Yea I see a lot of positive (and some negative) press but I'm struggling to find anything that lays out a summary of how it works.
Also important context might be that this discussion starter as being about tent widening for the Democrats not the merits of a particular policy, childcare or otherwise.
Heh I mean my position currently is that we probably can't afford it under current constraints and even if we could the politics of the concept aren't so clear cut.
However I believe the point of comparison is Canada.
A few minutes of googling suggests that the federal government transfers money to the provinces who then spend it on both subsidies to existing centers and creation of new centers. No idea what strings are attached re: enforcement or other issues but the mission at least does seem to be focused on childcare, not jobs or other things ($10 per day is the mantra).
It's funny how times change. My parents did the old lady down the street method for me and my brothers (cousins got in on it too), with some assistance from grandparents. My wife and I of course paid an arm and a leg for a high end center for my oldest and currently pay slightly less for a center run by our parish for our little guy. Many of my friends with kids have done ad hoc arrangements involving grandparents and in homes, all college educated people, though pretty sure my wife and I are on the higher end of the earnings spectrum of our social circle.
Anyway, and to reiterate, my point isn't that this is inherently a bad idea. My point is that working class people are not necessarily as easy to buy off with benefits as those of us in a higher rung on the ladder might think. I suspect things like cost of goods or ability to get a car note on decent terms are much more front of mind than trying to emulate the European (or even Canadian) welfare state. If I was in charge my priority on this front, particularly in this economic environment, would be improving the systems we have, primarily by making them less of a patchwork.
I am not worried about whether the moms in question are the ones with 'in this house' signs or the ones who pose with Instagram face and a shotgun.
But otherwise this is closer to the mark. It's also not only about lifestyle choices but about trade offs. The high income family in the 90th percentile is going to pay $30k in taxes or a few grand less out of pocket to a private provider, no matter what. The 58th percentile family may take it or leave it even if the tax burden on them only ends up being $5k. That $5k in the pocket may be important enough to them they'd rather make do with ad hoc arrangements. Made up numbers but you see my point.
Additionally as you note you've got the means testing and other kinds of issues. I don't think a lot of the people who wonder why the US can't just be more like France understand that in France they'd pay at least 1.5 the taxes (or more) and depending on their circumstances might not actually get the daycare. The German version of this system took a hit a few years ago because it was overwhelmed and there was a daycare worker strike as a result. My brother's wife worked for the state system but ultimately went back to school because she was sick of the issues with it.
None of this is to say that some form of state supported childcare is a bad idea. It may well math out, trade offs may be worth it. All I'm saying is that the case for it in the eyes of a working or middle middle class person may not be so self evident and it's a mistake to assume it is.
As I said I don't have a problem with them doing their thing. Like North I actually have a fondness for AOC, Bernie too.
I'm also not saying I've done the math on daycare, I'm saying it needs to be ok to say it isn't worth it. Right now the tenuous position the Democrats have been trying to hold is no taxes on households making under ~400k. You can't maintain the welfare state we have on that much less expand it. When you look at countries that have things like that they fund it with taxes way down the income ladder, plus VATs. Pivoting might mean understanding that if you ask households in the median if they'd give an extra few thousand dollars for subsidized daycare (or whatever), with high earners covering the majority of the cost, a lot of them might still say no, or not really care one way or the other, and not just among the usual suspects either.
Eh I'm actually with Saul that I don't see any issue with AOC and Bernie doing their things. I doubt it's moving the needle in any significant way but someone has to be the furthest left person in the coalition and the electoral fortunes of the party aren't going to rise or fail around what that person does.
The important difference isn't the left flank, it's the right flank. If the Democrats want to win the Senate, much less have 60 votes again, they need to be open to having members in good standing that think certain ideas and attitudes within the party are kind of bullsh*t. And I stress that they actually need to believe it as opposed to just saying it sometimes when it's convenient.
Take something that seems like it shouldn't be controversial, like subsidized daycare (I bring it up because Saul mentioned it). There are a lot of people who you would think would favor it but you find they don't because in practice its upper middle class welfare, or it just doesn't rate as a priority that outweighs other more pressing needs. That perspective has to be allowed.
