Topic: Healthy Debate: National Childcare Program

[E.R. Campbell]

See the story, below, from to-day's Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050203.wxday0203/BNStory/National/

$5 billion from the surplus for a daycare trust fund because it is an election promise.   I seem to recall a promise of 5,000 new soldiers (mostly soldiers, I hope) which, at about $100,000 per soldier per year (salary + benefits + support + personal equipment + training) equals about $0.5 billion ... but I guess there are not many votes at stake so the Liberals do not need to show progress on that file.

Ottawa to put part of surplus toward daycare, sources say

By BRIAN LAGHI
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa plans to use its current surplus to create a trust fund in the coming budget aimed at kick-starting its $5-billion national daycare program, sources have told The Globe and Mail.

Sources confirmed yesterday that federal officials have told provincial bureaucrats that Finance Minister Ralph Goodale intends to set up the fund in an effort to meet the commitment the government made during last year's election campaign.

Ottawa is hoping to carve out a portion of the fund for itself to pay for aboriginal children on reserves and other "national priorities."

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Goodale would not discuss the way money would be delivered, but hinted that the surplus, which stands at $9-billion, could be used to fund the program.

"We've got a little extra room," he said. "And obviously part of crafting the budget is making the right decision about what to do with the flexibility you've got."

The Martin government feels the need to demonstrate progress on the daycare file given the prominence of the pledge in the last election, a federal official said. Ottawa also wants to build a bullet-proof budget that could stand criticism during a campaign, should the minority government unexpectedly fall, and needs to say it has moved to keep its election promises.

According to sources, financial officials in Ottawa have not settled yet on the amount of the fund and the distribution of the cash. However, they have indicated that it would be a multiyear fund and that they want to "carve out" an amount for themselves to pay for daycares on reserves. Federal and provincial officials are expected to meet next week on the matter.

But provincial officials say earmarking money now for the program may be little more than a cosmetic move because there is yet no deal with Ottawa on how provinces access the money.

"It allows the feds to announce money without giving it to us," a provincial source said.

Another official said the negotiations, while positive, still have a substantial way to go. For example, the provinces will almost certainly ask for more money than the $5-billion over five years Prime Minister Paul Martin promised last spring. Ottawa must also iron out such details as what kind of reporting the provinces might be obliged to do to demonstrate that they're using the money for the appropriate purposes.

"They're very good at the easy part," Conservative MP Monte Solberg said. "But not so good when it comes to the hard part of reform."

Mr. Solberg said it's also wrong for Ottawa to put money in a trust fund at the end of the fiscal year, when Canadian voters can't debate it.

Provinces are also concerned about the trust fund model because the federal money is not built into annual federal spending plans and could end suddenly.

"A trust fund raises concerns that it is not base funding, which seems incongruous with their demand for a national system."

Mr. Goodale said yesterday that the government would pursue daycare in the budget because it was a critical part of the Liberal campaign.

"This budget has to leave the very clear message that a flagship commitment is a flagship commitment and it will be honoured," he said.

Last week, Social Development Minister Ken Dryden said he expects a deal to be reached on a national daycare program when the provinces and territories meet Feb. 11 in Vancouver.

To do so, however, Mr. Dryden will have to overcome a number of hurdles, including the fact that many provinces will be asking for more money from the federal government because they have only minimal public child-care systems.

"For provinces that are coming to the table with very minimal childcare systems, and being asked to commit to a national program that would require significant provincial investments, given that the federal money isn't adequate, they have more problems with what's on the table," a provincial source said.

[Wizard of OZ]

ahh but soliders are baby killers not baby sitters    just ask anyone in BC who has never served.

Money=Men

Money=Equipment

Men+Equipment=Moral

Liberal Party+Military=NO MONEY

[Otto Fest]

What will be the true cost of socialist daycare when all the workers belong to CUPE?  Will these workers be required to educate the children in liberal dogma?  Will those wealthy enough to employ nannies be forced to put their children in public childcare, or will there be a (gasp!) two tier system?  This must be a good thing however, as our health care system is the best in the world.

[x-grunt]

See the story, below, from to-day's Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050203.wxday0203/BNStory/National/

$5 billion from the surplus for a daycare trust fund because it is an election promise.   I seem to recall a promise of 5,000 new soldiers (mostly soldiers, I hope) which, at about $100,000 per soldier per year (salary + benefits + support + personal equipment + training) equals about $0.5 billion ... but I guess there are not many votes at stake so the Liberals do not need to show progress on that file.

Sorry Rusty Old Joint, I don't understand the point of your ref. to the childcare thing. Is it the money going there instead of the CF?

Much as the CF needs the cash, IMO the childcare thing is also greatly needed by many. The government has a much larger set of responsibilities then just the CF, this is one of them. They are not mutually exclusive (I hope).

