Impossible Thing #2

Impossible Things To Believe Before Breakfast:
2. It makes great sense for the government to pay 10 to 15,000 dollars a year to fund a daycare space for a child so its mother - who pays perhaps 2,000 dollars in taxes - can be a contributing member of society.

DAVE SIM:
My point here was that government is always the most expensive way to do anything.  There's no such thing as "free" daycare any more than there's "free" healthcare.

The Feminist Theocracy advocates for "free" or heavily subsidized daycare.  Quebec has more experience with that than any jurisdiction in North America.  $7 a day.  Well, it doesn't cost the taxpayer $7 a day.  It's a black hole money pit like "free" health care.  "Free" health care in Ontario absorbs more than 40% of our Gross Domestic Product and Quebec's experience suggests that "subsidized" daycare takes you into those astronomical "unfunded liabilities" areas in a hurry.

I would actually extend this one in a couple of directions:

1)  If you add up what it costs two working parents to keep two cars on the road ("all in" costs) and paying for daycare and compare that to what it would cost them to have one car on the road and to rear their own children at their own expense, I think you would find that the latter in most, if not all, situations makes greater economic sense.  If you're spending all your money on "outside the home" expenses because you just won't look at what it's actually costing, then I think you're being intentionally short-sighted for ideological reasons.

2)  relative to the ORIGINAL POINT:  if you're taking it as a given that this is going to be government funded daycare -- THE most expensive way of doing ANYthing --  a new "Daycare Ministry" and the whole Ministry apparatus that goes into that, top to bottom before you even get to licensing, approvals, leasing, salaries, etc.  it's going to be a lot cheaper and the money will go a lot further if you just divide it up and give it to mothers who are interested.  Provided the stay home and rear their own children.

You could expand that into HABITAT FOR MATERNITY.  "Are you STRICTLY a Mom by nature and inclination?  Are you not remotely interested in having a career?  Do you just want to spend all day with your babies and give them the best start in life that you can?"  Okay, we'll build you a "nothing fancy" house, waive the property taxes, deliver your food to you from the local food bank and basically arrange it so that rearing children is ALL you have to do.

I've read the complaint multiple times from the NATIONAL POST's female writers (and they have a BUNCH of them) that mothers are missing the maternal community that used to exist:  mothers wanting to associate with mothers.  The IT TAKES A VILLAGE that Hillary Clinton was never a part of.

HABITAT FOR MATERNITY would solve that problem.

Yes, the Feminist Theocracy considers ANY woman who just wants to be a mother 24/7 to be psychotic.  They're not.  They're mothers.

They are what virtually ALL women were up until 1970.

I maintain they're still the vast majority.  They've just been intimidated by the Feminist Theocracy into being ashamed of what they are and forced to become something else.

With replacement birth rates dropping, I don't think we can continue to cater to the Feminist Theocracy's idiosyncratic views.  We're going to have to make room for mothers and keep the Feminist Theocracy from harassing them.