As a Christian who reads the Bible and understands it's message it has gotten hard to support hard core right policy. Both parties are quilty of sin. But out of the two the Democrats are closer to Christ's compassion. Do not believe all Christians support the right wing policies. Many of us do not.
185
Donald Trump has a plan to turn America into a dictatorship. Hillary counters with a plan to improve childcare? Hillary is now running to save American democracy. She needs to say this. You need to say this. Enough with Hillary's plans!
19
Thanks to the Republican propaganda, when it comes to children, we have become a nation of " from conception to birth." They are "pro life" up to the birth but, don't care what happens to children after the birth. And the unfortunate thing is that the majority of the public buys this kind of nonsense. That is why one wonders how anyone especially, any woman, can support the Republicans? For that matter, how could anyone can support a clown like Trump to lead this country? Sadly, he will become POTUS, if Democrats don't get their act together....
58
Just wait until the future is upon us...and we are in the "Japanese Pickle" of bunches of older and relatively affluent people dependent on a relative handful of "children" to actually do stuff for us...
The lack of investment now will cost us all dearly then...and the "children" may turn out to be as thoughtless to us as we were to them....
The lack of investment now will cost us all dearly then...and the "children" may turn out to be as thoughtless to us as we were to them....
38
The only time Republicans care about children is before they are born.
115
As usual Mr. Krugman's admiration for those "other countries" leaves out the part where you pay half your income to the government, and half your friends work for the government.
8
The real point of this Op-Ed piece is that Hillary's (fake) "progressive" ideas are good, Bernie's (real) progressive ideas are bad.
Readers who've followed the Bernie bashing by Krugman and Blow know that this is just campaign spin.
The Democratic machine is trying to soften the image of Hillary Clinton, who is not liked by the American voters.
Krugman, why not show pictures of Hillary kissing babies?
12:26 PM 5/16/2016
Readers who've followed the Bernie bashing by Krugman and Blow know that this is just campaign spin.
The Democratic machine is trying to soften the image of Hillary Clinton, who is not liked by the American voters.
Krugman, why not show pictures of Hillary kissing babies?
12:26 PM 5/16/2016
30
I would apologize for hijacking your column to make a point about another column that didn't allow comments, but then again, since you've become complicit in the NYT's policy of limiting coverage of Bernie Sanders and maximizing coverage of Hillary Clinton, I really don't think I need to apologize.
In another article in the NYT, Hillary "bragged" that she was going to rely on her husband to give her policies about the economy. How's that for being a modern, independent woman? Not to mention being "the most ready" to assume the job? Really, if there a shred of honesty left on this paper, you would all recant your support for this very flawed candidate and support the one person whose policies and ideas USED to be championed by the your publisher.
As for this article Paul, whatever Hillary SAYS, I certainly don't believe she'll do, regardless of how often you say it.
In another article in the NYT, Hillary "bragged" that she was going to rely on her husband to give her policies about the economy. How's that for being a modern, independent woman? Not to mention being "the most ready" to assume the job? Really, if there a shred of honesty left on this paper, you would all recant your support for this very flawed candidate and support the one person whose policies and ideas USED to be championed by the your publisher.
As for this article Paul, whatever Hillary SAYS, I certainly don't believe she'll do, regardless of how often you say it.
27
There's still hope, Mr. Krugman. Here in California we get to vote for Bernie Sanders, who stands for a real living wage for all families, as opposed to his opponent, who supports only a parsed view of the same.
25
what kids really need are a mother and a father. Hillary thinks they need a government.
7
I'm waiting to read all of the scornful, scolding comments from readers who think that people who "can't afford" children shouldn't have them at all. Bring on the misanthropes. Sigh.
20
A counter argument, that I wish Dr. Krugman had addressed, is the matter of encouraging poor people, whose progeny are likely to remain impoverished, to have more children. The response to this a priori real, if distasteful, counter argument is that it is not preordained that these progeny must remain impoverished, particularly with appropriate levels of spending as per Clinton's plan.
2
Nothing is doable until we replace the congress.
38
Pure fantasy! Hillary will be elected as the "Not Trump" candidate, not because people like and trust her, so Congress will stay in the hands of the Republicans.That means money will only go to rich people and oil wars.
Warrior Queen Hillary's record in the Senate is the best indication of what she will do in Office. She protected the Banks and Wall Street and voted billions for our insane oil war in Iraq. She worked for the people who gave her money and there is no indication she will do anything different as President.
The difference between what she says and what she does is one the main reasons she is dislike and distrusted by so many people, so we can only go on Hillary's record and that's not promising.
Warrior Queen Hillary's record in the Senate is the best indication of what she will do in Office. She protected the Banks and Wall Street and voted billions for our insane oil war in Iraq. She worked for the people who gave her money and there is no indication she will do anything different as President.
The difference between what she says and what she does is one the main reasons she is dislike and distrusted by so many people, so we can only go on Hillary's record and that's not promising.
20
It's important to remember that the current presumptive republican nominee was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and never cared about anyone else's children.
22
Are any of the candidates speaking about making in a change in the way schools are funded?
Depending largely on property taxes is guaranteed to perpetuate an apartheid budgeting structure.
Depending largely on property taxes is guaranteed to perpetuate an apartheid budgeting structure.
29
"In other words, if you judge us by what we do, not what we say, we place very little value on the lives of our children, unless they happen to come from affluent families."
Or are in the womb.
Or are in the womb.
27
Why is it Prof. Krugman's articles seem like ads for the Clinton campaign? They never used to until this primary season. Prior to this election, he could have talked about the need for childcare, why it is a good investment for the individual and the nation, and the ways to fund it, but now it comes off as if he's trying to appeal to those readers who think Clinton is a harsh opportunistic hawk that can't be trusted by making her appeal for the children seem soft and caring, kinda like a mother. PK has damaged his brand, and in doing so, the NYT also since they encourage these advertorials.
20
Republican leadership and policy makers don't want poor kids to do better. They don't want these kids competing with theirs. Republican rank and file believe any help to others is a wrongful giveaway of tax dollars. The most powerful narrative on the right is that the "government" is trying to take from the "good" ("white") people and give to the undeserving. With middle and lower class incomes slipping for decades, there is even more fear to drive the story home.
What good are tax credits to people who don't have enough income to be on the tax rolls? The only policy that will make a difference is to raise the minimum wage enough so that people have enough to raise their kids. Our "off shoring" plutocratic so-called "capitalism" is bankrupting the working people of this country even as we bail out bankrupt banks.
Good luck with any "handouts" to the needy, let alone any press coverage.
What good are tax credits to people who don't have enough income to be on the tax rolls? The only policy that will make a difference is to raise the minimum wage enough so that people have enough to raise their kids. Our "off shoring" plutocratic so-called "capitalism" is bankrupting the working people of this country even as we bail out bankrupt banks.
Good luck with any "handouts" to the needy, let alone any press coverage.
19
If I was heading this government I would have every man, woman and child attend Harvard. I think people get this joke
6
" Our public expenditure on child care and early education, as a share of income, is near the bottom in international rankings (although if it makes you feel better, we do slightly edge out Estonia.)"
mr. krugman-
you get a +10 snarkiness and a zero for doing your home work.
estonia has become a technology leader.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-expl...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mamiejoeveer/2014/12/31/estonias-rise-as-a-h...
for Estonia it nothing to do with excessive public spending on child care as mr kugman and his fellow lefties advocate. to place the blame on the poor outcome of public education on lack of child care is just ridiculous.
"parents in the top fifth of U.S. households spend seven times as much on their children as parents in the bottom fifth?"
what does that prove?
mr. krugman-
you get a +10 snarkiness and a zero for doing your home work.
estonia has become a technology leader.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-expl...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mamiejoeveer/2014/12/31/estonias-rise-as-a-h...
for Estonia it nothing to do with excessive public spending on child care as mr kugman and his fellow lefties advocate. to place the blame on the poor outcome of public education on lack of child care is just ridiculous.
"parents in the top fifth of U.S. households spend seven times as much on their children as parents in the bottom fifth?"
what does that prove?
4
"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children."
-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
By that standard, the United States doesn't even qualify to be considered a moral or civilized country. We are too busy spending billions killing other peoples' children around the world, while leaving a shameful number of our own without adequate medical care, food, adult supervision, and education. What does THAT say about "American Exceptionalism?" (pardon the irony).
-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
By that standard, the United States doesn't even qualify to be considered a moral or civilized country. We are too busy spending billions killing other peoples' children around the world, while leaving a shameful number of our own without adequate medical care, food, adult supervision, and education. What does THAT say about "American Exceptionalism?" (pardon the irony).
37
There are times after reading the headlines that I believe everything is Power and corruption when you bother to examine it to any depth. Its like the story about asking the fish about water and he answers, "whats water?"
8
Could Paul Krugman be rediscovering his liberal conscience?
Nah, he's still supporting the candidate least likely to defeat Trump in November.
Nah, he's still supporting the candidate least likely to defeat Trump in November.
12
Great column. A discussion of substantive policy that is sorely needed, rather than about how awful trump is.
18
No monies for child care, health care, and even less for education. Yet, there are many out there who refuse to accept that abortion is the solution for women who cannot afford or do not want a child. These are the folks, and the children who suffer the most. What is wrong with this country? We have so much to learn and children are our future investment.
8
In the US, the age demographic with the lowest incidence of poverty is the elderly (people over age 65); the age group with the greatest incidence of poverty is children, with over 20% in poor households. We do a lot to alleviate poverty among the elderly (Medicare, SS, etc) because old people vote and give money to hard-nosed lobbying organizations like AARP (aka the "greedy geezers").
We need a politician -- better yet, a political movement -- focused on the one group of people who are too young to vote, have no money for lobbying, and are completely blameless for their poverty.
We need a politician -- better yet, a political movement -- focused on the one group of people who are too young to vote, have no money for lobbying, and are completely blameless for their poverty.
14
Paid leave for the parents of newly born children is not going to save all those children from struggle and, perhaps, failures.
Wish it could. Would be willing to pay taxes to fund such a program.
But what we need, and don't know how to provide, are picture books, story books, to all families of young children, and some free time, so the overworked parents of those children can sit and read to their kids, and speak to them, and listen to them, and encourage and prepare them to enjoy school.
How to do that? I don't know. People have tried. Let's keep trying.
Wish it could. Would be willing to pay taxes to fund such a program.
But what we need, and don't know how to provide, are picture books, story books, to all families of young children, and some free time, so the overworked parents of those children can sit and read to their kids, and speak to them, and listen to them, and encourage and prepare them to enjoy school.
How to do that? I don't know. People have tried. Let's keep trying.
4
Mrs. Clinton supports conflicts such as the invasion of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Gaza in which thousands of children are killed, harmed and orphaned. I think we need another spokesperson for children.
12
In this election, I'm afraid it will be hard to hear proposed policies and ideas for helping the country and world. Hillary will be talking about them but the media will mainly cover Donald Trump and his surrogates' outrageous insults (while barely mentioning that he has virtually no plans or knowledge). I hope I am wrong.
11
We dnn't help children because many of hem are black and brown. That would mean a rise in taxes.
We don't help addicts because some of them are black and brown. That too would mean a rise in taxes.
We don't support free college education because many of the students would be black or brown. And taxes would have to rise to 1955 levels.
We don't have single payer healthcare because many of the sick would be black or brown and we'd have higher payroll taxes yo pay by the employee and the employer.
We don't help addicts because some of them are black and brown. That too would mean a rise in taxes.
We don't support free college education because many of the students would be black or brown. And taxes would have to rise to 1955 levels.
We don't have single payer healthcare because many of the sick would be black or brown and we'd have higher payroll taxes yo pay by the employee and the employer.
16
Here’s a wager: the folks in the top fifth, who spend so much more on their children, aren’t high school drop outs, never went to jail, don’t abuse substances, and wait until marriage to make babies.
How about the folks in the bottom fifth?
HRC – unsurprisingly – gets it entirely wrong. If one wishes to improve the lives of children, cut taxes for their parents. Child care pales in comparison to parental care – the assumption behind paid leave laws – so make it more affordable for parents to stay home. Typically, HRC invents yet another Rube Goldberg system of subsidies and giveaways rather than simply let people alone – with more of their own money in their pockets – to run their lives as they see fit. And not a single word, not one syllable, about comporting oneself properly until one is actually ready to make a child.
And I must recycle that wonderful line – “when someone starts talking about choice, bear in mind that we’re talking about children” – as, coming from a leftist, that’s precious beyond words. From “clump of cells” – or “unborn person without rights” in Hillary-speak – to welfare entitlement in one glorious moment.
Want to make lives better for children? Expect parental responsibility and don’t treat kids as a ticket into the welfare system. Instead of day care centers, think the woman next door. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child; it takes a family, with two parents. THAT should be the message.
How about the folks in the bottom fifth?
HRC – unsurprisingly – gets it entirely wrong. If one wishes to improve the lives of children, cut taxes for their parents. Child care pales in comparison to parental care – the assumption behind paid leave laws – so make it more affordable for parents to stay home. Typically, HRC invents yet another Rube Goldberg system of subsidies and giveaways rather than simply let people alone – with more of their own money in their pockets – to run their lives as they see fit. And not a single word, not one syllable, about comporting oneself properly until one is actually ready to make a child.
And I must recycle that wonderful line – “when someone starts talking about choice, bear in mind that we’re talking about children” – as, coming from a leftist, that’s precious beyond words. From “clump of cells” – or “unborn person without rights” in Hillary-speak – to welfare entitlement in one glorious moment.
Want to make lives better for children? Expect parental responsibility and don’t treat kids as a ticket into the welfare system. Instead of day care centers, think the woman next door. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child; it takes a family, with two parents. THAT should be the message.
6
How can a campaign with the slogan's "America First" or Make America Great Again" not advocate for investing 1.2% of federal spending on early childhood programs. Every child is entitled to good nutrition and a good education regardless of who their parents are. This is the essence of good public policy, and, if implemented would dramatically reduce inequality, poverty, skilled worker shortages, crime, together with health care and safety net costs. It would also stimulate long term innovation, productivity and GNP per capita. Thanks to Hillary Clinton for putting the wellbeing of our children - and our future- front and center.
6
I'm Mike Wilson's wife, Judy, who 40 years ago returned from France to Boston with my 3 month old daughter. In France I had benefitted from a 3 month paid maternity leave, and for a brief time I returned to work, taking my daughter to a licensed subsidized daycare. Forty years ago!! Soon after returning home I became a single mom, and the only reliable childcare was three subway rides and several more blocks away from home. I was appalled then, and remain appalled at the dearth and outrageous expense of daycare options in this wealthy country. I learned back then exactly what Prof. Krugman discusses in his article - that we as a nation do not value our youngest citizens.
21
I think it was Jesus who said "Protect the unborn, but suffer the little children." In other words, enact endless policies to deny women's rights regarding birth control, but to hell with unwanted children after they're born.
12
Dr. Krugman, this is one of your most important and poignant columns ever. Thank you for highlighting not only the pitiful state of our childcare system, but also the ease with which we can make extremely meaningful improvements. A small investment can create widespread and long-lasting benefits for children and parents. BRAVO!!
7
Another shocking indicator: standards for meals in prison are higher than standards for school lunches, which for many poor students might be their best shot of the day at a decent meal...http://www.thedailymeal.com/prison-food-better-school-food
11
The elephant in the room. If you educate the poor and ethnically diverse electorate then they may get smarter and take their jobs. Which is why they want to get rid of the Department of Education. Try to get great schools in low income neighborhoods. Start with the babies and get them to college. Imagine. Less crime, better economy, happier and more secure families. Win Win Win
12
Substance and policy do not sell. Insults and scandal, real or imagined do. As long as the media's first and foremost goal is to sell, substantive discussions about policy or anything meaningful will take a back seat.
12
Bitterly funny that this op-ed comes out on the same day that Cokie Roberts and Kathleen Parker, punditing on NPR's Morning Edition, declare almost in unison that policy doesn't matter, policy is boring and nobody cares about policy, and that all that matters is personality.
The state of child care in America is shameful. So is the state of political journalism.
The state of child care in America is shameful. So is the state of political journalism.
13
If you consider America to be an integrated set of values that puts unrestricted individual freedom above all things, then the rest of its goods and ills are easy to understand.
But gun rights jars with abortion rights. Disproportionate incarceration jars with police excess. And the treatment of children jars with contempt for taxation of the affluent.
The question really is : What kind of a country is America ? Is the pursuit of individual freedom an impediment to fair compensation of effort of white-collar workers ? Is the desire for social mobility through hard work and innovation applicable only to those who play by the unchanging rules of the well-entrenched ?
Is the fairness of being treated as equal before the law applicable to all its citizens regardless of their origins and persuasions ?
What you point out Professor, is not the malaise of unfairness, but of cruelty. A polity that talks big but does little. Is the politics of pride more important than the politics of care for ALL those who are helpless and unfortunate ? The laid-off workers, the elders, the immigrants, the exploited, the racially different, the children and the people of off-beat places ?
No one is asking for unity. But is respect for fellow citizens too much to ask for ? The feeling that you are all in it together than that you are against each other ?
The politics of hope is past. It must be the politics of common purpose.
Make your choice.
But gun rights jars with abortion rights. Disproportionate incarceration jars with police excess. And the treatment of children jars with contempt for taxation of the affluent.
The question really is : What kind of a country is America ? Is the pursuit of individual freedom an impediment to fair compensation of effort of white-collar workers ? Is the desire for social mobility through hard work and innovation applicable only to those who play by the unchanging rules of the well-entrenched ?
Is the fairness of being treated as equal before the law applicable to all its citizens regardless of their origins and persuasions ?
What you point out Professor, is not the malaise of unfairness, but of cruelty. A polity that talks big but does little. Is the politics of pride more important than the politics of care for ALL those who are helpless and unfortunate ? The laid-off workers, the elders, the immigrants, the exploited, the racially different, the children and the people of off-beat places ?
No one is asking for unity. But is respect for fellow citizens too much to ask for ? The feeling that you are all in it together than that you are against each other ?
The politics of hope is past. It must be the politics of common purpose.
Make your choice.
11
The only sad thing about this whole article is that it has to be written by an economics Professor instead of a member of the so-called Conservative religious right.
8
The true measure of a society's success is in how well it cares for its most dis-advantaged.
11
It's great that you support child care policy in America Dr. Krguman, but Hillary Clinton is not the one to move forward with any new ground breaking changes to our system. Like Robert Reich said - Hillary Clinton is the candidate for the system we currently have - any sort of progress to be made will have to be done in spite of her not because of her. For someone as liberal as you claim to be, it seems very odd that you do not mention that the best chance we have to make any sort of progress in our system is to elect Sanders.
15
Clearly the United States cannot afford to support child care as other first world countries. Our tax money is devoted to supporting multiple unending wars across the globe.
19
The Republican position on children is sickening and shameful. It is hard to believe that the Bible thumping hypocrites running for office or voting for GOP candidates are so blind about their own cruel beliefs--they are so clearly not following the words of Christ.
The troglodytes running for office are not nearly so frightening as the voters who have sent the clear message that the welfare of their children is not a top priority.
The troglodytes running for office are not nearly so frightening as the voters who have sent the clear message that the welfare of their children is not a top priority.
9
"So can we stop talking, just for a moment, about who won the news cycle or came up with the most effective insult, and talk about policy substance here?"
No, for some reason, we can't. Even a dullard like George W. Bush managed to dress up his "No Child Left Behind" program as a policy initiative.
But most Americans seek incapable today of thinking or speaking about policies. Instead, we're inspired by slogans ("Make America Great Again") without giving any thought to what they mean or how they'll be implemented. That's somebody else's job. Or not.
In Trump, we're seeing a populist phenomenon that would be familiar to some Latin Americans. I wonder if Trump knows how much he resembles Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, another politician who rode empty populist slogans into power?
No, for some reason, we can't. Even a dullard like George W. Bush managed to dress up his "No Child Left Behind" program as a policy initiative.
But most Americans seek incapable today of thinking or speaking about policies. Instead, we're inspired by slogans ("Make America Great Again") without giving any thought to what they mean or how they'll be implemented. That's somebody else's job. Or not.
In Trump, we're seeing a populist phenomenon that would be familiar to some Latin Americans. I wonder if Trump knows how much he resembles Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, another politician who rode empty populist slogans into power?
4
Amen.
Didn't the Republican majority vote to cut the WIC budget during a panic attack about The Debt? Perhaps on the grounds that infants were sucking America's wealth.
And remember Nixon's defense of 5-year-olds: so important that he wouldn't support public kindergarten.
In order to (finally) have a child-friendly, family-friendly policy and to pay for it we need Secretary Clinton but we also need men and women in the House who are willing to appropriate the pittance needed.
Didn't the Republican majority vote to cut the WIC budget during a panic attack about The Debt? Perhaps on the grounds that infants were sucking America's wealth.
And remember Nixon's defense of 5-year-olds: so important that he wouldn't support public kindergarten.
In order to (finally) have a child-friendly, family-friendly policy and to pay for it we need Secretary Clinton but we also need men and women in the House who are willing to appropriate the pittance needed.
9
Why condemn abortions while refusing to care for children and their parents?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/18/britain-learn-denmark-chi...
What Britain could learn from Denmark's childcare model
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/18/britain-learn-denmark-chi...
What Britain could learn from Denmark's childcare model
3
So can we stop talking, just for a moment, about who won the news cycle or came up with the most effective insult, and talk about policy substance here?
Please.
Please.
3
Think you could have come down a lot harder on the press for its emphasis on the horse race aspect of politics rather than substance and policy, Mr. Krugman. Some of the worst offenders are our most respected news outlets - like the NYT and the Washington Post. Just look at the headlines today - all horse race, with substance buried. Sad.
8
I don't know if true "issues" have ever been part of national politics.
3
Why don't you stop promoting Bernie for a second (he does not have the delegates to win the nomination) and begin writing more articles like this that show the vast difference between Democrats and Republicans?!
1
Increase minimum wage, decrease maximum wage (with taxes) and lets get our middle class back.
8
Both Democratic candidates embraced this just five months ago, you say with pride?
No, Hillary just came on board late, as she has with LGBT right, minimum wage and a bevy of other policy initiatives that Bernie Sanders has supported for years.
But, you're correct, Professor, we could make the case that funding these programs would be a cost-saving measure that would appeal to Republicans, but probably not as much as the war your favorite gal will foment as soon as she's got her neocon Administration in place.
That will end any discussion of family leave, free college, higher minimum wage or any of the other worthy ideas from Senator Sanders.
No, Hillary just came on board late, as she has with LGBT right, minimum wage and a bevy of other policy initiatives that Bernie Sanders has supported for years.
But, you're correct, Professor, we could make the case that funding these programs would be a cost-saving measure that would appeal to Republicans, but probably not as much as the war your favorite gal will foment as soon as she's got her neocon Administration in place.
That will end any discussion of family leave, free college, higher minimum wage or any of the other worthy ideas from Senator Sanders.
7
These religious zealots who insist on unfettered conception regardless of conditions and circumstances invariably and routinely ignore the fate of the unwanted child committed to a life bound in shallows and miseries absent vital necessities.
9
Everytime some politician wants to raise my taxes (and I live in California, so this is perpetual), I'm told the money is desperately needed 'for the kids'.
I ask: where's the same concern for the children when efforts to curtail excessive, wasteful spending by a bloated, inefficient government are considered?
I ask: where's the same concern for the children when efforts to curtail excessive, wasteful spending by a bloated, inefficient government are considered?
1
Those of us in education have been saying this for years, only to be told we can't solve problems "by throwing more money at it. " We can, apparently solve everything by cutting budgets and ignoring everything.
6
Historically, oligarchs do not like a thriving middle class. Ask the British aristocracy how the 1770's were for them, or the oligarch/industrial complex during the 1960's. When the citizens are comfortable and secure they look for ways to make themselves more so. And in the world of the republican governance that is not a good thing.
In the world of the voters who keep the republican party from being a permanent minority party it is much more American to just beat their children than to offer them better choices in health care and education.
In the world of the voters who keep the republican party from being a permanent minority party it is much more American to just beat their children than to offer them better choices in health care and education.
4
this column is dead on, but too many americans are clueless about what goes on in other countries to know that this is well known to many people in other western democracies. the usa is an outlier in many things, but chanting USA USA USA makes up for a lot of societal deficiencies....americans love to go on about 'the children', but is without much doubt the worst example of a western democracy taking care of its most powerless citizens....
5
Talk about policy substance? Silly wabbit. The only policy substance discussed in the news these days, by your very own newspaper by the way, is whether Donald Trump said something merely insulting or outrageously insulting.
13
It disturbs me that politicians want to fix the counties problems with a subsidy here and a tax credit there. If politicians were really interested in helping families they would work to give all Americans a living wage. Tax credits and subsidies are treating the symptom and not the root cause of the problem. Wages are stagnant and minimum wage only allows for a third world existence in what is supposed to be an industrialized first word nation. We can thank Corporate America and the politicians that support their agenda. Which is 90% of the politicians in office today. Yes that includes Clinton.
11
Education should be the main focus in solving our overall Income-Inequality problem! Consider the ways: the better the level of education, the higher the income level throughout working lives; preparing for the jobs of the future--rather than the past--retains jobs within our country; better educated, higher income parents are more inclined to raise children in a two-parent family; two parents can better start children into a better level of preparedness for the future; better education at the lower levels just leads to better-preparedness, and accomplishment in college or vocational schools.
Early Childhood Education--having books read to them at home, trips to zoos and museums, improved inter-personal skills, etc--all give a young child a jump-start on their peers. The difference becomes quite apparent when the children enter the elementary grades, and continue to diverge through out their lives.
Society' failure to learn this lesson--of how the investment in Early Childhood Education--will mean missing, by far, our very best investment opportunity!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Early Childhood Education--having books read to them at home, trips to zoos and museums, improved inter-personal skills, etc--all give a young child a jump-start on their peers. The difference becomes quite apparent when the children enter the elementary grades, and continue to diverge through out their lives.
Society' failure to learn this lesson--of how the investment in Early Childhood Education--will mean missing, by far, our very best investment opportunity!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
The problem with capitalism is its great central irony. On the good side it teaches that anyone should have the chance to succeed based on their own effort. This is great and has allowed many to do very well, and to do things for the good of all. It beats the snot out of the feudal system it replaced. Working in your own self interest is not bad.
But succeeding can quickly morph into acting for yourself to the detriment of others and worse, at the expense of others. Money is the sign of success, and using it in ones own self interest is the glory of a capitalist system. So if the government comes along and asks for sharing (taxes), then the government is evil. "Do unto others" as the theological religion suggests, does not translate so well into the economic religion.
So the wealthy have no obligation to the poor. They had their chance and failed.
But succeeding can quickly morph into acting for yourself to the detriment of others and worse, at the expense of others. Money is the sign of success, and using it in ones own self interest is the glory of a capitalist system. So if the government comes along and asks for sharing (taxes), then the government is evil. "Do unto others" as the theological religion suggests, does not translate so well into the economic religion.
So the wealthy have no obligation to the poor. They had their chance and failed.
3
Under feudalism the obligation of the powerful towards the poor was codified. I like this aspect. When feudalism was replaced by capitalism the traditional stance of using grain stores to feed the poor during famines stopped to be replaced by policy of non responsibility for our fellow humans. There were bad aspect but feudalism wasn't all bad
1
Withholding public support, in terms of policy and funding, from children's health and education is the result of racism. When public schools were integrated, north and south, many whites put their children in private schools. Then, they decided their taxes were too high because they were supporting schools for the children of other people, people who didn't look like them or sound like them. The Prop 13 tax cut revolution that spread from California forced local and state governments to cut all kinds of social welfare services, services disproportionately needed by poor, minority people. This then became cloaked in small government conservatism as a rationalization for what was more fundamentally racist.
12
Another big problem is the difference in grammar and high school education.
We fund these with property taxes and so poor cities get poor schools.
It is a reinforcing factor in the rising inequality and why the biggest factor today in economic success for a child is their parent's income.
We like to tell ourselves we all have an equal chance if we just work hard. It's not true.
We fund these with property taxes and so poor cities get poor schools.
It is a reinforcing factor in the rising inequality and why the biggest factor today in economic success for a child is their parent's income.
We like to tell ourselves we all have an equal chance if we just work hard. It's not true.
8
The trouble, IMHO, is that the Clinton policy proposal seems both complicated to implement and incremental in terms of likely outcome. I agree with Krugman and Clinton that this is an important issue to address, but it is hard to get excited about what is being offered.
5
Maybe we could begin by not poisoning our children with lead.
14
One big problem that we face in our country fulll of rugged individualists, is that everyone seems to be advocating for making their own lives better with no concern for anyone else. And one particularly sick example of this is a Congress that votes raises in pay for themselves, while continually voting down increases in minimum wage.
We need an economy that works for ALL Americans, and right now we use a system that protects the "haves". Even Paul has shown discomfort with a system other than the status quo that might affect his secure position.
We can do better. Maybe money manipulators won't become billionaires anymore. Maybe snake oil salesmen won't become fabulously wealthy on the backs of their prey. Maybe sports figures won't make hundreds of millions.
Maybe it will be more equal.
Maybe the country will be better for all.
We need an economy that works for ALL Americans, and right now we use a system that protects the "haves". Even Paul has shown discomfort with a system other than the status quo that might affect his secure position.
We can do better. Maybe money manipulators won't become billionaires anymore. Maybe snake oil salesmen won't become fabulously wealthy on the backs of their prey. Maybe sports figures won't make hundreds of millions.
Maybe it will be more equal.
Maybe the country will be better for all.
6
Krugman's obligatory shout outs to Hillary notwithstanding, this is perhaps the best thing he's written in some time.
3
Shameful versus un shameful? Is not the word neglect sufficient? Stated another way are the facts not sufficient to establish that the neglect is "shameful" without "guiding" me to that conclusion?
A most important subject. The best investment a country can, and should make, is in its own people, to educate them and keep'em healthy; it will not only be enormously beneficial in the over- all sense of happiness (however you define being content with yourself and at peace with neighbors), and the need to exercise competence in a globalized world. For now, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, wasting lives and talent, leaving the poor and unemployed behind...and making the children 'pay' for our stupidity. Not that being rich is a panacea either, when kids grow up spoiled and divorced from the world around them, witness a Trump...and perhaps members of Congress, with a huge social distance to really show their irrelevance. Kudos to Hillary, a woman of substance (in spite of her imperfections; actually, I defy anybody out there that claims to be perfect...and see a hypocrite in the mirror).
3
Thank you for redirecting our focus back to policy, once again. Your voice is needed now more than ever.
5
"...every bit as much of an investment as spending money to repair and improve our transportation infrastructure." Which we are also not doing. Because tax breaks for the über-rich and corporations are so much more important. Sigh.
10
And while you're talking about spending more for child care, please emphasize that daycare workers are almost always paid the minimum wage, maybe fifty cents an hour more. The people who are taking care of your children are not paid a living wage.
9
Good points all but hopefully the most hyperbolic column of your career Dr. Krugman, it undermines your points. "Utter indifference" and "The state of child care in America is cruel and shameful" basically a giant concentration camp for kids? Consider toning that down.
1
Other countries can spend more on childcare because they don't have a huge military budget. Time to cut that in half and catch up to the rest of the free world. Since WWII, when has our military action ever benefited us or anyone else?
10
Thank you, Dr Krugman. I hope that we all--NY Times reporters included-- pay closer attention to this and other vital issues. The superficial ugliness of the campaign so far masks and distracts us from the deeper problems confronting us, to our peril.
3
Thank you, Dr. Krugman, for bringing to light what can be positive about politics and government! America should be ashamed of itself, especially considering its Judeo-Christian bent, when it comes to its treatment of and regard for those among us who have the least power and the least say in what happens in this country. American has to do better for its most vulnerable populations, now!
2
The Republican answer to all this is that it is up to families to raise children, not the government. "It Takes a Family" is the answer to "It Takes a Village," so Republicans will argue. I suspect the majority of Americans agree.
3
Here, Paul Krugman is plying us with inconvenient facts; inconvenient because they ARE facts. They annoy us. They presume to make us think, to challenge our prejudices. They urge us to think about who we could be and this is so much harder than wallowing in who we wish other people weren't.
Elsewhere in today's Times, Charles Blow and Roger Cohen discuss the nettlesome challenge of fact-based discourse. Please don't bother us with it. It's so much easier to build walls, to impersonate oneself and to flood the political forum with bronx jeers.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Elsewhere in today's Times, Charles Blow and Roger Cohen discuss the nettlesome challenge of fact-based discourse. Please don't bother us with it. It's so much easier to build walls, to impersonate oneself and to flood the political forum with bronx jeers.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
4
Mr. Krugman, generally I highly enjoy your articles. They are well thought out and use considered logical processes. But this week you did something that is becoming a bigger and bigger problem in general discussions these days. In your essay you said
"In other words, if you judge us by what we do, not what we say, we place very little value on the lives of our children, unless they happen to come from affluent families. Did I mention that parents in the top fifth of U.S. households spend seven times as much on their children as parents in the bottom fifth?"
This is a false equivalency. You begin by pointing out that the US spends one of the lowest proportions of our revenue on child care (itself a less than useful measure, since a country that makes two dollars could spend one on child care and that's a expenditure of 50%!!!!) then pivot to discussing what parents pay. The effect is to make it seem like the country is going out its way to help the rich and hurt the poor when in fact it's the rich spending their own money on themselves, at least by your own words.
This type of debate is dangerous. It suggests that rather than a host of smaller problems that can be addressed individually and in a greater context, we have one problem, and that problem is (take your pick) racism, classism, or another failing of identity politics. Thus when the reforms fail or even don't happen quickly enough, the only correct course of action is to blame 'those people.'
"In other words, if you judge us by what we do, not what we say, we place very little value on the lives of our children, unless they happen to come from affluent families. Did I mention that parents in the top fifth of U.S. households spend seven times as much on their children as parents in the bottom fifth?"
This is a false equivalency. You begin by pointing out that the US spends one of the lowest proportions of our revenue on child care (itself a less than useful measure, since a country that makes two dollars could spend one on child care and that's a expenditure of 50%!!!!) then pivot to discussing what parents pay. The effect is to make it seem like the country is going out its way to help the rich and hurt the poor when in fact it's the rich spending their own money on themselves, at least by your own words.
This type of debate is dangerous. It suggests that rather than a host of smaller problems that can be addressed individually and in a greater context, we have one problem, and that problem is (take your pick) racism, classism, or another failing of identity politics. Thus when the reforms fail or even don't happen quickly enough, the only correct course of action is to blame 'those people.'
...it shouldn't take an Einstein to remind us we can't expect the system responsible for our horrendous treatment of children to bring forth remedies... We need leaders, like Sen Sanders, to lead the fight to bring about better futures for our children and future generations!
8
The "family values" hypocrisy started with the canard that the Republican Party is the pro-life party, when, in fact, they have primarily been in support of pre-birth life only.
They have not been in support of programs that support life after birth and families: health care for all, a living wage, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, medicaid, Medicare, school lunch programs, to name a few.
They have not been in support of programs that support life after birth and families: health care for all, a living wage, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, medicaid, Medicare, school lunch programs, to name a few.
8
Not investing in children is akin to buying a car and not changing the oil.
3
Of course the Republicans will respond to this by claiming that "those people" will be having babies for a supposed lush life on government funding to go with their government cheese and cellphones and spending their foodstamp money on drugs and colt 44.
The soapboxes are out again today. Hillary's proposal is too incremental, right? Guess what. Most progress this country has been achieved in increments. In fact, Bernie is an incrementalist too. He's been at this for decades trying to turn the ship of state in the right direction. He's much more hard-headed and realistic than many of his acolytes.
4
And who is going to pay for yet another government program? I'm fed up paying for other people's Obamacare and I damn well and not paying for their babysitting too. If you can't afford to raise kids don't have them.
2
I hear that. But consider the possibility that the choice is between paying for their "babysitting" today (good childcare is much, much more than that, but never mind that for now) or their much more expensive housing, health, or incarceration costs over their subsequent lifetimes.
4
During Hillary Clinton's tenure as Senator from New York State, she was responsible for a ton of legislation that bettered the lives of families, and especially children. Most notedly, over 8 million children (many millions more since) benefited from her hard work during the late 90's, sponsoring the efforts of Senators Ted Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch, to get the legislation known as CHIP (Children's health Insurance program) passed. The problem is if you were searching out her accomplishments, firstly you'd have to wade through endless distractions of investigations (that have never found anything to blame Hillary for.)
And all those distractions? They're intended to do just that, distract the general public from knowing just how much this woman has given back to her country.
And all those distractions? They're intended to do just that, distract the general public from knowing just how much this woman has given back to her country.
6
CHIP was a great program. But she was First Lady, not Senator, then. I support Sec. Clinton, but her list of achievements, as opposed to credentials, is pretty thin. In particular she was a lousy Senator, notably mostly for absurd political gutlessness. As Secretary of State, she was okay.
2
The state of childcare is cruel and shameful? Well, that suits the good old US of A, which has become cruel and shameful (or shameless?) itself. There is a glimmer of hope, brought oddly enough, by the Donald, that the GOP might crack up and have to disown its policies (comfort the comfortable at all costs) that are destroying the moral and economic underpinnings of this country.
Prof. Krugman's column, along with almost all of the comments here, demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of child care in the United States. Have any of you stood in line at 7:15 am on a Monday morning so that you can get your child into the daycare program? Have any of you signed your baby up for daycare before they born so that childcare will be available before they turn two years old? Have you been in a panic about what to do when your child is sick and you're not allowed to take time off from work?
It is not about the money. It is about creating a culture and business environment that actually cares about children and families. Throwing a few tax credits at the problem isn't going to fix anything.
It is not about the money. It is about creating a culture and business environment that actually cares about children and families. Throwing a few tax credits at the problem isn't going to fix anything.
72
Thank God someone finally mentions the defining barbaric fact of America: for all the "famly values" claptrap it is by far the most vicious of wealthy countries in its treatment of its children, its future.
If you're a child born to the vast American underclass, your prognosis is the worst in the western world even though every dollar spent on child poverty amelioration has the highest return of any government expenditure.
Most other countries start education at age three and have good nutrition programs. Most other wealthy countries respect the child's right to a decent home with more housing support.
Other countries have child financial supports unknown in the U.S.
For instance, Justin Trudeau threw out the Canadian neocon government with a promise to raise the maximum child benefit from $300/month/child for the poorest families to $500 while instituting a new tax band on the wealthiest. Action against tax evasion is already bringing in billions. The child benefit is separate and apart from "welfare."
The U.S. economy has demand stagnation because the people who spend have no money. Redistribute since American class divisions are worse than feudalism.
FDR had financial support for poor families called AFDC. The Clintons abolished it subsituting a far meaner and more limited program consigning millions of children to extreme poverty of less than $2 daily income.
Such extreme poverty guarantees that poor black children head to slave labour private prisons.
If you're a child born to the vast American underclass, your prognosis is the worst in the western world even though every dollar spent on child poverty amelioration has the highest return of any government expenditure.
Most other countries start education at age three and have good nutrition programs. Most other wealthy countries respect the child's right to a decent home with more housing support.
Other countries have child financial supports unknown in the U.S.
For instance, Justin Trudeau threw out the Canadian neocon government with a promise to raise the maximum child benefit from $300/month/child for the poorest families to $500 while instituting a new tax band on the wealthiest. Action against tax evasion is already bringing in billions. The child benefit is separate and apart from "welfare."
The U.S. economy has demand stagnation because the people who spend have no money. Redistribute since American class divisions are worse than feudalism.
FDR had financial support for poor families called AFDC. The Clintons abolished it subsituting a far meaner and more limited program consigning millions of children to extreme poverty of less than $2 daily income.
Such extreme poverty guarantees that poor black children head to slave labour private prisons.
6
"France’s famously generous system costs 1.2 percent of the G.D.P. So we could move a long way up the scale with a fairly modest investment."
Last time I checked, most Americans don't want to be France. Keep in mind that there's nothing to prevent the States from electing to be more generous to children or anyone else. It is already the case that in 8 states, welfare benefits are already double the poverty rate and many exceed the median income of a full-time worker. Unsurprisingly, these states (like NY) also have the highest taxes in the nation.
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/welfare-payouts-top-20-per-hour-in-eight...
This is the natural choice that States make all the time - taxes vs benefits. Such diversity is built into our Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
But Krugman wants to make this a federal program - one size fits all. That doesn't work.
Also, let's stop with the false choices. "And when someone starts talking about choice, bear in mind that we’re talking about children, who are not in a position to choose." No, Krugman. We're talking about parents. And parents should only have children if they can afford to raise them. In other words, Hillary is wrong. It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes two parents who are ready to do so.
Last time I checked, most Americans don't want to be France. Keep in mind that there's nothing to prevent the States from electing to be more generous to children or anyone else. It is already the case that in 8 states, welfare benefits are already double the poverty rate and many exceed the median income of a full-time worker. Unsurprisingly, these states (like NY) also have the highest taxes in the nation.
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/welfare-payouts-top-20-per-hour-in-eight...
This is the natural choice that States make all the time - taxes vs benefits. Such diversity is built into our Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
But Krugman wants to make this a federal program - one size fits all. That doesn't work.
Also, let's stop with the false choices. "And when someone starts talking about choice, bear in mind that we’re talking about children, who are not in a position to choose." No, Krugman. We're talking about parents. And parents should only have children if they can afford to raise them. In other words, Hillary is wrong. It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes two parents who are ready to do so.
3
You almost had me (not really), right up until this little tidbit of Ayn Rand-ian level selfishness:
"No, Krugman. We're talking about parents. And parents should only have children if they can afford to raise them."
What usually doesn't occur to people who buy into this argument. and probably to the people making it, is that the world isn't a simplistic place where bad things never happen to otherwise decent, hard working people.
No, parents never die, they never get laid off (then have to take a job earning a fraction what they were before), they never get gravely ill, divorced, start to have mental illness or get into auto crashes. They all have a large supportive family (with grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. all alive and able to help out).
No, this argument assumes that any person's situation will never change, whether it be over the course of time or in the blink of an eye.
"No, Krugman. We're talking about parents. And parents should only have children if they can afford to raise them."
What usually doesn't occur to people who buy into this argument. and probably to the people making it, is that the world isn't a simplistic place where bad things never happen to otherwise decent, hard working people.
No, parents never die, they never get laid off (then have to take a job earning a fraction what they were before), they never get gravely ill, divorced, start to have mental illness or get into auto crashes. They all have a large supportive family (with grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. all alive and able to help out).
No, this argument assumes that any person's situation will never change, whether it be over the course of time or in the blink of an eye.
10
So you would favor a law to keep people who don't make enough money from having children?
5
So your arguments is that we'll not invest in our children because we do not want to be like France? Or Sweden, or Denmark, or Netherlands? We would rather let them suffer because we are "family values" nation, right?
6
If you are convinced by Mr. Krugman (I am not), only one candidate in the United States cares about family, children, and that is Queen Mother Clinton. Next they will create a script for Chelsea and the NYT will be promoting her for President. The Clintons are corrupt. The Democrats generally are not, and their goals are generally admirable.
4
The most ironic hypocrisy in this indifference to the well being of the young who make up the future of the country, is that it is preceded by a commitment to have them born, wanted or not. Once born, they are forgotten entirely. We might start a campaign "if you can't care for the born children as you much as you care for those unborn - keep out of it."
2
Splendid article. Surely one reason for our shockingly low investment in child care, child support, and child education reflects our realization that such investment is not going to show any direct returns in our quarterly balance sheets, and we don't like to wait any longer.
As to the question of how little attention Dennis Hastert's abuse history received, I'm afraid that I think the press (including the NYT) and other media must share the blame for their reluctance to raise the obvious question: how common (or uncommon) is this kind of abuse in our public education system? Might that be another example of "remarkable hypocrisy?"
As to the question of how little attention Dennis Hastert's abuse history received, I'm afraid that I think the press (including the NYT) and other media must share the blame for their reluctance to raise the obvious question: how common (or uncommon) is this kind of abuse in our public education system? Might that be another example of "remarkable hypocrisy?"
5
Dr. Krugman writes that the U.S. is unique amongst advanced countries in its indifference to the lives of its youngest citizens.
It is not so hot when it comes to promotion of caring for any citizen, either.
This indifference in the name of ‘freedom‘ and ‘self-reliance‘ is one of the core parts of "Amurican exceptionism" that makes this country such a difficult homeland for the less than wealthy.
It is not so hot when it comes to promotion of caring for any citizen, either.
This indifference in the name of ‘freedom‘ and ‘self-reliance‘ is one of the core parts of "Amurican exceptionism" that makes this country such a difficult homeland for the less than wealthy.
7
When over $1 billion dollars is spent on a presidential election campaign while there are children in this country going to bed hungry, something is terribly wrong.
16
As usual, every vague expenditure Hillary blurts out is a great idea, but every critically important and specific idea Bernie discusses in budget terms is unaffordable, right PK? I think we've got the picture.
8
Yes. It's that Bernie consistently lowballs what his ideas would cost, and has little or no idea how to get them implemented.
1
Thank you.Dr. Krugman, for this column. Although free tuition and better loans for college have been discussed a bit this political season, improved early child care has been, at best, toward the bottom of any candidate's list of things the US needs. Please continue to address the significant societal benefits of child care and early education in future columns.
4
Before we get to the children we have to get to their parents.
Trying to stitch together part of the social safety net is all well and good, but until we stop and reverse the upward redistribution of wealth in this country that's like trying to stop a tank with a pea shooter.
As for crowing about Hillary Clinton's proposed policies - which apparently is part and parcel of working at the Times these days, she needs to provide the voters with a narrative that makes her attractive to them. She hasn't. Which is why she isn't.
Better than Trump? Sure. The candidate of the .1%, the architects of this upward redistribution of wealth? Yep.
And therein lies the rub.
Trying to stitch together part of the social safety net is all well and good, but until we stop and reverse the upward redistribution of wealth in this country that's like trying to stop a tank with a pea shooter.
As for crowing about Hillary Clinton's proposed policies - which apparently is part and parcel of working at the Times these days, she needs to provide the voters with a narrative that makes her attractive to them. She hasn't. Which is why she isn't.
Better than Trump? Sure. The candidate of the .1%, the architects of this upward redistribution of wealth? Yep.
And therein lies the rub.
5
In the 1950s and 60s, American corporations paid out 35 percent of the tax revenue received by government. Today that number is less than 10 percent and for those that complain about their tax levels unless Americans no longer wish to drive on paved roads, maintain police forces, fire departments, an armed forces along with social security and medicare, guess who has to pick up the difference for this enormous amount of lost revenue over the years?
The answer is right in front of your face America, yet, many refuse to see the obvious and continue to drink the kool-aid of lower taxes and less government. The biggest gap in inequality and the highest poverty rate of any country in the industrialized world and add to that, a child infant mortality rate 57th in the world, yet that is seemingly accepted as the price of living in America. No thanks.
The answer is right in front of your face America, yet, many refuse to see the obvious and continue to drink the kool-aid of lower taxes and less government. The biggest gap in inequality and the highest poverty rate of any country in the industrialized world and add to that, a child infant mortality rate 57th in the world, yet that is seemingly accepted as the price of living in America. No thanks.
3
"...one candidate has a reasonable, feasible plan to do something about this shame..."
Bernie Sanders is that candidate. His plan is to bring together the people most affected by "America's utter indifference to the lives of its youngest citizens."
Incremental steps are too little, too late. We need rapid action. And only those who suffer from poor educational opportunities can create the urgency necessary to change this shame.
Bernie Sanders is that candidate. His plan is to bring together the people most affected by "America's utter indifference to the lives of its youngest citizens."
Incremental steps are too little, too late. We need rapid action. And only those who suffer from poor educational opportunities can create the urgency necessary to change this shame.
6
Capitalism is a cruel mistress. It forces us to live and die by the earnings cycle. Anything that subtracts from the bottom line is to be strongly opposed. When we let business run the government, we do not have programs that that benefit labor. Don't blame the Republicans. Blame the economic system that has bought them, and us.
3
I have often thought that as a society we leave our most vulnerable members -- the very young and the very old -- in the hands of people we pay the least. It speaks much about who we are as a people. Historically it was the family who cared for these populations, but that history is no longer prevalent for the two- and three-salary families that dominate our economy today. The old axiom prevails, "You get what you pay for."
2
Unfortunately, the media megaphone has become The Donald's Trumpet and that all "Hillary's micro-policies, and all the Queen of Wall Street's proposals, won't put her Humpty Dumpty of a campaign together again." If Hillary wants to be heard, she must really turn up the volume with bigger and bolder ideas. So, when she finally caved a bit on "Medicare-for-All," a big idea which earlier she'd dismissed along with this column as "unrealistic," she did make the front page. And perhaps she should tweet Mr. Twitterwit, when he calls out her husband, that at least she "stood by her man" and worked hard to repair her marriage and raise her daughter thereby truly embracing "family values" rather than having an affair and moving on to a second and then a third wife du jour. Maybe, she could try tweeting "When it comes to marriage, it takes a strong woman, to save a weak man."
2
If the free markets were so wonderful we wouldn-t have to have these discussions....
4
This may come as a surprise to many Americans, but democratic socialist countries also have free market economies and believe it or not, they are quite compatible. The only real difference is rather than handing out trillions in corporate welfare that the U.S. is so pre-eminent in doing, is these countries tend to direct a significant amount of that money towards those citizens and institutions that could actually use it and are on the whole, of benefit to the greater society.
5
It's refreshing to have at least one corner of the New York Times turned over to a policy issues. The rest seems to be devoted almost entirely to one aspect or another of Donald Trump. Yesterday, it was his relationships with women. Today, it's a full-blown "analysis" of his forthcoming attacks on Hillary Clinton. I'm sure the editors will find something Trump-worthy for tomorrow and every day after that for the next six months until the election. But I would really appreciate seeing the New York Times turn back into an actual newspaper at some point. Thank you for taking one small step in the direction, Paul
8
Cutthroat capitalism and bankster rulers make it virtually impossible for most families to plan for tomorrow. Let's address the real causes of this child abuse in another form. We do not have the right to steal our children's future. And we have the duty to stop others from doing so.
4
Yes, as usual Mr. Krugman is right. But he is also shouting into the wind.
Children are the future and ”no child left behind.” Talk is cheap, doing something costs money. The fate of Obamacare shows that making the U.S. more humane and egalitarian is hopeless. At least in my lifetime.
Children are the future and ”no child left behind.” Talk is cheap, doing something costs money. The fate of Obamacare shows that making the U.S. more humane and egalitarian is hopeless. At least in my lifetime.
3
The one demographic having the most kids is the one demo least able to afford them. How many of these kids will continue the cycle in 17-20 years? I'm guessing the majority.
You want to spend more on child services? How about spending more on child preventative services..
You want to spend more on child services? How about spending more on child preventative services..
2
Or get rid of corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich? Your state and governor is the poster child for it, hence the disasters that are Detroit and Flint.
2
"The state of child care in America is cruel and shameful — and even more shameful because we could make things much better without radical change or huge spending."
The latest and greatest progressive talking point,, do they all get a memo or something?
The latest and greatest progressive talking point,, do they all get a memo or something?
What's wrong with talking points? Only fair for one side to do it?
At least from the progressive side, you don't get sickening insults as talking points. So there is that.
And no, I received no memo directing me to write this.
At least from the progressive side, you don't get sickening insults as talking points. So there is that.
And no, I received no memo directing me to write this.
2
Ahh, this is cute. As long as child-rearing is still considered a no-skill, no-wage, life-obligation to the better educated and higher earning among us, paternity leave will remain a low priority. There is also a sentiment among the previous generation of mothers that if they were able to balance motherhood, family, and employment with little-to-no help then today's mothers should do the same. I appreciate Ms. Clinton's policy proposal but the cynical interpretation is she is merely pandering to the female vote.
Maybe we should just embrace our low regard for motherhood, fatherhood, and all things family-related (we really aren't *family first*) and only let the higher-earning breed since they are becoming the only ones who can afford to do so. The GOP would be thrilled -- our share of GDP going to early childhood development would drop so taxes can be cut even further. A win-win for everyone: fewer poor children and lower tax-burden. Yay, martinis all around!
Maybe we should just embrace our low regard for motherhood, fatherhood, and all things family-related (we really aren't *family first*) and only let the higher-earning breed since they are becoming the only ones who can afford to do so. The GOP would be thrilled -- our share of GDP going to early childhood development would drop so taxes can be cut even further. A win-win for everyone: fewer poor children and lower tax-burden. Yay, martinis all around!
3
Paul:
Your column about policy was refreshing. I've decided to ignore any media about Trump unless it's about a legitimate matter related to the office he seeks. So I ignore 99% of Trump coverage. Saves a lot of time. Besides, in less than six months Trump will hopefully take his place as an odd footnote in history.
Your column about policy was refreshing. I've decided to ignore any media about Trump unless it's about a legitimate matter related to the office he seeks. So I ignore 99% of Trump coverage. Saves a lot of time. Besides, in less than six months Trump will hopefully take his place as an odd footnote in history.
2
Thank you for writing about an actual policy stance from Ms. Clinton. I was wondering if she was still in the race.
4
Agree! The US should institute more generous policies for families with new babies.
But that's the submerged tip of the iceberg.
Somehow, here and there, people must help to make sure that these many children get their hands on picture books (chewable, at first) and hear voices reading them stories. This sociable noise, these tales, prime them for school, and for curiosity and invention. A great power.
Harold and the Purple Crayon. We should never forget Harold. Or that cat with the rumpled hat.
But that's the submerged tip of the iceberg.
Somehow, here and there, people must help to make sure that these many children get their hands on picture books (chewable, at first) and hear voices reading them stories. This sociable noise, these tales, prime them for school, and for curiosity and invention. A great power.
Harold and the Purple Crayon. We should never forget Harold. Or that cat with the rumpled hat.
1
Maybe it's time to dust off those old copies of Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes A Village" which she wrote when she was only the First Lady. Ah, those were the days!!! Back in those more innocent times Donald Trump was content making his billions as a mere real estate tycoon and Bernie Sanders was an unknown politician from Vermont.
3
I know it sounds silly, but this is such an important issue that, even if I didn't think that Trump was a dangerous clown, this would be enough to make me vote for Hillary. I can't say I like her, but, it is so hard to raise a child in this country, and it is so important for the future of this country to have our children raised well.
3
Why are we surprised by the anti-abortion, anti-contraception crowd showing indifference towards poor children? If the great blowhard could start off with just a few million, or so, why can't everyone? Contrary to your belief that kids don't pick parents, the ultra right knows full well that they do! Otherwise, why would we have poor kids? And who wants to talk policy when we can listen to "suggestions," about important fascist topics like excluding groups and claiming not to know the guy who wears the white hood. The right wing loonies love families, just not yours. If we can have a poor uneducated class of workers, we will not have to import them. And who else will keep our prison industry going if not poor people? There are so many good reasons not to invest in poor kids. Oh, what's the use? Hurray for us!
3
Thanks for your effort to bring attention to a bona fide policy issue that supports "family values."
You are right about the "remarkable hypocrisy" of politicians that "love to pose as defenders of family values." We in Virginia have seen the hypocrisy played out on the state level when politicians have refused to reinvest TANF savings from the annual federal grants in impoverished families and expand Medicaid in order that many of the working poor and their families could have the needed medical care that protects life -- i.e., about 400,000.
You are right about the "remarkable hypocrisy" of politicians that "love to pose as defenders of family values." We in Virginia have seen the hypocrisy played out on the state level when politicians have refused to reinvest TANF savings from the annual federal grants in impoverished families and expand Medicaid in order that many of the working poor and their families could have the needed medical care that protects life -- i.e., about 400,000.
4
Dr. K,
You are thinking people actually may vote Republican because of policies. No, they want a strong man who has simple answers to complex problems, who will only inflict pain and suffering on those deemed our enemies, no matter how slight the offense. (Looking at you North Carolina). This voting base only wants their country back and doesn't care how they get it.
You are thinking people actually may vote Republican because of policies. No, they want a strong man who has simple answers to complex problems, who will only inflict pain and suffering on those deemed our enemies, no matter how slight the offense. (Looking at you North Carolina). This voting base only wants their country back and doesn't care how they get it.
5
I raised a kid, now in college, and found it very hard -- in toto the hardest thing I have ever done. And I'm in the upper 5th of income, surely.
One of the ironies is that 12 weeks off is something that the poor cannot afford financially, but that those who are not-poor probably cannot afford due to the responsibilities of the job ... that makes them not poor.
And if getting through the first 12 weeks of having a kid were the bulk of it, wow ... that would be easy.
The big grinding problems of working parents are day-care, schools, and schedule-schedule-schedule. It goes on for long over a decade.
We need better schools and we need a society where kids don't "need" to be protected every instant because of great fear that our society is unsafe for them, nor schlepped from precious hobby to precious hobby.
One of the ironies is that 12 weeks off is something that the poor cannot afford financially, but that those who are not-poor probably cannot afford due to the responsibilities of the job ... that makes them not poor.
And if getting through the first 12 weeks of having a kid were the bulk of it, wow ... that would be easy.
The big grinding problems of working parents are day-care, schools, and schedule-schedule-schedule. It goes on for long over a decade.
We need better schools and we need a society where kids don't "need" to be protected every instant because of great fear that our society is unsafe for them, nor schlepped from precious hobby to precious hobby.
4
Family income does not determine intelligence, aptitude or drive. If the goal is to to maximize the potential for a knowledgeable, competent ambitious next generation--as a public good--user pay is the stupidest way to do it.
Republicans--no wait--"Conservatives" (Trump is good for something) starve public services, utilities and infrastructure so corporations and "user pay" can replace them. All based on business efficiency mythology--tell it to Enron; look at CEO salaries, remember the great depression and recession. (Also "user pay-more" is perfectly compatible with government enterprise--e.g. toll roads.)
The mythology says Private--free from government-enterprise--is solely responsible for American prosperity. But Prosperity was equally dependent on public schools--creating the knowledge based economy.
An educated, healthy, peace loving population is a public good, AND "human resources"--as important for the economy as natural resources.
The other part of "free-from government" regulation is the "parents know best" myth--better than doctors, dentists, professional educators. The SCPA will intervene for pets; yet anti-government lobbies scream about interventions for child care--partly because religions (more corporations) think it's (still) their turf.
They rail against abortion--claiming "right to life," yet totally disregard quality of life of child and parents.
Rights (protected options) presume choice. It's a scam for the religious "duty to procreate."
Republicans--no wait--"Conservatives" (Trump is good for something) starve public services, utilities and infrastructure so corporations and "user pay" can replace them. All based on business efficiency mythology--tell it to Enron; look at CEO salaries, remember the great depression and recession. (Also "user pay-more" is perfectly compatible with government enterprise--e.g. toll roads.)
The mythology says Private--free from government-enterprise--is solely responsible for American prosperity. But Prosperity was equally dependent on public schools--creating the knowledge based economy.
An educated, healthy, peace loving population is a public good, AND "human resources"--as important for the economy as natural resources.
The other part of "free-from government" regulation is the "parents know best" myth--better than doctors, dentists, professional educators. The SCPA will intervene for pets; yet anti-government lobbies scream about interventions for child care--partly because religions (more corporations) think it's (still) their turf.
They rail against abortion--claiming "right to life," yet totally disregard quality of life of child and parents.
Rights (protected options) presume choice. It's a scam for the religious "duty to procreate."
3
As we continue destroying the planet children will inherit, I doubt further financial support of other people's children will happen. The children of the wealthy have nothing to worry about what they will inherit.
Interesting how the Anti-Choice movement "choose" to force other women to bring children into certain poverty with zero support from society - I mean government.
Interesting how the Anti-Choice movement "choose" to force other women to bring children into certain poverty with zero support from society - I mean government.
2
No rational person would argue against the need for "personal responsibility" and the "sacred nature of individual choice," but Republicans have lurched way too far in the other direction out of fear and unbridled hubris. What was once compassionate conservatism is now a sociopathic, crass moral justification for oligarchical selfishness and greed. Sad!
4
Let's hope the NYTimes and other legitimate news media begin to keep a running list of policy proposals by the candidates. If this becomes a front page permanent column until the election, maybe then the conversation will take policy into account -- and keep a running tab on the way the policies are to be paid for. We will have moral/economic choices, at least in our votes. What do you think is more important -- a child's well-being or more gadgets on your new car?
This won't solve the problem of uninformed voters in itself, but it will help campaigns, blogs and Facebook posts be better informed, and more voters will be forced to confront the realities of the campaigns. It doesn't cost much and might even lead to greater readership.
This won't solve the problem of uninformed voters in itself, but it will help campaigns, blogs and Facebook posts be better informed, and more voters will be forced to confront the realities of the campaigns. It doesn't cost much and might even lead to greater readership.
5
But Paul, have you not been paying attention, the repubs here in Texas are more worried about which bathroom kids use than anything else. They may not have any healthcare but what bathroom they use is much more important.
Of course it is just a political move to get votes but look at all the harm it is doing to the kids. And they say they care about kids, what a joke.
Of course it is just a political move to get votes but look at all the harm it is doing to the kids. And they say they care about kids, what a joke.
6
Republicans won't support this because ... Freedom! and all that other stuff. What it really comes down to is, "Me and mine first. I don't want any of MY money going to those people. Let them give up their cell phones and flat screen TVs if they want to take better care of their kids. Nobody is doing anything to help me, and I don't want the government telling me what to do with my kids."
4
Of course we should make this policy but because it's the right thing to do. That's not the argument used here. Nobel Prize winning Krugman picks this issue out of all the democratic plank issues because:
"child-care reform is the kind of medium-size, incremental, potentially politically doable — but nonetheless extremely important — initiative"
Does this mean that difficult issues are off the table? Did medium size, incremental potentialy politically doable work go into winning the Nobel or much of anything else of achievement? No!
Did Jonas Salk pick polio for this reason? No!
Did our Founding Fathers take on England and form a new kind of government following these guidelines? No!
Is the American Dream based on these aspirations? No!
Should the children whom this measure is meant to support go through their lives guided by this compass? No!
Yes, some things medium-size, incremental, potentially politically doable, but these alone have never thorugh out history gotten mankind to get up and do the things they don't have to like paint the Sistine Chapel or walk on the moon.
"child-care reform is the kind of medium-size, incremental, potentially politically doable — but nonetheless extremely important — initiative"
Does this mean that difficult issues are off the table? Did medium size, incremental potentialy politically doable work go into winning the Nobel or much of anything else of achievement? No!
Did Jonas Salk pick polio for this reason? No!
Did our Founding Fathers take on England and form a new kind of government following these guidelines? No!
Is the American Dream based on these aspirations? No!
Should the children whom this measure is meant to support go through their lives guided by this compass? No!
Yes, some things medium-size, incremental, potentially politically doable, but these alone have never thorugh out history gotten mankind to get up and do the things they don't have to like paint the Sistine Chapel or walk on the moon.
2
I looked up the statistics on childhood poverty for children under 6.
Prior to Reagan entering office it was 20.3% and reached a height of 24.6% during the recession. When he left, it was higher than when he began at 21.9% despite the economic recovery.
Under George H. W. Bush it rose from 21.9% to 25.7%
Under Clinton it fell from 25.6% to 17.8%, a level not seen since Carter's administration in 1979.
Under George Bush it again rose from 17.8% to 20.8% by 2007. The recession began in Dec 2007 and then it rose to 21.3% in 2008 as the collapse of the economy began.
As the collapse of the economy unfolded...
2009 - 23.8%
2010 - 25.3%
2011 - 24.5%
2012 - 24.4%
2013 - 23.7%
2014 - 23.5%
I could not find more recent data, but poverty levels are now consistent with the mid 1980's economic downturn and are now actually slightly lower than under most of George H. W. Bush's administration, prior to Clinton taking office.
So, I do not get the argument of those posting here blaming the Clinton administration. I simply do not see the data.
Strengthening the safety net and working to reduce poverty is simply a good idea. So, kudos to Hillary for taking it on.
Data: Census Bureau
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html
Prior to Reagan entering office it was 20.3% and reached a height of 24.6% during the recession. When he left, it was higher than when he began at 21.9% despite the economic recovery.
Under George H. W. Bush it rose from 21.9% to 25.7%
Under Clinton it fell from 25.6% to 17.8%, a level not seen since Carter's administration in 1979.
Under George Bush it again rose from 17.8% to 20.8% by 2007. The recession began in Dec 2007 and then it rose to 21.3% in 2008 as the collapse of the economy began.
As the collapse of the economy unfolded...
2009 - 23.8%
2010 - 25.3%
2011 - 24.5%
2012 - 24.4%
2013 - 23.7%
2014 - 23.5%
I could not find more recent data, but poverty levels are now consistent with the mid 1980's economic downturn and are now actually slightly lower than under most of George H. W. Bush's administration, prior to Clinton taking office.
So, I do not get the argument of those posting here blaming the Clinton administration. I simply do not see the data.
Strengthening the safety net and working to reduce poverty is simply a good idea. So, kudos to Hillary for taking it on.
Data: Census Bureau
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html
11
Thank you Mr. Krugman for talking about an actual issue rather than who insulted who or the idea that "these are the most unpopular candidates in in history". While the news cycle was, once again dominated by Mr. Trumps and the GOP's reluctance to accept him, the other party outlined three plans: childcare, education and economic. Of course those stories were buried deep into the fine print of the paper, if at all.
It's not to late to start talking about issues, platforms and what each candidate plans to do, we are all doomed! Can the Times stop acting like the National Enquirer?
It's not to late to start talking about issues, platforms and what each candidate plans to do, we are all doomed! Can the Times stop acting like the National Enquirer?
2
I have more faith in the social policy proposals from the lifelong progressive, who actually believes in them, than I do in the latest triangulation from the erstwhile supporter of welfare reform -- who, if we're going to talk about hypocrisy, was bitterly denounced by Marion Wright Edelman.
4
Raising taxes for anything will never happen in this political landscape. We ballooned our deficit with two new entitlements that were never funded, Medicare part D and the ACA costs hundreds of billions per year. Why not just do the same for child care, borrow the money. Many citizens yearn for fiscal sanity but remain socially liberal. Will we ever cut military spending, that's the real question. A squadron of worthless F35's or maternity leave for the poor, tough choices.
2
But Paul, people are in position to chose to have or not based on their economic circumstances. That's we mean by individual choice.
I hope PK's words resonate first and foremost with the NYTimes: "So can we stop talking, just for a moment, about who won the news cycle or came up with the most effective insult, and talk about policy substance here?"
Our paper of choice could impose a limit on the number of daily pieces columnists write on TheTrump.
It could give us better headlines that don't indulge in sensationalism or don't try to sound perforce controversial à la Daily Beast.
It could cover intelligent proposals from thoughtful candidates (one often-ignored guy from Vermont comes to mind) who have managed to steer the Dem's debate in the direction PK would like to see it go.
Our paper of choice could impose a limit on the number of daily pieces columnists write on TheTrump.
It could give us better headlines that don't indulge in sensationalism or don't try to sound perforce controversial à la Daily Beast.
It could cover intelligent proposals from thoughtful candidates (one often-ignored guy from Vermont comes to mind) who have managed to steer the Dem's debate in the direction PK would like to see it go.
2
There's like 40 programs for this already. Try fixing what we have rather than finding a new way to put down republicans...
“Remarkable hypocrisy” sums up very accurately these abysmal Primaries being foisted upon us.
The state of child care may be at the top of “cruel and shameful,” and rank high as an example of our “remarkable hypocrisy” but it has a lot of company. The disregard of our infrastructure, the thumbing our noses at Women’s Rights and education, our shameful refusal to legislate against gun violence, all are appalling and fixable.
It is all a matter of prioritizing but to prioritize requires acknowledgement and that is a step yet to be undertaken.
The state of child care may be at the top of “cruel and shameful,” and rank high as an example of our “remarkable hypocrisy” but it has a lot of company. The disregard of our infrastructure, the thumbing our noses at Women’s Rights and education, our shameful refusal to legislate against gun violence, all are appalling and fixable.
It is all a matter of prioritizing but to prioritize requires acknowledgement and that is a step yet to be undertaken.
2
Yet another Times piece in which a Clinton plan--a typically Byzantine cluster of tax credits, "incentives," and grants to states--is prominently discussed, but the word "Sanders" never appears at all. Sigh.
4
Republicans can promise us nothing but hate, lies, cheating and tax cutting. They will never work with democrats and will enforce total party conformity on even their few members who know better. They have no chid care or really any other policies, except power.
3
I consulted to the family services agency of a Midwestern state. They asked their IT outsourcer for the most cost effective interventions they had seen in similar departments of other customers. They provided two suggestions:
1. Get all pregnant women their full set of prenatal checkups.
2. Get all two year olds their full set of immunizations.
My client worked with transit agencies to put storefront clinics near bus routes and to get bus routes that connected Medicaid clients and clinics.
It also suggests that help for children needs to start prior to birth. Work done in The Baby College in Harlem has found the same thing. The British NHS funds prenatal support groups. These are all cheap interventions.
Also, it is worth while to enter the world of foster parenting and see the kids in foster care and what got them there. The amount of PTSD from both abuse and neglect is amazing. We took in two siblings. They had been taken away from their mother and her boyfriend when they were arrested and charged with felonies. They were not great parents, but they were hanging on. We found that the guy lost his construction job when the banks imploded. They could not make enough with both of them cleaning buildings to support the family. They started stealing and went to jail. Who lost the most? The kids. Another reason to keep banks from taking outsized risks. Did Congress realize these second order costs? I doubt it, but they are huge.
1. Get all pregnant women their full set of prenatal checkups.
2. Get all two year olds their full set of immunizations.
My client worked with transit agencies to put storefront clinics near bus routes and to get bus routes that connected Medicaid clients and clinics.
It also suggests that help for children needs to start prior to birth. Work done in The Baby College in Harlem has found the same thing. The British NHS funds prenatal support groups. These are all cheap interventions.
Also, it is worth while to enter the world of foster parenting and see the kids in foster care and what got them there. The amount of PTSD from both abuse and neglect is amazing. We took in two siblings. They had been taken away from their mother and her boyfriend when they were arrested and charged with felonies. They were not great parents, but they were hanging on. We found that the guy lost his construction job when the banks imploded. They could not make enough with both of them cleaning buildings to support the family. They started stealing and went to jail. Who lost the most? The kids. Another reason to keep banks from taking outsized risks. Did Congress realize these second order costs? I doubt it, but they are huge.
5
A truly excellent article by Paul Krugman . We all need to follow his lead here and focus on the detailed substance of society collectively improving the lives of real people.
1
Today's column totally baffles me. Why is this socialist "solution' to rearing children in this country being posited as if the USA should be embarrassed to be compared with Estonia?
Does individual responsibility begin at any point in the Liberal mind in this country? If one cannot afford or doesn't WANT to raise children, one should not have children. Period. These offspring should absolutely NOT become a financial burden for the rest of us -- my wife and I raised two boys on our own dime -- right from childbirth through college, etc. We didn't have more kids because we felt couldn't afford them. And if you can't afford it - don't expect me to pick up the tab. Time to wake up here -- the Federal Govt is not your Nanny.
Does individual responsibility begin at any point in the Liberal mind in this country? If one cannot afford or doesn't WANT to raise children, one should not have children. Period. These offspring should absolutely NOT become a financial burden for the rest of us -- my wife and I raised two boys on our own dime -- right from childbirth through college, etc. We didn't have more kids because we felt couldn't afford them. And if you can't afford it - don't expect me to pick up the tab. Time to wake up here -- the Federal Govt is not your Nanny.
4
If you don't support the child (the USA supports children very little in comparison to other industrialized countries) then you will pay to have the adult put in prison (we have the highest incarceration percentage in the world). Your choice.
1
To all the people out there who say you are pro-life: put your money where your mouth is and take care of that life after the baby is born.
3
"So can we stop talking, just for a moment, about who won the news cycle or came up with the most effective insult, and talk about policy substance here?"
Okay, but, yeah, that child care thing Hillary mentioned is important and all that, sure, whatever, but insults and grandstanding and name calling and having NO policy whatsoever is sexy and gets lots and lots of web hits which advertisers LOVE!
Funny when people think news coverage is actually about the news. #sarcasm
Okay, but, yeah, that child care thing Hillary mentioned is important and all that, sure, whatever, but insults and grandstanding and name calling and having NO policy whatsoever is sexy and gets lots and lots of web hits which advertisers LOVE!
Funny when people think news coverage is actually about the news. #sarcasm
2
"One candidate has a reasonable, feasible plan...." As you observed earlier, two candidates do.
2
Hence the high rate of incarceration of the poor. Hence the poor health of the poor. But Trump does bring high ratings for news media outlets.
1
On behalf of poor,neglected ,hungry and abused children in this country and the world, thank you, Dr Krugman.
4
Dear Professor: The comparison you should be making is NOT between the amount more that America spends than does Estonia, but between the amount MORE America spends for unnecessary new weapon-systems than we do for child-care. (and you might dig into how much of the money spent on 'defense' actually end up in politician's 'Campaign-War-Chests' (Pork).
Or, do you really care about trivial stuff like that?
Or, do you really care about trivial stuff like that?
5
Reminds one of Barney Frank's comment on anti-abortion legislators to the effect that "...… [they] believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth…".
9
America’s social programs are rich in politics and bureaucracy, but poor on delivery. There is no guiding national policy on child and family welfare, just a jumble of piecemeal, gobbled-gook legislation passed by Congress at various times. Responsibility for administering and funding the programs is divided between the federal government and the often recalcitrant governments of the 50 states.
Clinton proposes to throw more money into the present piecemeal, bureaucracy-burdened approach to social support. Republican politicians propose killing off social programs altogether, leaving the states free to enact their own programs. We all know how that will turn out: the “red” states, where most of the poor and needy live, will do nothing at all to help their own citizens.
Why can’t we have an effective, efficient national social support system without deference to the state governments? Is there no way for our modern interstate nation to unburden itself of 50 vestigial states?
Clinton proposes to throw more money into the present piecemeal, bureaucracy-burdened approach to social support. Republican politicians propose killing off social programs altogether, leaving the states free to enact their own programs. We all know how that will turn out: the “red” states, where most of the poor and needy live, will do nothing at all to help their own citizens.
Why can’t we have an effective, efficient national social support system without deference to the state governments? Is there no way for our modern interstate nation to unburden itself of 50 vestigial states?
2
Because of people like "David C" of Clinton, NJ (see his opinion above). Apparently he and others of his ilk raised their kids on their "own dime," and didn't have kids they couldn't afford. No mention of any details. Did they have well-paid jobs? Employer-paid health insurance? Own a house? Any marital strife? Anyone get laid off? Get diagnosed with cancer? Have to go back to school for a second education due to shrinking job opportunities? Have massive student debt? Have any disabled family members to care for? Have any kids with birth defects? The answer is: probably not.
The list of things that can happen to people over the course of their lives is astounding. The fact is that people don't do everything on their own without a network comprising employment, schools, neighbors, and family, without which even the most picture perfect life can be derailed. What happens when we lose sight of this fact? We get a society like ours: streets full of homeless people, more than twenty percent of our children living in poverty, people slinging mud at each other, legislative bodies that can do nothing but trade insults. One side blaming the other for lacking a sense of personal responsibility, and the other lamenting the loss of social responsibility.
This cannot go on. These two sides have to start dealing with each other. Maybe if we actually started working together to solve these problems, we might discover that we are wrong in our prejudices.
The list of things that can happen to people over the course of their lives is astounding. The fact is that people don't do everything on their own without a network comprising employment, schools, neighbors, and family, without which even the most picture perfect life can be derailed. What happens when we lose sight of this fact? We get a society like ours: streets full of homeless people, more than twenty percent of our children living in poverty, people slinging mud at each other, legislative bodies that can do nothing but trade insults. One side blaming the other for lacking a sense of personal responsibility, and the other lamenting the loss of social responsibility.
This cannot go on. These two sides have to start dealing with each other. Maybe if we actually started working together to solve these problems, we might discover that we are wrong in our prejudices.
2
Morally, we should do everything we can to help all our children, and all children in general. Ethically, we should expend what it takes to aid children, whatever their color, their background, their parentage. They truly are our future.
But let's put it in terms that conservatives and libertarians can understand, since they govern our discourse, even if they are a numerical minority: a cost-benefit analysis of spending money to help all our children shows that doing so is a net benefit for individual families and the society as a whole.
So we should do it!
But let's put it in terms that conservatives and libertarians can understand, since they govern our discourse, even if they are a numerical minority: a cost-benefit analysis of spending money to help all our children shows that doing so is a net benefit for individual families and the society as a whole.
So we should do it!
1
Caring For Children:
Thank you for caring Professor Krugman: because I do believe that Hillary
does care: and I do believe that Bernie Sanders cares: and those who have
left the GOP stage care as well: perhaps mention those GOP who were
not paid any attention to by the news media.
If there can be BI PARTISAN support...then the Children of the USA will
benefit...however...if you think Donald J. Trump cares...you are wrong..
All you have to read about today...is how Trump's bankruptcies have injured
the children whose parents worked for these Trump failed enterprises....in
this hallowed newspaper....
I think John Kasich and Jeb Bush care...but the newsmedia cares more about
advertising dollars that the tabloid news of Trump brings in...
Let
Us Get REAL...
Thank you for caring Professor Krugman: because I do believe that Hillary
does care: and I do believe that Bernie Sanders cares: and those who have
left the GOP stage care as well: perhaps mention those GOP who were
not paid any attention to by the news media.
If there can be BI PARTISAN support...then the Children of the USA will
benefit...however...if you think Donald J. Trump cares...you are wrong..
All you have to read about today...is how Trump's bankruptcies have injured
the children whose parents worked for these Trump failed enterprises....in
this hallowed newspaper....
I think John Kasich and Jeb Bush care...but the newsmedia cares more about
advertising dollars that the tabloid news of Trump brings in...
Let
Us Get REAL...
2
As a single parent and later as one of married parents I spent close to 20% of family income on pre-school child care. Years later we spent almost 2 years family income on the parents' portion of college expenses, although our children still are repaying the students' portion as debt, and will for many years to come. And we did not face the added costs of K-12 church or private schools.
What college "Financial Aid' departments mostly do is 'aid' parents and students in taking on high interest debt that profits the lenders. Our loans through studentloans.gov were at almost 3X the Fed rate.
The burdens that costs of child care, education, and medicine create for low and middle income families leave households that raise children in perpetual financial crisis. Spending is almost always near or over the budget, debts climb, and all the while we are told by society that 'this is how it must be for good parents'.
Thanks, Dr Krugman, for pointing out that it does Not have to be this way. It is the result of political policy decisions that make a few rich and impoverish many, including so many children.
What college "Financial Aid' departments mostly do is 'aid' parents and students in taking on high interest debt that profits the lenders. Our loans through studentloans.gov were at almost 3X the Fed rate.
The burdens that costs of child care, education, and medicine create for low and middle income families leave households that raise children in perpetual financial crisis. Spending is almost always near or over the budget, debts climb, and all the while we are told by society that 'this is how it must be for good parents'.
Thanks, Dr Krugman, for pointing out that it does Not have to be this way. It is the result of political policy decisions that make a few rich and impoverish many, including so many children.
4
Is there any reason why this can't be handled by governments at the local level, rather than at the Federal level?
Most ideological arguments of this kind often tend to look at 'government' as a monolithic entity, and that view often thinks everything is controlled from Washington. It seems to me that something like this should be addressed by city, county, town and village governments rather than a forced, top-down, one-size-fits-all attempt at a solution coming from Congress.
Most ideological arguments of this kind often tend to look at 'government' as a monolithic entity, and that view often thinks everything is controlled from Washington. It seems to me that something like this should be addressed by city, county, town and village governments rather than a forced, top-down, one-size-fits-all attempt at a solution coming from Congress.
1
Just like local jurisdictions-- cities, counties, states-- get federal help (school districts, police departments, farm subsidies, public health, national parks, highways, infrastructure, disaster relief, etc), why shouldn't childcare services? The tax base of a county in Mississippi cannot afford to subsidize childcare so a mom can get a job; a place like that needs those subsidies most of all.
1
Yes. Because they don't have the money, they don't have the expertise, and--as the history clearly says--they'll discriminate, politicize, and impose all sorts of crackpot Christian demands.
I decided to follow the link to Clinton's "plan", and found this:
Offer 12 weeks of paid family leave, paid for by taxes on the wealthy
Democrats have so many plans based on taxing the wealthy that one wonders if there are even enough billionaires to go around.
Offer 12 weeks of paid family leave, paid for by taxes on the wealthy
Democrats have so many plans based on taxing the wealthy that one wonders if there are even enough billionaires to go around.
1
A propos of family leave, there was a recent article that revealed that when infants receive constant and affectionate early attention, their brains develop more quickly and further. A very important reason to promote extended maternal leave.
4
This is the liberal problem, do a little, where its easy and ignore the elephant in the room. Take care of the child and ignore the adult because that is more expensive and therefore can't be done. We like headstart but when the child is a young adult the only program available is the halfway house to cure that doesn't address the drug problem that resulted from the jobs that were sent away to China or Vietnam or (pick someplace other than the US where they are needed).
Professor Krugman and Hillary advocate for NAFTA AND TTPT because it fits the liberal ideology that is creating the Trumps and the Sanders parties. Create a Great Poor society remniscent of the Middle Ages and have programs that pretend to fix the mess they created but really just continue to propagate a great broken mass to support the wealthy few.
If the US becomes the next Greece liberal policies in all their manifestations will be the cause not the cure.
Professor Krugman and Hillary advocate for NAFTA AND TTPT because it fits the liberal ideology that is creating the Trumps and the Sanders parties. Create a Great Poor society remniscent of the Middle Ages and have programs that pretend to fix the mess they created but really just continue to propagate a great broken mass to support the wealthy few.
If the US becomes the next Greece liberal policies in all their manifestations will be the cause not the cure.
1
"If the US becomes the next Greece liberal policies in all their manifestations will be the cause not the cure."
If.
If.
Oh, I think all us commies want to try and do something about the illiteracy and the shocking ignorance of a whole lot of American adults.
2
My husband and I spend a third of our take home pay on childcare and we are relatively affluent. I simply do not know how families with average of below average incomes could possibly find affordable decent quality child care. While I understand that affordable childcare isn't a current problem for child-free adults, everyone was a child once and society needs children to support its future ... So it really does affect us all. I hope you continue to draw attention to this important issue.
4
This is a mess. Again, more layers of policy and government. Make wages livable for all people, provide health care for every citizen, make college like it used to be, free and not a revenue stream for predatory lenders, and then many of these issues go away.
The king of the economists wants to create a more complicated political mess on the backs of the children and their parents. The "liberal" solution is always putting layers of policy together to be administered by the meritorious.
Why not just take care of inequality and stand up for the people?
The king of the economists wants to create a more complicated political mess on the backs of the children and their parents. The "liberal" solution is always putting layers of policy together to be administered by the meritorious.
Why not just take care of inequality and stand up for the people?
3
Excellent column, as usual. But we should also note our nation's neglect of the public schools that serve 90% of our kids. They are under- and inequitably funded, classes are too large, kids are short-changed by too few wraparound social and medical services, there is too much unnecessary testing, we are not doing enough to alleviate the poverty that afflicts at least 1/4 of our kids, and too many public dollars are being diverted to special interest private schools (usually religious institutions) and selective charter schools. Republicans in Congress and state legislatures are mostly to blame, but some Democrats too have dropped the ball. -- Edd Doerr (arlinc.irg)
4
Thank you for this. As a former public school teacher who just couldn't accept this blatant unfairness, I respect your comment immensely. I am still teaching, but in another country, in a different system. The USA is shooting itself in the foot.
It takes a village organizer like Hillary to see that progressive policies are instituted to make an already great America even more of a perfect union. It is not done through the harmful us of divisive rhetoric, name calling, instigating violence toward those who disagree. It is done through extremely hard work and compromise and cajoling and reaching consensus. It can be done only by someone who believes in the power of persuasion. It can only be done by someone like Hillary and the voters rejection of a demagogue who wants nothing more than to divide an already polarized nation.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
6
Even HRC's proposal of no more than 10% maximum would mean a family of four making $75,000 a year would pay no more than $7,500 in child care, but the same family making $225,000 would pay no more than $22,500. I would argue that $7,500 is a much bigger stretch for the first family versus $22,500 for the second. Just like IRAs, 529 plans, home mortgage interest/property tax deductions, healthcare savings accounts, etc,. etc., etc., these primarily benefit the familys' whose income are below the top 2%, but above 20% Meaning these programs benefit not the rich (there are caps), but the very well off the most. This group is the highly educated professional class, the primary donor and voting class for Democrats. I am not bashing HRC's proposal, but it helps to point out who benefits the most from these proposals.
2
I heard a piece of classical music played on the radio the other day. The performer featured was a young violinist of fourteen from Detroit playing a concerto for violin and orchestra by Mozart. She was the winner of a competition among young African American and Hispanic youth in the Detroit area.
As the performance played, it became apparent that this young girl, playing a demanding and unforgiving piece in front of an orchestra, was more than up to the task.
It was joyful to hear, but also very sad to think of all that we as a society are willing to see discarded and wasted with out thought or care for what we are losing.
The music that is not made, the ideas that are never hatched, the problems never solved, the poems never written.
If we can't or won't find ways to nurture all of our children and are content to see all that could be discarded, for whatever reasons, more is the pity and we are all diminished.
As the performance played, it became apparent that this young girl, playing a demanding and unforgiving piece in front of an orchestra, was more than up to the task.
It was joyful to hear, but also very sad to think of all that we as a society are willing to see discarded and wasted with out thought or care for what we are losing.
The music that is not made, the ideas that are never hatched, the problems never solved, the poems never written.
If we can't or won't find ways to nurture all of our children and are content to see all that could be discarded, for whatever reasons, more is the pity and we are all diminished.
9
Thanks Dr Krugman. Ninety per cent of a child's brain devdelopment occurs in the first three years of life. The connections between brain cells can be positive if parents speak and read to their children and negative if they don't hear and see positve interpersonal interactions. You and Hilary are right on target in wanting to support young parents in their ability to love and nurture their children.
Chuck Willson MD
pediatrician
Chuck Willson MD
pediatrician
8
This is a real dilemma for me. On one side I feel that in a country as rich as ours no child should lack great health care, education, should never go to bed hungry, should have a decent place to live etc. I would be very happy to pay more taxes to provide this. On the other hand I feel if you can not afford to care for a child do not have one. Its wrong to have one or many children and expect others to pay for them. If your religion directs you to have children or not plan them let the religion pay for them. I see many mothers here with more than one child talking about all their baby daddies, It's really a broken system!
4
So the children resulting from poor choices must suffer? And it's Okay for your precious taxes to pay for fightets and gewgaws the military doesn't want, as well as salaries and pensions for representatives and senators who don't do their jobs?
1
Helping children to develop pays, since these will be the taxpayers of tomorrow. Apparently the GOPers from the US South do not believe this. So they are happier with a dependent population. The consequences of such policies are worth many columns to follow up this one.
2
Perhaps if child care proposals were framed using Galbraith's idea of a convenient social virtue they would gain more traction? After all, such a virtue ultimately aids consumption (or so the argument goes) and the free marketeers should be overjoyed about spending a little on child care.
1
Our youth are our future.
That said, I'd just like to see some kind of consideration to deter abuse by families that are irresponsibly reproducing or specifically dedicated to overpopulating the planet with their ilk on the tax payer's dime......in the modern world, two or three is more than enough. Like it or not, the right to reproduce comes with a responsibility to both our offspring, and our society as a whole. Go forth and multiply carefully and responsibly.
That said, I'd just like to see some kind of consideration to deter abuse by families that are irresponsibly reproducing or specifically dedicated to overpopulating the planet with their ilk on the tax payer's dime......in the modern world, two or three is more than enough. Like it or not, the right to reproduce comes with a responsibility to both our offspring, and our society as a whole. Go forth and multiply carefully and responsibly.
1
Freud and every child development expert knows that the first five years of a child's life are not called the "formative years" for nothing. Putting time and money into those years, for children and parents - meaning intervention to help and teach parents the importance of talking and reading to their kids- is priceless. Politicians have to be thinking about the long not the short term. There is a shortage of these people. Very frustrating!
2
Reading many of the comments -- to one of the most thoughtful articles I've seen in relation to a serious public policy issue during an election season in which the press has demeaned and trivialized the process almost as much as Trump has -- I am shaking my head and face-palming at the realization that you silly Democrats and your internecine warfare will hand the Presidency on a platter to a bombastic, ill-informed idiot.
Thanks, guys! With 'friends' like these, the Democrats don't need enemies.
Thanks, guys! With 'friends' like these, the Democrats don't need enemies.
2
A nation is judged on how it treats its children or should be.Both political parties are responsible for the conditions that beset our children.Together they have passed laws like welfare reform that make these conditions worse.But mostly they do nothing.They both have philosophical and political beliefs that distance themselves from the shame they should be feeling.You have to have empathy to feel shame.They blame the parents or the so called reality of the modern world.If children were only corporations they would not have suffer as they do.
28
I wonder if HRC's childcare plan will offer piecemeal solutions that vary by state and county, public/private partnerships, an adequately complicated aid structure based on an algorithm that factors in income/poverty level/inflation rate that will not pay for 100% of the childcare unless you are homeless or dead?
Why can't centrists like Obama and HRC keep it simple and guarantee everyone that wants free childcare to have free childcare?
That seems like the only rational approach if you really care about our children or the nation's future.
Why can't centrists like Obama and HRC keep it simple and guarantee everyone that wants free childcare to have free childcare?
That seems like the only rational approach if you really care about our children or the nation's future.
6
If 'right to life' is such an important moral issue then Republicans should be willing to spend a few dollars to help support those lives to make it easier for women to chose life over abortion.
It would be a relatively easy and effective way to reduce abortions.
It amazes me that Republicans can be so anti-abortion while being unwilling to do anything to help women to choose life.
It would be a relatively easy and effective way to reduce abortions.
It amazes me that Republicans can be so anti-abortion while being unwilling to do anything to help women to choose life.
6
Great idea. Great goals. Great idea for childcare workers to make at least $15.00 an hour. Great to support families as well as have the leave. Greater still would be to attach it to a $15.00 minimum wage for all.
Living wage. Help for children and families. Then make college affordable for all. Pretty soon America is greater for all - policy brick by policy brick. Greater for all.
Let's all make America great again for all. Show us the policies! Show us the funding!
Living wage. Help for children and families. Then make college affordable for all. Pretty soon America is greater for all - policy brick by policy brick. Greater for all.
Let's all make America great again for all. Show us the policies! Show us the funding!
3
Children are the nation's future. It would also seem to be a good policy to try to make all schools, regardless of location, equally good. We will do best as a country if all children have an equal chance at success.
3
Long years of failure to invest in the well-being and future of American children will cost us dearly. From lead-tainted residential and public water supplies to the loss of Head Start funding, urban food deserts, and wildly variable public schools, we consistently display our hypocrisy about our most vulnerable citizens. A permanent war-footing and miserly priorities of domestic funding will continue this failure to plan for the future.
4
Krugman's arguments are remarkably tribal in nature, and from several perspectives. First the tribal nature of the political arguments: THOSE people are not like us and we don't need twelve weeks off, our nanny helps us out just fine and dad's assistants at work let him come home early every once in a while. Power brokers just can't imagine how life is outside their campfire.
It is also tribal because shared family help and child care is deeply tribal in nature. The tribe is the community that helps he mother through pregnancy, birth and afterwards, who help with domestic chores and give the dads an opportunity to be part of the new child experience. Child care is a loving task taken on by the tribal elders while the younger adults do their work.
There are far too few such tribal resources available today. Older parents often live distant from their child rearing offspring in our mobile society. As well, many of those older parents are still in the work force. We do need to spend more being more tribal. It should be as much of a safety net for parents of young children as for seniors getting Medicare. Many of those new parents can't afford commercially available care and what there is lacks quality and quantity anyway.
We should, as so many of the power brokers say, go back to the original intent of the founders, but in this case the tribal elders. Use there system as a model. After all, it is good business with an amazing ROI.
It is also tribal because shared family help and child care is deeply tribal in nature. The tribe is the community that helps he mother through pregnancy, birth and afterwards, who help with domestic chores and give the dads an opportunity to be part of the new child experience. Child care is a loving task taken on by the tribal elders while the younger adults do their work.
There are far too few such tribal resources available today. Older parents often live distant from their child rearing offspring in our mobile society. As well, many of those older parents are still in the work force. We do need to spend more being more tribal. It should be as much of a safety net for parents of young children as for seniors getting Medicare. Many of those new parents can't afford commercially available care and what there is lacks quality and quantity anyway.
We should, as so many of the power brokers say, go back to the original intent of the founders, but in this case the tribal elders. Use there system as a model. After all, it is good business with an amazing ROI.
2
Yes, two candidates proposed ambitious plans to improve chid care affordability, but only one candidate's offer was credible - based on a long career in public service advocating for working people.
The other candidate is a DNC Democrat with a long history of corporate servitude, largely perceived as dishonest and untrustworthy by the public.
Establishment Democrats had an opportunity to pass meaningful legislation in support of the beleaguered working class back in 2009-10, when they held both chambers of congress and the White House - but all they could come up with was a reform plan that slightly improved the developed world's most inefficient health care system.
DNC, "third way" Democrats were responsible for the abysmal 2014 voter turnout that handed over effective control of the budget to the political party that's even less responsive to working class views.
When Sanders proposed plans to improve working class lives, Krugman ridiculed it as being akin to "unicorns and fairy dust", but Krugman wants us to believe that Clinton can persuade the neanderthal Republicans to agree to her plan.
Good luck with that.
The other candidate is a DNC Democrat with a long history of corporate servitude, largely perceived as dishonest and untrustworthy by the public.
Establishment Democrats had an opportunity to pass meaningful legislation in support of the beleaguered working class back in 2009-10, when they held both chambers of congress and the White House - but all they could come up with was a reform plan that slightly improved the developed world's most inefficient health care system.
DNC, "third way" Democrats were responsible for the abysmal 2014 voter turnout that handed over effective control of the budget to the political party that's even less responsive to working class views.
When Sanders proposed plans to improve working class lives, Krugman ridiculed it as being akin to "unicorns and fairy dust", but Krugman wants us to believe that Clinton can persuade the neanderthal Republicans to agree to her plan.
Good luck with that.
7
Until certain leftists learn some numbers and some other tangibles, not to mention how to reason, they will have zip effect on this country--and a good thing, too.
1
The fact that any time and column inches are devoted to a problem which in any society progressive or otherwise should indicate to the most obtuse reader just how withdrawn our society has become.
One of the worst images I carry from reading accounts of life in the WW2 ghetto of Warsaw is that of a father taking his children's share of food for his own consumption. Our theft from the coffers of the future is quantitively but not qualitatively different.
Politicians do not carry magic solutions to social problems with them, they are neither the cause nor solution whereas we, the members of the society they represent, are both.
We still live in a society which carries many remnants of a Democracy and we can take the steps which will put us on a path of sustainability.
Bernie Sanders is carrying a torch whose light still shines, kept so by the youth who know if his light goes unseen the world they are in line to inherit will be irreversibly darkened.
I would gladly accept the leadership of Mrs Clinton if I felt in my guts she actually had some real understanding of those who are not covered from the storms of poverty by the umbrella of wealth. Mr Trump hasn't a clue and never will.
The state of child care is a problem, but not really worse than that of us who were at one time also children. We owe it to ourselves and our children that the person we elect to lead our nation is the right one for he or she will lead us to a future. We still have three choices, not two.
One of the worst images I carry from reading accounts of life in the WW2 ghetto of Warsaw is that of a father taking his children's share of food for his own consumption. Our theft from the coffers of the future is quantitively but not qualitatively different.
Politicians do not carry magic solutions to social problems with them, they are neither the cause nor solution whereas we, the members of the society they represent, are both.
We still live in a society which carries many remnants of a Democracy and we can take the steps which will put us on a path of sustainability.
Bernie Sanders is carrying a torch whose light still shines, kept so by the youth who know if his light goes unseen the world they are in line to inherit will be irreversibly darkened.
I would gladly accept the leadership of Mrs Clinton if I felt in my guts she actually had some real understanding of those who are not covered from the storms of poverty by the umbrella of wealth. Mr Trump hasn't a clue and never will.
The state of child care is a problem, but not really worse than that of us who were at one time also children. We owe it to ourselves and our children that the person we elect to lead our nation is the right one for he or she will lead us to a future. We still have three choices, not two.
3
We think the woman who traversed the state of Arkansas in the 80's to meet parents, teachers, all stake-holders in the then failing Arkansas school system, is well versed on the problems faced by people in every possible situation, every economic level. And equipped to achieve consensus on the need to create an environment where children can succeed.
2
Hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe politicians poses on family values. They don't comprehend the hardship that most of us have lived through when it comes to jobs, balancing family needs with work, being unable to take care of ourselves, our children, or elderly parents because we're supposed to be on duty 24/7 for work or risk losing our jobs.
America does not value children, families, or anything connected to human health and well being. Our welfare system reflects this in giving people in need inadequate funds, cutting them off too quickly, offering insufficient help of poor quality, and by treating all who might need assistance (unless they are large corporations) like criminals. We hear our politicians extolling the virtues of marriage, the sanctity of life (until it's born), the importance of giving children a good life and then we watch them cut the funding for programs that might help. We pay taxes to watch the Congress refuse to authorize anything that could help people get jobs, keep their health insurance, keep a roof over their heads, etc.
In America we treat anyone who is less than very rich as if it's their fault that they lost a job, cannot support themselves or their children, are in need of medical care and cannot afford it. For a rich country that claims to be the best place in the world to live we treat children, the elderly, the handicapped, those unable to find work very poorly. We waste people and blame them for our refusal to help.
America does not value children, families, or anything connected to human health and well being. Our welfare system reflects this in giving people in need inadequate funds, cutting them off too quickly, offering insufficient help of poor quality, and by treating all who might need assistance (unless they are large corporations) like criminals. We hear our politicians extolling the virtues of marriage, the sanctity of life (until it's born), the importance of giving children a good life and then we watch them cut the funding for programs that might help. We pay taxes to watch the Congress refuse to authorize anything that could help people get jobs, keep their health insurance, keep a roof over their heads, etc.
In America we treat anyone who is less than very rich as if it's their fault that they lost a job, cannot support themselves or their children, are in need of medical care and cannot afford it. For a rich country that claims to be the best place in the world to live we treat children, the elderly, the handicapped, those unable to find work very poorly. We waste people and blame them for our refusal to help.
10
There is such concentration of wealth in the country - and excess - that robs the economy of its vibrancy and diminishes our collective humanity.
I remember one year there was a special 10% surcharge on income earned over $1 million, and since I was working on Wall Street in a senior position I was subject to that tax, which added a six-figure sum to my tax bill.
But that year I did not suffer one less glass of champagne as a result. I did not grumble about taxes, I was thankful that I was so fortunate.
I believe in some ways the pursuit in the accumulation of wealth for its own sake, is a form of mental illness.
I remember one night a friend of mine who was on the Forbes 400 list and a billionaire looked at another person higher on the list with envy.
He had everything in the world and a beautiful loving family, but somehow being that much wealthier was important to him.
The country has the means to offer universal health care, family leave, better public schools, better infrastructure, and shelter to every American.
Yet, we have a regressive tax system and a voluntary corporate tax system and unlimited dark money in politics that shifts the tax burden to those without lobbyists.
As a result, our tax system is increasing wealth inequality and hollowing out our economy.
There is a difference between the two parties. Democrats want to reduce that inequality and Republicans want to increase it.
That is why I will support the Democratic candidate for President.
I remember one year there was a special 10% surcharge on income earned over $1 million, and since I was working on Wall Street in a senior position I was subject to that tax, which added a six-figure sum to my tax bill.
But that year I did not suffer one less glass of champagne as a result. I did not grumble about taxes, I was thankful that I was so fortunate.
I believe in some ways the pursuit in the accumulation of wealth for its own sake, is a form of mental illness.
I remember one night a friend of mine who was on the Forbes 400 list and a billionaire looked at another person higher on the list with envy.
He had everything in the world and a beautiful loving family, but somehow being that much wealthier was important to him.
The country has the means to offer universal health care, family leave, better public schools, better infrastructure, and shelter to every American.
Yet, we have a regressive tax system and a voluntary corporate tax system and unlimited dark money in politics that shifts the tax burden to those without lobbyists.
As a result, our tax system is increasing wealth inequality and hollowing out our economy.
There is a difference between the two parties. Democrats want to reduce that inequality and Republicans want to increase it.
That is why I will support the Democratic candidate for President.
10
It is clear that our nation talks a good game but rarely delivers. '
We need more articles like this to point out where we fall short. Our value system, our system of taxation our treatment of minorities---the list is endless is abysmally poor and unfair.
And the living proof is that a good number of our citizens think someone like Donald J Trump is fit to be president. That about says it all.
We need more articles like this to point out where we fall short. Our value system, our system of taxation our treatment of minorities---the list is endless is abysmally poor and unfair.
And the living proof is that a good number of our citizens think someone like Donald J Trump is fit to be president. That about says it all.
2
It is a given that we have too many people in this country. There aren't jobs for all who want them, especially those jobs at the lower end of the spectrum, the jobs filled mainly by children who grow up poor, disadvantaged, and academically challenged, in short, precisely those who these child care programs would help. Do we need more of these children? No. So why would we encourage the struggling poor to have more children?
1
They are all poser's as far as I'm concerned, especially Hillary, her spin could power a centrifuge and Trump is just being himself he can't help it. Bernie is the truth, most people hate the truth and would rather drink the cool-aid while watching the Stuper-Bowl than face today's reality that war-mongers have taken over the planet. It's Star Wars without the special effects although Trump could be considered a special effect. Everything is a designed distraction. Wag that dog.
I have been a child welfare professional in NY for over 30 years and i teach social policy in a school of social work. This editorial nails the issues but omits that fact that Kids do not vote, therefore have never really been a political force until Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has stood for children and families all of her life and fought tirelessly for children and their families. I guess that is why i volunteer for @HillaryClinton
5
Amen.
Why don't we consider paid parental leave for longer than 12 weeks so the most important people in the child's life, mom and dad, could provide care during the most important part of the child's life? Maybe it would actually cost less to pay the parent's not to work than to pay for daycare.
Why don't we consider paid parental leave for longer than 12 weeks so the most important people in the child's life, mom and dad, could provide care during the most important part of the child's life? Maybe it would actually cost less to pay the parent's not to work than to pay for daycare.
2
Another example of pro-lifers only caring about the child when it's in the womb, not before and not after.
Any chance Mr. Krugman/NYT might be willing to write about the government's position on infertility? It's increasing in the US (1:8 couples), Dr's/scientists don't know why, our government wants no part of it even though a whole generation worse-off than their parents is having to delay starting a family to an age where it will be more difficult bEva use they are not financially secure. Only a few states require insurers to cover the $20,000-plus cost of treatment but pro-life pols say these treatments are "elective" - yet Viagra has to be covered.
Any chance Mr. Krugman/NYT might be willing to write about the government's position on infertility? It's increasing in the US (1:8 couples), Dr's/scientists don't know why, our government wants no part of it even though a whole generation worse-off than their parents is having to delay starting a family to an age where it will be more difficult bEva use they are not financially secure. Only a few states require insurers to cover the $20,000-plus cost of treatment but pro-life pols say these treatments are "elective" - yet Viagra has to be covered.
1
If one wants to see hypocrisy, look at the charter school argument that all children should be the right to attend private schools yet those who make it have no concern about those same children living in rat and roach infested housing or in shelters or that they often have limited access to quality healthcare.
In fact, it probably shouldn't even be called hypocrisy. It is out and out dishonesty as anyone with half a brain knows the whole purpose is to destroy the teachers unions, among the few remaining unions with any political strength.
In fact, it probably shouldn't even be called hypocrisy. It is out and out dishonesty as anyone with half a brain knows the whole purpose is to destroy the teachers unions, among the few remaining unions with any political strength.
5
The problem with Hillary is that American voters don't want policy - they want a personality that can make them feel good. They like someone who is a smoother talker (Obama, Bill Clinton), or someone who they can have a beer with (Bush Jr.). Anyone who seems like a policy wonk is labelled a bore (Gore), or out of touch (Kerry). Now, we have someone who is labelled "authentic" in Donald Trump, which is this year's winning strategy. Republicans offer no policies and voters are okay with that; while Democrats have to walk on water. For example, Monica-gate sunk Bill, despite budget surpluses, low unemployment, good economy, wage growth, etc. Kerry got sunk by one swift-boat ad. Hillary's name has been mud since she advocated for single-payer healthcare (back in 1993!!); throw enough mud, and some will stick with the voters (forever).
Matters are made worse by a Republican base that would vote in any candidate so long as he is their man (party before country); while the liberal base won't come out to vote unless the candidate is Jesus or Buddha, a candidate who can walk on water and "transform" a 200-year political system of checks and balances that forces compromise with his aura. For both bases, compromise is now a dirty word.
At some point, we have to stop blaming government...We voters may very well deserve the government we have; some voters, they are just are collateral damage.
Matters are made worse by a Republican base that would vote in any candidate so long as he is their man (party before country); while the liberal base won't come out to vote unless the candidate is Jesus or Buddha, a candidate who can walk on water and "transform" a 200-year political system of checks and balances that forces compromise with his aura. For both bases, compromise is now a dirty word.
At some point, we have to stop blaming government...We voters may very well deserve the government we have; some voters, they are just are collateral damage.
5
Not fair to compare the US to Europe, since the US has a much higher percentage of poor immigrants, both legal and illegal. If the numbers were adjusted for that demographic difference, the spending differences would be a lot less.
3
Indiana was offered a $60 million federal grant for early childhood education, and our Republican governor turned it down, saying the value of pre-k had not been sufficiently studied. It is not as doable as one might think.
2
The hypocrisy is endless.
Republicans argue against abortion while taking sex ed out of schools and defunding Planned Parenthood, never mind that education and contraception are the keys to reducing abortion.
Republicans claim to be for our children's future while they ignore climate change, never mind the loss of lives and homes.
Republicans claim to be for making jobs available at the expense of regulations, while they water down education and replace science with creationism, never mind that education is the best path to prosperity.
Republicans claim to be "prolife" while they promote the death penalty, war and unfettered access to guns, never mind that all are tools of death.
Boundless gaps between talking points and practice.
Republicans argue against abortion while taking sex ed out of schools and defunding Planned Parenthood, never mind that education and contraception are the keys to reducing abortion.
Republicans claim to be for our children's future while they ignore climate change, never mind the loss of lives and homes.
Republicans claim to be for making jobs available at the expense of regulations, while they water down education and replace science with creationism, never mind that education is the best path to prosperity.
Republicans claim to be "prolife" while they promote the death penalty, war and unfettered access to guns, never mind that all are tools of death.
Boundless gaps between talking points and practice.
6
The dominant view inside the right-wing bubble is that a large and ever-growing proportion of americans (Ryan asserts 60%) won’t take responsibility for their own lives and are mooching off the hard-working wealthy where:
- rising unemployment claims demonstrate laziness, not lack of jobs;
- rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force.
Accordingly, the GOP sees it as entirely appropriate to cut taxes on the rich, slash support programs for the needy and unfortunate while making everyone else pay more.
- rising unemployment claims demonstrate laziness, not lack of jobs;
- rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force.
Accordingly, the GOP sees it as entirely appropriate to cut taxes on the rich, slash support programs for the needy and unfortunate while making everyone else pay more.
7
For months Krugman takes Bernie Sanders to task for lack of specifics in his policies, and for not being realistic. But go to the link on the paid child care policies of Sanders and Clinton and you find this:
Sanders proposed "funding three months of paid leave through a small payroll tax on workers, which the campaign estimates would charge a typical worker $1.61 a week. He and a group of 18 Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to do this, dubbed the FAMILY Act."
But Clinton? "Exactly what kind of tax and on whom is not specified. Employees must also have served a company for a certain number of hours to qualify for her plan, though that threshold is similarly not defined. She also did not specify whether small business employees — at companies with 50 or fewer workers — would qualify."
How convenient of Professor Krugman to carefully ignore the fact that the only workable, and widely supported and specific, plan for paid child care comes from the candidate whom he has denounced, while his endorsed candidate's plan is smoke and mirrors.
Sanders proposed "funding three months of paid leave through a small payroll tax on workers, which the campaign estimates would charge a typical worker $1.61 a week. He and a group of 18 Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to do this, dubbed the FAMILY Act."
But Clinton? "Exactly what kind of tax and on whom is not specified. Employees must also have served a company for a certain number of hours to qualify for her plan, though that threshold is similarly not defined. She also did not specify whether small business employees — at companies with 50 or fewer workers — would qualify."
How convenient of Professor Krugman to carefully ignore the fact that the only workable, and widely supported and specific, plan for paid child care comes from the candidate whom he has denounced, while his endorsed candidate's plan is smoke and mirrors.
14
What's unreasonable is to think that $1.61 a week would pay for the child care system we ought to have.
The free enterprise system has no interest in supporting children unless families can afford them. It is difficult to feel bad about how the U.S. treats it's children when people breed recklessly and without responsibility. If the U.S. and the rest of the world lived under a different kind of economic regime I would feel differently but facts are facts and the free enterprise system requires families to have children they can afford. Breeding without thought to the welfare of children is irresponsible.
2
“Breed recklessly and without responsibility?”
These are human beings, not feral cats!
The GOP has made it MUCH harder for the poor to get adequate birth control. They lie about “selling baby parts”, shut off Planned Parenthood clinics. THIS is where the poor get birth control. We women used Planned Parenthood in college when we didn’t have jobs and the insurance that went along with it. Birth control pills can cost $70/month.
The right winged Supreme Court told a business that sells crafts and cheap artificial flowers, Hobby Lobby, that they didn’t have to pay for their employees’ birth control. It was against their faith!! Hogwash. It meant that the company wouldn’t have to shell out money as money is their “God.”
The federal government only subsidizes the teaching of abstinence instead of providing excellent sex education. Parents can’t tell their children about IUDs, sexually transmitted diseases, the problem that pregnancy means you can’t finish school, get to college, have a good job.
Then if they DO get pregnant, men pass very restrictive anti-abortion TRAP laws...to close down LEGAL abortions....forcing young women to have those children.
Peter, the responsibility for raising children is with the woman. Yet MALE legislators and MALE governors are making it impossible to stop pregnancies!
The states with the best sex education in schools, the best and easiest ways to get GOOD birth control have the FEWEST unplanned and teen pregnancies.
Go figure!
These are human beings, not feral cats!
The GOP has made it MUCH harder for the poor to get adequate birth control. They lie about “selling baby parts”, shut off Planned Parenthood clinics. THIS is where the poor get birth control. We women used Planned Parenthood in college when we didn’t have jobs and the insurance that went along with it. Birth control pills can cost $70/month.
The right winged Supreme Court told a business that sells crafts and cheap artificial flowers, Hobby Lobby, that they didn’t have to pay for their employees’ birth control. It was against their faith!! Hogwash. It meant that the company wouldn’t have to shell out money as money is their “God.”
The federal government only subsidizes the teaching of abstinence instead of providing excellent sex education. Parents can’t tell their children about IUDs, sexually transmitted diseases, the problem that pregnancy means you can’t finish school, get to college, have a good job.
Then if they DO get pregnant, men pass very restrictive anti-abortion TRAP laws...to close down LEGAL abortions....forcing young women to have those children.
Peter, the responsibility for raising children is with the woman. Yet MALE legislators and MALE governors are making it impossible to stop pregnancies!
The states with the best sex education in schools, the best and easiest ways to get GOOD birth control have the FEWEST unplanned and teen pregnancies.
Go figure!
4
Unfortunately for sound thinking in this era of sound bites, opportunities to improve the lives of children and parents are lost in the endless, ignorant yammer about anti-vaccination, charter schools, home schooling, and other sideshows that appeal to the lowest denominator of voters. About one in one hundred parents are qualified to home-school; the rest are just passing along their own ignorance. Similarly, only about one in one thousand have the scientific acumen to have an opinion about matters like vaccination (and those who do almost universally choose to vaccinate), but it is the propensity of the modern American to get his or her opinions from the least qualified sources, internet gurus and snake oil salesmen disguised as news commentators. The real tragedy is that people put their trust in those least committed to their welfare--TV evangelists, Republican politicians, and web sites that peddle ignorance in order to peddle dubious products.
12
As a childless-by-choice woman of 61, with a family consisting of only one person - a mentally handicapped older sister (age 67), I see a world which is the opposite. All the tax breaks, programs, etc. are specifically aimed at children and parents. I get only the privilege of paying for benefits that go to everyone else. I have also noticed that we are constantly beseeched to devote resources and care to 'handicapped children', but handicapped adults, having outgrown their pitiable cuteness, are now the people whose group homes you don't want in your neighbourhoods. (What do you think happens to handicapped children when they turn 18? They miraculously recover? Vanish into an alternate dimension? Get turned into Soylent Green?) I could go on about the situation of handicapped adults and their families, and/or the treatment of the single as cash cows. But why? I'd either be reviled or ignored, or both.
89
After years of higher education and incurring the debt to finance it, i find myself a stay at home parent who picks up low paid freelance work when I can get it. This was not by design, but rather forced upon our family due to the incredibly high cost of childcare. After taxes and childcare, I would have been making $30 day. So I am home full time. While I love being able to be there for my children whenever they may need me, money is always tight and the future uncertain given how close to impossible it is for women like me to resume their career. If we had European style government subsidized day cares this would have been a non-issue. So, I couldn't agree more - it takes a policy
109
Mr. Krugman, the Republican Party claims to be the party of business, yet their actions defy basic business principle - investment. For the Republicans in Congress and State Legislatures throughout the country, their motto is "if we are going to spend a penny, we need to cut a penny from somewhere." That's a zero-sum game that wealth never grows with investment, and that is quite dumb.
Don't look at Republicans investing on child care, or for that matter, on health care, infrastructure, or on anything at all.
Don't look at Republicans investing on child care, or for that matter, on health care, infrastructure, or on anything at all.
9
"When we talk about doing more for children, it’s important to realize that it costs money, but not all that much money."
The money is irrelevant because the return on our investment would more than make up for the costs. We can reduce the long term expenses of the criminal justice system, health care and many other programs by spending some money up front. However many of us seem to be very near sighted when it comes to doing what is best for all of us.
The money is irrelevant because the return on our investment would more than make up for the costs. We can reduce the long term expenses of the criminal justice system, health care and many other programs by spending some money up front. However many of us seem to be very near sighted when it comes to doing what is best for all of us.
4
I always read your columns and almost always agree with them. However, I want to take issue with something you said in this article this morning -- that the children of today will become the "workers and taxpayers" of tomorrow. Dr .Krugman, they will become more than that. They will become adult human beings, with all the yearnings, responsibilities, and possibilities that adults have. Let's not reduce these wonderful children to -- workers in a workers state, Your choice of descriptive words rankles me.
3
We paid much attention to children in Flint MI, poisoning the water so their brains can grow.
And we promote family values when we defund an agency that is concerned with family planning.
And how much more can be nice and homey by calling women -- daughters and mothers - fat pigs& disgusting; by dumping the aging ones for a new Eastern European model-wife about every 15 years.
Maybe sun-tan booths for children! A big wall for families to picnic by. Violence in the streets for entertainment. Breaking up families by expelling people, or discriminating against their religion. Or giving them the education they deserve via Trump U.
The future looks bright.
And we promote family values when we defund an agency that is concerned with family planning.
And how much more can be nice and homey by calling women -- daughters and mothers - fat pigs& disgusting; by dumping the aging ones for a new Eastern European model-wife about every 15 years.
Maybe sun-tan booths for children! A big wall for families to picnic by. Violence in the streets for entertainment. Breaking up families by expelling people, or discriminating against their religion. Or giving them the education they deserve via Trump U.
The future looks bright.
6
The idea that high quality day care, which is very difficult, if not impossible to find, according to my daughter who does pay for it in Minneapolis, is that there aren't enough women of both a nurturing quality and academic ability that should be teaching these young children. Most of the women are off the street, a few have degrees, but mostly not. You see, nurturing is one of the most difficult jobs there is. I once told a mother that parenting is 90% work and 10% joy. She was pregnant at the time, and was questioning what I said. After she had her boy, she said that I was totally right. She only had once child, and he has been successful. So, if the average mother doesn't want to stay home and raise her own children, where are you going to find these quality women to be with your children? The pay is very poor for these jobs, but raising the pay won't bring more quality women into the system to work with these young children, it will just give those already doing the job more money which I am all for, but it mostly will need to be subsidized by the state as the average working female, many of them single can't afford it.
2
It is not that most Americans don't care about the poor and under-served children of our communities; it is that for the most part, these children are not seen. Our communities and schools are completely segregated, the problem stays out of sight, thus our collective conscience is not troubled. If Clinton has proposed a plan that would provide quality and affordable day care (which was an absolute torment for me when my children were young), then it is certainly worth consideration. But has this been mentioned in the MSM? Of course not! All we hear about in this news cycle is Trump's imaginary friend (good one, Prof. Krugman).
2
Adequately attending to the real needs of all our children is not liberal.
Neglecting the real needs of all our children is not conservative.
Sane societies, which realize they will decay or even die out if their children are not prepared to maintain that society, do not act the way the U.S. acts.
Neglecting the real needs of all our children is not conservative.
Sane societies, which realize they will decay or even die out if their children are not prepared to maintain that society, do not act the way the U.S. acts.
112
Krugman writes: "So what’s the plan? O.K., we don’t have all the details yet, but the outline seems pretty clear."
And then makes clear that Hillary's plan is to spend more money with more government involvement. What a bold idea, and from a Democrat? Who could have guessed?
Of course these bold initiatives are aimed at those who turn to others to provide care for their children. For the millions of folks who already have made sacrifices to be full-time parents, including those who elect to home-school their kids, Hillary's plan will offer little except more government interference into how they choose to raise their children.
And then makes clear that Hillary's plan is to spend more money with more government involvement. What a bold idea, and from a Democrat? Who could have guessed?
Of course these bold initiatives are aimed at those who turn to others to provide care for their children. For the millions of folks who already have made sacrifices to be full-time parents, including those who elect to home-school their kids, Hillary's plan will offer little except more government interference into how they choose to raise their children.
2
The hypocrisy from the Republican ranks on this subject (like all of their "pro-family" nonsense) continues to nauseate. The Republican leadership in North Carolina and Texas are so worried about who might be following their children into restrooms. They should be worried that their conservative heroes like Denny Hastert aren't following their kids around.
The sad truth about child development in this country is that almost no one cares. Americans would rather spend their money on entertainment and the flashiest consumer goods. Maybe if we dressed child development up as a video game or sporting event Americans and our elected representatives would show some interest.
The sad truth about child development in this country is that almost no one cares. Americans would rather spend their money on entertainment and the flashiest consumer goods. Maybe if we dressed child development up as a video game or sporting event Americans and our elected representatives would show some interest.
3
Bravo for again talking about important policies being put forth by the Democratic candidate, rather than the sideshow.
Potentially the biggest payoff of appropriate childcare is the effect it might have on future crime rates. Children raised as valued members of the community, rather than as a burden, are much less likely to take wrong paths. This makes available services for families a spectacularly good long-term investment, compared with incarceration and all its associated costs.
Potentially the biggest payoff of appropriate childcare is the effect it might have on future crime rates. Children raised as valued members of the community, rather than as a burden, are much less likely to take wrong paths. This makes available services for families a spectacularly good long-term investment, compared with incarceration and all its associated costs.
69
Not all American children are created equal when it comes to receiving minimal quality child care. Black children disproportionately suffer much worst fates than white kids.
Poverty rates in America are racially, ethnically and colored separate and unequal. The most recent poor American reality poverty rates are: Blacks-26%, Hispanics-24%, Asian-12% and White-10%. Because there is a significant white majority most of America's poor still look like Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston.
Over the period from 2009-2013 the percentage of Americans by race, ethnicity who remained in poverty was as follows: Hispanics-65%, Blacks-62%, Whites-54%, Asians-33%. With the average of all Americans remaining in poverty being 58% the myth of social mobility and lessening socioeconomic inequality in America is shattered. Explaining the political rise of Sanders from the left and Trump from the right.
Poverty rates in America are racially, ethnically and colored separate and unequal. The most recent poor American reality poverty rates are: Blacks-26%, Hispanics-24%, Asian-12% and White-10%. Because there is a significant white majority most of America's poor still look like Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston.
Over the period from 2009-2013 the percentage of Americans by race, ethnicity who remained in poverty was as follows: Hispanics-65%, Blacks-62%, Whites-54%, Asians-33%. With the average of all Americans remaining in poverty being 58% the myth of social mobility and lessening socioeconomic inequality in America is shattered. Explaining the political rise of Sanders from the left and Trump from the right.
4
We are killing our kids just like we are killing our veterans. I appreciate articles like Krugman's. But I am disheartened by his lack of expertise on the ground.
As a child psychiatrist and pediatrician, I encounter families literally everyday. I designed a revolutionary plan to shift how we access healthcare. Yet voices of those who fight for kids personally and individually are lost. It leaves me scratching my head most days.
So yes, if we want a viable future, we must provide universal health access for our kids. I will keep spreading my non-proprietary idea and hope for the best. But know that Krugman is right: we are harming our kids willfully with our ridiculousness.
As a child psychiatrist and pediatrician, I encounter families literally everyday. I designed a revolutionary plan to shift how we access healthcare. Yet voices of those who fight for kids personally and individually are lost. It leaves me scratching my head most days.
So yes, if we want a viable future, we must provide universal health access for our kids. I will keep spreading my non-proprietary idea and hope for the best. But know that Krugman is right: we are harming our kids willfully with our ridiculousness.
3
In the 1990's, Bill Clinton, the Republican enabler, trashed the Welfare program that not only assured child care, but kept the children with their mothers and fathers. Those children still went on to become mostly productive citizens who paid taxes as well. Now Hillary Clinton wants to cure the problem her husband created complying with Republicans destroying the safety net. Now those mothers will be paid to send away the children from them. So what family value is that?
1
Perhaps the biggest mistake of Bill Clinton economy was not anticipating the boom, bubble and subsequent bust of the internet bubble of the late 1990s. Bill and his team did not understand or have the ability to plan and prepare the American workers for the kind of inequality the internet bubble, globalization and displacement of American worker jobs collectively generated. We are still paying for that inequality. Instead, if Bill's admin -- they had invested in a safety net build around American workers, they would have focused more on providing childhood education, parental leave for child care, free and affordable higher education, training for technical skills, job training, universal health care....these basic quality of life services that are taken for granted in most developed nations of the world.
2
It really doesn't take a government policy for these changes to take hold. Coca Cola recently implemented a generous parental leave policy and more and more companies are following this trend as millenials make up their workforce. Our government spending in the areas of children's education and health far exceed many other countries' expenditures with not so great results. We need to spend smarter not more. Let's fix what we've got first instead of "investing" more money in kids.
8
Parental leave is not enough. What is needed is child care that doesn't absorb all the earnings of a parent who must work to survive.
3
Bernie's prescription for "Medicare" for all has the same logic as Clinton's program for better child care; it is a National Security issue begging a solution.
An advanced nation with goals of being a world leader can not accept that very poor sick and homeless people live on the streets and children (the future of the nation) are being so undervalued that we also undervalue our future. We will underperform in the globalized competition with other nations.
An advanced nation with goals of being a world leader can not accept that very poor sick and homeless people live on the streets and children (the future of the nation) are being so undervalued that we also undervalue our future. We will underperform in the globalized competition with other nations.
1
If more money is spent on children fine; just do not tax singles or people without children to pay for those who do. Europe and other world places are entirely different than the U.S. in many ways and I know because I have been to over 100 countries. As for the family leave time off: already I have heard from teachers, nurses, etc. people who are abusing this plan by taking off time here and there for parents they do not (nor have lived or taken care of) etc. and taxpayers are paying for all of this fraud/theft. If people who could not afford children stopped having them that would be one correct move in the right direction. Children need time and attention and many people cannot or will not make that effort.
3
Paul opens by talking about "family values", but almost everything he goes on to say ignores the core conservative value that one parent (usually the mother) stay home and care for the kids. Paul takes it as given that both parents are working outside the home. He is no doubt right that that is the way things are for most people, but he fails even to imagine the possibility that some people might repine for the old days when one income could support a family. NYT journalists too often forget that not every woman's job brings satisfaction. Most women (men too) work because they have to, to put food on the table. Many Americans, black and white, men and women, wish they could raise a family on just one income--as they once could do (for centuries until the 1970s). Trump's 'make America great again" campaign resonates with common folks who have not forgotten that past time of relative affluence. Trump is a hypocrite, but at least he understands the electorate's needs and wishes. Paul is an economic genius and a man with a good heart, but woefully out of touch.
14
No, John we didn't miss this argument.
Women are people too. Women want jobs and careers and yes, it's a struggle with also wanting to have children.
But I submit that women have every right to want a fulfilling work life in addition to being a parent. Men certainly had that for eons. Times change, it's time to adjust to realities today.
Women are people too. Women want jobs and careers and yes, it's a struggle with also wanting to have children.
But I submit that women have every right to want a fulfilling work life in addition to being a parent. Men certainly had that for eons. Times change, it's time to adjust to realities today.
3
The Republicans are all about family values, unless we are talking about children who are already born, then they could care less. They would take away food stamps and medical care form children, and, they want to spend as little as possible on education, and have children become"janitors in schools" to earn their keep if they do not come from an affluent family. Ted Cruz just wrote a recent op-ed column for the NY Times which was all about protecting Israel (which has national health care) while our own children are in need.
Other countries provide daycare facilities, health care, and family leave, and some even provide education through college. Republicans find any way they can to obstruct any social program that is for the greater good of society as a whole, while promoting never ending war and tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Republican Presidential nominee says everything about the Republican Party in a loud, obnoxious voice you needed to know about their values. If the Republicans win the White House, and maintain control of Congress, our children will have even less. This year of all years we need to elect a Democrat for President, in the hopes of at least maintaining whatever social programs we have that help children and families.
Other countries provide daycare facilities, health care, and family leave, and some even provide education through college. Republicans find any way they can to obstruct any social program that is for the greater good of society as a whole, while promoting never ending war and tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Republican Presidential nominee says everything about the Republican Party in a loud, obnoxious voice you needed to know about their values. If the Republicans win the White House, and maintain control of Congress, our children will have even less. This year of all years we need to elect a Democrat for President, in the hopes of at least maintaining whatever social programs we have that help children and families.
Regarding affording such programs, we need to start taxing wealth. There is too much idle capital. I do feel bad for the wealthy, but if they paid their fair share all along, we would not need to consider such a move. Coming in 2020 election cycle:
1. Asset taxes.
2. Adjusting/removing free trade agreements, at the barest minimum to make corporate inversions subject to tariffs.
3. Collecting of correct corporate taxes.
4. Super-high income at higher tax rates.
1. Asset taxes.
2. Adjusting/removing free trade agreements, at the barest minimum to make corporate inversions subject to tariffs.
3. Collecting of correct corporate taxes.
4. Super-high income at higher tax rates.
3
Children are future of the nation. In the future, how the nation competes in the world depends on how well we take care of all our children. Health and education cannot be and should not be a privilege of those who can afford it. Unfortunately, policy documents are reduced to campaign statements and never meant to be implemented. What will be implemented depends on the rich political contributors who can spend more than seven times on their children than poor children. History tells those rich people want to spend more than twenty times on their children than help the children of the poor. Nice try by Krugman but no cigar.
1
There is a small subpopulation strongly affected by the childcare issue at curious intersection of being highly educated, poorly paid, and running out of time to have children. It is composed of the doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows forming the engine for most basic and biomedical research performed in the US. In this age of stinginess of scientific funding combined with expansion of the budgets of individual projects (usually led by already established researchers), their future prospects are very dim to being with. In this respect, they have been compared to drug dealers in Freakonomics, i.e. everyone who enters thinks that they will be successful, but in reality there are very small chances of success (though maybe not as high a chance of premature death). To those thinking of joining this sub-population, seriously, think very hard before you do it. In this subpopulation, those who are brave enough to have children before they find a proper job (probably only about 15%) find that a large chunk of their earnings need to be diverted into childcare. This makes an already difficult situation worse, and the Hillary plan does sound like a much welcome break for them.
2
One has a civilized welfare state or not. Hillary is playing Bill's disgraceful game when he moved the party back to Eisenhower. Have a bunch of good policies that sound good, but are grossly underfunded. I remember a huge battle over something like $37 billion for 5 years of health care--a lousy 7 billion a year. A great battle for an Eisenhower President and Goldwater Gingrich House to have.
Since over 50% of children are minorities, she and Krugman are just looking to solidify her base in the minorities without giving them anything that costs the Westchester base anything.
Health care has higher priority, but Hillary promises not to raise taxes on the bottom 95%. One wonders if she has evolved from her 1964 Goldwater waters forward to Eisenhower or like the Marty Feldstein protege Larry Summers (and Krugman?) retains her old views and just has learned veneer. It seems like the latter.
Let us go with Cruz and have a VAT to replace the Social Security tax. That really hits the undertaxed affuent over $120,000 if there is no cut in entitlements as Donald and Bernie promise. Add a tax on overseas earnings to finance health. With that kind of money something real could be done. Small wonder Norquist and Krugman are against a VAT.
Any liberal will vote for Trump after the Bernie defeat is ratified. At least he is a roll of the dice with a chance--and an open Democratic primary in 2020 if fails. Hillary is the roll of dice without marks and hence no chance.
Since over 50% of children are minorities, she and Krugman are just looking to solidify her base in the minorities without giving them anything that costs the Westchester base anything.
Health care has higher priority, but Hillary promises not to raise taxes on the bottom 95%. One wonders if she has evolved from her 1964 Goldwater waters forward to Eisenhower or like the Marty Feldstein protege Larry Summers (and Krugman?) retains her old views and just has learned veneer. It seems like the latter.
Let us go with Cruz and have a VAT to replace the Social Security tax. That really hits the undertaxed affuent over $120,000 if there is no cut in entitlements as Donald and Bernie promise. Add a tax on overseas earnings to finance health. With that kind of money something real could be done. Small wonder Norquist and Krugman are against a VAT.
Any liberal will vote for Trump after the Bernie defeat is ratified. At least he is a roll of the dice with a chance--and an open Democratic primary in 2020 if fails. Hillary is the roll of dice without marks and hence no chance.
1
Good step in the right direction. However, much as I hate to point this out, the Clinton bill that ended "welfare as we know it" was supposed to come with decent child care for all those mothers who suddenly had to leave home and work. It seems that didn't really happen. If the Clintons go back to the White House, I sincerely hope this is finally made right.
As for that infrastructure stimulus you mention and used to champion, please don't toss it aside. Recently, Larry Summers said it's an "insane moment" not to be spending on infrastructure. And I agree.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/12/investing/political-risk-paralyzing-inve...
There doesn't seem to be anything else immediately on the horizon that will help working class parents who desperately need good jobs at good wages in order to adequately take care of those children. And as we all know, our transportation system sure needs it.
As for that infrastructure stimulus you mention and used to champion, please don't toss it aside. Recently, Larry Summers said it's an "insane moment" not to be spending on infrastructure. And I agree.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/12/investing/political-risk-paralyzing-inve...
There doesn't seem to be anything else immediately on the horizon that will help working class parents who desperately need good jobs at good wages in order to adequately take care of those children. And as we all know, our transportation system sure needs it.
56
Additional spending like head start and better education opportunities for children is a great idea. However paying parents to go to work instead of raising children sounds counterproductive and may encourage some to stay away from their family longer for only a ten percent fee.
A better plan would provide more assistance to to the family unit (single parent or otherwise) and not pay family members to stay apart from one another.
A better plan would provide more assistance to to the family unit (single parent or otherwise) and not pay family members to stay apart from one another.
16
The caliber of what constitutes a parent is what the problem is and how many children these females have. Just two days ago, my husband who was out mowing lawn,stopped to visit with a social worker he knew from his job as head of special education. She lamented how hard it was to see all these babies from meth addicted mothers. You see, once the higher rates of welfare kicked in for Cottonwood county 40 years ago, we have had a problem that has made it easy to have children at a young age, and be set up by the state for life. The only problem is these children have suffered in that these, mostly young mothers are incapable of sticking to one man so myriads of also, incapable men are brought into these children's lives. This is not the exception but the rule. If you spend time in the local grocery store or parking lot of a store down the road, you see the emotional abuse these children suffer at the hands of the females. Let's not encourage more of the same. A couple just recently retired from teaching, the male who taught math and science, and his wife who was also in special education with my husband, have stated that the level of academic ability in the students they see has kept declining every year for the last 20 years. Having spent two years in France, Netherlands, and Switzerland, the programs to support families only works because these mothers are above average in intelligence, and have fewer children each, for the most part. That is changing, there also!
4
I'm puzzled as to why mothers in France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland should be above average in intelligence, while a similar group in Montana is less intelligent, meth addicted, and on the public dole for life because of having welfare-eligible babies. Why should people be brighter in Europe than in Montana? One possible answer is that the Europeans, having had better treatment as children, developed into emotionally healthier and better-educated adults. And that would be . . . because the government in their countries gave better support to families raising those children! Eureka!
4
Minnesota has much more liberal welfare benefits than Iowa does. Here in Iowa welfare is only available for 60 months total for a family unit. Of course SNAP, WIC, and low income housing are available for longer but not traditional welfare.
1
This is an important issue, and Krugman is right to call for more focus on policy rather than the gaffe of the day. Of course, in the real world of politics, it would not be long before Republican governors were insisting that the children benefiting from such programs be drug-tested and put to work mopping up the day-care center floors, as Newt Gingrich's suggestion would have it. Still, if new child care centers were private, run by major GOP donors, and provided generous public subsidies (mainly going to CEO salaries), it would probably pass Congress.
6
It's an old saw that today's Republican Party cares very much about children when they are in the womb, but could not care less about them after they are born. Even a cursory look at Republican policies in the last 36 years or so demonstrates that the old saw is pretty much true.
But we live, and have lived for quite a while, in a country where perception "trumps" reality. Until our woefully ignorant and willfully uninformed electorate starts actually doing the work of finding out what's going on, nothing will change.
In the meantime, it's up to Mrs. Clinton to craft a simple, comprehensible message about what she will actually do if she becomes president. And now that the GOP is, however reluctantly, coalescing around the Donald, "if" seems more accurate than "when".
Scary thought.
But we live, and have lived for quite a while, in a country where perception "trumps" reality. Until our woefully ignorant and willfully uninformed electorate starts actually doing the work of finding out what's going on, nothing will change.
In the meantime, it's up to Mrs. Clinton to craft a simple, comprehensible message about what she will actually do if she becomes president. And now that the GOP is, however reluctantly, coalescing around the Donald, "if" seems more accurate than "when".
Scary thought.
4
The largest employer in our area is a hospital. I asked a recent mother, a supervising nurse at the hospital how much time off she received following the birth of her child. Zero days! The company - hospital - will hold your job for months, but without any pay. So, she used her sick days and vacation days before returning to work. Yes, a young family with 2 children and relying on both incomes. Husband and wife work full time, but heaven forbid that either should be given any paid time off even for the new born. And, yes, if the government requires businesses to provide paid parent leave, even for a few weeks, the charge as always is "nanny" state. Really becomes boring to hear and deeply disturbing that every piece of legislation for the benefit of the community and nation is dismissed by a label - nanny - as if that alone disqualifies any attempt by the government to act.
16
"In other words, if you judge us by what we do, not what we say, we place very little value on the lives of our children, unless they happen to come from affluent families. Did I mention that parents in the top fifth of U.S. households spend seven times as much on their children as parents in the bottom fifth?"
The argument is that we place little value on our children, as a nation, but the example is the comparison of how much a wealthy family spends on their child versus poor family. Please explain how this is a valid statement when determining how much a parent values a child. Do you think poor people have disposable income? All of their money is spent on basic necessities with little to none left over, but somehow giving their child food and shelter with what little they have means they don't value the child? Are you implying that poor people don't make enough money to spend on their child on purpose? This makes no sense.
The argument is that we place little value on our children, as a nation, but the example is the comparison of how much a wealthy family spends on their child versus poor family. Please explain how this is a valid statement when determining how much a parent values a child. Do you think poor people have disposable income? All of their money is spent on basic necessities with little to none left over, but somehow giving their child food and shelter with what little they have means they don't value the child? Are you implying that poor people don't make enough money to spend on their child on purpose? This makes no sense.
