Yes, George - that's my baby - reply to George Gilder on federal aid to day care

National Review, May 27, 1988 by Orrin G. Hatch

YES, GEORGE-THAT'S MY BABY

THOUGH I'VE grown used to being ridiculed from time to time by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other establishment media, I was a little surprised to be accused by George Gilder in the pages of NATIONAL REVIEW [May 13] of surrendering to the "strange cult of child sacrifice." To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of my surrender have been greatly exaggerated. But, whether we like it or not, child care is one of the top domestic-policy issues confronting Congress today. It is time for conservatives to join the debate. I only hope that we will allow a little substance to sneak into our rhetorical railings.

I appreciated Mr. Gilder's kind words about my leadership in other battles: school prayer, ERA, labor-law reform, Grove City, SALT II, and, of course, the right to life. I am just sorry he thinks that all of these "previous struggles will go for nought" because I have dared to suggest that we conservatives should start looking at constructive solutions to the child-care problem in this country.

I realize that he does not agree that there is a problem. In Utah-a state that has a strong pro-family sentiment and little incentive apart from economic need for a mother to work outside the home-54 per cent of all women are in the labor force. Of those Utah women who work, only 30 per cent work part time. More than half of all married women and 44 per cent mothers with pre-school children have joined the labor force. More than 10 per cent of Utah's families are headed by women; there are over 64,000 children in these families. In Utah, there are just under 300,000 children ages zero to 13 who need some kind of care outside the home for some part of the work week. It is true that about half of these children will be well cared for by a grandmother, aunt, or trusted neighbor. But that still leaves 140,000 to 150,000 children in Utah alone who need another arrangement.

Mr. Gilber claims that I want "traditional families to promote child abandonment by other families under siege." This reminds me of the proponents of the Grove City legislation who claimed that my opposition to that will was based on my secret desire to subsidize discrimination. No one wants to see broken marriages or children warehoused like factory inventory. I have often stated my personal belief that children are best cared for and nurtured in the home with a full-time parent. But, for thousands of American families, the one-parent-working/one-parent-at-home household is not an option.

Others who need child care are those families that have relatively low incomes. Now, I always thought that conservatives championed individual initiative and hard work. I frankly admire low-income families that are determined to live independently even if it takes two incomes to do it. Nearly one-fourth of the women in the work force today are married to men who earn less than $20,000 per year, and 15 per cent have husbands earnings less than $15,000. What should be done for these families? Should we adopt a zero-children policy for families below a certain income level, or should we pass a guaranteed national income high enough to allow mothers to remain at home?

Even if single parents and low-income parents are the primary users and beneficiaries of child-care programs, does it follow that these families are responsible for family breakdown and other social problems? Of course not. While it is a common liberal trait to pity the disadvantaged in our society as well as to advocate government policies designed to take care of them, I have never known conservatives to harbor such elitist views. The idea that "the female-headed families of today create an unending chain of burdens for tomorrow ..." is equally supercilious. Why should we assume that such families will always be poor and their children disruptive juvenile delinquents? Frankly, I cannot buy the argument that single-parent families are the root of all evil in America today and that we can prevent family break-ups by ignoring the child-care issue.

Finally, lest the readers of Mr. Gilder's article get the wrong information about my bill, let me assure them that the "Child-Care Services Improvement Act" is fundamentally different from Senator Dodd's "Act for Better Child Care." My proposal invites local entities, including churches, to develop and operate their own child-care programs. It recognizes the importance of family-based child-care providers and encourages private business to provide child care through tax and liability reforms. My bill is not a freebie for privileged families, and it does not disturb informal child-care arrangements with family members or neighbors. Furthermore, Mr. Gilder's assertion that a compromise with Senators Dodd and Kennedy is my number-one legislative priority is quite incorrect. Compromise is not my objective--a sensible child-care policy is. Frankly, I resent the implication that I will acquiesce to a watered-down ABC bill just for the sake of getting a bill.