Thirteen Steps For Making U.S. Child Care As Horrible As U.S. Health Care

Nancy Pelosi once had trouble finding a babysitter, so her aspiration these days is "doing for child care what we did for health care reform."


Nancy Pelosi once had trouble finding a babysitter. So her aspiration these days is "doing for child care what we did for health care reform"—pushing a comprehensive solution. In fact, it's not just an aspiration—it's at the top of her agenda.

This sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea. But if "we" really are going to do for child care what we have done for health care, the U.S. will have to take some intermediate steps in order to replicate the experience faithfully.

(1) First, the U.S. should create a labor shortage by launching a major war and drafting men and women to fight.

(2) Then it should impose wage and price controls, as Washington did during WWII, to prevent employers from bidding up the price of labor. (That would further drive up the prices for war materiel, which would be costly and inconvenient to the government. The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, for instance, stipulated that its aim was "to assure that defense appropriations are not dissipated by excessive prices.")

(3) The president—Barack Obama, presumably—should then establish a War Manpower Commission with the power to forbid people to change jobs, as just such a commission did during WWII. This will prevent individuals from skirting around the wage controls by quitting one job to take another that pays more.

(4) Practices such as these will encourage employers to compete for scarce labor by offering non-wage benefits. During WWII, employer-provided health coverage was one such benefit. It is reasonable to assume employer-provided child care would be another one today.

(5) To facilitate the spread of employer-provided child care, Washington should grant it preferential tax status, as it does with health care. The IRS should back this up by declaring that child-care benefits do not count as wages.

(6) To further ensconce the third-party-payer system, the National Labor Relations Board should declare, contra the IRS finding, that child-care benefits do count as wages for the purposes of collective bargaining (just as it did with health coverage). This, combined with the favored tax status, will encourage labor unions to push for extravagantly generous child-care policies for current workers and for pensioners.

(7) Washington then should enact two major new entitlement programs akin to Medicaid and Medicare, guaranteeing government-funded babysitting for the poor and elderly. Washington should produce wildly low-balled estimates of the future costs of such programs.

(8) While all this is going on, the states should impose complex bureaucratic oversight of the child-care system—especially a "Certificate of Need" program through which bureaucrats, rather than the free market, would decide whether new child-care facilities are needed and may be allowed to open. That way, existing child-care facilities will have government allies in their attempts to limit competition that might hold down costs.

(9) Likewise, professional child care associations should lobby Congress for market-entry barriers requiring providers to obtain highly restricted licenses for performing even the most mundane procedures.

(10) Meanwhile, politicians at both the state and federal level should propose a host of various mandates on employer-provided child care—requiring such programs to pay for trips to the zoo, cultural institutions and parks; to cover weekend child care for romantic parents' getaways; and to cover full-time au pair services for parents of children with special needs. This will help drive up the cost of insurance even faster.

(11) As the share of GNP devoted to child care begins to spiral out of control and the government assumes control of 50 cents out of every child-care dollar, liberals and progressives should argue that this proves the current free market in child care doesn't work, so the government should stop sitting on the sidelines and step in to fix everything.

(12) Ideally, the stepping in would consist of a complete government takeover of child care: a single-payer system in which the government does all the child care in the country, and nobody else is allowed to.

(13) Short of that, Washington should pass legislation forbidding providers to turn anyone away, and requiring all Americans to buy child-care coverage—whether they have children or not. This should be part of a massive child-care overhaul that will drive costs up even further and prove equally untenable. Then the country can go back and try Step 12—and we will all live happily ever after. Right?

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this article originally appeared.

NEXT: Canada Tosses Wheat Board with the Chaff

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And the childfree take it in the neck again…

    1. Freedom means being free of the consequences of your choices. Don’t you know that? What kind of a monster are you?

      1. The worst kind: libertarian.

        1. I was afraid of that.

          1. We’ll have to put him down. The only way to be sure is to put a candy bar through his heart.

            1. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

              1. I hear that a lobster bullet might work too, but I’m pretty sure that’s just an urban legend.

            2. And the childfree take it in the neck again…

              No, because, you see, you’re still child-free.

              1. Well, there is that. Woot!

                1. See? Just be happy with your copious free time and disposable income the ability to have sex whenever, wherever and however you like, on a whim.

                  Oh, the ability to pick up and go out at a moment’s notice without planning a single, fucking thing.

