COMMENTARY; SAVE NOW, BUT PAY LATER

Restricting eligibility for child-care assistance has costlyconsequences

Just in time for Thanksgiving and the Christmas holiday, yourstate government has decided to play Scrooge and throw 11,000children out of day care.

It's not like some thug sauntered into a child-care center anddragged out a helpless preschooler kicking and screaming.

Certainly not.

Why do with physical force what you can accomplish with the strokeof a pen?

Minding their pennies and ignoring the long-term dollar costs, thestate has simply made it tougher for poor working moms to find carefor their children by lowering the income level required to qualifyfor state assistance.

Prior to Oct. 1, a family of three earning less than $28,236 ayear would qualify for help. That's been sliced by 35 percent, so nowto qualify, a family of three seeking assistance can earn no morethan $22,896 a year.

The upshot is that the mothers of 11,000 children around the statewill lose their state assistance. What happens to their kids? Unlessthese moms can come up with the cash, they'll be forced to withdrawtheir children from child-care centers and give them over to babysitters or, worse yet, leave them home alone. Or maybe mom willsimply have to stay home and rejoin the welfare rolls.

This is a lose-lose scenario.

It is in their earliest years that the blueprints for children'slives are formed. Proper child care can make the difference between akid who grows up to become a successful adult and one who perpetuatesthe cycle of poverty. The cost of the latter alternative, over time,dwarfs the dollars saved today.

Moreover, one of the most important things women need to get offwelfare - and stay off - is affordable child care. That's the ideabehind providing subsidies, to make child-care accessible to poormoms so they can get back into the work force.

Would we rather be shelling out more money for food stamps orunemployment compensation or housing subsidies or other forms ofassistance?

And even if you cling to the cold-hearted view that a poor workingmom has no one but herself to blame for her predicament, should thechild be punished?

Shouldn't we want these kids to get a leg up, to get a betterstart in life, not only because it is a humane impulse, but becauseit makes good sense financially and for the overall well-being of thecommunity?

Welfare reform has always been something of a shell game, drivingdown numbers by making it increasingly difficult to qualify for help.But this is an especially cruel revision of the rules as it cuts tothe foundation of what is needed for a mom to get and keep a job.

So not only is this heartless - particularly coming at a time whenso many families are struggling- it is, ultimately, stupid.

Already some moms are asking their employers for pay cuts orreduced hours so they can keep their child-care benefits. In the longrun, we'll all pay for that.

As Lynn Hulsey of this newspaper reported last week, the cost ofthese subsidies has nearly doubled in the past five years, and byrestricting eligibility the state will save $58 million in the 2003fiscal year. To be fair, that's a chunk of change. And it comes at atime when the state treasury is bare.

Ultimately, though, it is a question of priorities. And if we failto invest in our children today, we'll pay for it tomorrow.

Jeff Bruce is the editor of the Dayton Daily News. He can bereached at 225-2335. If you'd like to send him an electronic letter,include your name, e-mail address and daytime phone number. HisInternet address is jbruce@DaytonDailyNews.com.