansas City KANSAS she is also eligible for a state Earned Income Tax credit. Federally funded free children’s health care (CHIP) and “affordable” Obamacare is available and with that number of dependents, Ms. Caldwell bears little or no federal tax burden.
At the risk of being accused of the sin of “judgementalism”, we believe that there could be more information provided to fill out this story. We know there are scores of various government assistance and benefit programs which seem to already cover almost any conceivable hardship. In addition there are private agencies, church and secular which offer a variety of aid. How much attention and analysis is given to these alternatives before just ‘proposing’ additional “redistribution” measures?
Hillary has already leaped to the forefront of this latest ‘unmet need’ with her “proposal to limit child-care costs to 10% of a family’s income”, according to the Journal story. Of course this will also help the beleaguered parents who may choose to avail themselves of Clinton’s other proposals for “free college” to “better themselves”.
And who can predict what array of “targeted tax cuts” (aka- taxpayer-paid benefit) are in the Democratic Party candidate’s bag of tricks?
More government largesse!…always the progressives’ solution to the “dangers, toils, and snares through which humans have already come”.
“Personal responsibility”? “Moral Hazard”? “Individual choice”? Not so much. DLH