                  And not aging prematurely. I always forget that one.

                  1. Just be happy with your copious free time and disposable income the ability to have sex whenever, wherever and however you like, on a whim.
                    you mean he’s in the NBA?

      2. Freedom to Libertarians means government privilege for me, but not for thee.

        Libertarians seem to not like much freedom. They love gambol lockdown, as did Stalin.

        “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.” ~John Kenneth Galbraith


        2. Rather, can’t you just take your meds once in a while? The doctors really are trying to help you.

          1. jOHN,

            White Indian|11.29.11 @ 12:13PM|#

            rather|11.29.11 @ 12:13PM|#
            Childcare in England

            Look closely , stupid.

            1. Those posts only happen on thread where you appear.

                1. You accuse me without proof but when I refute with conclusive evidence, it isn’t good enough for your standards.

                  Do me a favor and ignore me, and you can incif White Indian too

                  1. Your conclusive evidence is that you posted twice in the same minute?

                    1. Can’t be done.

                    2. I’ll tell you what genius, if you can find anywhere that I posted twice in the same minute, I’ll send you an autographed picture of your named painted on my ass

                    3. and one word doesn’t count

                    4. I’d pay to see my name on your ass

                    5. I’d pay to see my name on your ass

                      I’ll take “Things No One Has Ever, Ever Said To Joy Behar” for $500, Alex.

                  2. Did someone says conclusive evidence?

                  3. Did someone say conclusive evidence?

                    1. Dear Kunt,
                      Now try posting under the two matching posts with exact words, and don’t copy and paste either….that’s what you call cuntclusive evidence

                    2. Imagine if a web browser had a way to have two pages open at once. It could be hidden behind your current one, and just a title pops up at the top. Kind of like those tabs in filing cabinets. They could even call this hypothetical technology “tabs”.

                    3. Try writing original comments of the same length, with different handles, and link addresses, under the same posts.

                    4. How dooz teh internetz work againz?

                  4. At the risk of butting where I probably shouldn’t…I don’t think it’s Rather.

                    (And yes Rather this will have to serve as a mea culpa on my part)

                    1. I’m not convinced it’s rather, but I think this “conclusive evidence” that it isn’t is idiotic.

                    2. “Mea culpa” written on your ass, or no forgiveness, and fucking tell John too

                    3. I’m saying I think now I might have been wrong about you being White Idiot…I’m not asking for forgiveness. Tell John what? I’m not his dad…you tell him.

                    4. fish,

                      “And yes Rather this will have to serve as a mea culpa on my part”

                      I misinterpreted your ‘mea culpa’ = my mistake/my fault

                      You should have written “experientia docet”, or “in dubio pro reo”

                2. You’re the only troll here, rather.
                  Didn’t you know that?

                  1. Geezer, I like your comment so much you win the prize

                    1. Why is rather fighting so hard to prove that she is not both spoof WI and rather? I thought the accusation was that she was WI (posting here as Capitalism=Communism at 12:10).

                    2. Holy shit, is that john’s theory too?

                    3. What, like this?

          2. Actually, John, White Idiot is probably this guy:


        3. What about the libertarians who don’t want a government at all? Are they commies too?

          1. That’s called anarchy, which is only for idiots and 18 year olds fresh out of high school.

            Also, the frontal cortex doesn’t fully develop until around the age of 25. I highly suggest delaying any life-long decisions until you reach that age.

            1. Shit, I got married when I was 24.

              Oh, you said “life-long” decision. Ok then.

              1. That’s why religions make you commit to whatever deity they pray to while you’re young; once you get older it just looks silly.

            2. That’s called anarchy, which is only for idiots and 18 year olds fresh out of high school.

              Mommy, I’m scared!

              1. I hesitate to bring up the Somalia reference, but that’s what you get with Anarchy.

                  1. Yeah, I recall we amended the rules to include that. I think anon wants a sip or two with lunch.

                    1. Dangit. I should have gone to BBC for lunch.

                1. Anarchy is not an absence of rules. It is an absence of rules imposed by force.
                  A good example of anarchy would be the internet. There are plenty of rules and protocols, all agreed upon voluntarily, and the result is much better than anything that comes through force.

                  1. Not true as the internet does actually have rules enforced by force; however I’ll cede this point for the sake of argument.

