I read a headline yesterday: “Pregnant Mum Who Couldn’t Find a Babysitter
Strapped Toddler to Her Back and Went to Work.” That is just fantastic. It’s
great she has a job she could do that (she’s a sports doctor). Not all women
could. It was a comment about this article, however, that made me really think.
The comment was, in effect, “Why do we not have free universal childcare?”
Hmmm. Let’s think about that. Free. What does free mean? I hope you are
ready this. Merriam-Webster says:
1 a :
having the legal and political rights of a citizen
b : enjoying
civil and political liberty <free citizens>
d : enjoying
personal freedom : not subject to the
control or domination of another
2
a : not determined by anything beyond its own
nature or being : choosing or capable of
choosing for itself
b : determined
by the choice of the actor or performer <free actions>
c : made, done,
or given voluntarily or spontaneously
3
a : relieved from or lacking something and
especially something unpleasant or burdensome <free from pain> <a
speech free of political rhetoric> —often used in combination <error-free>
b : not bound, confined, or detained by force
4
a : having no trade restrictions
b : not subject
to government regulation
c of foreign exchange : not subject to restriction or official control
5
a : having no obligations (as to work) or
commitments <I'll be free this evening>
b : not taken
up with commitments or obligations <a free evening>
6
: having a scope not restricted by
qualification <a free variable>
7
a : not obstructed, restricted, or impeded <free
to leave>
b : not being
used or occupied <waved with his free hand>
c : not hampered
or restricted in its normal operation
8
a : not fastened <the free end of the
rope>
b : not confined to a particular position or place
<in twelve-tone music, no note is wholly free for it must hold its place
in the series — J. L. Stewart>
c : capable of
moving or turning in any direction <a free particle>
d : performed
without apparatus <free tumbling>
e : done with artificial aids (as pitons) used
only for protection against falling and not for support <a free
climb>
9
a : not parsimonious <free
spending>
c : availing
oneself of something without stint
e : overly
familiar or forward in action or attitude
10
: not costing or charging anything
11
a (1) : not united with, attached to, combined with,
or mixed with something else : separate <free
ores> <a free surface of a bodily part> (2)
: freestanding <a
free column>
b : chemically
uncombined <free oxygen> <free acids>
c : not
permanently attached but able to move about <a free electron in
a metal>
d : capable of being used alone as a meaningful
linguistic form <the word hats is a free form> —
compare 5bound
7
12 a :
not literal or exact <free translation>
b : not
restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <free
skating>
14
: not allowing slavery
15
: open to all comers
Did you read all of that? Some of it is quite interesting. For this
discussion, we need to focus on 10, “not costing or charging anything,”
because we are talking about child care that is free, or not costing anything,
for the parents. That is great. However, are the people providing care going to
be freely giving of their time as suggested in 2c, “…given voluntarily or
spontaneously”?
You don’t think so? I don’t think
so, either. I know I certainly wouldn’t. I don’t like babysitting. Never did. I
love my own children and I like babies, but I don’t like watching them for
random strangers (that’s relative, of course). I was going to watch the
daughter of a friend this morning but the child in question is a lovely girl
who is helpful and cheerful and really is not in need of being watched
(although I completely understand the why’s). I was going to do this with no
expectation of being paid. I was going to do it for free, you might say
(although my friend has done much for me for free, as well, so you might say it
would be something of a trade).
Unless we take away the freedom of individuals (which I believe we
already have to a great degree) and do the opposite of 3b, “not bound,
confined, or detained by force” and bind, confine, or detain people to provide
child care, I don’t see how we could provide truly free child care. And if
someone is being forced to watch children, how good is the care going to be?
So, if we have so-called “free”
child care, exactly who will be footing the bill? The parents can’t pay for it
because then it would not be free. Employers can’t pay for it because it will
end up coming out of the parents’ paychecks. The government can’t pay for it
because it will end up coming out of paychecks in the form of taxes. Church?
Not everyone goes to church and child care isn’t really what churches are all
about. Service organizations? It seems to me that most of the people who
volunteer with such organizations are either 1) grandparents or that age, or 2)
super busy with a job and family already. Some grandparents are fine for child
care (I’ll be watching my granddaughter when my daughter goes back to work and
will be providing care for free but I consider it a win-win for both of us and
if I had a regular job, I might not be able to do it) but some are not. I mean,
I’m a fairly young grandparent (less than 50) while some are in their 80s or
90s (and some of them are in good shape, granted, but I hope you understand
what I’m getting at here).
 |
| Who wouldn't want to watch this bundle of cuteness? She was just waking up and seeing a whole lot of things she'd never seen before. What an evening! |
So, free child care is not free
because someone has to pay for it. It’s kind of like public education. It isn’t
free. It never was. It never will be. Someone has to pick up the tab.
Do we want a socialized
government? I mean really, do we want a socialized government? Do we want a
government that will provide for us medical care, education, child care, etc.,
etc., etc.? In France, income tax appears to be at least 36% but up to 75%. If
you want to do me a favor (for free), you can research tax rates in other
socialized nations. I’m not in favor of that. US tax rates of 15% to 39% are
bad enough. You’d rather start with our high being the low? Are you kidding me?
I mean, that’s what having a socialized government would look like just from
that perspective.
 |
| We got the fire going and then too much wood was added too quickly. We did, with the help of Lincoln, get it going pretty good later and did get our corn and sausages cooked. Couldn't stay out for s'mores, though; it was just too buggy. |
The idea that we need free child
care is just a symptom of our very dysfunctional society. Our very dysfunctional
society says that both parents must work in order to provide all the
necessities of life for their children. Part of the dysfunction is that
necessities often include very blatant wants. (You need an Xbox? Really? Will
that keep you warm and/or dry? Will it fill your belly? Oh, it will keep you
entertained. Have you ever tried reading a book or playing a board game? Oh,
those are boring; you have ADHD. That’s another discussion. For this
discussion, an Xbox fills no NEED. You need brand name clothing? Really? Nike
shoes keep your feet warmer than any other brand? Yeah, right. I don’t think
so. In fact, I know that to not be true.)
 |
| The clouds were really pretty. |
This is what I think should
happen. People should take a hard look at what they have and what they really
need. Once they’ve cut back to necessities, then the wants can come into play.
I also think we should look at our
very dysfunctional government. Houses and cars should not cost so much. People
should be paid according to their skill levels and we need to understand that skilled
workers are not always college educated. We should not have $15 minimum-wage
because that just drives everything else up and still is not a living wage.
Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.
Free child care? No freaking way,
man. Let’s fix the root problem rather than expecting more for nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment