creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Terence Jeffrey
Terence Jeffrey
15 Feb 2012
Can Obama Order Grocers to Give Away Bread?

In October 2009, I published a column titled, "Can Obama and Congress Order You to Buy Broccoli?" … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Did Mass. Constitution Authorize Romney to Mandate Health Insurance?

You can now divide Americans into two groups: Those who believe government rightfully has the power to force … Read More.

1 Feb 2012
Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills

A defining moment in Mitt Romney's post-pro-life-conversion political career came in his third year as … Read More.

Obama's Vision for Government-Run Childhood

Share Comment

One of the most dramatic changes in American life in the years since World War II involves the way we raise our children.

We used to do it ourselves. Now, convinced we have better things to do, many of us leave the job to others.

Encouraging this flight from parenthood, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed what he calls his "Zero to Five" plan. It is a collection of programs aimed at getting the government involved in the raising of your children from the moment they are born.

"The first part of my plan focuses on providing quality affordable early childhood education to every child in America," Obama said in a November speech. "As president, I will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five."

"We'll create Early Learning Grants to help states create a system of high-quality early care and education for all young children and their families," he said. "And we'll help more working parents find a safe, affordable place to leave their children during the day by improving the educational quality of our childcare programs and increasing the childcare tax credit."

This week, Obama upped his ante by vowing to "double funding for after-school programs that help children learn and give parents relief."

Obama, of course, will also continue to defend your "right" to hire a physician to kill your child in utero so you won't have to raise the child at all.

The hard evidence that most American parents now leave at least some of the nurturing of even their youngest children to others has been gathered by the U.S. Department of Labor.

An excellent summary of government data on this issue can be found in "Trends in Labor Force Participation of Married Mothers and Infants," a study by Bureau of Labor Statistics economists Sharon R. Cohany and Emy Sok that was published last year.

"In 1948, only about 17 percent of married mothers were in the labor force," wrote Cohany and Sok. "By 1995, their labor force participation rate had reached 70 percent."

Note that these are "married mothers" — not single moms, who because of illegitimacy, divorce or a husband's death are forced to work outside the home.

In fact, as of 2005 (the latest year cited by Cohany and Sok), more than 53 percent of married American women with infants (babies less than 1 year old) worked outside the home.

Some of the data points to the conclusion that this phenomenon is driven as much by changes in our values as in changes in our economy.

For example, relative poverty was clearly not the most powerful factor driving married mothers of infants to work outside the home.

In fact, those whose husbands earned an income ranking in the lowest 20 percent were the least likely to go to work, Cohany and Sok discovered, while those whose husbands earned an income that ranked in the highest 20 percent were the second least likely to work.

Less than half of these relatively poor and relatively rich mothers with infants worked.

Yet, of the married mothers with infants whose husbands earned an income in the middle 20 percent, 64.4 percent worked outside the home.

Similarly, Cohany and Sok discovered: "The more children a woman has, the less likely she is to be in the labor force." Almost 60 percent of married mothers with infants who had only one child worked. Only 36.6 percent of those who had five or more children worked.

In America today, the rarer child makes a scarcer mom.

It is also telling that while 58.5 percent of native-born mothers with infants worked outside the home, only 35 percent of immigrant mothers with infants did.

Some force in our culture that was not as strong in 1948 as it is today is devaluing traditional family life and the stay-at-home mom.

But this force could be waning. "After a lengthy and dramatic advance," concluded Cohany and Sok, "labor force participation rates for married mothers of infants peaked in 1997 and have been relatively stable since 2000."

Through his plans to increase government funding and control of the rearing of children ages "zero to five," Barack Obama would increase, rather than decrease, the force that drives mothers of infants to leave them in someone else's care. He would also cause a wholly unjust transfer of wealth.

Old-fashioned moms and dads who insist on caring for their own pre-school children will pay for — but gain no benefit from — programs that put the government in the business of caring for children whose moms and dads would both rather work outside the home than work raising a child.

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CSNnews.com. To find out more about him, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Before welfare systems, and government nets, parents worked. The younger kids stayed alone, as soon as they were able they cleaned and cooked and were given responsibilities. Sometimes the kids were left with the elder familiy members who could no longer work. They made sure the kids were kept busy with chores and learning. Mom and Dad were working so, by the age of 5 or 6 many kids went to work for money and under such poor conditions, we eventually abolished child labor. But well into the 1900's, kids worked outside the home. You write as if it's a crime for parents to work and kids to be raised by others. In poor families, kids work as soon as they were able. In wealthier families, kids didn't have to work, but usually were raised by hired help. In most cases Mommy and Daddy were too busy, too tired, or too poor to care for and educate their children. What's the problem? Kids always find time to play and to be kids. Is there some stigma about the government paying for and overseeing child care? You've been raised on too much tv and are stuck somewhere in fairytale land. This is 2008, people still want children, love them and nurture them. but for 8 or 10 hours a day, they need to make a living. It's good socializaion for the kids, they learn, they play, and at the end of the day and on weekends, they are with their family. win win.
Comment: #1
Posted by: liz
Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:01 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Terence Jeffrey
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Jackie Gingrich Cushman
Jackie Gingrich CushmanUpdated 16 Feb 2012

2 Jan 2008 Huckabee and Education

10 Sep 2008 To Whom Joe Biden Bows

21 Feb 2008 How Many Decades Will It Take to Fix FDA?