Pelosi proclaims her goal to “do for childcare what we did for healthcare”
posted at 12:20 pm on November 18, 2011 by Tina Korbe
Yippee — just what we want, more federal government intrusion into our lives. Nancy Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House, but she’s confident she will be again soon. Since she’s been “out of power,” she’s hit the fundraisers like the average 21-year-old hits the bars, attending 311 nationwide, drawing in $26 million for Democrats. Her short-term goal: To take back the 25 House seats necessary to regain her place as a part of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi axis of power.
Just to think we might again have to call Princess Pelosi “Madame Speaker” is unpleasant enough. But contemplate her long-term goal and the short-term goal looks even more sour. Pelosi told The Washington Post that at the top of her to-do list as the reinstated Speaker would be “doing for childcare what we did for healthcare reform.” She explained further:
“I could never get a babysitter — have five kids in six years and no one wants to come to your house. … And everywhere I go, women say the same thing” about how hard it is to find the kind of reliable care that would make their family lives calmer and work lives more productive. When it comes to “unleashing women” in a way that would boost the economy, she says, “this is a missing link.”
First, let’s talk about this as a follow-up to Obamacare. Has Pelosi paid no attention to the polls that show people are anything but pleased with a fourth entitlement program that offers them less control over their own health care? Just this week, Gallup released a poll that showed a plurality of Americans want the law completely repealed. Of late, even Democrats have soured on the law. Just 34 percent of Americans actually approve of the law, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Why, at a time when Americans react to government overreach with bitter disapproval, would Pelosi baldly bid for still more control? If I were a prog, I’d be hoping Pelosi would hush up. She’s giving it away too clearly: Progressives really do want a nanny state — literally.
Secondly, let’s talk about childcare for a minute. While I pity Pelosi’s plight to be burdened with so many children (not), I pity the plight of her children more. No, not because they were born to her (how mean would that be to say?!), but because they had to have a babysitter in the first place. Obviously, in many circumstances, that’s unavoidable, and I’m not criticizing parents who find themselves in a bind and do what it takes to make it work. But, in general, I’d argue couples should consider carefully whether one or the other of them would be able — and willing — to provide at-home child care before they have a kid in the first place. Why? Simple: Studies show that children who spend longer hours (30 hours/week) in daycare are more likely to exhibit problematic social behaviors including aggression, conflict, poorer work habits and risk-taking behaviors.
Anecdotally, the most common argument I’ve heard against stay-at-home parenthood is, quite simply, a lack of money. But I’d humbly submit that, beyond the three basics (food, shelter and clothing), children will benefit far more from the presence of a parent at home than from a few more material goodies. Also, consider the costs of daycare itself: The loss of a second income is at least partially offset by what a couple will save by not having to pay for childcare. The average cost of center-based daycare in the United States is $11,666 per year or $972 a month. That’s nothing to sneeze at. At the risk of trivializing the financial trials parents face (especially as I’m not a parent myself), I kinda can’t help but think, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.”
Most likely, parents just simply don’t want to give up the careers they’ve cultivated for the sake of their children. But staying home with kids doesn’t mean giving up all meaningful contributions to the outside world. My friend Chad Kent, for example, stays at home with his twin sons while his wife, a doctor, works outside the home — but he’s also a public speaker and blogger who breaks open the Constitution for his listeners and readers in a fun and memorable way. Again, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Just takes a little creativity!
Creativity and flexibility that — you can bet — wouldn’t be baked into any federal childcare program. Beyond the manifold federalist arguments against a federal takeover of daycare, a federal program to provide childcare sends exactly the wrong message: That the childcare-center model makes sense and should be incentivized, when, in fact, the opposite is true. Kinda like welfare programs incentivize single parenthood, when, in fact, the single simplest step a single mother can take to raise her children out of poverty is to marry their father.
I wish I could breathe easy thinking this is just a pipe dream — but I’d have never guessed Obama-Reid-Pelosi would manage to ramrod Obamcare through Congress, either. Never too early to be on guard.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:43 PM
++++
pambi on May 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Figures…It is clear a lot of the law degrees handed out by Harvard are nothing but political advocacy degrees.
I wonder what type of law does he practice? Constitutional, Criminal, Patent, etc.
William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM
I see the scumbags are still keeping some folks blood pressure up.
Carry on. I’m sure the trolls and HA enjoy y’all spending quality time lining their pockets.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
qwertASRDRDDSAWAS1DFGSDFSGHG
thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
An expert in fraud with a specialty in libel.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
As usual, you have forgotten.
A while back RWM took you to task.
And you went to dinner.
Damn, you are stupid !
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Probably Divorce, so he can advocate for himself in the future. And you know what they say about a man who acts as his own lawyer…
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Perverted liberal.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM
Nice little company you got there….be a shame if anything happened to it.
