|AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE
Has the Clinton Administration found a solution for working families?
February 4, 1998
in this forum:
Will Clinton's proposal prompt families to seek child care instead of staying home? Shouldn't we actively encourage parents to stay home? Can the government really support a parent's choice to stay home? Why should U.S. taxpayers subsidize parents who want to work? How do you reconcile welfare reform with the expectation that parents stay home? Gregg H. Averett of Marietta, GA asks: What justifies federal involvement in babysitting-- another expansion of social entitlements for a nation over a trillion dollars in debt?
More specifically, why should the U.S. taxpayers be required to subsidize the removal of a parent from the home and child-rearing responsibilities?
Sen. Patty Murray responds:
No one is talking about "babysitting." Child care today must provide a nurturing environment -- taking full advantage of what we've learned from brain research, and what every family has known intuitively -- that children thrive when their developmental needs are met.
Regarding "removing" parents from the home: First, many jobs don't pay the family enough for a parent to stay home. Second, just because you have a child in child care doesn't absolve you of parental responsibility. When this works well, whether it's your aunt taking care of your child while you are at work, or a child care professional-- the parent must be actively involved in their child's care.