Yea I'm going to tell you there's no way you can operate with that mentality and anyone who has it needs to abandon it post haste. Further I'd say any Democratic leader that thinks that way should be run out of his or her office.
I know it's rude to say it but we're about 15 minutes away from most 'hispanic' people being white (enough anyway). The way assimilation works in this country there will not be a time this century where the plurality of the electorate is not 'white,' even if today's geriatrics would not necessarily see it as such. What you're effectively talking about is pre-emptively conceding every jurisdiction that does not touch an ocean, plus several that do. If that's where we are then we might as well wind down the party and start something new.
I think it's helpful that Trump's approval is catering. Hopefully it gets even worse and will embolden other politicians and institutions in taking stands against him where they can.
However Yglesias had some cold water this morning, appears to be unpaywalled.
To the extent Trump can be checked by thermostatic forces and repeated unforced errors I'll of course take it but there is still a huge strategic task of competing for Senate seats that no one seems to be preparing for.
I don't think the inclination to shake up an aging establishment is wrong. The party needs it. What I question is whether David Hogg has the political acumen to do it in a way that actually helps the party. It's easy to imagine a situation where he replaces a bunch of risk averse dinosaurs (good) with leaders so immersed in deep blue, alienating culture issues that the results is a net detriment to the brand nationally (bad).
Congrats on achieving final completion of another of the offspring.
Also you better start stocking up on fireworks. No backyard wedding is complete without them, and the small element of danger they add to the occasion.
That's hilarious about your coworker and I respect her resistance to the arbitrary demands of your corporate overlords.
My weekend, as usual this time of year, is going to be wall to wall children's sports. Hopefully I don't die of allergies. Everything around here is covered in a yellowish green and I need Zyrtec just to keep my eyes open.
However I did do something weekend-y last night and saw the Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii currently being screened at various imax theaters across the country. I have to say it was awesome and totally worth the price of admission. Sound quality was just incredible. It is the way Pink Floyd is meant to be listened to so any fans should check it out. Also depending on legal status in your state a little extra tap from your local dispensary will make it even cooler, not that I personally would know anything about that.
With many of these things you could come up with a rational explanation and hypothetical approach to consolidation of government functions that would make sense. However I think it is fair to notice that is not what's been happening. Instead it's a haphazard shutting off of functions and firing people (sans Congressional mandate, naturally) without thinking through ramifications, right up until they're trying to re-hire people they canned a few weeks prior.
Heh I think this one has more of a 'News of the Weird' or morning radio '.. and in other news!' flavor to it, not something that's going to influence voting.
As bad as the disease riddled children are I see it as an overall slower moving, easier to correct catastrophe than a strategic compromise of national security that might not be repairable. I also have to think that once parents start getting a taste of what letting these diseases back into the population looks like they will start to correct. Right? Right?? Ugh.
But look its terrible company to be in and if someone wants to give RFK Jr. the edge far be it from me to argue about it.
I was just about to post about this. Dude is a disaster. He may take the prize for worst Trump appointment, which is quite the achievement given that the list also includes RFK Jr.
I don't think one needs a perfect victim for the proposition that the president needs to comply with the decisions of the judiciary period, end of story.
Regarding Garcia I think that anyone pushing the human interest side of this should be praying no more information comes out than already has. Impressions of him have nowhere to go but down. If we get pictures of his wife after he hit her with his shoe (as she alleged) or the father of her other children comes out with some damning story about how everyone knows he's in MS 13, the children fear him, etc. it's going to be a disaster.
I was very much saddened by the news of his passing this morning. Approaching the role as a servant, to the extent one reasonably can, has always struck me as the best face of the Church, and I hope its a path his successor, whoever he may be, is inspired to follow.
That is not accurate. His initial encounters with the courts stemming from the 2019 arrest indicate that they saw at least some merit to the government's allegations of gang affiliation. From additional reading the best breakdown of the situation prior to the 4th Circuit holding last week is here:
What they are calling an administrative error is deporting him to El Salvador, which based on the withholding of removal, was the one country he was not supposed to be deported to. He could have been deported to any other country at any time without additional process, had there been one willing to take him. It is of course understandable that to date there had not been another country that would take a Salvadoran national.