2
@A Dr. Krugman's argument is that the children of wealthy parent(s) benefit from the larger amount of money allocated to their care. Your concern regarding blame on low income parents would be answered by a comparison of the percent of income allocated to children by higher and lower income parent(s) which was not in the column. I suspect that the percentages of income are much closer than the raw dollar amounts.
We are running into the great political and character divide in America. Although some believe that taxes are thefy they are price of civilization even in a dictatorship. For an advanced industrialized society you need compassion for your neighbors, fair-mindedness and practicality.
We cannot have a society where children go to bed hungry where the super rich have laws of their own or are immune from the bounds of common decency and though economic power steal the workers part of the economy where wage theft is common, while people who work 60 hrs a week have to choose between food and paying the rent..
The Republicans would roll the calendar back to the days of the Robber Barons and repeal the social safety net and certainly not expand it. The stark difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is glaring.
The Democratic candidates believe that government belongs to all of the People and its function is to make peoples’ lives better where they cannot afford to do it themselves; like building roads, bridges and dams, providing a social safety net and among other things investing in people including children. Mrs. Clinton’s plans are quite specific and detailed and are not pie in the sky. Or we can have Trumpocracy and 4 long years of your guess is as good as anyone’s but there may be a woman on the Supreme Court and she will be hot, the only kind of women he likes.
We cannot have a society where children go to bed hungry where the super rich have laws of their own or are immune from the bounds of common decency and though economic power steal the workers part of the economy where wage theft is common, while people who work 60 hrs a week have to choose between food and paying the rent..
The Republicans would roll the calendar back to the days of the Robber Barons and repeal the social safety net and certainly not expand it. The stark difference between Republicans and Democrats on this is glaring.
The Democratic candidates believe that government belongs to all of the People and its function is to make peoples’ lives better where they cannot afford to do it themselves; like building roads, bridges and dams, providing a social safety net and among other things investing in people including children. Mrs. Clinton’s plans are quite specific and detailed and are not pie in the sky. Or we can have Trumpocracy and 4 long years of your guess is as good as anyone’s but there may be a woman on the Supreme Court and she will be hot, the only kind of women he likes.
5
Great column. You did not mention the huge difference in educational attainment for the top quintile and the rest. Almost unbelievable: 4 years. A shameful indictment of our inherently irrational & unfair system of financing public schools out of property taxes, yes property taxes! So those born in poor districts are extremely disadvantaged and less qualified to take our society into the future and those in rich districts are more fortunate and do better because they can read.
The real message in this column is who wins in the news cycle. Real substance and real policy issues doesn't get coverage and producers work with what they get to keep filling our flat screens with stuff that gets the attention of viewers.
I don't know the answer on this extremely important flaw in the newsprint and media coverage. I used to think it was the reporters but now that I have worked with them and paid attention to the real issues and contrasted with my lunch time viewing of CNN and know many of the reporters, I am convinced now that it is not the reporters but the it is the editors and the producers who seem to have a panic attack on making the rankings in the news cycle. How else could the disarray in the GOP & DT have received 2 Billion plus free advertising?
Senator Sanders and Mrs. C both try to keep policy issues on the table but the coverage is sparse. Sort of same old, same old & anything: e.g. the gender of bathroom access getting at least 10x more coverage than children.
The real message in this column is who wins in the news cycle. Real substance and real policy issues doesn't get coverage and producers work with what they get to keep filling our flat screens with stuff that gets the attention of viewers.
I don't know the answer on this extremely important flaw in the newsprint and media coverage. I used to think it was the reporters but now that I have worked with them and paid attention to the real issues and contrasted with my lunch time viewing of CNN and know many of the reporters, I am convinced now that it is not the reporters but the it is the editors and the producers who seem to have a panic attack on making the rankings in the news cycle. How else could the disarray in the GOP & DT have received 2 Billion plus free advertising?
Senator Sanders and Mrs. C both try to keep policy issues on the table but the coverage is sparse. Sort of same old, same old & anything: e.g. the gender of bathroom access getting at least 10x more coverage than children.
8
Thank you so much for this article. Children are not a priority in our budgets in nutrition, education, research or medical care. The failure to provide support for childcare, maternity leave and before and after school programs is a direct outcome of lack of respect for women.
There is one candidate who has comprehensive programs for children and their parents and not surprisingly she's a woman who had suffered from lack of respect her whole life. I've been surprised that Bernie's focus on income inequality has neglected children almost entirely, with the exception of family leave, as though a $15 minimum wage will fix it all. He suggests nothing for families and children below voting age. Yet how one lives as a good has string implications for ones adulthood.
I'm glad that Mr. Krugman is raising the seriousness of this issue.
There is one candidate who has comprehensive programs for children and their parents and not surprisingly she's a woman who had suffered from lack of respect her whole life. I've been surprised that Bernie's focus on income inequality has neglected children almost entirely, with the exception of family leave, as though a $15 minimum wage will fix it all. He suggests nothing for families and children below voting age. Yet how one lives as a good has string implications for ones adulthood.
I'm glad that Mr. Krugman is raising the seriousness of this issue.
8
I am in total agreement with Mr. Krugman's firm support for increased spending on child care early education; however, I do believe that he should state the financial costs in a more easily understandable manner such as the actual dollar amount that he is recommending. Specifically, he indicates that we are currently spending .4 percent of GDP on child care and early education while France's generous system spends 1.2 percent of GDP.
Since U.S. GDP is $17 trillion, an increase of .8 percent would amount to approximately $136 billion per year. As Mr. Krugman states, this is a "doable" amount, and we should certainly consider moving ahead with this very important expenditure.
Since U.S. GDP is $17 trillion, an increase of .8 percent would amount to approximately $136 billion per year. As Mr. Krugman states, this is a "doable" amount, and we should certainly consider moving ahead with this very important expenditure.
72
I certainly agree with Fred P's comments, other than his desire to have quantities expressed in "actual dollars" so people can understand them better. Clearly Fred P has no problem himself with the meaning of 0.4% of GDP, so he is talking about other people. If you look at comments over many topics over the years, especially about economics, you see many people making bad arguments using absolute value judgements based on absolute numbers. One of the most common is an insistence on using absolute debt rather than debt/ability to pay, usually debt/GDP. The numerator can also be a problem for this measure as an "actual dollar" changes in value over time.
Policy making has always been there especially since the invention of the light bulb but something was still missing. What it takes Mr. Paul Krugman Sir. is light, real light. The light of our day changes with the rotation of the Earth on it's axis. Our seasonal light changes as our hemispheres alternately tilt towards and away from the Sun throughout the year. Our Sun being one half of a binary Star system follows it's own path which has recently taken us through our galactic center. What if this rare event is our Solar system emerging into it's long period of day force. Sure would explain allot of our past that we would rather forget.
Our children as all infants in nature are beautiful, could it be that we have reached a place in time where there will be enough light once again, to fully appreciate them for what they are. I think so.
Our children as all infants in nature are beautiful, could it be that we have reached a place in time where there will be enough light once again, to fully appreciate them for what they are. I think so.
I do not know the percentage to our overall GDP for the following programs, but I am guessing it is much higher than your claimed .04%.
EITC
Working class families earning up to 33K may qualify for up to 6K in EITC; is Hillary looking to expand this credit or redirect it towards an increased bureaucracy.
FSA
In addition, families who may not qualify for the EITC have the option of filing for the dependent care tax credit or, based on their individual tax status, designate up to 5K of their dependent care costs as pre-tax expenses through a Flexible Spending Account. The FSA program may not be part of the Clinton is proposal, but since the FSA program requires proof of payment to a licensed daycare center for participant reimbursement, the provider may not be a government agency, but they must be government certified.
As to additional expenditures for Pre-K or early education programs, I believe most non-partisan studies have yet to link attendance at Pre-K programs to any long-term academic outcomes.
Instead of focusing on early education programs, we should be targeting our resources towards prospective parents, and offering assistance and advice on their duties and responsibilities as new parents or parents to be. I believe existing studies demonstrate that reading to infants and toddlers is more beneficial than pre-school education programs.
EITC
Working class families earning up to 33K may qualify for up to 6K in EITC; is Hillary looking to expand this credit or redirect it towards an increased bureaucracy.
FSA
In addition, families who may not qualify for the EITC have the option of filing for the dependent care tax credit or, based on their individual tax status, designate up to 5K of their dependent care costs as pre-tax expenses through a Flexible Spending Account. The FSA program may not be part of the Clinton is proposal, but since the FSA program requires proof of payment to a licensed daycare center for participant reimbursement, the provider may not be a government agency, but they must be government certified.
As to additional expenditures for Pre-K or early education programs, I believe most non-partisan studies have yet to link attendance at Pre-K programs to any long-term academic outcomes.
Instead of focusing on early education programs, we should be targeting our resources towards prospective parents, and offering assistance and advice on their duties and responsibilities as new parents or parents to be. I believe existing studies demonstrate that reading to infants and toddlers is more beneficial than pre-school education programs.
Good point, it's not just about money. It's about quality and commitment........yet even then, there will always be circumstances that defeat the best laid plans of mice and men.
That said, the idea of "go forth and multiply" may just be one of those iconic "conservative values" that got misinterpreted or lost a few qualifying words in one of the many handoffs and retranslations of the original message.
Lord knows, the guys in charge at the time may have thought it was a great idea, but the silent majority of female chattel may have thought otherwise.
That said, the idea of "go forth and multiply" may just be one of those iconic "conservative values" that got misinterpreted or lost a few qualifying words in one of the many handoffs and retranslations of the original message.
Lord knows, the guys in charge at the time may have thought it was a great idea, but the silent majority of female chattel may have thought otherwise.
If we were to spend 1.2 percent of GDP on childcare, the same percentage of French GDP that France now spends on childcare, we would spend an amount roughly equal to the current growth rate of our GDP.
I offer this to put the cost in perspective. Of course much of the money we would spend would go to care providers, who would spend rather than save the money. So, much of that 1.2 percent would not be lost, just redirected. But a significant portion will be redirected from informal providers in the subterranean economy to government employees. Children are being cared for now, perhaps badly, but cared for.
The money has to come out of somebody's pocket. Since everyone else is tapped out, practically speaking that means from the wealthy and powerful who now command our system and so much of our national income. In our system that will happen when pigs fly.
Like most campaign promises this one will be quickly forgotten as soon as the election is over. But it was a nice thought for a Monday morning.
I offer this to put the cost in perspective. Of course much of the money we would spend would go to care providers, who would spend rather than save the money. So, much of that 1.2 percent would not be lost, just redirected. But a significant portion will be redirected from informal providers in the subterranean economy to government employees. Children are being cared for now, perhaps badly, but cared for.
The money has to come out of somebody's pocket. Since everyone else is tapped out, practically speaking that means from the wealthy and powerful who now command our system and so much of our national income. In our system that will happen when pigs fly.
Like most campaign promises this one will be quickly forgotten as soon as the election is over. But it was a nice thought for a Monday morning.
3
There are plenty of 'deeper' issues facing a society that's attempting to make a full commitment to it's offspring. The solution must be holistic, not just about money.
Essentially, it's anti-survival-of-the-fittest idea, and as such, it 'too human a concept' to readily achieve a consensus along the ragged line of evolved humanity.
It will happen, but it's going to take more evolvin'!
Essentially, it's anti-survival-of-the-fittest idea, and as such, it 'too human a concept' to readily achieve a consensus along the ragged line of evolved humanity.
It will happen, but it's going to take more evolvin'!
1
I'm sure we could reduce our military expenditures and easily free up the money for this in our budget.
Corporations do not value human labor. Unless they are "customers," people of all ages are merely "cost centers." If corporations can find a lower labor cost center in a Red State, Asia, Africa, or elsewhere, they will build their factories there. Corporations and their executives do not like taxes or regulations since they intrude of the primary goal of profit.
Government is responsible for maintaining order in its jurisdiction and to protect and enhance the well being of the people who live within its jurisdiction. Education, public safety, sanitation, infrastructure, environmental regulations and peaceful resolution of disputes are necessary for civilized life.
The Billionaire controlled Republican Party does not wish to pay taxes for a civilized life for its citizens.
When someone tells you that Americans can't afford low cost or free public college education, look to Canada or Scandinavian countries. When someone tells you that Americans cannot pay taxes for universal affordable and accessible healthcare look at all the other advanced countries and you will see that in country after country it works and that people live longer and more healthy lives than Americans.
It is time that we Americans make our government work for us, not corporations.
Government is responsible for maintaining order in its jurisdiction and to protect and enhance the well being of the people who live within its jurisdiction. Education, public safety, sanitation, infrastructure, environmental regulations and peaceful resolution of disputes are necessary for civilized life.
The Billionaire controlled Republican Party does not wish to pay taxes for a civilized life for its citizens.
When someone tells you that Americans can't afford low cost or free public college education, look to Canada or Scandinavian countries. When someone tells you that Americans cannot pay taxes for universal affordable and accessible healthcare look at all the other advanced countries and you will see that in country after country it works and that people live longer and more healthy lives than Americans.
It is time that we Americans make our government work for us, not corporations.
201
Bravo, JMT! How right you are. I am hoping PK brings back the argument that a modest tax increase for individuals and businesses would be a small price to pay for eliminating those oppressive monthly health insurance premiums. Every business, small-to-large, would love that model. (It would be great if they used the extra profits to improve wages for their employees.) Every individual and family would be willing to pay the extra tax because it would be much smaller than cost of monthly premiums for health insurance. The losers would be the executives beholden to shareholder value — think of those "golden handcuffs" that tempt those executives to deny coverage to claimants to keep profits higher.
No one should lose their home and livelihood to pay for the medical care that will save the life of a love one, especially a child. The cruelty of Ayn Rand's rejection of empathy and compassion has infected the GOP. Our country and our people deserve better than that. Thank you for your insightful commentary.
No one should lose their home and livelihood to pay for the medical care that will save the life of a love one, especially a child. The cruelty of Ayn Rand's rejection of empathy and compassion has infected the GOP. Our country and our people deserve better than that. Thank you for your insightful commentary.
1
But corporations are people, too! SCOTUS said so!
Basically, the ideal corporate employee is a robot.........no benefits, no vacation, no sick leave, no pension, no whining and crying about this or that.
From a corporate perspective, all that's required is a little oil and a used-up-robot-dump.........and, of course, the CEO and cronies would not be robots (until the robots figure out a way to correct the deficiency of having humans in the loop at all). After all, in the end, the robots will be making robots, and once we break through the 'artificial intelligence' barriers, there is no 'natural' limit to robot achievement.
We humans, are constrained by the systemic speed and limits of our bio-chemical systems. Conceivably, robots could exceed our limits by orders of magnitude, and as with all things in nature that we have emulated to increase our power, there is no reason to believe that we will not attempt to build "artificial" systems to emulate, augment, and even exceed human intelligence and creativity.........limited, except of course, by extinction or by entry into a new 'dark age'.
The problem that we're facing is one of finding ways to 'bend' the current system to better accommodate humans going forward. And, it's not just capitalism, it effects most, if not all of the systemic institutions that underlay our society. Around the world, the issue is even worse because the lack of progress and democracy has left many societies 'high and dry' without opportunity any path to self sufficiency.
From a corporate perspective, all that's required is a little oil and a used-up-robot-dump.........and, of course, the CEO and cronies would not be robots (until the robots figure out a way to correct the deficiency of having humans in the loop at all). After all, in the end, the robots will be making robots, and once we break through the 'artificial intelligence' barriers, there is no 'natural' limit to robot achievement.
We humans, are constrained by the systemic speed and limits of our bio-chemical systems. Conceivably, robots could exceed our limits by orders of magnitude, and as with all things in nature that we have emulated to increase our power, there is no reason to believe that we will not attempt to build "artificial" systems to emulate, augment, and even exceed human intelligence and creativity.........limited, except of course, by extinction or by entry into a new 'dark age'.
The problem that we're facing is one of finding ways to 'bend' the current system to better accommodate humans going forward. And, it's not just capitalism, it effects most, if not all of the systemic institutions that underlay our society. Around the world, the issue is even worse because the lack of progress and democracy has left many societies 'high and dry' without opportunity any path to self sufficiency.
Mr. Krugman,
The first honest report on the wilful neglect of our children, our nation's future, I've read in several decades.
This Presidential election is a clear indication of where American corporate owned government policies focus, which is entirely on the accumulation of wealth, largely through denial of financial support for the life-sustaining needs of the people, and our children.
Trillions of dollars thrown into the preservation and fomenting of division, worldwide, using age old cultural and religious differences to set people and nations against each other.
Our corporate government, so fixated on owning all the wealth of the planet, is setting the stage for the kind of blowback our nation has never experienced.
I predict their policies, which have created historic inequality, will end either with the election of Bernie Sanders, and failing that, the people will come together, as never before, and take to the streets.
Our Plutocracy has been preparing for this, evidenced by our nation-wide police militarization, and 24/7/365 national all-encompassing surveillance of all of us.
1984 may be birthing.
The first honest report on the wilful neglect of our children, our nation's future, I've read in several decades.
This Presidential election is a clear indication of where American corporate owned government policies focus, which is entirely on the accumulation of wealth, largely through denial of financial support for the life-sustaining needs of the people, and our children.
Trillions of dollars thrown into the preservation and fomenting of division, worldwide, using age old cultural and religious differences to set people and nations against each other.
Our corporate government, so fixated on owning all the wealth of the planet, is setting the stage for the kind of blowback our nation has never experienced.
I predict their policies, which have created historic inequality, will end either with the election of Bernie Sanders, and failing that, the people will come together, as never before, and take to the streets.
Our Plutocracy has been preparing for this, evidenced by our nation-wide police militarization, and 24/7/365 national all-encompassing surveillance of all of us.
1984 may be birthing.
9
We need to be clear what we are talking about. Day care so a parent can work is one thing, a real education program is something much more expensive. Some comment here mentioned $1600/month. That is not the cost of day care, that is a sophisticated educational program. Day care is a quarter of that.
I've spent too many hours filling out Income & Expense Statements and Child Support Guidelines of divorce cases. The numbers even for day care just don't add up for most people, least of all for parents trying to maintain separate households after separating. It is simply impossible.
So which is Hillary proposing, day care, or advanced pre-school educational programs?
If it is a real pre-school, I'd suggest the way to do it is expanding Kindergarten to younger kids. That is the only way to pay such bills. If it is worthwhile for the kids, then it should be done for all of them, and not out of the parent's paychecks. That would mean Federal or State help to public schools for those very large bills. It could not reasonably come from the property tax base of most school districts, which struggle now for K-12.
If it is day care, then efforts much be focused on helping to expand the supply of day care slots, not just on subsidy to pay for them. That would be a good jobs program too.
I've spent too many hours filling out Income & Expense Statements and Child Support Guidelines of divorce cases. The numbers even for day care just don't add up for most people, least of all for parents trying to maintain separate households after separating. It is simply impossible.
So which is Hillary proposing, day care, or advanced pre-school educational programs?
If it is a real pre-school, I'd suggest the way to do it is expanding Kindergarten to younger kids. That is the only way to pay such bills. If it is worthwhile for the kids, then it should be done for all of them, and not out of the parent's paychecks. That would mean Federal or State help to public schools for those very large bills. It could not reasonably come from the property tax base of most school districts, which struggle now for K-12.
If it is day care, then efforts much be focused on helping to expand the supply of day care slots, not just on subsidy to pay for them. That would be a good jobs program too.
14
Here is what Hillary is proposing
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/
Remember that, many many years ago, in Arkansas, she worked to start even earlier than preK, giving low income parents the information and resources they needed to help their children
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/
Remember that, many many years ago, in Arkansas, she worked to start even earlier than preK, giving low income parents the information and resources they needed to help their children
6
Your distinction between day care and pre-educational programs is wrong, because very young children learn through play, not through being "taught" things. What they need is simple: supervision, and stimulating play situations. You shouldn't be teaching under-3s math: it's not developmentally appropriate, and they have more important things to learn, like how to better use their bodies, how to relate to other people, how the world around them works. The best educational system in the world Finland's, doesn't start teaching anything academic to children before the age of 7, and regularly tops us in all measures. We should learn from them, and remember, very young children learn through play.
1
Mrs. Clinton's plan to subsidize child care may indeed be desirable public policy, but Professor Krugman's intellectual hypocrisy during this election year continues to stun me.
After skewering Bernie Sanders' health care plan because, supposedly, the numbers don't add up (and disregarding his own previous writings about the significant savings associated with single-payer health insurance), Dr. Krugman endorses Clinton's child care plan and declares it viable even though "we don't have all the details yet."
It is very sad to see a brilliant economist like Paul Krugman penning columns worthy of a political hack.
After skewering Bernie Sanders' health care plan because, supposedly, the numbers don't add up (and disregarding his own previous writings about the significant savings associated with single-payer health insurance), Dr. Krugman endorses Clinton's child care plan and declares it viable even though "we don't have all the details yet."
It is very sad to see a brilliant economist like Paul Krugman penning columns worthy of a political hack.
25
I think Prof K has made clear enough that he thinks Hillary is certain to be the nominee, so he is writing about what the expected nominee is proposing. This isnt a column about Hillary vs Bernie. There certainly have been those columns, but this is not one. He is looking frontwards not backwards to what might have been. I have been very impressed with Bernie, but I also think the game is just about over and I am so afraid of Trump that I will go for Hillary full tilt. The country is really under threat here and even a candidate who is not all I would like, but is infinitely preferable to Trump, well I prefer her and will urge everyone who also sees Trump as a threat -- for goodness sake join in, even holding your nose if you have to.
I remember Nader running in 2000 and people I know saying they just had to vote their true feelings, as a matter of principle. Well, down in Florida Nader was just enough to get Bush elected. I cant forget that. Insistence on perfection of devotion to principle can get you hurt in some situations.
I remember Nader running in 2000 and people I know saying they just had to vote their true feelings, as a matter of principle. Well, down in Florida Nader was just enough to get Bush elected. I cant forget that. Insistence on perfection of devotion to principle can get you hurt in some situations.
Well, except for the fact that, as usual, Bernie's plan has even fewer details than Hillary's and the details that do exist don't add up.
In another article, it is mentioned the ad personam attacks that Trump plans to use against Clinton and how she might respond. I would suggest that at every turn, she should mention her proposals, such as the one regarding child care and then ask Trump what is his program. She should do this time and again and force Trump to come up with something at the spur of the moment, since he has no plans at all and will, therefore, twist himself into lies and contradictions.
Trump is dragging the already disgraceful political world into the depths of incivility and irrelevance. You may try to bring down the opponent on the basis of his/her errors, but eventually you have to show what you have to offer. And what Trump offers is chaos and disrepute to our country.
Trump is dragging the already disgraceful political world into the depths of incivility and irrelevance. You may try to bring down the opponent on the basis of his/her errors, but eventually you have to show what you have to offer. And what Trump offers is chaos and disrepute to our country.
21
"For child-care reform is the kind of medium-size, incremental, potentially politically doable — but nonetheless extremely important — initiative that could well be the centerpiece of a Clinton administration."
"Medium-sized, incremental, potentially doable" -- if that's the scintillating Clintonian vision that goes up against "Make America Great Again" in November we're all going to be in trouble.
"Medium-sized, incremental, potentially doable" -- if that's the scintillating Clintonian vision that goes up against "Make America Great Again" in November we're all going to be in trouble.
7
Really? You are going to compare actual policy to a vacuous slogan? Instead of whining get out there and vote and help other sane people to vote against Donald and the Republican party in November. That is the most important job you have.
1
Expect nothing from the GOP and its enablers stuck in the 19th century. Children of the 99% are a source of labor, the younger and cheaper the better.
14
How short sighted can you be when wanting to limit birth to only the affluent. Arguments against the poor simply are short term selfishness. Our future depends on smart, ambitious, driven young people with great education and they come from poor families as well as the pampered. Our economy is based on the ideas and labor of all our children. We need to educate, educate, educate which includes childcare while infants. Selfish uneducated chatter about welfare is morally, fiscally, and economically wrong!
7
This is one policy where there should be no problem for anyone.
But wait! Nowadays people have become so money minded, they would oppose anything that would cost them money. 12 weeks of leave - tick; higher pay for child care workers - tick; Subsidies - tick.
And this needs to pass Republican controlled Congress! - forget it!
But let us hope that there is still a bit of humanity left in all people above the political posturing and the greed! Anything we can do for our children, however inefficient, however badly planned is still welcome as long as it improves care of all Children.
Why am I worried about this in distant India? If it succeeds in America, it most likely will also be implemented in our country by our Government.
But wait! Nowadays people have become so money minded, they would oppose anything that would cost them money. 12 weeks of leave - tick; higher pay for child care workers - tick; Subsidies - tick.
And this needs to pass Republican controlled Congress! - forget it!
But let us hope that there is still a bit of humanity left in all people above the political posturing and the greed! Anything we can do for our children, however inefficient, however badly planned is still welcome as long as it improves care of all Children.
Why am I worried about this in distant India? If it succeeds in America, it most likely will also be implemented in our country by our Government.
6
While means testing has the advantage of not giving the 1% free money, it has down-sides. It has to be administered by the IRS. The tax code is already too complex and there will be a future streamlining where this would then be a part of the mix.
Second, means testing allows the "it's for those people" to be made. We need more inclusive policies.
Second, means testing allows the "it's for those people" to be made. We need more inclusive policies.
1
Excellent points.
Subsidizing things like child care for the wealthy will cost very little precisely because there are so few wealthy - means testing may not save enough to be worth the trouble. As I recall from living there (although its been a while), European countries don't means test child subsidies.
Furthermore, if early childhood education is worth doing, why not make it part of our public school systems - free for everyone?
Subsidizing things like child care for the wealthy will cost very little precisely because there are so few wealthy - means testing may not save enough to be worth the trouble. As I recall from living there (although its been a while), European countries don't means test child subsidies.
Furthermore, if early childhood education is worth doing, why not make it part of our public school systems - free for everyone?
1
Bravo! I don't have any children but have a number of nieces and nephews with parents struggling to make ends meet. This would go a long way to making their lives better and providing them with a better opportunity to develop into healthy and contributing citizens.
9
Rosie the Riverter had access to affordable child care so she could build tanks and torpedoes. Check-out the newsreels. It appears nothing in this country gets any notice unless there is a video.
3
Children matter.
15
"So can we stop talking, just for a moment, about who won the news cycle or came up with the most effective insult, and talk about policy substance here?"
and yet the lead NEWS article on this very website is "Little Is Off Limits as Donald Trump Plans Attacks on Hillary Clinton"
and yet the lead NEWS article on this very website is "Little Is Off Limits as Donald Trump Plans Attacks on Hillary Clinton"
56
The GOP are like fishermen, they throw back the little ones (anti-abortion), but will fry them up when they get bigger (executions). Billions to protect the unborn, then it's, "You're own your own, kids!"
Shameful. Especially since we CAN do better.
Shameful. Especially since we CAN do better.
46
You said it, Prof. Krugman!
21
Ms. Clinton's "pretty clear" plan which appears to be affordable offers "...aid to states and communities that raise child-care workers’ pay, and a variety of other measures to help young children and their parents." Hm-m-m-m... this sounds a lot like Mr. Obama's health care plan that would offer more funds to states that adopted his ideas... and how has that incremental idea worked?
Giving STATES the opportunity to help children is a recipe for more inequality as we will soon see from ESSA and we've already seen with Obamacare.... and convoluted schemes that involve "subsidies and tax credits" sidestep the obvious and direct way to solve the problem of the working poor: they are underpaid and overworked. There is a simple and direct way to help with this problem: increase the minimum wage.... but I keep forgetting that idea is "unrealistic"...
Giving STATES the opportunity to help children is a recipe for more inequality as we will soon see from ESSA and we've already seen with Obamacare.... and convoluted schemes that involve "subsidies and tax credits" sidestep the obvious and direct way to solve the problem of the working poor: they are underpaid and overworked. There is a simple and direct way to help with this problem: increase the minimum wage.... but I keep forgetting that idea is "unrealistic"...
18
Wouldn't child care expenses go up if you increase the minimum wage?
Increasing the minimum wage is a good idea but doesn't necessarily solve the costs of childcare.
Increasing the minimum wage is a good idea but doesn't necessarily solve the costs of childcare.
12
It's actually worked out very well for states that participated and expanded Medicaid to cover their citizens. Even some republican governors are starting to realize it. Perhaps citizens of more red or purple states will be able to push the bozos out and do something good for everyone
Both Democratic candidates support increasing the Federal minimum wage from $7.25, Clinton to $12 and Sanders to $15. I believe Trump has spoken of abolishing the minimum wage. I'm not sure what your point was, but the difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates could not be starker.
>>>>
If there is one thing that this election is absolutely NOT going to be about or decided by, it is policy !
If there is one thing that this election is absolutely NOT going to be about or decided by, it is policy !
36
I agree with you. And I believe strong, family-friendly, policies like affordable, high quality child care will do more to close the gender pay gap than most other policies.
Thanks for the dose of realism. Mr. Easterbrook seems to be smoking the good stuff.
GREGG EASTERBROOK
When Did Optimism Become Uncool?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/when-did-optimism-becom...
Thanks for the dose of realism. Mr. Easterbrook seems to be smoking the good stuff.
GREGG EASTERBROOK
When Did Optimism Become Uncool?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/when-did-optimism-becom...
3
As long as one of our two major parties continues to use the adolescent fantasies of a mediocre novelist as the master plan for our government, our economy and our society, we will continue to see every aspect of American life as a profit opportunity. We are told people must die rather than risk the income of insurance companies, and the planet can be saved only if it is cost effect etc. etc. etc. Is it any wonder even childhood is left to the mercy of the market. Until our mini Atlases can shrug off this suicidal nonsense, we will rank at the bottom of every social metric except numbers of billionaires.
55
We already have evidence of what parental overindulgence does to the children of this country and it's called the millennial generation. Now Mr Krugman wants to make it worse. If ever there were clear evidence of a child rearing failure it is this group with their wild narcissism, outrageously unearned expectations and abject refusal to leave their parents' basements. Excessive parental involvement does not create successful, independent children. It creates endless dependency and a desire to never leave the cozy, fictional world created by propagandized parents.
2
Krugman is writing about the neglected children, not the overindulged who he explains get seven times as much help.
Anyway, you entirely misunderstand if you think they WANT to live in their parent's basement. That is about lousy job prospects, not "abject refusal to leave."
This comment displays the Young Republican thinking that infests Michigan lately.
Anyway, you entirely misunderstand if you think they WANT to live in their parent's basement. That is about lousy job prospects, not "abject refusal to leave."
This comment displays the Young Republican thinking that infests Michigan lately.
44
Actually, parental overindulgence is not Krugman's topic this morning. He's talking about our responsibility to children who are in need, not those too indulged. I work with unprivileged children who live in poverty. They have many needs that their parents are unable to meet. Their future is dim. Let's help them now so they will be capable of helping themselves later. It only makes economic sense.
4
Except this article is clearly not about "parental overindulgence", unless you think giving a mother sufficient paid leave to care for newborn infant is that. Taking care of children's needs, especially those who are not born to the affluent who are more apt to overindulge their special darlings, is not and should not be dismissed as some kind of "tough love" issue. Research has always been clear about the benefits of early childhood interventions and proper care. But no doubt you come from the stock who is so afraid of "those people" in poverty getting something for nothing, regardless of the benefit for children who, yes, do not get to choose what home they are born into. Please.
2
The devil is in the details.
Most of the time, we don't set aside funds to pay for the good things we propose. So every time we cut a cost to a family that sorely needs it, we raise the cost of the vast middle who couldn't afford it either.
I want to see families be able to afford childcare, education, college without impoverishing themselves or settling for poor quality or unsafe solutions. But I don't want to see families that can are managing their ability to provide these things, suddenly see their own situations become truly unaffordable to partly subsidize others - guaranteeing that the care is unaffordable to all. This is what is happening in healthcare, elder care, education.
Solutions for families requires both additional tax income, but also a shift of money from current priorities. That battle is what sinks proposals to aid families.
Most of the time, we don't set aside funds to pay for the good things we propose. So every time we cut a cost to a family that sorely needs it, we raise the cost of the vast middle who couldn't afford it either.
I want to see families be able to afford childcare, education, college without impoverishing themselves or settling for poor quality or unsafe solutions. But I don't want to see families that can are managing their ability to provide these things, suddenly see their own situations become truly unaffordable to partly subsidize others - guaranteeing that the care is unaffordable to all. This is what is happening in healthcare, elder care, education.
Solutions for families requires both additional tax income, but also a shift of money from current priorities. That battle is what sinks proposals to aid families.
4
Raising child care from 0.5% to 1.2% GDP sounds small and reasonable. However, the rise of 0.7% of GDP is equal to about 20% of the defense budget. It is also what over-the-top for-profit health care costs have been consuming every couple of years. So it is a contest, in which poor children lose out to mega-powers of our political world.
13
Yeah. The argument that something doesn't cost much "as a percentage of GDP" -- an argument that Prof. Krugman has made about other things as well -- makes it sound like "GDP" is a balance in some bank account we can draw on. But it isn't. Rising income inequality, plus the well documented corporate hoarding of cash, means that increases in GDP are largely falling into the hands of a group that is not voluntarily reinvesting as much of it into the economy as would be "expected" and has the power to resist staunchly attempts to tax it away from them. So ultimately, if you want to make more of GDP growth available to help the less privileged, it's gonna take taxation and regulation at a sufficient level to change the power equation. Neither presidential front-runner has any interest in doing that.
1
This is a "pay me now or pay me later" problem. Some years ago, I heard of a study that showed if a visiting nurse's visits helped prevent one problem birth it could save $150,000 in intensive care expenses, which in many cases would be paid by the state. At the time, a nurse made about $30,000 per year. In other words the visiting nurse program paid for itself several times over. Similar arguments can be made for early education and other programs.
2
In a similar vain, when frustrated by failures of Governors around the nation to support states and regions from "stealing" footloose businesses without regard to the impact of the economic losses to the locals that the firms left, the Minneapolis Fed conducted research on what the government economic development policy was that had the highest rate of return. They determined that it was early childhood education. That is yet another investment in children that this country should consider because as the Minneapolis Fed discovered it is the economic development policy with the highest return to public investment.