Did I misunderstand you?

[Wizard of OZ]

right you are X-grunt but you should not pick and choose your promises to keep.  But again that is the luxury of politics i guess.  Promises to the CF by liberal party............ priceless.

And i thought Martin understood our needs and priorities.

[E.R. Campbell]

Sorry Rusty Old Joint, I don't understand the point of your ref. to the childcare thing. Is it the money going there instead of the CF?

Much as the CF needs the cash, IMO the childcare thing is also greatly needed by many. The government has a much larger set of responsibilities then just the CF, this is one of them. They are not mutually exclusive (I hope).

Did I misunderstand you?

I have said, before, in these fora, that:

"¢   Defence spending is, always, down at the bottom of the government's (and people's) priority list - with ballet companies and symphony orchestras; and

"¢   There is stiff competition for each dollar you, as a grateful taxpayer, send to a needy government, and the people who oppose defence spending do so because they have other, "better" ideas re: how to use your money to meet the 'needs' of their constituencies.

PM made several election promises ... he "needs to show progressâ ? on some of them, but that does not include adding any of the promised 5,000 new soldiers.

Yes, x-grunt, I do think it is either/or ... I agree that some parents can and will benefit from subsidized child care; I suspect that those who benefit most will be those whose need is questionable.   I object, on principle, to state run child care - if people need help then use a means test and give them money to buy private sector child care.

[Horse_Soldier]

right you are X-grunt but you should not pick and choose your promises to keep.   But again that is the luxury of politics i guess.   Promises to the CF by liberal party............ priceless.

And i thought Martin understood our needs and priorities.

No - what Martin understands is his need to pander to his constituency - those who would suckle the teat of the nanny-state and for whom the promise of more gubmint cheese means the purchase of a vote.

[Infanteer]

Why should my tax dollars go to daycare for others?   The Great Socialist experiment continues; someone should send Ottawa 10,000 copies of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom....

[Wizard of OZ]

politicans can't read (otherwise they would know how canadians feel about them)so you would have to hire someone to read it to them wasting more of your tax dollars.

[George Wallace]

Wiz

You are wrong....You'll have to hire One to read, one to translate, and one to supervise.

Even more waste, as Official Bilingualism means everything must be in both Official Languages, and then someone has to verify that all translations are correct, not just literal.

GW

[Thucydides]

Infanteer has inadvertently released his plan: he will use the government run daycare to indoctrinate the next generation with readings of Hyeck and Ayn Rand just before nap time.....

[signalsguy]

You know, I'm serving right now, in the regular force, so I would be more than happy to see more troops more money more everything.

But...

I am also live in Canada and if the government is going to spend money on a program that is going to help me and my family, then bring it on. I don't want to spend $1000 a month for child care!

I really honestly agree that SOMETHING needs to be done, but I'm sure that we can have the best of both worlds. Remember as well, its not just defence that needs money. Look at all of the infrastructure crumbling around us - bad roads - bad bridges - understaffed hospitals... on and on and on.

[Wizard of OZ]

But the problem in most cases is the waste caused by bureaucracy not so much the lack of cash.  But when Cash is injected into a project so much of it disappears into other slush funds and such that is the problem.

The government doesn't just need to be changed it needs to be fixed.

[Infanteer]

I don't want to spend $1000 a month for child care!

Neither do I and this is why I don't have children right now.   Why should my thousands of dollars in taxes go to take care of other people's children?   What's next, create a Ministry to Wipe our Asses for us since no one seems to be able to do anything themselves anymore?

Here's a better idea, how about a tax cut so that more money is available in the household income to pay for someone to look after their children.   I'd rather have you manage your families money then some Ottawa gaggle manage all of our money.

[Infanteer]

It is on topic.   Basically, two of the three biggest issues (the other being more money down the health care drain) of the last election were:

1) Increase our defence capabilities to live up to our international responsibilities.

2) Nationalize parenting so that domestically, we don't have to live up to any responsibilities.

Obviously, we've made our choice.   Like you, CFL, I think it is going to be a pile of body bags coming home before we grow up.

Enjoy the Fetters.

[dutchie]

Whether you like it or not, national childcare is a necessity. With the women's lib movement, our society has adapted to a '2-income' household society. We now EXPECT women to go out and contribute financially to the household. Just as the average Joe when he gets a raise increases his spending to match the raise, so have we as a society raised the cost of living to a point where the average Canadian family needs 2 decent incomes (or 1 quite good one) to support a wife (or husband) and 2.2 kids.

Here in Vancouver, the average townhouse costs in the neighborhood of $325,000 for Vancouver, $245,000 in the valley.   An actual house in Vancouver will run you around $750,000 in Vancouver and around $400,000 in the valley. My mortgage is about $1300/month for a friggin townhouse in the valley, plus strata fees and utilities. In order just to pay the mortgage and live reasonably comfortably, we need an income of around $60,000/year with no kids. You add kids, and you need a 2nd income, a really good job, or government assistance ( in the way of tax subsidies or direct subsidies) for childcare.

