Oct 21 2009
Now it’s a legacy
Hey, I suppose that’s good news. Liberal “leader” Michael Ignatieff calls his party’s plan to introduce a national daycare program a “legacy” issue. As far as I’m concerned, it can keep being a legacy issue all it wants, as long as it never becomes reality.
Do we have a deal, then?
Related posts:
- Little kids with lots of political sense Share This may amaze you, but I am not a...
Would you mind explaining your objection to the program? I’m curious :>
A couple of reasons in no particular order, based on Quebec’s experience, which is more or less what the Liberals want to introduce at the national level: It’s going to be WAY to expensive (government programs are ALWAYS more expensive), it puts pressure on women to go back to work early after having a baby, even when they don’t really want to (social pressure is very strong), it will benefit well-connected well-to-do families with 9-to-5 jobs at the expense of poorer parents who work shifts, and it cannot possibly be good to park very young children in a room full of strangers for up to 40 hours a week. Oh, there is also some evidence that intensive daycare for prolonged periods of time has negative impacts on children’s behaviour. Other than that, not much.
Seems to me that the biggest problem with national day care is the mindset that sees that parents need someone to take care of their children and that someone will be government oriented with government mindset and values – this is social engineering reaching down to the youngest. A better idea is to support parents to allow them to raise their own children.
Makes sense. I was trying to relate it only to the issue of abortion, and could only come up with a theory that it might reduce the abortion rate by making unintended pregnancy easier to handle, not forcing women to choose between abortion or sacrificing their career. This being primarily a pro-life blog, I didnt think to factor in other social factors aside from the direct impact on abortion.