150
"Highest return to public investment" has not guided our public policy on much of anything. It should, but it hasn't. Our stimulus would look entirely different if that was a guide. So would our pork barrel public spending on projects chosen for who is pleased on the Congressional committees.
9
More policy, more government programs, more government involvement in family business, more national debt and less effective child care, less nurturing of children and less love lost for children. Keep children safe, stress free, receiving childhood immunizations, healthy, loving, receiving education and developing into decent adults. Is there more to ask from government than that. Ask not what the country can do for our children, ask what the parents and society can do for its children,
5
Mr. Krugman, we are going broke trying to afford the socialist policies you advocate. The problem most American families have is not that there is too little available in the way of public help--it's that so much is taken from our paychecks, in the way of state, local and federal taxes (under the guise of "taking care of us"), there's nothing left for the average American to take care of our own families--and very little left over for the private charity that was once a major contributor to our social safety net.
This is so typical of Liberals and socialists--always looking for more and more government involvement, creating dependency in our citizens--instead of promoting and fostering personal responsibility and self-reliance.
The biggest mistake we have made as a country, is to allow pandering politicians and slick liberal pundits to convince us that the federal government can and should take care of us. As a nation, we are slowly losing the character and moral fiber which lead us to become the envy of the world.
Recall the last time we took steps to curb government dependency--with the Welfare Reform Bill that was shoved down Bill Clinton's throat by a Republican Congress? Where were the stories of children starving--or the hoards of homeless people, deprived of their public benefits and tossed into the streets? Instead, lifelong welfare recipients found jobs--and actually improved their standard of living---and earned some self-respect in the process.
This is so typical of Liberals and socialists--always looking for more and more government involvement, creating dependency in our citizens--instead of promoting and fostering personal responsibility and self-reliance.
The biggest mistake we have made as a country, is to allow pandering politicians and slick liberal pundits to convince us that the federal government can and should take care of us. As a nation, we are slowly losing the character and moral fiber which lead us to become the envy of the world.
Recall the last time we took steps to curb government dependency--with the Welfare Reform Bill that was shoved down Bill Clinton's throat by a Republican Congress? Where were the stories of children starving--or the hoards of homeless people, deprived of their public benefits and tossed into the streets? Instead, lifelong welfare recipients found jobs--and actually improved their standard of living---and earned some self-respect in the process.
23
Um, you don't read the papers much, do you?
16
First, we are not going broke by spending on anything. We've cut taxes into broke.
Second, we have not been spending on the things advocated by Krugman, but on things he opposes like losing wars.
So, "we are [not] going broke trying to afford the socialist policies you advocate."
Second, we have not been spending on the things advocated by Krugman, but on things he opposes like losing wars.
So, "we are [not] going broke trying to afford the socialist policies you advocate."
33
Hogwash.
If we are "going broke," it is because we have slashed taxes on the wealthy, and spend our money on unjustified wars
Tax credits for child care (and requirements to acquire private health insurance for that matter) do not amount to the Federal government "taking care" of anyone.
Help with child care is exactly what is needed to enable struggling families to "find jobs." Are you aware that welfare reform included help with child care when it was enacted in the 1990s?
If we are "going broke," it is because we have slashed taxes on the wealthy, and spend our money on unjustified wars
Tax credits for child care (and requirements to acquire private health insurance for that matter) do not amount to the Federal government "taking care" of anyone.
Help with child care is exactly what is needed to enable struggling families to "find jobs." Are you aware that welfare reform included help with child care when it was enacted in the 1990s?
7
1. Let's put some numbers around "unaffordable childcare". There are 4 centers in our neighborhood, and they all charge 1900/month for children 0-23 months. (after that it drops to 1400-1600/month). That is unaffordable for most households for 1 kid, let alone 2. (there are no family daycares in our neighborhood - in fact for almost 2 years we drove an extra 2 hours a day to take our daughter to a family daycare across town, as it was all we could afford).
2. We are fortunate to earn in the high 5 figures and soon low six figures. That is way above the median family income. We are therefore fortunate to be able to afford 1 kid. If only families who could afford to have kids had them, I suspect we would drop below replacement fertility very soon, with poor consequences for our economy (just look at Japan).
3. If parents want to stay home and can afford to do so, they should. However, in today's economy, having a stay at home parent puts family at a very real risk of financial disaster. If the main breadwinner loses their job or becomes disabled, or there is a divorce, the family could quickly fall into poverty.
4. Even if none of the above was true, we should not punish kids for the sins of their parents, and we should not be ensuring that future taxpayers and employees are living in poverty with poor quality child care. Which do you think is more expensive - paying for 5 years of prison, or 5 years of quality child care?
2. We are fortunate to earn in the high 5 figures and soon low six figures. That is way above the median family income. We are therefore fortunate to be able to afford 1 kid. If only families who could afford to have kids had them, I suspect we would drop below replacement fertility very soon, with poor consequences for our economy (just look at Japan).
3. If parents want to stay home and can afford to do so, they should. However, in today's economy, having a stay at home parent puts family at a very real risk of financial disaster. If the main breadwinner loses their job or becomes disabled, or there is a divorce, the family could quickly fall into poverty.
4. Even if none of the above was true, we should not punish kids for the sins of their parents, and we should not be ensuring that future taxpayers and employees are living in poverty with poor quality child care. Which do you think is more expensive - paying for 5 years of prison, or 5 years of quality child care?
363
You recommendations would seriously threaten our glorious "PRISON FOR PROFIT" industry.
The well being of our capitalistic system could be undermined by this logical and well thought out rational.
The well being of our capitalistic system could be undermined by this logical and well thought out rational.
Those are insane amounts for childcare! I know we have higher taxes, and perhaps lower wages but in Sweden you pay a max of 160USD per month and child, with a reduction of 33% for the second and 66% for the third. The rest is provided by the state through our taxes.
It is a system with many faults, but very few in Sweden would be able to afford child-care at your prices...
It is a system with many faults, but very few in Sweden would be able to afford child-care at your prices...
1
We are below replacement and have been for sometime. If one were to factor out net migration, which is still very positive, we would be in population decline like so many other industrialized countries.
Your implied point is correct in that having children and properly raising them is becoming affordable only for the top 20%.
Your implied point is correct in that having children and properly raising them is becoming affordable only for the top 20%.
1
How the economy works is nothing but the rules that make it up and yet Krugman has no reservations claiming economics is not a morality tale. Now he complains about "policy" that is indifferent to children. When the right wants to go about the business of destroying the ability of the public/government to make life more fair for all, it gives its supporters a false rationale to feel good about itself in doing so: it claims it is concerned about life with a fake concern about unborn children. When the sniveling Bill Clinton and the Democratic party wanted to cower and grovel to the right in the 90's and help them destroy the welfare state (as part of their triangulating 3rd way), it gave its supporters a false rationale when it started unraveling the welfare state for adults (and children) by starting to claim it was doing it for the children, "to give them a hand up, not a hand out." This way Democratic supporters could put a shiv in poor adults (and children) and still feel good about themselves by focusing on their precious concern for children. When the prime architects of inequality -- neo-liberal economists (D and R), like Paul Krugman -- want to deflect culpability from their actions and propaganda, they like to say things like economics is a not a morality tale and complain about the other party's indifference to child policy (which would be moot if not for the system neo-liberal economists provided the rationale for creating).
Paul Krugman is a hypocrite.
Paul Krugman is a hypocrite.
7
Yes, the Clinton/DNC Democrats did that. Yes, Krugman now supports them. But he did not support those policies. He just supports them despite what they do, then pretends a campaign promises changes everything they've always been.
2
Prof. Krugman, while you are correct in your assessment that we need a better mousetrap, as regards child care subsidies for the working poor, students and, increasingly, for what passes as the American middle class, you seem to have forgotten or failed to grasp the implications of the recent Princeton study on American oligarchy.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_a...
In order to get anywhere close to policies that support children and families we are going to have to have a wholesale change in the types of people who are elected to congress as well as to the presidency. This is simply not going to happen without substantial campaign finance reform. Unless and until we can devise a system of publicly funded elections corporate toadies, in both parties, will continue to take the lion's share of seats in Congress. This means nothing of substance for the average person will be seriously considered much less signed into law.
Your problem is your candidate for president is a direct beneficiary of the type of systemic corruption that has come to define American politics since the mid-70's. No one seriously expects her to get at this--the root of our problems. Instead any family-friendly policies she manages to get past her "advisors" then through a Congress every bit as hostile to her as to President Obama will be weak sauce for citizens toiling in red and blue states alike.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_a...
In order to get anywhere close to policies that support children and families we are going to have to have a wholesale change in the types of people who are elected to congress as well as to the presidency. This is simply not going to happen without substantial campaign finance reform. Unless and until we can devise a system of publicly funded elections corporate toadies, in both parties, will continue to take the lion's share of seats in Congress. This means nothing of substance for the average person will be seriously considered much less signed into law.
Your problem is your candidate for president is a direct beneficiary of the type of systemic corruption that has come to define American politics since the mid-70's. No one seriously expects her to get at this--the root of our problems. Instead any family-friendly policies she manages to get past her "advisors" then through a Congress every bit as hostile to her as to President Obama will be weak sauce for citizens toiling in red and blue states alike.
118
The complete and fabulous irony of your remark is that Citizens United inc , of 'corporations are people' fame, is a conservative 'information and education' group which has made both Hillary and Bill Clinton its target for decades. No one would benefit more from getting corporate money out of elections than Hillary. Maybe that's why most of the money she made after leaving State speeches involved talking to diverse groups of workers and small business owners, women's groups, not big corporations.
I think a system that doesn't examine why the wife of a sitting Senator from VT is making $4900 a year as a commissioner on a Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste board after the senator voted to send VT and Maine low level nuclear debris to West Texas is systemically corrupt. I'm talking to you Bernie and Jane.
I think a system that doesn't examine why the wife of a sitting Senator from VT is making $4900 a year as a commissioner on a Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste board after the senator voted to send VT and Maine low level nuclear debris to West Texas is systemically corrupt. I'm talking to you Bernie and Jane.
2
The complete and fabulous irony of your comment is that Citizens United, inc of 'corporations are people w/ free speech' fame, is a conservative group with a decades long focus on neutralizing the progressive couple known as the Clintons.
No one would benefit more from an end to corporate money in politics than Hillary.
That may explain why most of the money she made after her gig at State came from associations of small business owners, women's groups, workers in every kind of service, tech, medical, educational endeavor who paid to hear her views on the state of our world and shared their needs with her.
I agree. There is systemic corruption in a system which does not investigate why the wife of a sitting Senator from VT is being paid $4900 a year to be a Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste commissioner after that Senator promoted a bill that to allow low level nuclear debris from VT and Maine to be shipped to West Texas. I'm talking to you, Jane and Bernie.
No one would benefit more from an end to corporate money in politics than Hillary.
That may explain why most of the money she made after her gig at State came from associations of small business owners, women's groups, workers in every kind of service, tech, medical, educational endeavor who paid to hear her views on the state of our world and shared their needs with her.
I agree. There is systemic corruption in a system which does not investigate why the wife of a sitting Senator from VT is being paid $4900 a year to be a Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste commissioner after that Senator promoted a bill that to allow low level nuclear debris from VT and Maine to be shipped to West Texas. I'm talking to you, Jane and Bernie.
2
So we should suspend any efforts to improve the child care problem until we have achieved campaign finance reform? That is a "counsel of despair." We liberals do not expect Utopia any time soon but we do think that improvements can be made. Our motto is "take whatever improvements you can get whenever you can get them." Bill and Hillary Clinton failed to get a major health care initiative passed but they did get CHIPS which did improve the health care available to the children of the poor.
3
The problem is we have become such a self-centered divided nation that there is a large segment of the population which simply doesn't want to pay for anything that they deem is for someone else's benefit.
It's totally lost on many that education has a tremendous ROI. A better educated populace is more self-sufficient and less dependent on "Entitlements." They are less prone to unwanted pregnancies. A better educated populace is healthier and less of a strain on our Healthcare system, even more so because they can PAY for their medical care. They are more law abiding so there is less crime and therefore more savings on Law Enforcement, Court and Prison and property damage and loss. A better educated populace is more productive and generate more income and economic activity and more tax revenues, which lessens everyone tax burden.
Many believe that they save money by scrimping on education, but what they think they save now they pay for later in higher crime rates, increased costs for law enforcement, courts and prisons, property damage and loss. There will be more unhealthy clogging our healthcare system and more of those unable to pay for the cost.
There are more people dependent on "Entitlements" and more homelessness and a smaller tax base to pay those higher costs because the uneducated are less productive and more of a burden.
My view is if we're paying one way or the other so let's opt for the path which creates less misery.
It's totally lost on many that education has a tremendous ROI. A better educated populace is more self-sufficient and less dependent on "Entitlements." They are less prone to unwanted pregnancies. A better educated populace is healthier and less of a strain on our Healthcare system, even more so because they can PAY for their medical care. They are more law abiding so there is less crime and therefore more savings on Law Enforcement, Court and Prison and property damage and loss. A better educated populace is more productive and generate more income and economic activity and more tax revenues, which lessens everyone tax burden.
Many believe that they save money by scrimping on education, but what they think they save now they pay for later in higher crime rates, increased costs for law enforcement, courts and prisons, property damage and loss. There will be more unhealthy clogging our healthcare system and more of those unable to pay for the cost.
There are more people dependent on "Entitlements" and more homelessness and a smaller tax base to pay those higher costs because the uneducated are less productive and more of a burden.
My view is if we're paying one way or the other so let's opt for the path which creates less misery.
427
You miss the point. I am one conservative that would be open to paying more taxes in order to fund poor children's education. The American ideal is that every child gets a chance. But this is belied by the act that public schools are mostly funded by property taxes - where poor towns simply have fewer resources reinforcing the cycle of poverty.
In some places, however, we've changed this resource paradigm with few results to show for it. Consider NJ which for decades has been subject to what are called Abbot Districts where the State must give a lot of money to poor districts to raise their spending to that of their affluent peers. In fact, districts like Newark spend over $23,000/student - far more than affluent districts - but fewer than 50% of students even graduate. Books like The Prize show that all this spending just expands the central bureaucracy - not improve education. If we want to spend more AND reform the schools particularly with charters, then I'm supportive. But otherwise, it's just spending good money after bad.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/06/School-Budgets-The-Wor...
In some places, however, we've changed this resource paradigm with few results to show for it. Consider NJ which for decades has been subject to what are called Abbot Districts where the State must give a lot of money to poor districts to raise their spending to that of their affluent peers. In fact, districts like Newark spend over $23,000/student - far more than affluent districts - but fewer than 50% of students even graduate. Books like The Prize show that all this spending just expands the central bureaucracy - not improve education. If we want to spend more AND reform the schools particularly with charters, then I'm supportive. But otherwise, it's just spending good money after bad.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/06/School-Budgets-The-Wor...
The biggest entitlements are for big business, who do not pay their taxes anymore.
It is much more cost efficient and frugal (conservative?) to be liberal and use less money to help people out before we need to spend more money in crisis.
Feeding, housing, and educating a child is much cheaper than housing that child when grown in prison.
Feeding, housing, and educating a child is much cheaper than housing that child when grown in prison.
1
The measure of any civilization is how it cares for its children.
Any doubt where America ranks? Nurturing children starts with families, and adults who value family qualiity, children and their communities.
I know about Asian families, also Hispanic, East Indian and a bit less about Arab families. Common to each are strong, extended families that are multi-generational, aspirational to a fault, mild to very authoritarian, tightly-knit, sacrificing, and they value children. There is powerful cultural continuity focused on family, children and elders. Most have grandparents and grandchildren at home. Aging parents are rarely exiled to nursing homes.
White families I know are very different. Adults, particularly fathers, come first. Children seem to be a nuisance or a problem to be solved. They seem more needy or more difficult. A well-adjusted white child stands out among peers. Every play date my daughter had with a white child would occasion some comment about their family that went from surprising to dismaying with an awkward, quick diversion for my daughter's sake.
Children aren't central to American life. Our politics reflect that. Even in the comments today kids are incidental to scoring points against Krugman or trashing Clinton. They're just used in an argument.
Half of our kids have divorced parents, 75% live with their moms, 48% are without their fathers, 28% are below poverty.
The big problem kids face isn't public policy. It's adults.
Any doubt where America ranks? Nurturing children starts with families, and adults who value family qualiity, children and their communities.
I know about Asian families, also Hispanic, East Indian and a bit less about Arab families. Common to each are strong, extended families that are multi-generational, aspirational to a fault, mild to very authoritarian, tightly-knit, sacrificing, and they value children. There is powerful cultural continuity focused on family, children and elders. Most have grandparents and grandchildren at home. Aging parents are rarely exiled to nursing homes.
White families I know are very different. Adults, particularly fathers, come first. Children seem to be a nuisance or a problem to be solved. They seem more needy or more difficult. A well-adjusted white child stands out among peers. Every play date my daughter had with a white child would occasion some comment about their family that went from surprising to dismaying with an awkward, quick diversion for my daughter's sake.
Children aren't central to American life. Our politics reflect that. Even in the comments today kids are incidental to scoring points against Krugman or trashing Clinton. They're just used in an argument.
Half of our kids have divorced parents, 75% live with their moms, 48% are without their fathers, 28% are below poverty.
The big problem kids face isn't public policy. It's adults.
309
American adults.
And a culture that is growing progressively more coarse and cruel and shockingly lacking in empathy and compassion after a brief enlightenment from the first election of FDR to the end of LBJ's administration and the election of Richard "Benign Neglect" Nixon.
And a culture that is growing progressively more coarse and cruel and shockingly lacking in empathy and compassion after a brief enlightenment from the first election of FDR to the end of LBJ's administration and the election of Richard "Benign Neglect" Nixon.
Child-care reform should matter to everyone, even those of us without children, because surely today's child will be deciding upon our Social Security benefits tomorrow.
I find this example of difference in party platforms especially insightful.
The GOP has perfected the art of antithetical labeling.
The party of family values is against paid family and medical leave and greater child care.
The party of fiscal responsibility has yet another tax cut for the rich paid by deficits.
The average low-income taxpayer gets $128 from Trump’s tax plan, while top 1% gains $275,000 and the 0.1% scores $1.3 million.
The kicker is Trump advances this just as he floats giving investors in US Treasuries less than 100 cents on the dollar - or Trump's roadmap for wealth through bankrupting 4 casinos and hotels.
Donald tells us he wants to protect Social Security and Medicare, but his tax plan all but insures Republicans obtain the benefit cuts they want.
Given Trump’s annual audits for being a Christian and checkered financial past, releasing his tax returns would help clear some things up.
I suspect that is exactly why he won't release them.
Judge Learned Hand said there is no patriotic duty to increase one's taxes, but only the wealthy have tax preferences like 1031 tax free exchanges that allow one to affect effective tax rates.
The wage earner with little to no disposable income cannot.
He says his tax rate isn't our business, but it really is what this election is all about.
I find this example of difference in party platforms especially insightful.
The GOP has perfected the art of antithetical labeling.
The party of family values is against paid family and medical leave and greater child care.
The party of fiscal responsibility has yet another tax cut for the rich paid by deficits.
The average low-income taxpayer gets $128 from Trump’s tax plan, while top 1% gains $275,000 and the 0.1% scores $1.3 million.
The kicker is Trump advances this just as he floats giving investors in US Treasuries less than 100 cents on the dollar - or Trump's roadmap for wealth through bankrupting 4 casinos and hotels.
Donald tells us he wants to protect Social Security and Medicare, but his tax plan all but insures Republicans obtain the benefit cuts they want.
Given Trump’s annual audits for being a Christian and checkered financial past, releasing his tax returns would help clear some things up.
I suspect that is exactly why he won't release them.
Judge Learned Hand said there is no patriotic duty to increase one's taxes, but only the wealthy have tax preferences like 1031 tax free exchanges that allow one to affect effective tax rates.
The wage earner with little to no disposable income cannot.
He says his tax rate isn't our business, but it really is what this election is all about.
10
One of the problems of neo-liberalism is that it is basically illiberal. I believe that investment in high quality childcare is the most bang for the buck money can make. The one thing we do know is that children who learn to speak two or more languages at an early age develop better math skills and other cognitive advantages. The few thousand dollars spent in high quality pre-school are far more cost effective than comparable monies spent at university.
Bernie Sanders has done their utmost to provide the resources to facilitate the best early childhood education for all.
A liberal democracy does its best to ensure its future prosperity by providing a playing field that lifts up the most vulnerable and sees that responsibility as a societal undertaking.
The Clintons are not liberals they are neo-liberals who with the help of conservatives created the largest chasm between middle income earners and the the wealthy in any Western Democracy. While America has done a stellar job of creating the largest relatively wealthy middle class it has isolated that class of people from a huge segment of the population for whom 5k a year is an unaffordable luxury even if it means healthier, happier, more productive citizens. A society where the middle has no power and no say in how the country is run cannot be a liberal democracy. When the income gap between the wealthy middle class and the middle income earners is as vast as America's nobody is going to pay for enlightened policy.
Bernie Sanders has done their utmost to provide the resources to facilitate the best early childhood education for all.
A liberal democracy does its best to ensure its future prosperity by providing a playing field that lifts up the most vulnerable and sees that responsibility as a societal undertaking.
The Clintons are not liberals they are neo-liberals who with the help of conservatives created the largest chasm between middle income earners and the the wealthy in any Western Democracy. While America has done a stellar job of creating the largest relatively wealthy middle class it has isolated that class of people from a huge segment of the population for whom 5k a year is an unaffordable luxury even if it means healthier, happier, more productive citizens. A society where the middle has no power and no say in how the country is run cannot be a liberal democracy. When the income gap between the wealthy middle class and the middle income earners is as vast as America's nobody is going to pay for enlightened policy.
12
You may not be aware of this, but as far back as 1977, Hillary co-founded and drew up the articles of incorporation for the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families — a group that for nearly four decades since has fought for expanded opportunities in early education, juvenile justice reform, increases in state funding for child health care and other major initiatives.
1
Thanks for letting us know, Mr.Canada, that Hillary Clinton is the true enemy. Unfortunately the Messiah (oops, I mean Bernie Sanders) probably won't be on the November ballot, so I guess we'll just have to vote for Trump instead. Back in my youth crazy guys on the bus used to rant about the Trilateral Commission. Now its always "neo-liberalism."
2
"Our threadbare system of public support for child care and early education costs 0.4% of the G.D.P."
But more importantly, Professor Krugman, America is spending a luxurious 3.5% of GDP on guns, bombs, drones and military murder weapons of destruction.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
War is the American future, Professor.....American children are merely cannon fodder for the American corporate-military-industrial-complex.
"War ! War ! What are we waiting for ?!!"
It Takes An Exceptionally Violent American Pathology to be #1 in global violence.
But more importantly, Professor Krugman, America is spending a luxurious 3.5% of GDP on guns, bombs, drones and military murder weapons of destruction.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
War is the American future, Professor.....American children are merely cannon fodder for the American corporate-military-industrial-complex.
"War ! War ! What are we waiting for ?!!"
It Takes An Exceptionally Violent American Pathology to be #1 in global violence.
122
And war is what Hillary Clinton is so very good at.
Dr. Krugman is right. We are way behind . But we need to face the fact that it will cost money. To move child care from 0.4% of the GDP to 0.9% - a goal that would still leave us short of the 1.2% of the French. - would cost $ 85 Billion. That is equal to the entire federal transportation expenditure of the US. Or about three times what the US government spends on science.
To be credible, Ms. Clinton needs to provide details on how to finance such a program . What would she cut ? What new taxes would she introduce ?
To be credible, Ms. Clinton needs to provide details on how to finance such a program . What would she cut ? What new taxes would she introduce ?
5
Military spending!
1
You must have missed the part on her financing. You can read about it at her web sight. Also Hillary does not recommend programs she hasn't figured out how to pay. The only politician that does.
2
"So it’s an incredible waste, not just for families but for the nation as a whole, that so many children’s futures are stunted because their parents don’t have the resources to take care of them as well as they should. And affordable child care would also have the immediate benefit of making it easier for parents to work productively."
Dr. Krugman, you are more than correct and yes, this is the type of policy that can make a huge difference in people's lives.
But your other point--that news like this isn't even making it into the cycle because of the "entertaining" antics of Trump to ensure there's no room for any other coverage--is far more important.
You can talk policy up the wazoo, but until and unless the media stop the endless attention on you know who--the monster they've created--nothing is going to permeate an electorate enthralled by political reality TV. Even "House of Cards" which I'm currently binge-watching, seems more real and more substantive than the Republican contender.
Dr. Krugman, you are more than correct and yes, this is the type of policy that can make a huge difference in people's lives.
But your other point--that news like this isn't even making it into the cycle because of the "entertaining" antics of Trump to ensure there's no room for any other coverage--is far more important.
You can talk policy up the wazoo, but until and unless the media stop the endless attention on you know who--the monster they've created--nothing is going to permeate an electorate enthralled by political reality TV. Even "House of Cards" which I'm currently binge-watching, seems more real and more substantive than the Republican contender.
38
I believe Trump has been the lead story on the front page of the (online) Times every day this past week. Today we're hearing about how he intends to insult Mrs. Clinton over the course of the next few months. Even if Trump is the apparent nominee, this is hardly newsworthy. "News" includes the word "new;" there is nothing new about Trump's bullying loudmouth antics, yet it somehow constitutes the lead story on today's front page.
How about designating this the "no-Trump" week and keeping him off the front page for a while? Then I might not have to search vainly for something more informative to read each morning.
How about designating this the "no-Trump" week and keeping him off the front page for a while? Then I might not have to search vainly for something more informative to read each morning.
1
As Krugman points out with the US vs French GDP numbers...”So we could move a long way up the scale with a fairly modest investment.”
But to the US political rw, it’s govt spending, so doesn’t matter if it’s modest, or even if would save $ in long run. Obamacare is the worlds’ costliest h/c system, yet it’s based on a Gop plan. They don’t care about spending it seems, under certain circumstances, as long as they preserve the corporate profit/power system.
It’s this attitude that underlies it all and needs to be compared with abroad where they have a more balanced attitude of the role of govt vs private profit.
But to the US political rw, it’s govt spending, so doesn’t matter if it’s modest, or even if would save $ in long run. Obamacare is the worlds’ costliest h/c system, yet it’s based on a Gop plan. They don’t care about spending it seems, under certain circumstances, as long as they preserve the corporate profit/power system.
It’s this attitude that underlies it all and needs to be compared with abroad where they have a more balanced attitude of the role of govt vs private profit.
15
Why is the GOP so mean and greedy?
There is nothing to love or the slightest bit redeeming about these faux leaders.
Working hard to curb my own feelings of hatred and disgust for their compassionless lives.
Life is hallow when $$$ is the most important thing. I see it in my own family.
There is nothing to love or the slightest bit redeeming about these faux leaders.
Working hard to curb my own feelings of hatred and disgust for their compassionless lives.
Life is hallow when $$$ is the most important thing. I see it in my own family.
19
Please write a similar column about veterans programs, and our long history of making promises to veterans that we don't keep. I don't know what Hillary is promising to do, but as for Trump, I keep hearing that the donations that he and his friends promised to them a few months ago have yet to materialize.
Congress created a program that lets some vets get medical care at non-VA facilities. That, too, has turned into a huge mess! Long wait times, doctors not being paid.....why can't we get this right?
Congress created a program that lets some vets get medical care at non-VA facilities. That, too, has turned into a huge mess! Long wait times, doctors not being paid.....why can't we get this right?
17
You are right. When we marched to try to stop the Iraq invasion, we were called anti- troop, but I knew we were trying to protect our troops from so much horror, including traditional Republican underfunding of programs to help returning veterans
To answer your question, here is what Hillary is proposing:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/
To answer your question, here is what Hillary is proposing:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/
2
Let us count the reasons why we do not do this already, and we will quickly come to understand that it is in fact about "family values" but not yours. When you can afford to have a live in caretaker and pay the person off the books as little as possible, you will come to understand that it is also about having as little to do as possible with raising your own brood, let alone others.
6
When I start adding up the costs of all the worthwhile things we ought to be doing that we aren't doing (infrastructure, climate change, child care, health care, preventing the next pandemic, etc.) I do find myself wondering were the money is going to come from. Sure, you can tax the rich more, the corporations more, you can cut the defense budget (good luck)... my rough estimation is that it just isn't going to add up to nearly enough. Is the middle class ready to pay more too? And I mean, a significant amount more? Or are Dems just spitting in the wind?
5
It depends on whether it is an investment or an expenditure. Infrastructure spending is an investment, it increases future economic growth. Preventative health care is an investment because each dollar spent in prevention saves many dollars in expenditure of treatment, as well as lost productivity. If we can keep health care costs from exploding that would take care of the biggest part of the budget problem of the Federal government. If we try to fight the effects of climate change (e.g. building sea walls), that is likely expenditure. But if we go after the causes, e.g., simply change the playing field to give green energy a boost, and to correct for the currently unpaid-for externalities of fossil fuels, then the expenditure is not likely to be very high.
21
Some reform ideas include huge savings. Single payer health care would save enough GDP to pay for all of this, just as one example. It alone would save more than the whole defense budget, if we dropped the % GDP from our rates to the rates of other advanced Westernized nations. It is that huge rip off that is protected with such fierce devotion by all including Hillary that it makes so much else so difficult.
10
When you consider that we spend more on federal taxes plus health care plus child care than Europeans pay in taxes (that cover health care and child care and provide for paid family leave), it's clear that we are certainly getting the short end of the stick. They have better health outcomes, better child care, and better quality of life, while our money goes to fatten the bank accounts of corporate executives.
We need to have a epiphany, coming to the understanding that there is no free market in health care, or early child care. The free market in health care is making a few people very wealthy, and bankrupting (literally) tens of thousands of Americans every year. And the free market in child care has resulted in a hodgepodge of church, government, private, and black market (off the books) services.
Until we realize that early child development is a national security issue, that kids in Europe and Asia are turning the milestone age of 6 with far more skills and cognitive abilities than our kids do, nothing will happen.
We need to have a epiphany, coming to the understanding that there is no free market in health care, or early child care. The free market in health care is making a few people very wealthy, and bankrupting (literally) tens of thousands of Americans every year. And the free market in child care has resulted in a hodgepodge of church, government, private, and black market (off the books) services.
Until we realize that early child development is a national security issue, that kids in Europe and Asia are turning the milestone age of 6 with far more skills and cognitive abilities than our kids do, nothing will happen.
224
We have two grown daughters and four Grandchildren plus another on the way. Three live in France, which provides excellent child care and pre-school services, at relatively modest costs to their parents, thanks to governmental support. One lives in the US where pre-school costs to the parents are much higher. That daughter and her husband are looking to move for a better job, and getting that child and the coming baby into a good program is very challenging, and will be very expensive. It's not surprising that many low income parents can't afford the expense of childcare and have to make do with unregistered, unsupervised informal day care. Of course, the lack of parental leave is still another huge issue for working mothers and fathers. As a Grandfather, I'm not willing to listen to any politician talking about "family values" who doesn't want to actually help families with practical support for more effective childcare programs and family leave policies.
19
You are absolutely correct professor, the failure of congress to even discuss this issue is a wonderful example of our dysfunctional political system and culture of American exceptionalism and rugged individualism.
What is really shocking is the extent to which poor Americans, even families, are living in what we think of as "Third World" conditions, pressured by rising rents and unstable, poorly paid jobs.
The United States disparately needs a national consensus on Social Housing programs, not just shuffling the poor and homeless off on "Someone else". Family leave policies only benefit people with housing and stable employment.
And none of these issues will ever be discussed in a Republican Congress or on the Right Wing Propaganda Organs, except possibly as examples of the moral failures of those "others."
What is really shocking is the extent to which poor Americans, even families, are living in what we think of as "Third World" conditions, pressured by rising rents and unstable, poorly paid jobs.
The United States disparately needs a national consensus on Social Housing programs, not just shuffling the poor and homeless off on "Someone else". Family leave policies only benefit people with housing and stable employment.
And none of these issues will ever be discussed in a Republican Congress or on the Right Wing Propaganda Organs, except possibly as examples of the moral failures of those "others."
16
It is interesting that conservatives will do everything in their power to make sure that a mother who conceives gives birth -- no matter what. But once the child is born, it now becomes liberals who do everything to make life bearable for that child -- such as having their mother care for them in their early years while still getting a decent pay for this short time off.
Question -- who has the true heart at the end of the day?
Question -- who has the true heart at the end of the day?
32
I know it's not the answer you wanted, but the answer is probably the conservatives. What they really want is to have people bear children responsibly. Take a look at the rate of out of wedlock births since all the wonderful federal programs have come along. We on the right see this as a moral hazard and one that is undermining our country. So, yes, the conservatives have heart. We want children born into stable homes to parents who are ready to have them. That makes us bad people? I know you liberals want to believe that you're good and we're bad, but the truth is not so simple.
It is foolhardy that, as a nation, we overlook the fact that a child who succeeds in school becomes a taxpayer while the child who fails tends to become a social cost of one kind or another (typically welfare or incarceration). The difference over time (social cost) is enormous--much more than the cost of preventing most of the failures.
It is an established fact that it is MUCH less expensive to close the education gap between affluent and poor children when they are young (before grade 4), than when they are older (by high school age, the likelihood of success is small at any cost).
Secretary Clinton's proposal, or something like it, will more than pay for itself. Free, and effective, public education is what made the U.S. a great nation. We neglect it at our peril.
It is an established fact that it is MUCH less expensive to close the education gap between affluent and poor children when they are young (before grade 4), than when they are older (by high school age, the likelihood of success is small at any cost).
Secretary Clinton's proposal, or something like it, will more than pay for itself. Free, and effective, public education is what made the U.S. a great nation. We neglect it at our peril.
32
we have a choice: build schools or build prisons. Schools are far cheaper in the long run.
1
I love the fact that Krugman did nothing but ridicule Berne Sanders for his ambitious dream of higher education for all those who want it at public institutions, but somehow any large social scheme that Hillary comes up with is doable and workable. Yo Paul, can you breathe down in that Hillary tank?
28
I just can't imagine Mrs. Clinton actually coming through with a program robust enough to make any difference to the parents I know. The good bits will get "triangulated" away, watered down, compromised out of existence.