                    It’s not possible to murder someone over the internet; there’s no threat that someone will come by and take your TV or iPod, as criminals have been known to do. The mere act of connecting to the internet is a voluntary gesture; you can turn it off and walk away. You can not turn life off and walk away.

                    Well, I guess you theoretically could, but suggesting the dichotomy of “well you don’t have to get raped, you could kill yourself” is silly.

                    1. Not true as the internet does actually have rules enforced by force

                      IP, html, and shit like that is not enforced by force.
                      The movement of packets, checksums, and shit like that is not enforced by force.

                      The internet is virtually free of government regulation and legislation (rules backed by force) as far as how it actually functions. You would expect chaos, right?
                      Yet rules exist and they are followed.

                      Anarchy does not equal chaos or a lack of rules.
                      Anarchy means a lack of rules imposed by a central authority backed by threat of violence.

                    2. Domain addresses are rules backed by force.

                      Anarchy does mean the threat of violence is rampant.

                      See, we give our power of violence to the state so that we can’t use it on each other. Unfortunately, sometimes the state uses that power in unjust ways. But I prefer to give the state that power than a completely random crackhead that wants my TV.

                    3. Domain addresses are treated as private property. I’m talking about how the internet functions.

                      BTW I am not an anarchist. I’m a minarchist.

                      Just trying to clarify that anarchy does not mean chaos. It means a lack of a central authority to enforce rules through force. Could that result in chaos? Sure. Could it result in rules being followed voluntarily? Sure. I guess it depends on how many assholes there are and how they are dealt with.

                    4. I am not an anarchist. I’m a minarchist.

                      Ha ha!
                      I’m not a rapist. I’m a molester.

                    5. I guess it depends on how many assholes there are and how they are dealt with.

                      Unfortunately, we have a surfeit of assholes on this planet.

                    6. Unfortunately, we have a surfeit of assholes on this planet.

                      That’s why I added “and how they are dealt with”.

                      Personally I think every man and woman should be armed with deadly force. That’s equality for ya. It would also result in many dead assholes.

                    7. To add to my 1:50 comment, I think a major reason why liberals love gun control is because they intentionally try to provoke people into an emotional response.
                      They are dishonest, disingenuous, contemptuous, they intentionally push buttons, and they know that this could be very dangerous for their own safety in armed company.
                      Thus they would prefer everyone to be unarmed.

                    8. a surfeit of assholes on this planet.


                    9. Because the state is stopping all the crackheads from ever taking anything from anyone else, right? Hooray State!

                2. Actually before Somalia was invaded by the UN-backed Ethiopia they were significantly better off in almost every single metric than they were when they were under the Barre regime. In order for the “herp derp anarchy is bad” line the opposite would have had to occur.

                  The other thing people do when they use Somalia as an example is hold them to a vastly higher standard then they hold any statist country. If Somalia invaded a country halfway around the world that the average Somalian couldn’t pick out on a fucking map would you consider that a “failure of anarchy”? Would you point to the millions of dead from the result of this conflict and say “this is why anarchy doesn’t work!”?

                  1. Somalia’s anarchy is the result of our intervention; but conditions in Somalia were better because they were ruled by a despot and not living under anarchy.

                    1. Yes, even despotism is better than Anarchy.

                    2. No, not in the case of Somalia. (Assuming you use common living standards)

                3. I hesitate to bring up the Somalia reference, but that’s what you get with Anarchy.

                  You get a country ruled by an authoritarian Islamist militia?

                  Who knew?

                  1. Survival of the fittest is what you get.

                    The end result of chaos is order.


            3. Funny. I didn’t consider myself an anarchist until I was over 30.

            4. You’re correct per anarchy, but frankly I think anyone using the growth of the frontal cortex as a measure of much is a tad foolish since there was a time when people far younger than 25 were considered adults and out making a living for themselves. Rockerfeller started his first real job at the age of 16 as an assistant bookkeeper, seems his brain was working pretty well 9 years before it was fully developed. Today he’d not even be expected to get a job till after college and even then he’d be on his considered a child for matters of insurance by the government.

              But then, we’re all considered children by government, We can’t even choose what size toilet reservoir to flush our poo down with or the size shower head to bathe with.

              1. Oh, well if the guy with a dick joke for a name thinks anarchists are dumb, it must be so.

            5. anon|11.29.11 @ 12:19PM
              That’s called anarchy, which is only for idiots and 18 year olds fresh out of high school.

              I resent that.