Thinking further I want to put a finer point on where my positions are coming from. You're a leftist, and you are not afraid to state and defend your principles. I respect that and find our exchanges interesting because of it.
I have principles too, that land me somewhere in the moderate Democrat camp. I view the Trump situation as a 5 alarm fire. But experience with Trump 1.0, and his propensity to 'flood the zone' says to me you have to be smart about how you fight him. I think the most advantageous ground to do that is with tariffs, the bond market, his unilateral destruction of the economic outlook for regular working people.
Conversely I do not find it useful to spend news cycles litigating the particulars of some borderline case that serves to highlight the problems huge numbers of voters have with the immigration system, and which has plenty of smoke for the right wing media to kick up. My principles say you quietly hold firm in the courts on due process, but beyond that? I think its insane to try to fight Trump on his strongest issue (immigration), on a case where who knows what other facts may emerge, and when he is opening up a massive flank to exploit on trade. Sadly I've seen enough of Senator Van Hollen to know how clueless he is about outside perceptions but we should not be encouraging it. Moreover I think the coalition needs to understand that regardless of whether or not he is a gang member, someone like Garcia shouldn't have been here to begin with. Give him his day in court but there just isn't a lot more to it than that.
I am certainly not expecting you to agree with me on any of this, but I try to be as transparent as I can.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/28/2025”
Yea I see a lot of positive (and some negative) press but I'm struggling to find anything that lays out a summary of how it works.
Also important context might be that this discussion starter as being about tent widening for the Democrats not the merits of a particular policy, childcare or otherwise.
"
Heh I mean my position currently is that we probably can't afford it under current constraints and even if we could the politics of the concept aren't so clear cut.
However I believe the point of comparison is Canada.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_care_in_Canada
A few minutes of googling suggests that the federal government transfers money to the provinces who then spend it on both subsidies to existing centers and creation of new centers. No idea what strings are attached re: enforcement or other issues but the mission at least does seem to be focused on childcare, not jobs or other things ($10 per day is the mantra).
"
It's funny how times change. My parents did the old lady down the street method for me and my brothers (cousins got in on it too), with some assistance from grandparents. My wife and I of course paid an arm and a leg for a high end center for my oldest and currently pay slightly less for a center run by our parish for our little guy. Many of my friends with kids have done ad hoc arrangements involving grandparents and in homes, all college educated people, though pretty sure my wife and I are on the higher end of the earnings spectrum of our social circle.
Anyway, and to reiterate, my point isn't that this is inherently a bad idea. My point is that working class people are not necessarily as easy to buy off with benefits as those of us in a higher rung on the ladder might think. I suspect things like cost of goods or ability to get a car note on decent terms are much more front of mind than trying to emulate the European (or even Canadian) welfare state. If I was in charge my priority on this front, particularly in this economic environment, would be improving the systems we have, primarily by making them less of a patchwork.
"
I am not worried about whether the moms in question are the ones with 'in this house' signs or the ones who pose with Instagram face and a shotgun.
But otherwise this is closer to the mark. It's also not only about lifestyle choices but about trade offs. The high income family in the 90th percentile is going to pay $30k in taxes or a few grand less out of pocket to a private provider, no matter what. The 58th percentile family may take it or leave it even if the tax burden on them only ends up being $5k. That $5k in the pocket may be important enough to them they'd rather make do with ad hoc arrangements. Made up numbers but you see my point.
Additionally as you note you've got the means testing and other kinds of issues. I don't think a lot of the people who wonder why the US can't just be more like France understand that in France they'd pay at least 1.5 the taxes (or more) and depending on their circumstances might not actually get the daycare. The German version of this system took a hit a few years ago because it was overwhelmed and there was a daycare worker strike as a result. My brother's wife worked for the state system but ultimately went back to school because she was sick of the issues with it.
None of this is to say that some form of state supported childcare is a bad idea. It may well math out, trade offs may be worth it. All I'm saying is that the case for it in the eyes of a working or middle middle class person may not be so self evident and it's a mistake to assume it is.
