I don't understand the argument this article is making. It goes from establishing that the cost of child care has increased much faster than other goods/services, to advocating that the government pay for it. Where's the connection? Simply moving the costs from new parents to the US tax-base won't do anything to address the underlying causes of the high costs.
It seems to me that we need solutions to address the high cost in any case, and the question of whether the government should be more involved is an orthogonal concern.
Unless the argument is that there's not an effective way to control the costs, so the government should help pay for it to not overly burden new parents. But, I didn't see that point explicitly made in the article.
It seems to me that we need solutions to address the high cost in any case, and the question of whether the government should be more involved is an orthogonal concern.
Unless the argument is that there's not an effective way to control the costs, so the government should help pay for it to not overly burden new parents. But, I didn't see that point explicitly made in the article.