View Single Post
  #48  
Old 07-26-2010, 02:00 PM
professionalmom's Avatar
professionalmom professionalmom is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: MI
Posts: 424
Default

First, Nannyde, I love you and your insights are so on target!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nannyde View Post
As a society we do not owe anyone free day care. It's a privledge to live in a country where society values helping people overcome to obstacle of child care when income is low. We don't have to do it. We are doing it to be helpful. If it gets cut off or it is harder and harder to get then it shouldn't be looked at as a bad thing. We can and should do what we CAN but it shouldn't be easy to get.
I can't tell you how many people do not understand the difference between a privledge and a RIGHT. I have actually had parents tell me that I was violating their parental RIGHTS because I did not want the DCM's significant other (who was an abusive alcoholic, per the DCM) to know the location of my home! No matter how you explain that it's a safety issue for ALL the children, it became a "rights" issue, as did her subsidy.

Oh, and if I didn't get the state pay, they think it's MY problem. Uh, no, you are the recipient of that program. It's YOUR benefit, not mine. YOU still owe me, regardless of whether the state pays or not. So it's YOUR responsibility to stay on top of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nannyde View Post
Here in our State a subsidy for two or more kids in day care is MORE money than the parent that qualifies even makes in their job. We need to really look at that and decide if it is worth investing so much money in it and set some limits for how long each person can access it. It doesn't really pay to have multiple kids in child care when the parent is making minimum wage. We should only allow that for a short window of time... a few years and then put a stop to it.
I have said this many times. Why would the state pay $260 per week for childcare for 2 kids, when the parent is only grossing $300 per week (net $225)? Wouldn't it make more sense to give the parent an extra $200 a week in benefits to stay home with said children? Government would save $100 per week in benefits and the kids would get to be raised by the actual parent. Oh, wait, I forgot, we are using that "new math" that I'm too old to have been taught in school. You know where 2+2 really does equal 5?

Oh, and here's one for you: DCM with 2 boys under 2 years old and pregnant with 3rd, hoping for a girl and very excited. Find out 3rd baby is a boy too. Now wants an abortion. On state assistance and what the state doesn't pay, grandma (great-grandma to the kids) pays. How about required birth control to maintain benefits? I'm not saying sterilization (true violation in parental rights, right to procreate, etc.), just a temporary stay in the procreation years for the time you are getting aid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nannyde View Post
We should also require that every applicant show proof of US citizenship before applying.
Although I agree with this, I would like to add the ability to read and understand basic instructions. One of the biggest problems I had with DHS clients is their inability to understand that THEY are responsible for ANY and ALL differences between what I charged and what the state paid (even though it IS in their paperwork and instructions that they received from the state). They also did not comprehend that when the subsidy reimbursement rates decreased, that they would have to make up the difference. I had a mediator actually ask a former client if it was possible that the state had problems meeting their budget and that state money was running out, necessitating a decrease in their benefits. The former client said "no, no way! That's not possible!" They just did not "get it" that their benefits come from somewhere and that it's not a free flowing money machine. (You really should have been there when this conversation was going on. I dropped my head in embarrassment for this person's complete and utter ignorance).
Reply With Quote