"
As I said I don't have a problem with them doing their thing. Like North I actually have a fondness for AOC, Bernie too.
I'm also not saying I've done the math on daycare, I'm saying it needs to be ok to say it isn't worth it. Right now the tenuous position the Democrats have been trying to hold is no taxes on households making under ~400k. You can't maintain the welfare state we have on that much less expand it. When you look at countries that have things like that they fund it with taxes way down the income ladder, plus VATs. Pivoting might mean understanding that if you ask households in the median if they'd give an extra few thousand dollars for subsidized daycare (or whatever), with high earners covering the majority of the cost, a lot of them might still say no, or not really care one way or the other, and not just among the usual suspects either.
"
Eh I'm actually with Saul that I don't see any issue with AOC and Bernie doing their things. I doubt it's moving the needle in any significant way but someone has to be the furthest left person in the coalition and the electoral fortunes of the party aren't going to rise or fail around what that person does.
The important difference isn't the left flank, it's the right flank. If the Democrats want to win the Senate, much less have 60 votes again, they need to be open to having members in good standing that think certain ideas and attitudes within the party are kind of bullsh*t. And I stress that they actually need to believe it as opposed to just saying it sometimes when it's convenient.
Take something that seems like it shouldn't be controversial, like subsidized daycare (I bring it up because Saul mentioned it). There are a lot of people who you would think would favor it but you find they don't because in practice its upper middle class welfare, or it just doesn't rate as a priority that outweighs other more pressing needs. That perspective has to be allowed.
"
He voted to confirm all D judicial nominees and ultimately was a yes on the big pieces of legislation. Not sure what else we're supposed to ask.
"
Yea I'm going to tell you there's no way you can operate with that mentality and anyone who has it needs to abandon it post haste. Further I'd say any Democratic leader that thinks that way should be run out of his or her office.
I know it's rude to say it but we're about 15 minutes away from most 'hispanic' people being white (enough anyway). The way assimilation works in this country there will not be a time this century where the plurality of the electorate is not 'white,' even if today's geriatrics would not necessarily see it as such. What you're effectively talking about is pre-emptively conceding every jurisdiction that does not touch an ocean, plus several that do. If that's where we are then we might as well wind down the party and start something new.
"
Yea hard to imagine anywhere in the deep south being put into play any time soon but they have to find a way with some of the others.
"
I think it's helpful that Trump's approval is catering. Hopefully it gets even worse and will embolden other politicians and institutions in taking stands against him where they can.
However Yglesias had some cold water this morning, appears to be unpaywalled.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/whats-the-plan-to-win-the-senate
To the extent Trump can be checked by thermostatic forces and repeated unforced errors I'll of course take it but there is still a huge strategic task of competing for Senate seats that no one seems to be preparing for.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/21/2025”
I don't think the inclination to shake up an aging establishment is wrong. The party needs it. What I question is whether David Hogg has the political acumen to do it in a way that actually helps the party. It's easy to imagine a situation where he replaces a bunch of risk averse dinosaurs (good) with leaders so immersed in deep blue, alienating culture issues that the results is a net detriment to the brand nationally (bad).
On “Weekend Plans Post: Caffeine Rituals”
Congrats on achieving final completion of another of the offspring.
Also you better start stocking up on fireworks. No backyard wedding is complete without them, and the small element of danger they add to the occasion.
"
That's hilarious about your coworker and I respect her resistance to the arbitrary demands of your corporate overlords.
My weekend, as usual this time of year, is going to be wall to wall children's sports. Hopefully I don't die of allergies. Everything around here is covered in a yellowish green and I need Zyrtec just to keep my eyes open.
However I did do something weekend-y last night and saw the Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii currently being screened at various imax theaters across the country. I have to say it was awesome and totally worth the price of admission. Sound quality was just incredible. It is the way Pink Floyd is meant to be listened to so any fans should check it out. Also depending on legal status in your state a little extra tap from your local dispensary will make it even cooler, not that I personally would know anything about that.
