JD Vance answered a question from Charlie Kirk about lowering the high cost of childcare and here’s his response:
Kirk: What can we do about lowering the cost of daycare? pic.twitter.com/YIS68cXKw4
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 5, 2024
Some chick on X claimed that what JD Vance said “makes no sense”, suggesting he doesn’t know what he’s talking about:
I rarely QT for purposes of correction but this is a good example of what I was trying to identify in threads earlier this week: B/c Vance inaccurately defines the problems families face, he offers solutions that make no sense https://t.co/qGh0wmd3wL
— hannah anderson (@sometimesalight) September 5, 2024
JD Vance saw this and responded with a detailed policy proposal, showing he knows exactly what he’s talking about and she’s the one who does not:
Hi Hannah, I hope you’ve been doing well. A few thoughts here.
1) Many don’t fully appreciate how federal (and state) policy penalizes particular family models–particularly in-home care and kinship care–over others. That’s true of the Child Care Development Block Grant and the Dependent Care Tax Credit, though in different ways for each. So yes, parents or grandparents might not be able to help, but they might *want* to, and for those families federal policy should not be forcing one particular family model. We should try to encourage whatever is best for each individual family. Right now we don’t: we try to force or at least subsidize one model on every family in this country. And if you open up kinship and other options for families, you will relieve some pressure on the daycare system in this country.
2) If you subsidize something but don’t increase the supply of it, you’re going to raise prices without getting an increase in quality. This is what’s so broken about Kamala Harris’s approach to child care. You can’t just write a check if there aren’t additional providers. So while I obviously support health and safety regulations, there are some absurd regulations out there that restrict the supply of child care providers–from kinship providers to local churches. Just because the interests of the market are not always aligned with families–I agree and have said so myself!–doesn’t mean that all government regulations make sense.
3) Finally, we have to consider the broken educational pathways that exist for a whole host of professions. A consistent thing I’ve heard is that there is great demand for a lot of jobs, but a totally broken pathway for young people to get into those jobs. It’s true of plumbers and advanced manufacturing, but it’s also true of child care providers.
4) I’m sorry if you think I believe children are a means to an end. I can assure you I don’t, though I do believe that children are not just incredible little creatures in their own right: they are also transformative for the people who care for them.
