Elizabeth Warren’s Misguided Child-Care Plan

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) questions panelists testifying before the Senate Armed Services subcommittees on the Military Housing Privatization Initiative, in Washington, D.C., February 13, 2019. (Erin Scott/Reuters)
The senator’s proposal would heavily subsidize parents’ least favorite care option — day care — while doing nothing to make all the others more affordable.

Senator Elizabeth Warren is poised to propose a sweeping new government program to expand taxpayer support for child care, along with new government oversight meant to ensure that all day-care providers are “quality.” HuffPost reports that, under Warren’s plan, the government would cover all child-care costs for families with household incomes below $50,000 and no family would spend more than 7 percent of income on child care.

This may sound appealing to those concerned about families with young children struggling to make ends meet, but it could backfire on many families who prefer family-based care.

Support for massive new government day-care subsidies relies on some faulty assumptions about what American families want when it comes to caring for their children. Foremost, it assumes that most Americans want their children to attend day-care centers, when in fact, most parents would prefer to be able to care for their children themselves or rely on family-based care or the closest approximation to it.

IN THE NEWS: Elizabeth Warren Raised $300K on Day One

It also assumes that quality child-care centers are associated with positive educational and life outcomes for children. As Steven Rhoads and I detailed in a piece for National Affairs, much research points in the opposite direction. Studies that show benefits associated with day-care attendance tend to be unrepresentative and record gains only for the most disadvantaged populations, while studies that look broadly at the impact of day care on the general student population show much more discouraging results.

In any case, it is undeniable that day-care is more expensive than it needs to be. Ironically, one reason for its high costs is government regulation. Economists for Mercatus conducted an analysis of how regulations impact day-care costs and quality and found that:

. . . regulations intended to improve the quality of child care often focus on easily observable measures, such as group sizes or child-staff ratios, that do not necessarily affect the quality of care but do increase the cost of care. These regulations can have unintended consequences, including increasing the cost of child care while decreasing the wages of child-care workers.

The authors went on to explain the obvious implication of their findings:

Eliminating regulatory standards that do not affect the quality of care while focusing on those that do, such as teacher training, will improve the quality of child care while making it more affordable to low-income families.

Senator Warren should keep this in mind. While there may be some sensible regulations, government has a poor record of creating the type of environment that parents instinctively know is most important for their children: somewhere they are safe, treated with compassion and patience, and encouraged to play and explore. But regulations are all but certain to make child care much more expensive, whether for parents or for taxpayers.

Many may be tempted to applaud Senator Warren for trying to help ease the pressure on parents with young children, who face big expenses and often struggle to get by. But Warren’s approach would heavily subsidize the one child-care choice that most parents say they prefer least  — day-care centers — over others, such as sacrificing income to keep a parent at home or having a grandparent or other family or community member care for children. It would be far better to focus on making life more affordable for all families, by reforming tax and regulatory policies that drive up the cost of living and make it more difficult to live on one income, than to layer on another costly government subsidy that only helps some.

Something to Consider

If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it?

If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.

Carrie Lukas is the president of the Independent Women’s Forum.

Most Popular


How States Like Virginia Go Blue

So this is what it feels like to live in a lab experiment. As a native Virginian, I’ve watched my state come full circle. The last time Democrats enjoyed the amount of power in the Old Dominion that they won on Tuesday, I was entering middle school in Fairfax County. In 1993 the governor was a Democrat, one ... Read More

Democratic Denial

One point I'd draw out from David Harsanyi's post below: It has been more than thirty years since a Democratic presidential nominee failed to make it to the White House and thought the loss was legitimate. Read More

Religious-Freedom Voters Will Vote Trump

The late Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy wrote, "Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion all have a double aspect — freedom of thought and freedom of action.” To which one should be able to add, freedom of inaction -- meaning that absent a compelling state interest, people should ... Read More
Books, Arts & Manners

Why Study Latin?

Oxford professor Nicola Gardini urges people to read and study Latin. He believes that Latin is the antidote for the modern age, which seems transfixed by the spontaneous, the easy, and the ephemeral. His new book, Long Live Latin: The Pleasures of a Useless Language, argues that Latin combines truth and ... Read More