Day-Care Debate

In the search for budget-cutting strategies, Congress is taking a fresh look at the subsidies paid to in-home day-care providers for all children’s meals, regardless of family income.

Are two-income families living yuppie lifestyles while taxpayers underwrite it? Will ending or limiting the subsidies cause day-care operators to go under. Is the day-care program taking a disproportionate share of the deficit-cutting hit?

Four Spokesman-Review readers - two day-care providers and two mothers not employed outside the home - were asked for their thoughts.

Here are some of their observations:

SHANNON SELLAND

Five years as a day-care provider. Mother of three. Part of a group of licensed providers who met Thursday with U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray.

“I was more pleased than I thought I would be. He (Nethercutt) was not a yes man, like ‘whatever you say.’ He truly wanted to discuss the issue. He didn’t just blow us off, which is nice.

“But here’s the crux of the problem: This majority party, I feel, is completely out of touch with not only the poor but the working poor and families that are on the edge.

“It’s hard for him to understand that most families in day care can not afford $65 to $70 more a month.

“If they (children) show up with half a peanut butter and jelly sandwith and a Ding Dong, we are required to provide the fruit, vegetable and milk.

“We’re educated about how to feed these kids. As a family day care we run on such minimal funds; our only resource is our parents. This (federal) program enables child care as a whole to run.

“There’s not any family I’ve had in five years of day care who are working to sustain a BMW and a boat.

“Some parents could pay more, but I’m talking a handful.

“Do you know why some of the parents are working? They’re working for health care. A lot of the mothers I’ve had are working because their husbands’ insurance is too expensive. They’re working the minimum number of hours to help pay the rent and to get health coverage.”

“Not everybody is getting hit equally hard because of this budget deficit. I find it very hard that insurance companies are happy and sugar cane people are happy but I have to fight to protect a program that feeds kids and that keeps America working.

“My husband is a hair stylist and he can make more in four hours than I make in two-week period for a single child.”

“It’s not an empty threat when I say day care will close down, because it will.”

“The subsidy program is the only incentive for people to get licensed in the first place. Eliminating it will set day care back 20 years.

“We have an orientation when we first become licensed. The only other required training is through the nutrition program.

“The licensers get out once every three years unless there’s a complaint. They have big caseloads.

“But (nutrition program monitors) show up either announced or unannounced three or four times a year. They watch everything. If they see things around the house which are not acceptable they call the licensers. It’s a buddy system.

“This is what scares me - as a mother, not a day-care provider. It scares me that there wouldn’t be anybody holding anyone accountable for three years.”

ANDREA KEITH

Mother of two pre-schoolers. Substitute teacher before children were born. Calls herself a “staunch stay-at-home mom.”

“What’s the government doing regulating how we feed our children?

“I’m not regulated. If your children stay with a baby sitter, they’re not regulated. I have a whole problem with people saying the government says I have to do it so the government has to pay for it.

“They (working mothers) are already getting deals from the government. They’re getting a child-care credit. I don’t get that.

“It reminds me of the farmers and their subsidies. Everyone wants the government to give them a break. What about those of us who choose to stay home?

“If the government took away $3 a day and they (working parents) had to pay that extra $3 a day, it wouldn’t hurt them that much.

“A lot of those women are working at average jobs, not ones paying $40,000 a year. Perhaps making them pay for their children’s lunch would make them sit down and look at what they’re really making.

“If you subtract the day care, and the higher tax bracket and the wardrobe - once you’ve subtracted all those things, what have you got? “They may figure out, ‘Actually I’m only bringing home a dollar an hour. Is it worth it?’

“I understand that day care’s expensive. Day-care workers are underpaid. I understand their plight. You couldn’t pay me to be a day-care worker. They have all the problems a mom has and for everybody else’s children. I’m not anti-day care.

“It’s the corporations and the businesses that are making all the money. They’re the ones getting all the tax breaks. Maybe they should be picking up the slack.”

JIM McDANIEL

Licensed in-home day-care provider. Former engineer with Spokane County. In day-care business for 15 years.

“Fifteen years ago I had one single parent and all the rest were regular, nucleus mom-and-dad families. Now I have maybe two families with both the mother and father at home. The vast majority are single-parent families.

“The vast majority of these people are not upper crust.

“All of us need to do our part to balance the budget. I don’t think anybody in day care is not willing to do our share. But you do have to pass the cost on to people and you do have borderline people.”

BONNIE SZUCH

Cheney mother of two home-schooled children. When the issue first came up in the news, Szuch told The Spokesman-Review she thought it was unfair that her family’s taxes should be helping two-income families enjoy enhanced lifestyles.

“The wind went out of my sails as time went on.

“I read about the sugar subsidies and the business lunches (being protected). I don’t see how we can cut the subsidies for day care and continue those business lunches.

“Those are business lunches and this is little kids’ lunches. You certainly could find a comparison there.

“I’m kind of upset with Congress entirely.”