www.kyid.net

Prime Minister Paul Martin (et, al.) were in full “Conservatives will destroy Canada” mode yesterday when he dropped by Manitoba with a promise to give us $176-million for child-care over the next five years. $26-million per year for the first two years, and $42-million per year for the remaining three years. This is part of a greater $5-billion national child-care program from Febuary’s budget.

Of course, the only way to make sure this money actually gets to the province is to make sure you vote Liberal, since the big bad Conservatives would like to do nothing more than see children crying in the streets because they can’t get into daycare. The part that disturbs me about typing that last sentence is that I believe some Canadians would actually think that way. *sigh*

Stephen Harper, in Calgary, reiterated his position that any and all agreements that are in place between the Federal Government and the Provinces would be honoured should the Conservatives win the next election.

Now, I’m not the greatest at ranting about politics. I usually get so incensed that don’t even know what to say to convey how I am feeling. Today I was lucky enough to see an editorial written by Tom Oleson in the Winnipeg Free Press that gets pretty close to how I feel about the child-care situation.

Unless you are a single parent working for poverty wages, or a welfare mom with children who wants to get back into the work force to make a better life for your family, I don’t want to spend $176 million on day care for your kids.

Blackmailing the people who want child-care?

Mr. Martin came to town yesterday with nothing but pockets full of promises – no actual money… …with the promise of cash to come if only we keep the prime minister in power.

The Conservatives have a different approach. I like to think of it as actually assuming responsibility as an individual or family, instead of handing it to the government (nanny-state) to take care of for you.

They would give tax breaks to families so that people could use the money to pay for day care or to be a stay-at-home parent or whatever they choose. The money would target children rather than day-care spaces. That makes sense to me, but it does not make sense to the day-care industry or to a lot of working parents.

(Emphasis mine)

This makes sense to me. Put the money (via tax credits) back into the hands of the individual families. Let them decide how they want to approach little Johnny’s day-time. Perhaps the credits will be enough that mom or dad can be a stay-at-home parent, or perhaps they will use the credits to purchase a spot for little Johnny in a daycare. If there is enough demand, the market will adjust to it.

Day care is not like health care. It is not a universal need, it is just a widely held want. The only people who need day care are those whom I have already mentioned, the single parents and welfare moms who need help getting on with their lives. … Those people can take some of my money.
…
…
Most people who use day care, however, come from families where both parents want to work or think they have to. This is a matter of choosing priorities. Two incomes offer a better lifestyle, but choices have consequences and everyone should pay themselves for the consequences of the choices they make.
…
…
But that is not my problem, it’s yours. If the two of you want careers, go for it. Just don’t expect me to finance your family’s finances. If you have two incomes, pay for your own day care.

Well said Tom, well said.