We've heard over the past few days about Stephen Harper's Child Care proposal, as we all know he wants to give parents $1,200 a year to spend on taking care of their child. Now it may sound good in theory, but in practice, it just wouldn't work.
First of all, $1,200 comes out to abour 100 dollars a month for child care, I don't know anybody who could raise a child on that amount of money for one month, simply put that money would be gone with in a week to trying to put food on the table and filling up your gas tank.
Harper's plan is not a child care plan, it's simply extra money given to people who have a child of appropriate age. I know Scott Reid's comment was insensitive but truly he was right in the basic premise of what he was saying. Harper's plan would basically give parents another 100 dollars a month, while it might help with some expenses, it's not a plan that works. I'm thinking that it's quite likely the money might not go to childcare, it might go towards gasoline purchases or food to feed the children. I'm just making an idea of where it could go.
But I believe this is a bad plan, Many people say they want the government out their lives, let me be clear, I understand that. But, honestly as I sit here trying to scratch my head for possible solutions to combat the money going to innappropriate things I just can't other then the fact I keep coming back to the government should handle it.
Look this issue is going to bring strong reactions to many people, I do trust parents over the government but when it comes to child care I just think that maybe giving money to parents and simply trusting them to use it for child care is showing a bit of over-confidence. There are a few things the government should be allowed to run. Child Care is one of them and so is Social Security.
The problem with privatization is that it gives people a blank check and it lets certain people run wild without making the right decision. Now I hope that money is used for child care and not for anything else. But the plan of the tories is very vague and it doesn't work.
3 comments:
I have a post on my site with a similar premise. So I'd have to say good comments!
You Miss the point that, Harper's plan is not a child care plan it's 100 bucks a month to spend, and I'm almost certain that a good portion of it is not going to go to Daycare.
Should we give out university scholarship grants without demanding that the money be used for education from a certified and acceptable educational institution?
Should someone have the right to demand a scholarship grant to self-study for a degree in white racial purity?
If not, then why should the same rule not apply to say care?
If the Cons want to provide a tax cut that is worth $100 a month, which families can then use for education or beer and popcorn, then they should just say that's what they want.
If they are going to give away grants, which I have to pay taxes towards so they can then hand it out, then I want a say, through democratically determined regulations, in what this money is spent on.
One persons education could be societies hate speech ... if a parent wants to use their own money to screw up the mind of their children, then I guess that's their right, but they ain't using my money for that purpose if I have anything to say about it.
Post a Comment