MTF on May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM
thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM
He has stated that he really was not much of a law student, so after he graduated he went into something else. I’m figuring it’s hospitality, cause he’s just so ingratiating.
BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM
Can I contribute my urine submerged likeness of teh one and a fecal smeared image of moochele?
freedomfirst on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM
So he practices Transgender Animal Law?
You know not to be funny but does Harvard offer Transgender Animal Husbandry now? Yes I am serious considering the massive increase in the last 20 years in idiotic degrees that are useless no matter what school you graduated from.
William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM
That depends: Do you want to be impoverished by the IRS, or have your land stolen by the EPA?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Ok…It is all clear now. He went from a law student at Harvard to a Transgender student at Harvard. Not that there is anything wrong with that….
In fact that might be an improvement…
William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM
AGAIN, nobrain is NOT a graduate of Harvard or ANY law school.
Period.
Story.
End of.
The very first mention nobrain made of its alleged Harvard Law degree was in an attempt to try and bolster Obama’s credentials. Nobrain, erroneously, argued that the ELECTION of the President of the Harvard Law Review, as is the case with most law reviews, was a MERITORIOUS PROCESS. It claimed to know this because it went there.
Elections are not meritorious processes.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Sometimes I hate this blog, but the jokes/repartee here are why I keep coming back – ROFL!
22044 on May 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM
You know what’s hilarious about that? He talks about it like a Harvard Law degree is a BS, but you need a BS to get into a law school. How many people in this world get a BS, move on to law or medical school (and graduate!), then never actually practice law or medicine?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Succubus in chief
dirtengineer on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
That’s funny right there. I don’t care who you are.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
From now on:
nonpartisanElitist on May 14, 2013 at 2:40 PMthat’s the only thing that fits. Nobody cares what your credentials are, you are a louthesome loud mouth that doesn’t believe facts matter. Obama got admitted to Columbia by saying he was from Kenya…if not, why won’t he release his college transcripts? That’s some facts we’d all like to see…
kirkill on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
The Ivy League has continued to turn out nothing but salivating inepts, who demand nothing but a premium for their arrogant elitist status over the paltry wages of the ignorant masses.
After going through a half-dozen of those inepts as CEO, our company finally wised-up and put the #2, a non-Ivy Leaguer, in charge.
Funny how well the company has managed, even in these dark times.
Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:05 PM
Let me clarify this;
Harvard, as with most law schools, ELECTS the President of its Law Review. The choice of President is NOT a meritorious process. That ceased in the 1970s.
Now, if nobrain considers ‘ox gets gored’ to be an ‘old people idiom,’ it quite obviously didn’t attend Harvard Law school when the old procedure was in place. Since it is ‘young,’ it would have attended under the new system where the President is ELECTED. Given the fact that it did not know this tells us that he never attended Harvard.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:06 PM
RWM, you misinterpret me
Becoming President of Law Review is a meritorious process since you need to be on law review to be President, and to get on law review depends on grades and a written test. So you cannot just become president of harvard law review through affirmative action or such as I was arguing against.
logic ain’t your strong suit, is it?
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM
I don’t believe he has a law degree either but IF, and that’s a Big IF, he does have one, it all points to not being able to pass the bar. As in JFK Jr. dumb.
BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM
The ones who can’t pass their bar/licensing exams.
Lily on May 14, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Yes. And these are the same clowns who seem to not understand the little important parts in the U.S. Constitutions that reads government shall not infringe.
Even a fifth grader understands that concept.
Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:14 PM
I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM
It took me literally two seconds to look up the process. Before you attempt to bullsh!t your way through something a little research is advisable. Grades are irrelevant. The only thing anyone needs to do is write a paper. It is an entirely subjective process.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM
@RWM
In other words, you’re the one who isn’t bright enough to get his point, not that he can’t clearly make his case.
How many racist Dems over the years have caught heat for their obvious racism, then said the next day the exact same thing as the troll?
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:17 PM
And surely a Harvard Law grad would also know what natural law rights are, but our resident Harvard Law grad did not. He exposed that tidbit of monstrous ignorance in a gun grabbing thread maybe a month ago.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Notcoach: actually, Romney has a law degree from Harvard, I think… and has never “used it” per se, as an attorney.
He’s made hundreds of millions with the other half of his degree, the MBA.
Law’s actually a fantastic general degree. Hopefully it teaches you how to think. One of the biggest clues nonpartisan is not an attorney is in fact that she/he cannot think.
But if he or she DID go to law school, I dare him to list the very first case in Civil Procedure; where a court can exert personal jurisdiction over someone if they are in the state.
Vanceone on May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM
What’s your BS or BA in and where did you get it?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Then why did you stay in school at it, and rack up all that student loan debt you were whining about the other day?
Is your real name Niel N. Bobb?
Or is that what you do?
