Progress on Child Care

Once politicians simply kissed babies; now they show up at child-care centers, too. The presidential and vice presidential candidates have appeared during this campaign in day-care centers from UCLA to Tysons Corner, Va. They’ve had to avoid tripping on rubber dinosaurs, and they’ve led renditions of “Itsy Bitsy Spider.” They’ve done it because a majority of children have working mothers and because young mothers and young fathers alike know that the cost and availability of child care is a critical issue.

The sheer presence of Democrat Michael S. Dukakis and Republican George Bush at so many of the centers has focused more attention on the status of child care across the country. The test will be whether their rhetoric provides any more real child-care opportunities, either financed by the federal government or offered by private employers.

Dukakis and Bush agree that the government must do more. They disagree on the way to do more. Dukakis supports a bill that still could--and should--be passed by this Congress that would expand the amount of day care available and increase its quality. That measure, the Act for Better Child Care Services, would provide subsidies to help low- and moderate-income parents pay for child care. The bill would have the federal government work with the states to provide money at low-interest rates for establishing or expanding child-care programs. It would also help states strengthen the health and safety protections for children in these programs. The measure would cost $2.5 billion.

The bill is stalled in a debate over whether church groups should be allowed to participate. Meantime, the best hope for vastly expanding federal support for child care may die. Dukakis could give some muscle to his message if he spoke out firmly for the passage of this bill now.

Bush favors tax credits to families making less than $10,000 a year so that they could better afford child care. His program would provide $1,000 for each child under 4 in these low-income families. Families with slightly higher incomes would be phased in later. The plan would cost $2.2 billion at the start, perhaps more later, and would leave the choice of the kind of child care in the hands of parents.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, although the bill in Congress has the advantage of creating more child-care slots, improving workers’ training and tightening licensing standards.

What is lacking so far from either candidate are words of strong encouragement for employers to provide more child care. That’s probably the great hope for the future. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 2% of the 1.2 million companies that employ 10 or more people sponsor child care for their staffs. Still, that’s an improvement. About 200 companies have started offering financial help, referral services or even on-site care in the last six months.

The services are varied. IBM Corp. has helped 27,000 employees find child care. Apple Computer operates a center at its Cupertino headquarters. Polaroid Corp. pays part of employees’ child-care expenses.

So progress is being made, and the candidates’ attention could yield still more. Both Bush and Dukakis have made thoughtful proposals concerning an issue that is no longer mere child’s play. Providing both safe and affordable child care is of critical importance to the nation’s families and the nation’s economy. It’s now time for Congress to play its part by passing the child-care measure.