On “US Department of Education Announces that it is Restarting Loan Collection”
With many of these things you could come up with a rational explanation and hypothetical approach to consolidation of government functions that would make sense. However I think it is fair to notice that is not what's been happening. Instead it's a haphazard shutting off of functions and firing people (sans Congressional mandate, naturally) without thinking through ramifications, right up until they're trying to re-hire people they canned a few weeks prior.
"
I wouldn't say I'm surprised exactly but the failure and/or inability to think things through at a basic level is impressive.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/21/2025”
Heh I think this one has more of a 'News of the Weird' or morning radio '.. and in other news!' flavor to it, not something that's going to influence voting.
"
As bad as the disease riddled children are I see it as an overall slower moving, easier to correct catastrophe than a strategic compromise of national security that might not be repairable. I also have to think that once parents start getting a taste of what letting these diseases back into the population looks like they will start to correct. Right? Right?? Ugh.
But look its terrible company to be in and if someone wants to give RFK Jr. the edge far be it from me to argue about it.
"
I was just about to post about this. Dude is a disaster. He may take the prize for worst Trump appointment, which is quite the achievement given that the list also includes RFK Jr.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
Because orderliness and rule of law inherently favors liberals over fascists.
"
I don't think one needs a perfect victim for the proposition that the president needs to comply with the decisions of the judiciary period, end of story.
Regarding Garcia I think that anyone pushing the human interest side of this should be praying no more information comes out than already has. Impressions of him have nowhere to go but down. If we get pictures of his wife after he hit her with his shoe (as she alleged) or the father of her other children comes out with some damning story about how everyone knows he's in MS 13, the children fear him, etc. it's going to be a disaster.
On “Pope Francis Dead at 88”
I was very much saddened by the news of his passing this morning. Approaching the role as a servant, to the extent one reasonably can, has always struck me as the best face of the Church, and I hope its a path his successor, whoever he may be, is inspired to follow.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025”
That is not accurate. His initial encounters with the courts stemming from the 2019 arrest indicate that they saw at least some merit to the government's allegations of gang affiliation. From additional reading the best breakdown of the situation prior to the 4th Circuit holding last week is here:
https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/25-facts-about-kilmar-abrego-garcia?
What they are calling an administrative error is deporting him to El Salvador, which based on the withholding of removal, was the one country he was not supposed to be deported to. He could have been deported to any other country at any time without additional process, had there been one willing to take him. It is of course understandable that to date there had not been another country that would take a Salvadoran national.
"
Yea I mean I don't want to keep speculating. I have my differences on public policy but in my heart I'd rather be aligned with Chris and Saul.
Who knows what tomorrow will bring but my spidey sense is that the Democrats will be right on the basic principle but woefully wrong on the politics.
"
You will not see me balk at enforcement against employers, if the GOP will ever take yes for an answer on anything, which we all know they won't.
"
Thinking further I want to put a finer point on where my positions are coming from. You're a leftist, and you are not afraid to state and defend your principles. I respect that and find our exchanges interesting because of it.
I have principles too, that land me somewhere in the moderate Democrat camp. I view the Trump situation as a 5 alarm fire. But experience with Trump 1.0, and his propensity to 'flood the zone' says to me you have to be smart about how you fight him. I think the most advantageous ground to do that is with tariffs, the bond market, his unilateral destruction of the economic outlook for regular working people.
Conversely I do not find it useful to spend news cycles litigating the particulars of some borderline case that serves to highlight the problems huge numbers of voters have with the immigration system, and which has plenty of smoke for the right wing media to kick up. My principles say you quietly hold firm in the courts on due process, but beyond that? I think its insane to try to fight Trump on his strongest issue (immigration), on a case where who knows what other facts may emerge, and when he is opening up a massive flank to exploit on trade. Sadly I've seen enough of Senator Van Hollen to know how clueless he is about outside perceptions but we should not be encouraging it. Moreover I think the coalition needs to understand that regardless of whether or not he is a gang member, someone like Garcia shouldn't have been here to begin with. Give him his day in court but there just isn't a lot more to it than that.
I am certainly not expecting you to agree with me on any of this, but I try to be as transparent as I can.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.