Bill Ewing is certainly a hero to single-parent and low-income families who absolutely need child care. But I question his philosophy of programs when in one sentence he states that "child-care money should be spent on kids whose parents can't afford to stay home" and a few pages later he's describing his state-supported program for middle-income families.

Having a quality care situation for the middle-class Worcester family may relieve their "incredible stress" temporarily, but who's fooling whom when they talk about having "quality" time with their kids before 6:30 a.m. and after 6 p.m.?

May I suggest that Ewing could gain money for his lower-income infant-care programs by getting the state to pay middle-income moms to stay home with their babies. A mom at home can "cuddle and feed on demand" on less than the $26 per day it costs the state to run their programs. Ewing could benefit with all the leftover money, and the homemakers would reap a renewed sense of worth.



Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World