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:20 PM
Who spends a minimum of $227,700.00 on law school, and puts up with the bullshit that is part and parcel of going to law school, but isn’t interested in practicing law?
totherightofthem on May 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Duly noted, sir! I see I was not on the side of error.
Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM
I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM
Harvard Law and no interest in practicing. Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Having Mother around to help out on the bill is just icing on the cake.
Sound like a trust fund baby to me.
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Affirmative action was not the issue.
His election as the ‘First black president of HLR’ did not involve a meritorious process.
Here’s how it works. At the end of 1L, you can enter the LR writing competition. At Harvard, 46 1Ls are invited to join every year. 20 are chosen solely based on their comp scores. 14 are chosen based on comp and grades. The remaining 12 are discretionary slots, which professors and 3Ls fill as they choose. Under Harvard’s policy, affirmative action goals CAN be used to fill the slots even if the invited did not perform well in the comp or have lower grades – I’m not saying this relative to Obama. You brought up AA.
Sooooo, 26% of the slots filled at the end of 1L are done so on a purely discretionary basis.
Finally, the President is ELECTED by the editors (80 when Obama was elected, 88 now).
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Considering the pedigree, nonpartisan sure is stupid.
Keep the heat on !
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Logic is something you wouldn’t know if it walked up behind you and poked you in the ass. It goes along with honesty with you….
Yes, you have.
Still waiting on those answers about Vidal, Holy Trinity, Reynolds, and Everson.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:41 PM
You just never quit, do you you?
~thumbs up~
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:45 PM
your ass? sorry couldn’t resist…
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM
Harvard must have an affirmative action slot for moron.
BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM
actually, it was the issue. Maybe not directly stated, but the underlying argument was that Obama got all his impressive credentials (Colubmia, Harvard, Law Review) not on his merit (which would prove his intellectual credence) but through affirmative action because of the color of his skin
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Feeling a little defensive?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM
He did. Lied his way into Columbia, and was rushed through Harvard. All because of the color of his skin. He is our first affirmative action president. I think it’s high time to abandon affirmative action entirely.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM
How about you go play Switch. Stuff one thumb up your ass and the other in your nose, and wait for someone to yell, “Switch!”
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM
Actually, it wasn’t…your Dowderisation notwithstanding.
READ THE THREAD. YOU BROUGHT UP HIS ‘INTELLIGENCE’ FIRST. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP ‘ALL OF HIS IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS.’
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/01/jay-carney-hey-benghazi-happened-a-long-time-ago/comment-page-1/#comments
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 4:00 PM
LIAR.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Education must be lacking.
dominigan on May 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM
I believe that NP really did attend Harvard Law
n Maintenance Community College.
slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM
I’ll state it outright, he got into Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard ALL on the basis of affirmative action.
All of his work was graded on the basis of affirmative action.
All of his degrees were awarded on the basis of affirmative action.
That’s the very nature of affirmative action, and anyone that doesn’t understand that is a dumbass. It means his ‘credentials’ aren’t really all that impressive.
slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM
What that Leftist, baby-killing witch is doing is nothing less than extortion. She should be impeached.
WannabeAnglican on May 14, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Why do most of our trolls seem to be gay?
slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM
They don’t seem to be gay.
Most gay guys I know have more testosterone than these scumbag punks.
They don’t rate as high as beta on their best days.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Absent his transcripts, the vacuum can be filled with any old theory that happens by.
Really, there exists NO evidence of his “intellectual credence”
You Harvard folks just assume it. Wrongly as you have proven.
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Why did my reply to slickwillie2001 disappear into moderation hell?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Why in the hell are any non-governmental organizations being paid to implement law?
BacaDog on May 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Because like many churches, they are sucking at the government teet.
Churches are cutting their own throats pimping for the government.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Because the Dems f*cked up and are now, as EJ says, on the Strugglebus.
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 5:01 PM
nonpartisan looking dimwitted as ever. No way that one even gradiated high screwel. No way.
CW on May 14, 2013 at 6:16 PM
She has to go. Unrepentant recidivist. The definition of partisan hack.
FireBlogger on May 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM
Nasty, vile treasonous wench. May your judgement match your evil heart.
However, in the meantime you can hang around in abortion clinics performing 3rd and 4th trimester abortions and get your jollies. Might even be able to make some shoes or pens out of them.
acyl72 on May 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM
I haven’t seen nonpartisan’s answer yet.
Barnestormer on May 14, 2013 at 7:30 PM
Thanks for the clarification. The Internet Slang Directory was going crazy!
AesopFan on May 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM
I love her expression. It’s always the same and always projects complete contempt for the people.
JellyToast on May 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Non sequitur.
Everyone observes the non-relevance by the content of every single one of your posts.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 15, 2013 at 1:11 AM
Sebelius should be impeached. This regime is nothing but a gang of crooks.
They might just ignore you because you’re full of shit.
dogsoldier on May 15, 2013 at 6:12 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2