Telling me that's just the nature of political endeavor leaves me to wonder "How did the French do it? Are they less argumentative? Less emotional? Better at democracy than we are?"
Many of us are ready for real systemic change in our government. Our two party, pay-to-play rules just aren't working.
Think about it. In my life-time (57 years, so far) not one single major issue has been settled. (Except for tax cuts for the wealthy. They seem to be considered permanent; the natural way of things.) Something is very wrong.
Telling me that's just the nature of political endeavor leaves me to wonder "How did the French do it? Are they less argumentative? Less emotional? Better at democracy than we are?"
Many of us are ready for real systemic change in our government. Our two party, pay-to-play rules just aren't working.
Think about it. In my life-time (57 years, so far) not one single major issue has been settled. (Except for tax cuts for the wealthy. They seem to be considered permanent; the natural way of things.) Something is very wrong.
How will he pay for it? A president cannot force a state to provide free tuition for everyone (or anyone) in a single state, let alone all 50. Whether you believe it or not, it costs money to run a university. Sound bites sound great. Just listen to Donald Trump. Now look at the realities of things.
2
".....Bernie Sanders for his ambitious dream of higher education..."
I believe your using the word "dream" is relevant to Mr. Krugman's referencing Sanders' notion of free educations. Sanders relied far too long on simple catch-phrases to get people's attention, specifically Millennials, and by the way, the Millennials were to blame early in the discussion for not asking the appropriate questions, specifically, 'how Sanders would turn his Pie-in-the-Sky proposals into actuality.' It wasn't until he was pressed that Sanders started to come up with how he'd do things. And by then it was far too late. His dreaming of things just didn't cut it.
I believe your using the word "dream" is relevant to Mr. Krugman's referencing Sanders' notion of free educations. Sanders relied far too long on simple catch-phrases to get people's attention, specifically Millennials, and by the way, the Millennials were to blame early in the discussion for not asking the appropriate questions, specifically, 'how Sanders would turn his Pie-in-the-Sky proposals into actuality.' It wasn't until he was pressed that Sanders started to come up with how he'd do things. And by then it was far too late. His dreaming of things just didn't cut it.
2
Elections tend to be about feelings and perceptions. That why people like Frank Luntz and Rush Limbaugh make small fortunes for supplying misinformation.
Trump shows clearly that a great swathe of the population don't care about policies. They trust him. Ditto with Sanders supporters. They think Bernie is wonderful--never mind electability. Reminds me of a Brit comedy years ago, set in a men's store: "Never mind the quality, feel the width."
Trump shows clearly that a great swathe of the population don't care about policies. They trust him. Ditto with Sanders supporters. They think Bernie is wonderful--never mind electability. Reminds me of a Brit comedy years ago, set in a men's store: "Never mind the quality, feel the width."
4
Well, today's political discourse is not on the basis of promises substantially fulfilled by politicians, thereby creating trust in the electorate.
Sorry Paul, you can't change my mind..... I've known I was voting Democrat since before DT called Fiorina ugly... and before that, too....
I voted for Mitt last time.... being disappointed with Obama's first term.... but even so, Mitt was light years ahead of DT or any of the former GOP hopefuls.... Mitt was a sincere, successful human being... nufsed....
All in for the Democrats.... let's have the election today.... if we don't know enough by now, no amount of lipstick will make this pig look like RuPaul....
He reminds me of the kind of corporate candidate colonial powers used to foist on 'banana republics'.... exactly....
I voted for Mitt last time.... being disappointed with Obama's first term.... but even so, Mitt was light years ahead of DT or any of the former GOP hopefuls.... Mitt was a sincere, successful human being... nufsed....
All in for the Democrats.... let's have the election today.... if we don't know enough by now, no amount of lipstick will make this pig look like RuPaul....
He reminds me of the kind of corporate candidate colonial powers used to foist on 'banana republics'.... exactly....
7
Agree in part. Hillary is correct. Lack of available reasonably priced child care affects lower income families more than any other group. It is also reduces the likelihood for single parents to find and retain adequate employment or education/training. We hear a lot about those parents on public assistance need to work for their payments. The first step should be ensuring child care is available so they can work.
9
Why not pay the parents to provide child care? The mother is the best person to take care of the newborn citizen.
GOP policy on children has always been that it begins at conception and ends at birth. The old black guy talking: this is one of those issues where the GOP has no desire to help "those people," who go and have 50 babies out of wedlock. Having said that, a bone to the white man's party would be to figure out a way to include marriage incentives in the package. Children do need fathers. This has always been the Achilles' heel of liberal appeals for children. We need increased government spending, but government simply cannot spend enough to fix a kid neglected or abused by a mother or father. The child that has parents working in tandem and harmony for the future of that that child will always have an advantage over the child whose parents hate each other and use the kid as a football in a scrum. Both parents and government help are important. It does take a village. In order to reduce GOP opposition, we have to look hard to find where they are right so we can include their proposals in a final package. It also takes two committed parents.
3
Through out history has any group been more abused, exploited, or neglected than children?
The irony of parenting is that the parents are often the least qualified individuals to care for their children.
One of the best reasons ever to form any kind of government is to care for and protect the children!
The irony of parenting is that the parents are often the least qualified individuals to care for their children.
One of the best reasons ever to form any kind of government is to care for and protect the children!
7
I am willing to accept the proposition that HRC has a great plan to deal with child care or lack there of here in the good ole USA. But saying all of the others don't care is a total insult to B Sanders. Throwing him in with the other lot who he correctly surmises don't care is either an oversight at best or a totally defamatory. If any candidate has carried the torch for the underclass it is B. Sanders. Failure to recognize this is cognitive dissonance, something I never thought I would say about Doc K. Otherwise, the piece was fine.
13
He literally says in there that in January both Democratic candidates declared their support for a program to provide 12 weeks paid leave. When Krugman said the other, not others, he was talking about the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
2
Dr. Krugman's piece beautifully illustrates the divide between Democrats and Republicans. Both sides will agree with Dr. Krugman's observation that increased support for child care, especially for those who are poor, is warranted. Both sides will also agree with Dr. Krugman that it does not cost society all that much the provide the increased support. The divide is who should provide it. The Democrats want the federal government to do it, while the Republicans would say states, municipalities or families should be responsible. The divide is ideological and therefore difficult to find a compromise. Any policy, in this area that has a chance of passing Congress, must have the element that funds for child care maybe raised by the federal government, but the spending decisions has to be left to state and local authorities.
If kids could eat outrage, they'd be way ahead in this election cycle. What they need, alas, is not outrage, but outcomes. They'll die waiting for the perfect world that Bernie promises.
Let's start somewhere, and if Hillary is president, push her for more.
But let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Let's start somewhere, and if Hillary is president, push her for more.
But let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
41
@Ron Cohen,
But Ron, it's a Krugman column, and *any* Krugman column, *whatever* the topic, must be spammed with Republican Hillary-bashing talking points.
Get used to it. It's called virtual voter suppression; no need to close down polling places.
But Ron, it's a Krugman column, and *any* Krugman column, *whatever* the topic, must be spammed with Republican Hillary-bashing talking points.
Get used to it. It's called virtual voter suppression; no need to close down polling places.
8
Hey Arty,
Look "ad hominem" up in your dictionary. Address the message, not the messenger; otherwise you have no point to make.
Look "ad hominem" up in your dictionary. Address the message, not the messenger; otherwise you have no point to make.
Hey Tim,
I have no idea how you come up with "ad hominem" from what I said. Maybe you could educate us, using the dictionary definition?
I have no idea how you come up with "ad hominem" from what I said. Maybe you could educate us, using the dictionary definition?
1
Republicans will fight this tooth and nail because it will reduce corporate profits and increase government interference by providing daycare, and for lower income people! Then they will argue this is a states rights issue because the Constitution doesn't mention daycare.
They will bring up their constant war against Head Start as proof that this will be a waste of money. Poor kids do better in the early grades because of Head Start. Then we remove support and throw them away as they get older. By the time they reach the fourth grade, academic performance falters.
Republicans love to point this out as proof that early childhood education doesn't work. What this does prove, is that poor kids need support all through school, not just preschool.
Republicans love their spreadsheets. Everything in life can be categorized, columnized, analyzed and evaluated for its economic efficiency. Increase productivity, boost the numbers in the total column and all will be fine and good.
Except life doesn't fit on a spread sheet. The experience of living is not something that can be tabulated for its economic output. The joy of childhood cannot be gauged by a productivity metric.
We spend 600 billion on the military but we can't spend another 10% of that budget on kids. There is no spreadsheet column that justifies it.
We don't live inside spreadsheets. Life isn't a metric. Kids should not be gauged by their economic output.
They will bring up their constant war against Head Start as proof that this will be a waste of money. Poor kids do better in the early grades because of Head Start. Then we remove support and throw them away as they get older. By the time they reach the fourth grade, academic performance falters.
Republicans love to point this out as proof that early childhood education doesn't work. What this does prove, is that poor kids need support all through school, not just preschool.
Republicans love their spreadsheets. Everything in life can be categorized, columnized, analyzed and evaluated for its economic efficiency. Increase productivity, boost the numbers in the total column and all will be fine and good.
Except life doesn't fit on a spread sheet. The experience of living is not something that can be tabulated for its economic output. The joy of childhood cannot be gauged by a productivity metric.
We spend 600 billion on the military but we can't spend another 10% of that budget on kids. There is no spreadsheet column that justifies it.
We don't live inside spreadsheets. Life isn't a metric. Kids should not be gauged by their economic output.
62
To everything Hillary proposes: "We don't want a nanny state," say those on the far right. And "It's not good enough," say those on the far left. Is it any wonder that we don't move forward in this country. The two extremes, the tails of the curve, are holding us back.
185
Excellent observation, Ron Cohen. It is highly doubtful that the far right wants or would vote, except under duress, for any subsidizing of childcare expenses, The left ought to be more flexible because the children need our advocacy. To paraphrase an old saying, "Never let perfect get in the way of good."
2
Um, we've been trying the middle of the road route for the last 30 years and except for the cell phone industry, virtually the entire world is collapsing. Most people don't notice (or care) as they are either the 1% or else perfectly content with the games and social apps (e.g., the Matrix) which has been provided for them.
1
Yes Ron: The two radical ends of the political spectrum drag the center down with it. The GOP has been dominated by the conservative right for decades. The GOP mantra is "No comprise possible" when it comes to governing. McConnell and Ryan are not moderate. On the other end, it is just as uncompromising.
Hard to be caught in the middle.
Hard to be caught in the middle.
2
Donald Trump wants to do something about immigrants, but not about heroin. Expelling the undocumented is his answer to rapidly spread drug addiction in America's cities and towns--will he build a wall around white people to prevent it from spreading to Asian/African-American/Latino communities--until it is better understood? He is the classic abuser who, when caught, flatly denies his abuse or blames it on others, or frames it as natural. His language denigrates women--for whom he has no policies for child care, wage hikes, family leave, or safety from violence, despite mounting threats and costs. He sees white male privilege as a constitutional right, but his danger is in his biggest boast: creating jobs.
Jobs are created in context. Which industries and markets, what products, which purchasing countries has Trump identified for gains? (I suggest rail, from commuter to cargo, a fast growing, global heavy industry with 1000s of ancillary products/services/skills benefiting wages and financing.)
Does the real estate guy know about data service REITs, a fast growing space servicing businesses of all sizes? What about healthcare REITS, can they help control healthcare costs? "Last mile" warehouse REITs (for Amazon and others), can these be developed and leveraged globally? REITs (real estate investment trusts, required to pay out 90% of profits to shareholders) add jobs, create investments, help control costs and can be scaled. They would have more impact than a wall!
Jobs are created in context. Which industries and markets, what products, which purchasing countries has Trump identified for gains? (I suggest rail, from commuter to cargo, a fast growing, global heavy industry with 1000s of ancillary products/services/skills benefiting wages and financing.)
Does the real estate guy know about data service REITs, a fast growing space servicing businesses of all sizes? What about healthcare REITS, can they help control healthcare costs? "Last mile" warehouse REITs (for Amazon and others), can these be developed and leveraged globally? REITs (real estate investment trusts, required to pay out 90% of profits to shareholders) add jobs, create investments, help control costs and can be scaled. They would have more impact than a wall!
20
Two notes: both supporters and distractors of Trump should be worried about his assumption--and refusal to admit--alter egos, revealed in a looking glass moment, caught on tape. This separation of selves in the service of each other could become a significant problem if it is still a part of his decision-making and issue framing. Which Trump is speaking? Maybe he is (honestly) unaware of his actions!
Two, on Paul's columns, to further the ideas of policy, I often cite models; the ideas of policy have to be turned into models for organizations and communities that provide a diagram of the working parts and markets.
Rails, esp. are a global opportunity with limited barriers to entry; they require precision manufacturing, match American foundry and technical skills and financing capacity, but even the New York subway buys cars from Canada! The rail boom will continue for a century and the US has only 2% of the total market, including coatings, signals, software, doors, engines.
Debates about taxes and policy limit the national vision to repeating the past. Models show how resources can be recombined to meet old and new market demands; they must become a part of the discussion focusing on the future!
In that light, REITs are a model that offer several benefits! Including small investor opportunities and lower service and capital costs through efficiency and efficacy.
Two, on Paul's columns, to further the ideas of policy, I often cite models; the ideas of policy have to be turned into models for organizations and communities that provide a diagram of the working parts and markets.
Rails, esp. are a global opportunity with limited barriers to entry; they require precision manufacturing, match American foundry and technical skills and financing capacity, but even the New York subway buys cars from Canada! The rail boom will continue for a century and the US has only 2% of the total market, including coatings, signals, software, doors, engines.
Debates about taxes and policy limit the national vision to repeating the past. Models show how resources can be recombined to meet old and new market demands; they must become a part of the discussion focusing on the future!
In that light, REITs are a model that offer several benefits! Including small investor opportunities and lower service and capital costs through efficiency and efficacy.
3
Attaining better and more even results with our children despite what we spend as individuals with vastly uneven resources is something I support as a Republican. This may surprise some, but there's a big difference between mainstream Republicans and true, fire-breathing conservatives who believe that the wholesome fate of children is a trophy that a parent wins through right choices and hard work, not so much by a shared societal responsibility. Since all of us must live with the monsters or the saints we collectively make of our children, it seems to me that we have a shared responsibility to fight for sainthood.
So, I welcome Paul's ideas, and Hillary's plan interests me. But using energetic government as the means risks mucking it up badly as we've mucked up our public education to such an astonishing extent -- yes, folks, WE'VE done that, not just Republicans but every bit as much Democrats, as well; and most of the damage was caused by well-meaning people with bad priorities.
I'd like to support doing it through tax incentives, but that would hardly do, would it? The parents of children who would benefit most don't pay much in income taxes, do they? It's like the Fed trying to apply traditional monetary tools when the discount rate already is at zero.
Hillary's plan needs to offer a way of making it all work, in the judgment of people like me. If her means is anything like how the ACA was hatched and is managed, then it's unfortunately very much a dead issue.
So, I welcome Paul's ideas, and Hillary's plan interests me. But using energetic government as the means risks mucking it up badly as we've mucked up our public education to such an astonishing extent -- yes, folks, WE'VE done that, not just Republicans but every bit as much Democrats, as well; and most of the damage was caused by well-meaning people with bad priorities.
I'd like to support doing it through tax incentives, but that would hardly do, would it? The parents of children who would benefit most don't pay much in income taxes, do they? It's like the Fed trying to apply traditional monetary tools when the discount rate already is at zero.
Hillary's plan needs to offer a way of making it all work, in the judgment of people like me. If her means is anything like how the ACA was hatched and is managed, then it's unfortunately very much a dead issue.
10
Public education is only failing in zip codes where the poverty level approaches third-world status. While the federal government is far from perfect in the field of education, it is often the last resort of funding for those districts in desperate need of financial help when local property taxes cannot provide a fair and equitable education to students. It does not serve the interests of our communities and the country when such a large percentage of children do not have access to educational opportunities.
11
Forget the comparisons to ACA and the simplistic "death panel" verdict for paid leave. Ask your adult children or your neighbors how popular "UPK" (Universal Pre-Kindergarten). In states that have funded it fairly well, ALL 4 year olds can, but are not forced to go to school and learn skills that we know without any doubt are essential for emotional, academic and physical growth. Kids whose parents could easily afford preschool get it for free--and so do kids whose parents would never be able to afford it. Not the ACA, and not a means-tested program--just one that says ALL children deserve to reach at least the starting line by kindergarten. Not think about that for newborns, whose moms have to go back to work at 6 weeks. Paid leave is a monetary policy with immediate AND long-term benefits!
9
Hi Richard,
While government doing a job may not always work, I think that government paying for a private company to do the job is by far the worst possible choice. It brings to mind 300.00 dollar hammers in the defense industry. Or thinking about the education industry I'd suggest that there is evidence that "for profit college" are businesses that in the aggregate have a model that effectively siphons money from the government into the business without particularly good results for many of the students,
While government doing a job may not always work, I think that government paying for a private company to do the job is by far the worst possible choice. It brings to mind 300.00 dollar hammers in the defense industry. Or thinking about the education industry I'd suggest that there is evidence that "for profit college" are businesses that in the aggregate have a model that effectively siphons money from the government into the business without particularly good results for many of the students,
7
Paul Krugman's favorite U.S. politicians, e.g., Hillary Clinton, love to pose as defenders of family values. Unfortunately, this pose is often, perhaps usually, one of remarkable hypocrisy."
31
It's one thing to argue the merits of a situation, it's quite another to totally disregard known and knowable facts in favor of lies, spin and Right Wing talking points. Even a cursory look into HRC's background will tell you she has been championing children's issues her entire carer. From taking on abuse and neglect cases pro bono as a young lawyer, to getting Arkansas schools to accept disabled and autistic children, to then helping to revamp Arkansas entire public school system to modernize it to better serve it's children. She went under cover in the deep south to see if they were excluding minorities in some of the school systems. After healthcare was defeated in the 90's she picked up the pieces to help pass a children's insurance program called schip which covered millions of previously uninsured children. I could go on.
I wish people would understand that they are falling into the trap of false narratives honed by the Right against Hillary Clinton. There is absolutely one thing that is never in question in regards to Hillary, and that is her fierce regard and championing of children for literally decades.
I wish people would understand that they are falling into the trap of false narratives honed by the Right against Hillary Clinton. There is absolutely one thing that is never in question in regards to Hillary, and that is her fierce regard and championing of children for literally decades.
10
Barbara,
taopraxis marches to his own drummer, and doesn't necessarily let the facts get in the way.
taopraxis marches to his own drummer, and doesn't necessarily let the facts get in the way.
1
Yes, Dr. Krugman, let's do something about the shame, the shame of neglected children. And that would be to curtail childbearing for those who cannot even afford to take care of themselves. In a world where science has provided a plethora of effective birth control, why are we compelled to deal with the demographic nightmare of an ever-expanding underclass: indigents dependent on the entitlements of the hobbling welfare state having babies in order to increase their payments. I will support that presidential candidate who will make everyone accountable for the money they are costing the Treasury, whether a billionaire, a multinational corporation, or the poorest of the poor. Unchecked fecundity is not the answer to this problem, but has become the problem.
22
Oh, so you are proposing sterilizing poor people?
4
We tried eugenics a century ago, and inspired Hitler to do the same. You surely aren't recommending we go down that path. Granted, some people are (as you call them) indigent through their own choice, but many have been made indigent by the circumstances of their birth and upbringing. The children of all these indigents are our own future citizens, workers, taxpayers, and, yes, soldiers. They deserve our help now because we need their help in the future.
6
The solution is free contraception, shown to be accepted by poor women, when available. Contraception reduces birth rates. Education reduces birth rates. Jobs reduce poverty.
The GOP, however, would rather shame young women, claim that their god doesn't like sex as pleasure,send jobs overseas and natter on about how terrible it is when poor people have children.
The GOP, however, would rather shame young women, claim that their god doesn't like sex as pleasure,send jobs overseas and natter on about how terrible it is when poor people have children.
5
"When we talk about doing more for children, it’s important to realize that it costs money, but not all that much money. Why? Because there aren’t that many young children at any given time, and it doesn’t take a lot of spending to make a huge difference to their lives."
One of the easiest, cheapest things to do for American children IMO is expose them to PBS children's shows. Yet Republicans in the government totally hate PBS and are always looking for ways to gut it even more. Hmm.... what's the connection here? They simply don't want the populace to be educated, especially the poor, working class and middle class populace which lack the resources of the upper class. Yet everybody has/had a TV set. But sure, OK - let's not use that TV set to help people!
PBS shows like "The Electric Company" and "Zoom" were before my time, but my mom - an elementary school teacher - had made videotapes which my parents converted from Betamax to VHS in the 90s and I've converted to computer files so hopefully my future kids can watch them. From learning math/reading to learning about friendship and kindness (and learning there are other American accents, like those from the PBS Zoom kids of Booawwston), educational TV and now web/streaming educational programs - nonpolitical, non-agenda-ish - are inexpensive, accessible, and immensely valuable. So why aren't there more of them?
One of the easiest, cheapest things to do for American children IMO is expose them to PBS children's shows. Yet Republicans in the government totally hate PBS and are always looking for ways to gut it even more. Hmm.... what's the connection here? They simply don't want the populace to be educated, especially the poor, working class and middle class populace which lack the resources of the upper class. Yet everybody has/had a TV set. But sure, OK - let's not use that TV set to help people!
PBS shows like "The Electric Company" and "Zoom" were before my time, but my mom - an elementary school teacher - had made videotapes which my parents converted from Betamax to VHS in the 90s and I've converted to computer files so hopefully my future kids can watch them. From learning math/reading to learning about friendship and kindness (and learning there are other American accents, like those from the PBS Zoom kids of Booawwston), educational TV and now web/streaming educational programs - nonpolitical, non-agenda-ish - are inexpensive, accessible, and immensely valuable. So why aren't there more of them?
91
Having a workable national program for good child care ought to be a non-partisan, uncontroversial mission for the people of the United States. Unfortunately, it is not – as shown by our dismal track record when measured against other countries.
Choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton this November, Americans need to know that the correct choice is Clinton on virtually every social issue.
It is not enough for people in the business of following politics closely to know this fact. We need it to be common knowledge that, particularly in the case of children, Trump is not an option. We need bumper stickers.
For the Sake of Our Kids – Vote Hillary
Love Our Kids – Vote Clinton
Choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton this November, Americans need to know that the correct choice is Clinton on virtually every social issue.
It is not enough for people in the business of following politics closely to know this fact. We need it to be common knowledge that, particularly in the case of children, Trump is not an option. We need bumper stickers.
For the Sake of Our Kids – Vote Hillary
Love Our Kids – Vote Clinton
130
Hillary cares less about the poor and children than her husband Bill did as president. If you are disappointed that Obama did so little to improve the situations of the poor, wait until you see what Hillary does. Maybe then you will realize the president is dependent upon Congress to get their agenda passed, which will not happen with Mrs. Clinton in the Oval office. Vote 3rd party if you wish to see a better USA.
1
Frankly, Sierra, your reply is not responsive to my comment. I will agree that Congress is primarily responsible for blocking all kinds of social programs, including public help for assuring good childcare. However, Sierra, progressives who "[v]ote 3rd party" simply assure more of a conservative stranglehold on social programs.
2
"And it would indeed be an investment — every bit as much of an investment as spending money to repair and improve our transportation infrastructure."
As much of an investment and more important. But a Republican Congress is as likely to invest in early childcare as they are in education and infrastructure; not at all. Arguments about real "family" values have proven useless. It is important to remember through all the presidential campaign noise that the entire House and one third of the Senate are up for election this November. Democrats so unhappy with one or the other candidates they talk of a non-vote, need to get to the polls anyway and weigh in on congressional races.
As much of an investment and more important. But a Republican Congress is as likely to invest in early childcare as they are in education and infrastructure; not at all. Arguments about real "family" values have proven useless. It is important to remember through all the presidential campaign noise that the entire House and one third of the Senate are up for election this November. Democrats so unhappy with one or the other candidates they talk of a non-vote, need to get to the polls anyway and weigh in on congressional races.
74
People should be educated to understand that they should only have children if they can afford it !!!!!! There are far too many adults who are constantly in breeding mode without giving a single thought to the cost thereof. Why should my taxes go to supporting someone who cannot afford to have children. That is the real issue - no so?
15
Ummm, no, not so. If we don't maintain population growth, who is going to pay your social security benefits - Not to mention the even bigger issue of who is going to help us maintain a healthy population size that stimulates innovation? Biology means that for many people, women and men (see stats on schizophrenia connection to old dads), waiting for income stability means they will never have children. Somehow I doubt you are a big supporter of social insurance that could improve our odds in the career roulette most of us play. The optimists among us are raising those kids for all of us! For better or worse, businesses don't do that well in a shrinking economy. I hope we solve that, but we haven't yet; take a look at Japan and much of Europe if you want to see what flat or declining population looks like. Of course maintaining the kind of country that large numbers of immigrants want to come to is another partial solution to declining growth rates - but somehow I doubt you like that much either. Or are you an open borders libertarian?
4
No, not so, not at all. The notion of 'constantly breeding' poor people overrunning the country is factually false, covertly bigoted, and badly outdated.
However, taking your POV seriously for a moment, then it follows that you would support raising the minimum wage, say, to $21/hour, which is what it would be if it kept up with rising worker productivity. You would also be in favor of compelling corporations that pay their workers so little they must rely on public assistance to cover the cost to the taxpayers. You would favor strengthening unions, so that workers have sufficient bargaining power to demand a living wage, a wage high enough that they can provide for their children adequately. Would I be correct?
I thought not.
However, taking your POV seriously for a moment, then it follows that you would support raising the minimum wage, say, to $21/hour, which is what it would be if it kept up with rising worker productivity. You would also be in favor of compelling corporations that pay their workers so little they must rely on public assistance to cover the cost to the taxpayers. You would favor strengthening unions, so that workers have sufficient bargaining power to demand a living wage, a wage high enough that they can provide for their children adequately. Would I be correct?
I thought not.
Paying people to have babies sounds outrageous, but paying them to have our own future workers, tax-payers, citizens, citizens, and, yes, soldiers, thus saving us the time and trouble of having them ourselves, doesn't sound like such a bad idea. It really depends on how you phrase it.
Yes, but Paul, where is the Immediate Mercantile Profit in long-term, state-sponsored investment, aimed at improving the general welfare. ...Wait! Let me rephrase that...
13
Ah, shoot. I had meant to insert the word, "capital" (like, capitalism, see?) between "...sponsored..." and "...investment...", to emphasise both meaning and irony.
Too big a hurry (must be my own mercantile humour, I guess. No sense of timing). Sorry.
So it should have read, in its ideal form: "Yes, but Paul, where is the Immediate Mercantile Profit in long-term, state-sponsored CAPITAL investment, aimed at improving the general welfare?
...Wait! Let me rephrase that...
Too big a hurry (must be my own mercantile humour, I guess. No sense of timing). Sorry.
So it should have read, in its ideal form: "Yes, but Paul, where is the Immediate Mercantile Profit in long-term, state-sponsored CAPITAL investment, aimed at improving the general welfare?
...Wait! Let me rephrase that...
4
Well James, if we privatize everything then we would probably be living from quarter to quarter to see how we are 'profiting'. I think you are being sarcastic but you make a good point. Government is necessary for a civilized country.
1
Instead of tax credits, why not increase the minimum wage? Or is that not vague and incremental enough?
107
Caledonia
Great suggestion.
However, we KNOW that Hillary was against raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and she wants to leave to the states raising it to $12 an hour.
And on top of that, Krugman gives her a pass on a plan he admits has no specifics attached. Yeah, right.
The fix is in.
Great suggestion.
However, we KNOW that Hillary was against raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and she wants to leave to the states raising it to $12 an hour.
And on top of that, Krugman gives her a pass on a plan he admits has no specifics attached. Yeah, right.
The fix is in.
1
As Hillary Clinton says, we need both the tax credits and an increase in the minimum wage.
2
I think it would be nice to once again have a parent be able to stay home to raise children, and not be punished when returning to work when the children are old enough. Terribly old fashioned, I know. Wages, or guaranteed income, is the key to both this and our demand crisis. Raising the minimum is a wobbly first step.
Krugman's description of aid to children as an investment in the future has offended some readers because this approach appears to convert human beings into resources. Well, from an economic perspective, they do qualify as very valuable resources, and this fact won't change simply because we refuse to discuss it. More importantly, Krugman's approach enables us to frame the discussion in a way that might appeal to business leaders.
One reader argued that a GOP-dominated Congress would never consider Clinton's (or Sanders') proposals. Republicans might do so if the Democrats presented them as something other than another social welfare program. After all, one reason Republicans have allied with Democrats to reform the criminal justice system is because of the potential savings involved.
The most important reason to help families with young children is to create a more humane society. But it doesn't hurt to stress that this aid will also enrich the country by reducing crime and making workers more productive. Successful government programs must appeal to a variety of interests, and a campaign that seeks to accomplish this goal by emphasizing the utilitarian benefits of a program does not thereby nullify its idealistic purposes.
One reader argued that a GOP-dominated Congress would never consider Clinton's (or Sanders') proposals. Republicans might do so if the Democrats presented them as something other than another social welfare program. After all, one reason Republicans have allied with Democrats to reform the criminal justice system is because of the potential savings involved.
The most important reason to help families with young children is to create a more humane society. But it doesn't hurt to stress that this aid will also enrich the country by reducing crime and making workers more productive. Successful government programs must appeal to a variety of interests, and a campaign that seeks to accomplish this goal by emphasizing the utilitarian benefits of a program does not thereby nullify its idealistic purposes.
867
Well they are resources and quite poor one's at that. The human race is possibly the worst species on the planet.
3
What you wrote, James Lee.
3
This sort of analysis of the cost/benefit ratio is exactly what make Head Start accepted many decades ago. The cost is low, the benefits high.
Investing in our children is a good investment.
Investing in our children is a good investment.
4
Isn't this pattern of failure by politicians to actually help kids - the hypocrisy - one of the reasons we almost instinctively recoil when a pol inserts their kid(s) into the political process ?
Too bad kids don't vote, so that their needs would actually have some chance of being addressed.
Too bad kids don't vote, so that their needs would actually have some chance of being addressed.
15
R Law, hypocrisy seems to rule the day in some politicians. I was a ward of the court at age 13 in a very backward state smack in the middle of the country. A wonderful relative in a southern red state saved me by providing bus fare to bring me to her home. The judge was a good man and agreed to let me go. I have done well since thanks to my aunt but my life could have been very different. Not all children have good, able relatives to save them from the foster kid nightmare that is all too common.
1
Those great defenders of family values, by their actions, clearly demonstrate that they care not one whit about the lives of the youngest in our society, or their families. The malefactors of political power work tirelessly defunding and criminalizing the tools of family planning, while defunding and privatizing elementary education, so it stands to reason that paid family leave should be one of those "personal responsibility" issues "left to the individual".
But rest assured, there are always plenty of perfectly legal guns to go around - toddlers are killing more Americans these days than terrorists.
It's as if conservatives actually hate to see the average family succeed.
But rest assured, there are always plenty of perfectly legal guns to go around - toddlers are killing more Americans these days than terrorists.
It's as if conservatives actually hate to see the average family succeed.
308
I don't care a hoot about other people's children.
4
You know, Paul, other peoples' children grow up to be your grandkid's teacher, your lawyer, your chef, the nurse changing diapers in your assisted living community, or the guy who robs you at gunpoint. It pays to care about other people's children.
21
Well, then you have no place in society. You can't just take its benefits -- electricity, security, food etc -- and not contribute.
We all have to pull together, not just take what's in it for us. Unless you're a free market Republican. If so, carry on.
We all have to pull together, not just take what's in it for us. Unless you're a free market Republican. If so, carry on.
2
Interesting that Dr Krugman had to provide a link to a Vox article, apparently because this significant policy announcement didn't warrant NYT coverage.
97
That, and there was a debate in which Clinton went after Sanders for wanting America to be more like Denmark. Krugman even wrote an op-ed about that. Fast forward a few months and Hillary now wants Denmark too, it seems.
Most of the YouTube videos of the debate exchange have been removed or else I'd provide a link.
Most of the YouTube videos of the debate exchange have been removed or else I'd provide a link.
131
And Sanders could have continued with the Denmark comparison with more facts pertinent to our counterparts in the US, instead of keeping it quiet. All Hillary had to say I guess is "America is not Denmark"--end of story.
Sanders could have used many other countries as positive examples in various ways. He could have brought up his own Senate hearings in 2013, with witnesses telling us how they finance health care in Denmark, France, Taiwan and Canada. It stands out only b/c such hearings are so rare. But Sanders never used that in his campaign to buttress his reform ideas for h/c. The media hardly covered it. Lost opportunity.
Sanders could have used many other countries as positive examples in various ways. He could have brought up his own Senate hearings in 2013, with witnesses telling us how they finance health care in Denmark, France, Taiwan and Canada. It stands out only b/c such hearings are so rare. But Sanders never used that in his campaign to buttress his reform ideas for h/c. The media hardly covered it. Lost opportunity.
10
I waited in vain--I'm still waiting--to hear an angry denunciation by any top-drawer Republican, any Republican! to publicly denounce former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. It's as though they all went underground; not a word of condemnation of the hypocrite; no wringing of hands about the permanent damage done to the young adults; no self-examination of "how could this have happened" or "what can we do to prevent this from happening again?" Just silence on the Right; their ruse and shell game of "family values" is exposed for what it is: a cynical grab for votes while pointing the public's attention in another direction.
Republicans don't care about children after they're born; only when they're conceived. If a pregnancy is deemed inconvenient by the upper fifth, they manage to "make an adjustment" so as to not be held liable for the cost of bringing up a child that an ultrasound may have predicted will be born with defects.
Parents who are desperately scratching out a living need all the help they can get for child-rearing, yet the Right grab the megaphone about the evils of government intrusion into the family. They trot out the old hits: work ethic; building a bright future by virtue of indefatigable effort; and, their greatest weapon: limited government. The GOP is a polished version of an even more polished con: the televangelists who preach the greater good of wealth in this life: have your heaven now!
Meanwhile, the vulnerable remain so, with indifference.
