Universal Child Care is Also Good for the Economy

Katrina vanden Heuvel writes in The Washington Post:

Warren’s proposal should spark an overdue and necessary conversation about a problem that leaders in both parties have long neglected. More than half of Americans now live in child care “deserts,” according to the Center for American Progress, including significant majorities of rural and Latino families. Compared with the rest of the world, the United States spends pathetically little on family benefits, ranking second-to-last among developed nations. “This dearth of family benefits leads to two cruel outcomes,” writes Matt Bruenig, whose People’s Policy Project recently published its own set of ideas for addressing the child-care crisis. “It denies many people the ability to have the families that they want and inflicts financial ruin on many of those who go through with parenthood despite the lack of social support.”

Women especially suffer the consequences of this neglect, often sacrificing their careers and other opportunities to pick up the slack. Yet while it is fitting that universal child care would gain traction at a time when women are playing an increasingly vital role in the national debate, Warren’s proposal would not only improve the lives of women or even parents. Its impact would also ripple outward, benefiting all Americans. In fact, Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi estimates that Warren’s plan would generate twice as much growth per year over a decade as Trump’s corporate tax cut at less than half the cost — and that’s if the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts were paid for, which of course they were not. So, in addition to proposing good family policy, Warren is offering a boost to the economy that deserves to be covered and debated accordingly.

If this proposal were to become policy in the future, I won’t be benefiting from it, but I am still supporting it for the good of middle America family.

Will The Real Centrists Please Stand Up

Mehdi Hasan writes in The Inception:

The inconvenient truth that our lazy media elites do so much to ignore is that Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and Warren are much closer in their views to the vast majority of ordinary Americans than the Bloombergs or the Bidens. They are the true centrists, the real moderates; they represent the actual political middle.

How Warren’s Wealthy Tax Works

Jonathan Alter explains in The Daily Beast:

Under Warren’s plan, inspired by Thomas Piketty’s influential 2014 book, Capital in the 21st Century, and drafted by Emmanuel Sanz and Gabriel Zucman of Berkeley, Americans with a net worth of more than $50 million would pay two percent a year on their wealth over that $50 million. American billionaires (who number around 680 right now) would pay three percent on their wealth over that $1 billion. In most years, two or three percent is far less than the appreciation of their assets. The vast majority of people paying the tax would still be getting richer every year.

Chipping in for Warren

Elizabeth Warren has announced that she be taking money from big donors. This is a move to differentiate herself from other Democratic candidates. She is not letting big money in politics influencing her campaign and policy. If you would like to help her campaign, don’t wait to donate.

Work vs. Stay-Home Parents

Meghan Kruger writes in The Washington Post:

Warren’s plan would dramatically increase demand for an already-limited number of day-care slots, as out-of-home care suddenly becomes “free” or much less expensive for millions of families. The plan would also be available to parents who stay at home with their children, encouraging families to use day-care services they don’t necessarily need.

Parents who choose to stay home with their kids not because they don’t need daycare, but because day care is too damn expensive. Right now the cost for day care is about $2,000 a month for one child. If parents have two young children, that’s almost $48,000 a year. Does it make sense for one of the parents to go to work just to pay for day care or better to stay home with their kids? When parents don’t have to worry about daycare they can go back to work.

With Warren’s plan, parents only have to pay seven percent of their income. If they make $100,000 a year. That’s only $7,000 a year.

When I brought this up to my wife, her question was how the government going to pay for all of this. It can be done through investment, benefits enhancement, and major system overhaul. I’ll let the expert explains them.

Warren Fights for the Middle Class

Let it be known that I am a strong supporter of Elizabeth Warren. She is an intellectual figure who has serious policy proposals. If you are considering her nominee for the primary, I urge you to zone out all the noise on her background. I highly recommend and encourage you to read her first book, A Fighting Chance, to find out for yourself how she has been fighting for the middle class. Let’s give her a chance.

Warren’s Fearlessness

George Zornick has a fantastic piece on Warren in The Nation. He writes:

What Elizabeth Warren has going for her is the fact that Democratic voters have never particularly liked Wall Street bailouts or big international “free-trade” deals. She, for one, won’t have to renounce her record to appeal to their beliefs. Her presidential campaign is a bet that someone who has been a strong critic of the political system and the Democratic Party can become the leader of both by being consistent, credible, and right.

Warren on Child Care

Paul Krugman explains:

The logic of the Warren plan is fairly simple (although some commentators are trying to make it sound complex). Child care would be regulated to ensure that basic quality was maintained and subsidized to make it affordable. The size of the subsidy would depend on parents’ incomes: lower-income parents would get free care, higher-income parents would have to pay something, but nobody would have to pay more than 7 percent of income.

Sounds logical to me.

Warren: A Major Intellectual Figure

Paul Krugman:

By the way, I don’t know whether Warren will or even should get the nomination. But she’s a major intellectual figure, and is pushing her party toward serious policy discussion in a way that will have huge influence whatever her personal trajectory.

Agree.

Why We Should Choose Warren Over Sanders

Moira Donegan writes in The Guardian:

Like Sanders, Warren has a long career of railing against the injustice of a country where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Unlike him, she has a proven track record outside of the Senate, helping to establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Obama administration and writing the book – actually, writing several books – on how to help working families by making finance and debt laws more fair.

This one is important:

The fact is that Warren is to the left of Sanders on some issues, notably gun control.

I concur.