In the United States, most parents of young children work, most need help caring for their children, and most cannot rely on help from other family members.
Don't you think that providing affordable, high-quality childcare to American families is a no-brainer? We've done it before. Why can't we do it again?
Let me give you a brief history lesson:
Eighty years ago, when American soldiers were fighting fascism overseas, women were recruited en masse to work in shipyards and factories, where they filled all kinds of jobs that had traditionally been held by men. More than six million women worked as welders, operated heavy machinery, and did other factory work. They made tanks, ships, and airplanes. Three million women volunteered for the Red Cross. More than 200,000 served in the military.
And who cared for their babies and toddlers? For the first and only time in American history, Congress spent tens of millions of dollars to fund universal child care, allowing state governments and private companies to set up hundreds of “war nurseries” in workplaces. An estimated 550,000 young children were enrolled in them, allowing their mothers to become full citizens.
On the West Coast, industrialist and health care visionary Henry J. Kaiser hired child development experts to set up what would become model versions of child care centers in his shipyards. The experts tested theories that helped inform and expand the field of early childhood education.
But when the war ended, federal money dried up. All those Rosie the Riveters were banished back to their kitchens, even though most wanted to keep their jobs.
The culture then invented the fairy tale that a woman’s true fulfillment comes from motherhood and homemaking, a notion that reached its peak in the 1950s and early 1960s. The 1963 publication of Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” helped puncture that myth and propel the country into the second wave of American feminism.
In 1971, as more women were reentering the workforce, Congress passed the Comprehensive Child Development Act. It's almost shocking to think about today: The bill authorized a multibillion-dollar national child care system, designed in part to help single working parents reduce their dependence on welfare.
The groundbreaking legislation soon fell victim to Cold War concerns: Critics said it would “Sovietize” American children and allow the government to control families (when you consider how Republicans have rolled back reproductive rights, this is ridiculous). President Nixon vetoed the bill.
And here we are today, mired in a patchwork system of child care that is sometimes affordable or high-quality, but almost never both.
Which brings us to the presidential race.
Last week, former President Trump was asked what specific bill he would introduce to make child care affordable. His rambling and confusing response was so bizarre and out of place that it went viral.
When his running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, was asked a similar question, the answer was more coherent but almost as bizarre. After urging grandparents and other relatives to pitch in more, Vance falsely suggested that child care providers are overregulated and required to have “a six-year college degree” (in fact, most child care providers are women who don’t have college degrees and are woefully underpaid). Vance has characterized universal child care as “class warfare against regular people.”
In his platform, Trump does not specifically address child care. Instead, he promises to promote a culture “that values the sanctity of marriage, the blessings of childhood, and the fundamental role of families.” He also promises to “end policies that punish families.”
Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s plan for a second Trump term, says nothing about affordable, high-quality child care but does call for eliminating the Department of Education and preschool programs like Head Start, a cornerstone of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty.
Vice President Kamala Harris, by contrast, has called for increasing the child tax credit from $2,000 per child to $3,600, something Republicans oppose. She has also proposed a new $6,000 benefit for parents of newborns. Her platform calls for access to high-quality, affordable child care provided by workers who earn a living wage.
Last year, during a Senate subcommittee hearing on the expiration of billions of dollars in child care funding during the pandemic, Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said opposing affordable child care “is like opposing golden retrievers.” But, he asked labor economist Kathryn Anne Edwards, an expert on the child care crisis, how on earth should we pay for it?
She was concise: “Most federal revenue comes from taxes, so if more money is needed, taxes will have to be raised. I remind you, sir, that we have had two massive tax cuts of trillions of dollars in the last 20 years, and they have done nothing to make child care more affordable… There has been no investment in children.”
That's the reality of child care in America. We all want it, but those who control the money refuse to pay for it.