Republicans don't care about children after they're born; only when they're conceived. If a pregnancy is deemed inconvenient by the upper fifth, they manage to "make an adjustment" so as to not be held liable for the cost of bringing up a child that an ultrasound may have predicted will be born with defects.
Parents who are desperately scratching out a living need all the help they can get for child-rearing, yet the Right grab the megaphone about the evils of government intrusion into the family. They trot out the old hits: work ethic; building a bright future by virtue of indefatigable effort; and, their greatest weapon: limited government. The GOP is a polished version of an even more polished con: the televangelists who preach the greater good of wealth in this life: have your heaven now!
Meanwhile, the vulnerable remain so, with indifference.
528
sox - We have to always remember the governing principle Dr. K. has time and again illustrated to us, I.O.K.I.Y.A.R. (It's o.k. If You're a Republican).
And GOP'ers can't be condemning Hastert at the same time they've been writing letters to the Court, begging for lenience for him:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/22/tom-delay-ex-cia-director-...
Plus, there's the inconvenient fact that Boehner ran the whole GOP'er legislative program for 4-5 years on the invented ' Hastert rule ', which Hastert himself called bilge:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/03/denny-hastert-disses-th...
Then there's the equally inconvenient thing of Hastert being the longest-serving GOP'er Speaker in history, and during his tenure, there were all those other GOP'er sex scandals in the Dubya years that GOP'ers don't want to bring up this election year.
And GOP'ers can't be condemning Hastert at the same time they've been writing letters to the Court, begging for lenience for him:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/22/tom-delay-ex-cia-director-...
Plus, there's the inconvenient fact that Boehner ran the whole GOP'er legislative program for 4-5 years on the invented ' Hastert rule ', which Hastert himself called bilge:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/03/denny-hastert-disses-th...
Then there's the equally inconvenient thing of Hastert being the longest-serving GOP'er Speaker in history, and during his tenure, there were all those other GOP'er sex scandals in the Dubya years that GOP'ers don't want to bring up this election year.
90
Republican Speaker Hastert was merely treating children as a resource.
1
soxared040713 said: "I waited in vain--I'm still waiting--to hear an angry denunciation by any top-drawer Republican, any Republican! to publicly denounce former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. It's as though they all went underground; not a word of condemnation of the hypocrite; ... Just silence on the Right..."
Actually, quite a few of them have lobbied for LENIENCY in Hastert's sentencing. This is a line I never thought I'd hear anyone in politics cross. So much for the "law and order" party, or the religious right.
Actually, quite a few of them have lobbied for LENIENCY in Hastert's sentencing. This is a line I never thought I'd hear anyone in politics cross. So much for the "law and order" party, or the religious right.
5
The Republicans will never agree to fund early childhood education. Never. The GOP’s main reason for being is to keep wages low. There are ‘respectable’ conservatives commentators (James A. Dorn) who, influenced by Milton Friedman, advocate abolishing the minimum wage altogether. A few of them would not be bothered if some workers had to work for 10¢ an hour. If that is not symbolized by the Confederate Flag, I don’t know what it is. Further, they claim that the welfare of the people is not the business of the Federal government, only the business of the states. Sounds like “State Rights?” You bet. In our day opposing early childhood education is pretty much the same as passing laws making teaching a slave how to read a crime. Like any civilized person, I’m with you Paul. Good luck!
219
The question for Krugman—Is Clinton’s famous Incremental Pragmatism enough? ---for child care, h/c and education where we’re inferior to international norms? She proudly told the nation—“We’re Not Denmark!”
The American credo of individualism and small govt is a gift to the rw Gop and the corporations, so they can use accusations of ‘socialism’ as a weapon against govt spending.
This explains why the US is the last hold out in the 1st world in true h/c for all, where we’re generations behind, and in child care, family leave, and employee protections.
Forcing parents to work 2 or 3 jobs for basics, burdened by stress, means kids are left on their own. So many ripple effects in social instability from the US attitude that people are supposed to be ‘independent’. Our vast incarceration has left many kids fatherless.
The irony of America as land of the free is that our politics creates and entrenches a more extreme class stratification, b/c corporate profits and small govt are the highest values.
Our extreme credo of individualism, self reliance, freedom from Big Govt, leads to more polarized economic classes, lower economic mobility, and the wider equality gap here than abroad.
Comparisons with advanced nations show the contrast we need to confront. This is the 1st time in a while that Krugman has cited an EU nation as a positive role model. They also don’t let billionaires pay for their elections, btw. This logically leads to the topic for the next column.
The American credo of individualism and small govt is a gift to the rw Gop and the corporations, so they can use accusations of ‘socialism’ as a weapon against govt spending.
This explains why the US is the last hold out in the 1st world in true h/c for all, where we’re generations behind, and in child care, family leave, and employee protections.
Forcing parents to work 2 or 3 jobs for basics, burdened by stress, means kids are left on their own. So many ripple effects in social instability from the US attitude that people are supposed to be ‘independent’. Our vast incarceration has left many kids fatherless.
The irony of America as land of the free is that our politics creates and entrenches a more extreme class stratification, b/c corporate profits and small govt are the highest values.
Our extreme credo of individualism, self reliance, freedom from Big Govt, leads to more polarized economic classes, lower economic mobility, and the wider equality gap here than abroad.
Comparisons with advanced nations show the contrast we need to confront. This is the 1st time in a while that Krugman has cited an EU nation as a positive role model. They also don’t let billionaires pay for their elections, btw. This logically leads to the topic for the next column.
124
Krugman is only concerned about details when it comes to, say, single payer health care. Hillary's plan is also big on aspirations and short on specifics, but it's given a miraculous pass.
Of course, her ideas are good ones, especially better pay for workers and subsidized day care. But they still have neoliberalism (market-based solutions to social problems) written all over them.
The first clue is that Krugman and Clinton talk about kids as investments, from which the plutonomy expects to derive big dividends as tomorrow's worker bees and payers of regressive taxes.
Well, guess what? Children aren't cattle futures.
They need enough to eat, today. Growing bodies can't thrive on "increments." But year after year, food stamp stipends get cut. Republicans demand starvation ("he who eats must work") and then Democrats agree to give the nippers a wee nip and tuck here and there.
Parents need jobs and living wages, today. Hillary should demand reversal of the repeal of FDR's Aid to Families With Dependent Children. Bernie Sanders's shocking claim that Clintonoid welfare "reform" has doubled extreme poverty in the US in the past two decades was deemed accurate by fact-checking organizations.
Kids require shelter, today. The rents are too damned high. Every year, 2 million kids face homelessness. Evictions are the new normal. We need a federal guaranteed housing policy.
Human rights can't be doled out in increments for the sole purpose of placating the Market God.
Of course, her ideas are good ones, especially better pay for workers and subsidized day care. But they still have neoliberalism (market-based solutions to social problems) written all over them.
The first clue is that Krugman and Clinton talk about kids as investments, from which the plutonomy expects to derive big dividends as tomorrow's worker bees and payers of regressive taxes.
Well, guess what? Children aren't cattle futures.
They need enough to eat, today. Growing bodies can't thrive on "increments." But year after year, food stamp stipends get cut. Republicans demand starvation ("he who eats must work") and then Democrats agree to give the nippers a wee nip and tuck here and there.
Parents need jobs and living wages, today. Hillary should demand reversal of the repeal of FDR's Aid to Families With Dependent Children. Bernie Sanders's shocking claim that Clintonoid welfare "reform" has doubled extreme poverty in the US in the past two decades was deemed accurate by fact-checking organizations.
Kids require shelter, today. The rents are too damned high. Every year, 2 million kids face homelessness. Evictions are the new normal. We need a federal guaranteed housing policy.
Human rights can't be doled out in increments for the sole purpose of placating the Market God.
489
Absolutely spot on, thank you. Michael Bloomberg & Joel Stein eviscerated public education in the name of the Market God & the promotion of plutocracy. Stein was rewarded with a high-level post as that great educator Rupert Murdoch's consigliere,
39
Karen....So what were the effects on millions of children over the years from the Clintons’ saying the ‘era of big govt is over', which justified cuts in public services? Plus from the expansion of prisons and harsh sentencing, which removed fathers from home? Plus the ‘end of welfare as we know it’, which cut basic subsistence from families?
Seems those policies would be quite germane to Krugman’s topic of how badly the US treats its children. At least depending on whose children they are.
Funny that Hillary worked with the Children's Defense Fund. Seems it was Bill's policies that children needed defense against.
I haven't read Hillary's book "It Takes a Village". The title sounds almost socialistic. But it couldn't be, could it? Or was it a piece of election 'image polishing'.
Seems those policies would be quite germane to Krugman’s topic of how badly the US treats its children. At least depending on whose children they are.
Funny that Hillary worked with the Children's Defense Fund. Seems it was Bill's policies that children needed defense against.
I haven't read Hillary's book "It Takes a Village". The title sounds almost socialistic. But it couldn't be, could it? Or was it a piece of election 'image polishing'.
27
Reply to Karen Garcia,
If kids could eat outrage, they'd be way ahead in this election cycle. What they need, alas, is not outrage, but outcomes. They'll die waiting for your perfect world, Karen
If kids could eat outrage, they'd be way ahead in this election cycle. What they need, alas, is not outrage, but outcomes. They'll die waiting for your perfect world, Karen
23
It seems to me the reason there are so few children is because increasingly people 40 and younger are not having them. Especially if they grew up in a middle class family themselves. They feel they can't responsibly start a family. They have been waiting for sufficient opportunity since the dot com implosion 18 years ago.
This the thing that ticks me off about hill bots. they are all baby boomers who have middle class security. They think the biggest issue is who gets to pick the Supreme Court justices. Meanwhile UNDER OBAMA the middle class slipped under 50%; that's the millennial generation making its way thru our demographic curve with a banana republic social contract. Nice to help working class get another piece work program if only to help them cope with their 3rd world social contract but it is an indication of little conviction to commit to a 1st world social contract for all. As Jon Stewart said recently Half Measure Hillary lacks the courage of her convictions, whatever those convictions are.
This the thing that ticks me off about hill bots. they are all baby boomers who have middle class security. They think the biggest issue is who gets to pick the Supreme Court justices. Meanwhile UNDER OBAMA the middle class slipped under 50%; that's the millennial generation making its way thru our demographic curve with a banana republic social contract. Nice to help working class get another piece work program if only to help them cope with their 3rd world social contract but it is an indication of little conviction to commit to a 1st world social contract for all. As Jon Stewart said recently Half Measure Hillary lacks the courage of her convictions, whatever those convictions are.
144
Sorry, Tim, you live with three more Scalia types on the Supreme Court. The upcoming appointments ARE the biggest issue for me and should be for every sensible voter of any age. Citizens United is just the beginning of what a Torture Nation a Republican win would bring us.
171
Thanks Tim -- except there is no birth shortage. The US has very high birth rates. The boomers delayed childbearing (yes, sometimes into their 40s!) but they did have children -- just as many as their parents had. Divorce and late childbearing and technologies like IVF -- and adoption -- have created a "boomer echo" which is the millennials -- now LARGER than the boomer generation.
Millennials were headed to be the SMALLEST cohort, after Gen X -- but it got flipped as boomers had more babies, had them later than anyone dreamed possible and started adopting and using IVF (multiple births). I have a friend from high school, who was a carefree artist and traveler....until she decided she wanted a baby at 47! Donor eggs, IVF and today at 60 she has 12 year old TWINS.
Millennials were headed to be the SMALLEST cohort, after Gen X -- but it got flipped as boomers had more babies, had them later than anyone dreamed possible and started adopting and using IVF (multiple births). I have a friend from high school, who was a carefree artist and traveler....until she decided she wanted a baby at 47! Donor eggs, IVF and today at 60 she has 12 year old TWINS.
11
I take it you have a job and are baby boomer or plus.
The bigger issue is the existing social contract & the perpetuation of supply side economics 18 years after it hit saturation point & lost efficacy: we've had 18 years of lowflation/deflation & low opportunity, especially for young.
The young especially need a switch to demand side economics. 18 freeking years: Where is the urgency to end this madness?
In Anglo-Saxon civics the purpose of politics is to affect economics. This is the only issue. Everything else is a distraction.
The right wing supreme court is a problem. But its been around for 30 years. Meanwhile the youth are staring down a lost generation.
Here's the thing Hillary has shown only half hearted measures for the biggest issue.
And just to make a point: if Bernie is the nominee you get a candidate committed to finally ending the tyranny of supply side economics in favor of launching a demand side era AND you get liberal justices nominated.
The point is there is no down side for Hillbots if Bernie won but a huge down side for Bernie Bros if Hillary wins: more supply side economics.
It would be very satisfying to hear her use those terms in addressing economic issues; demand side economics versus supply side.
Once you acknowledge the two, one has to choose one over the other, and that means investigating and acknowledging the differences in the context of our times. That leads you to where, once again, Bernie already is: demand side economics.
The bigger issue is the existing social contract & the perpetuation of supply side economics 18 years after it hit saturation point & lost efficacy: we've had 18 years of lowflation/deflation & low opportunity, especially for young.
The young especially need a switch to demand side economics. 18 freeking years: Where is the urgency to end this madness?
In Anglo-Saxon civics the purpose of politics is to affect economics. This is the only issue. Everything else is a distraction.
The right wing supreme court is a problem. But its been around for 30 years. Meanwhile the youth are staring down a lost generation.
Here's the thing Hillary has shown only half hearted measures for the biggest issue.
And just to make a point: if Bernie is the nominee you get a candidate committed to finally ending the tyranny of supply side economics in favor of launching a demand side era AND you get liberal justices nominated.
The point is there is no down side for Hillbots if Bernie won but a huge down side for Bernie Bros if Hillary wins: more supply side economics.
It would be very satisfying to hear her use those terms in addressing economic issues; demand side economics versus supply side.
Once you acknowledge the two, one has to choose one over the other, and that means investigating and acknowledging the differences in the context of our times. That leads you to where, once again, Bernie already is: demand side economics.
24
"For child-care reform is the kind of medium-size, incremental, potentially politically doable..."
How is it politically doable, any more than any other initiative, when the opposition is a Republican Congress? PK seems to think just by the fact an initiative is incremental that it becomes doable - but this is just not so in the present political landscape. I see no reason to believe incrementalism in a Clinton Administration will have any more chance than Sanders' more sweeping ideas.
How is it politically doable, any more than any other initiative, when the opposition is a Republican Congress? PK seems to think just by the fact an initiative is incremental that it becomes doable - but this is just not so in the present political landscape. I see no reason to believe incrementalism in a Clinton Administration will have any more chance than Sanders' more sweeping ideas.
66
Well, Democratic agitation got Bush & the Republican congress to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Why? Because the concept made a lot of sense to many, many people. It was the very definition of incremental. It couldn't easily be demagogued as "socialism" etc
Granted the Republicans did it in a way that unjustly rewarded both the health insurance & drug companies. But that was with a Republican in the White House.
Of course the Republicans may be more stubborn now. Hard to imagine the "Freedom Caucus" agreeing to anything. But then we have an issue to take to the voters which is the only real solution, isn't it? If we're trying to flip Congress because they wouldn't agree to single payer we may not get that much traction but with a more incremental concept...
I understand that you don't like incrementalism, you want to see real change, right now. But to let that desire blind you to the fact that incremental change will be easier to attain, sorry, but that's plumb stupid
Granted the Republicans did it in a way that unjustly rewarded both the health insurance & drug companies. But that was with a Republican in the White House.
Of course the Republicans may be more stubborn now. Hard to imagine the "Freedom Caucus" agreeing to anything. But then we have an issue to take to the voters which is the only real solution, isn't it? If we're trying to flip Congress because they wouldn't agree to single payer we may not get that much traction but with a more incremental concept...
I understand that you don't like incrementalism, you want to see real change, right now. But to let that desire blind you to the fact that incremental change will be easier to attain, sorry, but that's plumb stupid
3
Surely Trump will counter that he has a marvelous plan to help all children at no cost to US citizens. Let illegal immigrants take care of them while they are waiting for the bus to take them back home. Once they are gone we can give all the money saved from the services no longer provided to illegals as tax rebates so people can hire nannies at minimum wages , which will not be raised, so poor people will be able to afford them.
11
The majority of child care workers (nannies, day care, etc.) are already illegal aliens. Go to any park in Manhattan, and check out who is minding those white babies. It's not their very affluent mothers.
If you mean "trained nannies for wealthy employers"....they already make well above minimum wage.
If you mean "untrained, unskilled baby sitters" .... it IS a minimum wage job. If it wasn't, nobody could afford to hire such a child caretaker. Double their wages via a $15 minimum, and MILLIONS of working women will now not be able to hire child care providers, and will be forced to scramble for care or even leave their jobs.
If you mean "trained nannies for wealthy employers"....they already make well above minimum wage.
If you mean "untrained, unskilled baby sitters" .... it IS a minimum wage job. If it wasn't, nobody could afford to hire such a child caretaker. Double their wages via a $15 minimum, and MILLIONS of working women will now not be able to hire child care providers, and will be forced to scramble for care or even leave their jobs.
2
I see, Concerned Citizen. You're worried about those working Moms losing cheap child care.
But you're NOT worried about minimum wage workers who have to use the social programs you probably complain about to survive.
But you're NOT worried about minimum wage workers who have to use the social programs you probably complain about to survive.
13
The party of "family values" does not value families.
That has been true since 1980.
They also believe life begins at conception and ends at
birth. This was Barney Frank's great line.
Taking food from hungry children is GOP policy. Depriving
them of health care is another.
Word
That has been true since 1980.
They also believe life begins at conception and ends at
birth. This was Barney Frank's great line.
Taking food from hungry children is GOP policy. Depriving
them of health care is another.
Word
462
Since you mention Barney Frank—times have changed.
I was just reading this IB Times article...
“Frank has publicly boasted about the money he’s raked in from Wall Street, as a lawmaker and now as a top Democratic Party power broker.
“Yes, I Took Bank Money. And It Made Me a Better Regulator.” Politico. This is who’s chairing the rules committee for the Dem Party now. And arguing fiercely against Wall St reforms opposing Robert Reich on Msnbc.
I was just reading this IB Times article...
“Frank has publicly boasted about the money he’s raked in from Wall Street, as a lawmaker and now as a top Democratic Party power broker.
“Yes, I Took Bank Money. And It Made Me a Better Regulator.” Politico. This is who’s chairing the rules committee for the Dem Party now. And arguing fiercely against Wall St reforms opposing Robert Reich on Msnbc.
34
Meredith
Sorry to burst your balloon.
Barney Frank left Congress on January 3, 2013. The 4th District of Massachusetts is now represented by Joe Kennedy.
Barney Frank has no position of any kind in Congress today.
Sorry to burst your balloon.
Barney Frank left Congress on January 3, 2013. The 4th District of Massachusetts is now represented by Joe Kennedy.
Barney Frank has no position of any kind in Congress today.
2
Bill,
Frank has been bought since he was appointed to the financial service board.
In late 2002, when he became the most important Democrat on the financial services committee, replacing Rep. John LaFalce. In the following election cycle, Frank increased his fundraising five-fold, from $268,000 to $1.4 million. He cruised to re-election, though Democrats failed to take back the House that year.
Due to his leadership of the finance committee, Frank derived the greatest share of his cash, and his newfound power, from Wall Street. He consistently raised more than 50 percent of his campaign contributions from the finance, insurance, and real estate industry. Frank increased his fundraising five-fold, from $268,000 to $1.4 million. http://www.alternet.org/story/144454/how_wall_street_bought_barney_frank
Frank has been bought since he was appointed to the financial service board.
In late 2002, when he became the most important Democrat on the financial services committee, replacing Rep. John LaFalce. In the following election cycle, Frank increased his fundraising five-fold, from $268,000 to $1.4 million. He cruised to re-election, though Democrats failed to take back the House that year.
Due to his leadership of the finance committee, Frank derived the greatest share of his cash, and his newfound power, from Wall Street. He consistently raised more than 50 percent of his campaign contributions from the finance, insurance, and real estate industry. Frank increased his fundraising five-fold, from $268,000 to $1.4 million. http://www.alternet.org/story/144454/how_wall_street_bought_barney_frank
2
Some of you may remember the success of the Black Panthers was their providing the disadvantaged children in their area with breakfast and lunch, so they would not go to school hungry. They also saw that those kids got to school. they also provided some after school day care, but the problem was, those doing so who were employed could not afford to take off from work to help with those services.
As Dr. K points out, it is the economically disadvantaged that do not get the care they need. That care would cost, and right away we see the better off, not the affluent, complaining about their tax dollars being used for "Those people." History shows us children raised without that needed care are the ones that end up in another kind of care, jail. Providing a 21 week leave from an employer, actually pays back more in the long run.
But, as we see, such ideas are rejected by those with short term tunnel vision. Wore yet, it is the small business people who object the most to such program as it will cost them money, and they will have to raise prices. It may, and it may not, but that is the standard talking point.
So the question is, how to get around such objections, how to show the benefits? How to talk to people who won't listen, but believe they know the "Truth?"
As Dr. K points out, it is the economically disadvantaged that do not get the care they need. That care would cost, and right away we see the better off, not the affluent, complaining about their tax dollars being used for "Those people." History shows us children raised without that needed care are the ones that end up in another kind of care, jail. Providing a 21 week leave from an employer, actually pays back more in the long run.
But, as we see, such ideas are rejected by those with short term tunnel vision. Wore yet, it is the small business people who object the most to such program as it will cost them money, and they will have to raise prices. It may, and it may not, but that is the standard talking point.
So the question is, how to get around such objections, how to show the benefits? How to talk to people who won't listen, but believe they know the "Truth?"
54
How long ago was that, David? Black Panthers? had to be what, late 60s, early 70s?
Today we have free breakfast and lunch programs for a huge number of children (in my district, something like 80% qualify!) and many districts continue to offer free lunches even in summer when school is off. There is free Head Start preschool programs. There is the EITC, which is basically subsidy to pay for things like day care. There is traditional welfare, and there "the new welfare" -- lifetime SSDI for minor ailments.
Then there are FOOD STAMPS, a vast program with fully 15% (1 in 7) Americans receives -- with the program DOUBLED under Obama! -- which is so generous that people sell the extra food stamps for cash. After all, they get the same food stamp allotment for a 5 year old child as for a 35 year old adult! And the same exact child gets 10 FREE meals each week at school (10 out of 21 meals)!
So we already HAVE the programs you are demanding we get.
Today we have free breakfast and lunch programs for a huge number of children (in my district, something like 80% qualify!) and many districts continue to offer free lunches even in summer when school is off. There is free Head Start preschool programs. There is the EITC, which is basically subsidy to pay for things like day care. There is traditional welfare, and there "the new welfare" -- lifetime SSDI for minor ailments.
Then there are FOOD STAMPS, a vast program with fully 15% (1 in 7) Americans receives -- with the program DOUBLED under Obama! -- which is so generous that people sell the extra food stamps for cash. After all, they get the same food stamp allotment for a 5 year old child as for a 35 year old adult! And the same exact child gets 10 FREE meals each week at school (10 out of 21 meals)!
So we already HAVE the programs you are demanding we get.
5
RE: "Then there are FOOD STAMPS, a vast program with fully 15% (1 in 7) Americans receives -- with the program DOUBLED under Obama! -- which is so generous that people sell the extra food stamps for cash."
GENEROUS??? ~ The average food stamp benefit in the USA is $125.35 which is about $4.17 a day. Some states pay more, some less, this is the average. I doubt one can eat a healthy diet on four dollars a day. Here is a link to the complete chart:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/avg-monthly-food-stamp-benefits/
GENEROUS??? ~ The average food stamp benefit in the USA is $125.35 which is about $4.17 a day. Some states pay more, some less, this is the average. I doubt one can eat a healthy diet on four dollars a day. Here is a link to the complete chart:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/avg-monthly-food-stamp-benefits/
3
SNAP provides, at best, provides $194 a month for the head of the household and less for every dependent. Couple that with the fact that many food stamp, as you called them, recipients live in places where food is expensive like in poor parts of cities and in rural areas. I am sure many of the poor would love the lavish benefits you describe, but they are not reality for the vast majority.
4
Trump is too busy making a quick buck to worry about the well-being of today's children. He is more concerned about tax breaks for high earners and like his former pal Romney, sees the 47% as "takers" milking the system and himself and other con artists like him as the only "givers". The Republican top dogs aren't wasting much time lining up to support him as, like them, he's a fellow well-met wolf in compliant sheep clothing.
21
"... one candidate has a reasonable, feasible plan to do something about this shame, while the other couldn’t care less."
Surely you don't mean that guy who couldn't care less is the Donald? He may not have a plan -- or as he now calls it, a "suggestion" -- for improving child care. But he doesn't have a plan for anything except that suggested tax plan an aide copied off the Republican Orthodoxy Website.
But he loves kids! And, according to him, he says so often. "I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.... She’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father...." Okay, not a plan exactly, but incredibly creepy.
Or how about this? "... I like kids. I mean, I won’t do anything to take care of them. I’ll supply funds and she’ll take care of the kids. It’s not like I’m gonna be walking the kids down Central Park." See, he knows rearing children is not a walk in the park. It's a start.
Also, too, Donald knows that private enterprise can do a better job than the government at providing child care. Asked on the campaign trail what he would do to increase access to child care, he said, “It’s not expensive for a company to do it. You need ... some blocks and you need some swings and some toys… I do it all over, and I get great people because of it....” Swings & toys! So much cooler than subsidies & tax credits.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
Surely you don't mean that guy who couldn't care less is the Donald? He may not have a plan -- or as he now calls it, a "suggestion" -- for improving child care. But he doesn't have a plan for anything except that suggested tax plan an aide copied off the Republican Orthodoxy Website.
But he loves kids! And, according to him, he says so often. "I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.... She’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father...." Okay, not a plan exactly, but incredibly creepy.
Or how about this? "... I like kids. I mean, I won’t do anything to take care of them. I’ll supply funds and she’ll take care of the kids. It’s not like I’m gonna be walking the kids down Central Park." See, he knows rearing children is not a walk in the park. It's a start.
Also, too, Donald knows that private enterprise can do a better job than the government at providing child care. Asked on the campaign trail what he would do to increase access to child care, he said, “It’s not expensive for a company to do it. You need ... some blocks and you need some swings and some toys… I do it all over, and I get great people because of it....” Swings & toys! So much cooler than subsidies & tax credits.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
73
The constant Donald?
I thought it was Sanders that had a "reasonable, feasible plan to do something about this shame, while the other couldn’t care less." And about our h/c shame, and our campaign finance shame, and....
I thought it was Sanders that had a "reasonable, feasible plan to do something about this shame, while the other couldn’t care less." And about our h/c shame, and our campaign finance shame, and....
16
Of course Sanders has a plan. Both Sanders & Hillary Clinton have long made efforts to address the needs of the country's children. I'm a Sanders supporter, but I'm responding above to Krugman, who doesn't mention Sanders.
Ms. Burns,
Subsidies, Tax Credits plus Free Housing and Daycare have been tried for the last 50 years ever since the start of your "Great Society" what has anyone received for the Trillions spent past an astronomical increase in single parent families, drug use and minority on minority violence?
Your answer is still more of the same failed Federal Policy of the past? Letting anyone else try can hardly be worse!
Subsidies, Tax Credits plus Free Housing and Daycare have been tried for the last 50 years ever since the start of your "Great Society" what has anyone received for the Trillions spent past an astronomical increase in single parent families, drug use and minority on minority violence?
Your answer is still more of the same failed Federal Policy of the past? Letting anyone else try can hardly be worse!
1
If we, as a country, were truly invested in the well being of children, we would
*provide education that stimulates the mind instead of lining the pockets of test-providing corporations
*make and enforce laws that keeps guns out of the hands of toddlers
*provide health care for children and their families that does not lead to bankruptcy
*create jobs that pay a living wage (and provide a basic income for all)
*make corporations pay their fair share in taxes so basic services and safe infrastructure can be provided by the government for all citizens
*treat climate change as the emergency it is
We have yet to demonstrate that children mean as much to us as do the 1%. A Trump presidency provides no hope of (positive) change in our current priorities.
*provide education that stimulates the mind instead of lining the pockets of test-providing corporations
*make and enforce laws that keeps guns out of the hands of toddlers
*provide health care for children and their families that does not lead to bankruptcy
*create jobs that pay a living wage (and provide a basic income for all)
*make corporations pay their fair share in taxes so basic services and safe infrastructure can be provided by the government for all citizens
*treat climate change as the emergency it is
We have yet to demonstrate that children mean as much to us as do the 1%. A Trump presidency provides no hope of (positive) change in our current priorities.
249
While I appreciate Prof. Krugman's good will in advancing a program to help families and especially children. But the program smacks of earned income tax credit and food stamps which help perpetuate supply side economics that continue to allow the 1% walk away with 90% of the gains in productivity growth - something that has been on going the entire Obama presidency, which Hillary has promised to extend to a 3rd term.
Earned income tax credits and food stamps, allows some additional scraps to flow to Walmarts employees, that WE pay for, instead of Walmart paying a decent salary.
And this doesn't get people out of their threadbare, hand to mouth, squaler like existence, to say nothing of the dignity that comes with working a job and getting paid enough to live off of and contribute to the rest of society by paying taxes to boot.
This reaks of more programs to help the under class so that the uber class can continue to lavish themselves like the gods on Olympus.
I'm just sick of half measures. End supply side economics NOW, and launch, first a committed campaign for, then full throated implementation of demand side economics.
Lets find out just how optimistic Friedman's study of Bernie's proposals actually is.
Earned income tax credits and food stamps, allows some additional scraps to flow to Walmarts employees, that WE pay for, instead of Walmart paying a decent salary.
And this doesn't get people out of their threadbare, hand to mouth, squaler like existence, to say nothing of the dignity that comes with working a job and getting paid enough to live off of and contribute to the rest of society by paying taxes to boot.
This reaks of more programs to help the under class so that the uber class can continue to lavish themselves like the gods on Olympus.
I'm just sick of half measures. End supply side economics NOW, and launch, first a committed campaign for, then full throated implementation of demand side economics.
Lets find out just how optimistic Friedman's study of Bernie's proposals actually is.
26
There are still three candidates in this election and it is the non-presumed candidate whose policy prescription for childcare, from infancy through college, makes the most sense and truly answers needs.
Affordable childcare is a mirage, without a significant change to the minimum wage when in most cities it costs as much to pay for childcare than it does to send a child to private school.
Bernie Sanders' proposal for free childcare, especially when the minimum wage is so far from being a living wage, and when we don't know how much more the next Congress will raise it by, if at all. Our next president, whoever it will be, will need to lead - not follow Congress - on a living wage, free childcare, healthcare coverage for all, and free college.
A living wage is the first family value we need to redress.
http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/05/on-the-fightfor15-realdonaldtrump-is-ni...
Affordable childcare is a mirage, without a significant change to the minimum wage when in most cities it costs as much to pay for childcare than it does to send a child to private school.
Bernie Sanders' proposal for free childcare, especially when the minimum wage is so far from being a living wage, and when we don't know how much more the next Congress will raise it by, if at all. Our next president, whoever it will be, will need to lead - not follow Congress - on a living wage, free childcare, healthcare coverage for all, and free college.
A living wage is the first family value we need to redress.
http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/05/on-the-fightfor15-realdonaldtrump-is-ni...
264
So it would seem that Bernie Sanders has the right policies, the right priorities and is leading Trump in most if not all pols. Too bad most of his support comes from those know-nothing kids aged 45 and under. Maybe Peter Pan was right about adults.
36
The solution that Bernie Sanders proposes to every problem is essentially the same: government fiat. It is both simplistic and unrealistic; the government will not go along.
Nothing is free.
Nothing is free.
6
The next President must be able to get new legislation through Congress. All these programs require legislative approval. Bernie Sanders is a dreamer who has spent his life on the fringes of politics. This is why mainstream politicians like Hillary Clinton are so important. Democrats hoping for election or reelection to Congress will benefit from having her at the top of the ticket. yes, that's how it works as long as we operate according to the division of powers set out in our Constitution.
6
Our neglect of our children, our neighbors, our own selves, is a uniquely American affliction. While it wasn't an epiphany when I heard in a very short radio report on rural California voters, an interview at 2:00 minutes caught my ear, not so much because the female voter is a Trump follower, but because of her beliefs on money and politics.
According to this voter, were it not for rich people, there would be no America. Clearly, in this rural California community that votes Republican consistently and, for a voter who favors Donald J. Trump, America's history, by way of its slavery roots, has no impact on this person's perspective. To this person and many like her, the wealthy made America what it is and they are still its backbone. How they became wealthy and why - the connection between much of American wealth, how it was accumulated and continues to be amassed - just don't figure into this equation. There is no awareness of a connection between American capitalism's reliance on a system of classes and racial sub-classes in order to function and, therefore, it just isn't a part of her awareness or millions of Americans like her, regardless of social or educational attainment. This "failure" is a feature of our system of government and, by extension, the most consequential failing of America's system of education.
We can break the cycle.
--
2016: White Voters And Racism In The Age of Trump And Sanders: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2fo
According to this voter, were it not for rich people, there would be no America. Clearly, in this rural California community that votes Republican consistently and, for a voter who favors Donald J. Trump, America's history, by way of its slavery roots, has no impact on this person's perspective. To this person and many like her, the wealthy made America what it is and they are still its backbone. How they became wealthy and why - the connection between much of American wealth, how it was accumulated and continues to be amassed - just don't figure into this equation. There is no awareness of a connection between American capitalism's reliance on a system of classes and racial sub-classes in order to function and, therefore, it just isn't a part of her awareness or millions of Americans like her, regardless of social or educational attainment. This "failure" is a feature of our system of government and, by extension, the most consequential failing of America's system of education.
We can break the cycle.
--
2016: White Voters And Racism In The Age of Trump And Sanders: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2fo
68
This campaign promise is monumental. Some of our cities are finally fulfilling the promise of universal pre-K, but that is a drop in the ocean. There are many states, never mind cities, that do not even have universal full time kindergarten. The Headstart program only reaches out to a small percentage of low income pre-K youngsters, and the struggling low middle class are not within the narrow low income eligibility guidelines. Does Hillary have a new Education czar who has the vision to push and implement a new huge social policy that will inspire a nation and its representatives to pay for any portion of a new education venture that will uplift millions of families? Bernie talks about a lot of big ideas, but many are not sure he can make it happen; but can Hillary make it happen either?
2