According to the Washington Post, if Democrats re-take control of the House, then at the top of Nancy Pelosi’s to-do list will be “doing for child care what we did for health-care reform” – pushing comprehensive change. That is alarming but not particularly noteworthy. What is worth paying attention to is Pelosi’s rationale.
In justifying her priorities, Pelosi said, “I could never get a babysitter -have five kids in six years and no one wants to come to your house. . . . And everywhere I go, women say the same thing” about how hard it is to find the kind of reliable care that would make their family lives calmer and work lives more productive.
Now most of us, if we had problems finding a babysitter, would ask for names from friends, neighbors and perhaps the parents of classmates. We might inquire with people in our Bible study, father-son book club or soccer league. We would consider putting up an announcement in the local library or going through a baby-sitting service. We might place an ad in a local newspaper. But what we wouldn’t assume is that this was a job for government to get involved with.
And even if we did, we would probably think in terms of the principle of subsidiarity, looking to local government before ever thinking of resorting to an appeal to the state government. So who on earth would assume that finding a babysitter to watch your children is the responsibility of the federal government?
The answer is: A liberal Democratic serving in the United States Congress (and in this case, the former Speaker of the House).
It’s hard to imagine what areas of life exist, if any at all, that a modern-day liberal believes is beyond the proper scope and reach of the federal government. The Constitution is, in large part, a governing document meant to limit the power of the federal government (and the power of government more broadly). The degree to which liberalism has not only traveled away from, but is now actively at odds with, the animating beliefs of the founders is staggering.
And this journey away from constitutionalism, and what it means for the life of our country, will frame the 2012 election. That is something that should delight, and will undoubtedly benefit, conservatives.
I totally agree Mr. Wehner, although you miss the option that has worked very well – employer support for on-site, or near-site childcare. On-site runs into regulatory obstacles. n nThe key point is that what remains of the P-O-R Democratic Party knows the only way to win/protect surviving incumbents is to drive turnout of female voters. n"Protecting women's reproductive rights" worked statewide in New York in 2010, even for the NYS comptroller NOT endorsed bythe NYT. n nConsider this a test for voter turnout strategy in 2012. Not like the DNC has other 'identity-politics' subsets to "enthusiate", my new word for today
Amazing. We're going broke as a country due to entitlements and the Pelosi/ReidObama spending spree of 2009-2010, and Pelosi's focus is on further expansion of the nanny state! For progressives, the answer to any question is always more government.
I think all western countries have become de facto unitary states. They started out as federations of fairly autonomous states because they needed a defense force and small states cannot provide for defense which requires large resources. However many are now allowing issues like health care, childcare and welfare to become national issues. In fact it is the rule rather than the exception. The idea of "living off the parish" has been superseded by federal "social security". None of us would think of "living off the parish" but signing up for "social security" "Hey that is so easy".
What next? Federal pet sittng? Federal lawn care?
AHJ is looking for partner blogs in the medicine niche. AmericanHealthJournal is a health care content site with 3000+ of high quality health care videos. We are looking for website owners who may be interested in contributing guest blogs to our website. . Come contact us at our contact form on our site.