Looked into the price of quality childcare lately? Try $1600 a month for a registered daycare, fulltime (40 hrs/wk), for a child under 18 months. If we have 2 kids, both under 5, the cost is around $1600 for one, $1200 for the other, for a total of $2800/month. This is not 'top end care' either, you can spend as much as $3000/month/kid or more if you really want. If my wife makes $25/hour, working 37.5 hrs/wk, it turns her wage into $7.75/hour. 30 years ago, I could make enough doing what I'm doing now to buy a HOUSE, not a townhouse, and my wife would stay home to raise the kids.

I don't want government run childcare. I am also naturally wary of creating a program that would allow people to simply get knocked up in order to collect more government money.

I do think there is a huge problem with cost of living, childcare costs, and the price being paid by children. Maybe a suibsidy, an EI program, or workshare....I don't have the solution, but I know there's a problem.

[Infanteer]

As I said before, create tax cuts in order to allow those with children to use more of the income they bring in to support their needs.

Would you rather have $1,000 tax cut per child for day care needs, putting all of it where it needs to go, or would you like to pay $1,000 of taxes to which $500 goes to supporting the government bureaucracy to administer the program and the other $500 reaches your children.

Basic economics - government programs are a - and not a + for the economy.

That's the economics of the issue, how about the morality of it.  The more children family X has, the more I have to pay in taxes to support his family.  Maybe I should just give family X my wallet and VISA card instead....

[dutchie]

As I said before, create tax cuts in order to allow those with children to use more of the income they bring in to support their needs.

Would you rather have $1,000 tax cut per child for day care needs, putting all of it where it needs to go, or would you like to pay $1,000 of taxes to which $500 goes to supporting the government bureaucracy to administer the program and the other $500 reaches your children.

Basic economics - government programs are a - and not a + for the economy.

That's the economics of the issue, how about the morality of it.   The more children family X has, the more I have to pay in taxes to support his family.   Maybe I should just give family X my wallet and VISA card instead....

Re: 'give me the $1000 and let me raise my kids myself' - that is what I would prefer, but oddly, that is not in the tradition of our 'program heavy' Liberal Gov. I guess it's too fiscally responsible.

In regards to your morality question - you raise an important point, and one that I can't entirely refute. Of course, the idea is that those kids will grow up to be good citizens and contribute to the Federal kitty, allowing PM Trudeau (Justin) to propose Bill I031 - the 'Infanteer Plan' - to pay some poor sod to wipe your bum in your old age, under your proposed 'Ministry To Wipe Our Asses for Us' or course.

[Brad Sallows]

I wonder if Goodale feels clean yet after suggesting a political promise should be kept.  My observation is that Liberals seem coincidentally most able to keep a promise if defence can be screwed - consider what happened to helicopters and the accompanying fanfare of keeping a pledge, but did not happen to GST and the free trade agreement.

National childcare is not a necessity.  Anyone who claims otherwise is either unaware of anything people did before 1980, unable to correctly interpret simple evidence, or dishonest.  Larger families were raised with considerably less purchasing power.  A family needs only one breadwinner and one at-home parent raising the children; you can buy more for less than at any previous point in human history.  If you feel both parents must work to sustain a particular lifestyle, guess what: it's your choice, and your responsibility - not mine or anyone else's.  Your _expectations_ - whether gross income or the desire to have family and career - are assuredly not my problem.

National childcare, if it fulfills all the dreams of its proponents, will be all of these things: a vote-buyer; a public sector union employer; a state pre-school socialization program.  Any one is sufficient reason to bin it.  What is really needed are increased personal income tax deductions for dependents.

[RCA]

Basic economics - government programs are a - and not a + for the economy

. That is not always true, as gov't spending in times of depression can spur the economy ie Roosevelt's TVA   program during the 30's (sort of priming the pump so to speak). Although this isn't the case now as the economy is good, there are times when gov't spending is a +.

   Without knowing what form the program will take, all we have is speculation about how it will operate. Will it be a direct subsidy to pararents, funding for actual spots or daycares, increasing Childcare is actually a provincial responsibly so who it might be the feds giving the prov the money and setting so paremeters, who can really say. As my wife is in the field I do know a little about it. Childcare so be seen as the first stage of a child's education as opposed to a baby sitting service. I know in Manitoba, that is the goal. Therefore you are funding education not someone's baby sitter. Privatized daycare will cause a lot of fly by night operations to spring up, and and like opus weapons do you want our children to look after by the lowest bidder?

    Second point is that with two incomes, it will increase consumption, causing the economy to grow therefore in the long term causing the program to fund itself through an increase in gov't revenue. Allowing both parents to be employed increases their disposable income, increases their savings, increases money avail for investment etc. The Canadian labour market is tight these days, so a broaden base is good for business. There is a lot of things we are taxed for that doesn't use, ie education (my kids are finished, health care (I don't get sick). It is for the greater good, and a bit myopic to say, since I don't use it., why do i have to pay for it.

 And lastly, a lot are assuming that this is a zero sum game. If the daycare program gets the money, the military won't. I don't think so. From what I'm hearing, we will get the 5,000 and have even heard how the allocation is broken down between the Services and Areas. The new CDS has been pushing the PM directly in some face-to-face meetings.

[signalsguy]

National childcare is not a necessity.  Anyone who claims otherwise is either unaware of anything people did before 1980, unable to correctly interpret simple evidence, or dishonest.  Larger families were raised with considerably less purchasing power.  A family needs only one breadwinner and one at-home parent raising the children; you can buy more for less than at any previous point in human history.  If you feel both parents must work to sustain a particular lifestyle, guess what: it's your choice, and your responsibility - not mine or anyone else's.  Your _expectations_ - whether gross income or the desire to have family and career - are assuredly not my problem.

Things have changed so drastically in 25 years. There is no way that we would be able to afford a home in Ottawa if my wife wasn't working. If we bought outside of Ottawa (like an hour outside) where its cheaper, the cost of GAS would kill us. Plus there is the fact that my wife attended post-secondary education for 12 years in order to be qualified for her dream career, which she has.  You can tell her to stay home and raise the child.

Really, we have NO problem with being able to afford childcare. Having a national childcare subsidy would really make things alot easier though, and we wouldn't have to make as many sacrifices - thereby contributing to the economy.

As RCA said, we have no idea what form the program will take.  I just hope they can make a decision!

[Thucydides]

John Maynard Keynes is like a "B" movie vampire; he just refuses to die. Poorly researched history and  dishonest "history" keep ideas that priming the pump and Government Spending are "good things".

Government interference in the economy is not a good thing, the history of the Great Depression should be enough to teach us that. Interfering with the Federal reserve created the wildly speculative boom at the very end of the 1920s, the "slamming of the brakes" in response to the British gold crisis started the depression, inappropriate taxation and spending policies by both Democratic and Republican administrations just prolonged and deepened the depression. (The Republiccans ran a budget surplus and raised import tarrifs. The New Deal was particularly ineffective, as the number of unemployed increased due to the constant tax hikes, distorting effects of massive government spending and ever changing regulatory environment). Despite all this evidence, which is not difficult to find, most students are told that the cause of the Great Depression is mysterious.....

On the other hand, there is another economic model which has demonstrated consistent results: low tax, low regulatory market economies. In the United States, an economic boom was started with a tax cut in the early 1920s (The Roaring 20s), with JFK's tax cuts (The Go Go Sixties), Ronald Reagan in the 1980s (the "Seven Fat Years") and of course in the early 2000s. The same effect was seen in Singapore, South Korea, Tiawan and Ireland. Ontario during the Mike Harris years also had a mini boom, and tax revenues climbed as never before. (The new Liberal government is raising taxes, but the economy is contracting. Does anyone not see the connection?)

The failure of our political class to act on this  unambiguous evidence, or our media class to make this case loudly and forcefully is really the flip side to ideas like National Daycare or the Kyoto accord. On the surface, they are touted as a means to solve a "problem" but the actual mechanics of these and other programs is to gain and maintain control over the national economy and to shape and control personal choices. The correctly political name for this state of affairs is "Welfare Fascism".

[Kirkhill]

Don't know if anyone else has commented yet but:

The Globe and Mail is running an On-line poll just now on this subject.  71% of the respondents think that the 5 Billion is a lousy use of their tax dollar.  Go figure. 

I found that normally G&M readers never saw a social programme they didn't like. 

Anybody else got thoughts?

[Big Foot]

I see the government has very selective memory when it comes to the promises they make. I guess daycare is more important than 5000 new soldiers. Glad we have our priorities straight.

[48Highlander]

I know I'm supposed to be pro-military-spending and all, but I'd much rather see that $5 billion turned into tax-cuts than have it thrown at the military.  As has been pointed out, low taxes equal a grwoing economy.  If we decrease taxation now and streamline some of the waste out of existing government programs, the increase in the economy will provide much larger surplusses in following years.  The better the economy does, the more moey there will be available for military spending in the future.  And as someone else pointed out, it's not an either/or scenario.  There's a $9 billion surplus.  Throw a billion to the army, use 4 or 5 for tax cuts, and throw the rest into reducing the national debt.  That'd be a much better use for the surplus than a national daycare system.