            6. While it is probably true that your brain doesn’t fully develop until you are 35 or so, it is also important to remember that it is pretty much downhill from there as far as cognitive capacity goes. So the key is to make all important life decisions when exactly 25 years old, I guess.

              1. Sorry, “25 or so” not 35.

            7. Cool, as long as they aren’t commies, I’m fine with them.

            8. Even though its late I feel I should point out that the brain development thing is a load of shit that control freaks love to use as an excuse for their bullshit.

        4. You’re citing John Kenneth Galbraith as an authority on something?

          HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

        5. “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.”

          Isn’t the opposite of ‘man exploits man’ simply man exploiting man?

          1. I caught that too.

            Simple minded dreck…

            1. Actually that’s the point. Either way it’s still people deciding how to treat people. Under capitalism you get to choose who to deal with though, under communism you lose that freedom to choose.

  2. Instapundit said it best this morning.

    Insane Clown Posse used to just be the name of the world’s worst rap band not an accurate description of our political class.

    1. There’s worse. Do a youtube search for “dutch hip hop.”

  3. I guess it was assumed that all these steps would be accompanied by a disregard for the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

    1. As is debt.


      1. your doing it wrong

      2. Where in the Constitution is Congress empowered to provide welfare? As in taking money from some working person who earned it and giving it to someone else who won’t work?

        1. He’s talking about the “promote the general Welfare” portion, which is obviously lost on him.

          The existence of just laws promotes the general welfare of society; excessive debt is therefore unconstitutional. Shitty argument is shitty.

            1. Shitty argument is still shitty.

        2. “The Congress shall have Power To … pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

          The Constitution


          1. That’s not what it says.
            We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

            gtfo of here with your shitty mcshit argument.

            1. ahahahah white idiot is speechless

              1. Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.


                Or is anything past the preamble too difficult?

            2. Where did all those words come from?
              There are only seven words in the constitution.

              general welfare… regulate commerce… necessary and proper

              See? Unlimited power!

              1. Even dumber argument.
                USvsButler, 1936.

            3. “The Congress shall have Power To … pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

              It’s in the Constitution. Really. Read it. I dare ya.

              1. USvsButler, 1936.

                Of course, us non-morons can recognize that the entire section is regarding national defense. Welfare is not national defense.

                1. why say common Defence and general Welfare if you mean only common Defence and general Welfare doesn’t mean common Defence?

                  Words, how do they work?

                  1. Why stick welfare babies in the middle of a section on national defense?

                    You aren’t ignorant at this point; you’re stupid.

                    1. Of course, no serious constitutional scholar actually accepts the idea that the General Welfare clause trumps the entire Constitution. It’s a ridiculous argument.

                      The Constitution itself, not to mention the reams written about it by the Founders, makes it clear that is a document enumerating certain limited powers. Without reading a word of legal scholarship, most Americans with any education should understand that fact, as the states of the time were hardly interested in handing the federal government that much power.

                    2. No one uses the “welfare clause” in the actual belief that it empowers the federal government absolutely any more than anyone really believes the ICA allows the federal government to tell you you can’t grow your own plant in your own house for your own use because it’s somehow interstate commerce.

                      They do it because people vote for them to use it for an excuse to bypass the rest of the constitution in order to perform unconstitutional acts they want performed. Liberals like the welfare clause best, conservatives like the ICA best, neither have the slightest concern for constitutionality unless it can be used as a weapon against their opponents doing exactly what they do themselves, and even then they’ll trade unconstitutional acts if they think they can get a good enough deal.

                  2. General means, well, general.
                    Programs designed to target specific demographics are not general. They are specific.
                    Specific is not general, and general is not specific.
                    Food stamps for everyone is general welfare.
                    Food stamps for a specific demographic based upon income is not general welfare. It is specific welfare.

                    Words, how do they work?

                    1. Indeed.

                      It is physically impossible to improve the GENERAL welfare by SPECIFICALLY transferring wealth from one individual citizen to another.

                  3. Words, how do they work?

                    Well when you figure that out please get back to us.

              2. Yes, indeed, the Framers gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, imposes and excises – why? “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”

                You read it, but you evidently did not fucking comprehend it.

                Nowhere does the Constitution authorize a welfare state, as understood today. The power granted to Congress was to provide for the “general welfare” of the United States as a whole – not for the specific welfare of an individual citizen.

                The Framers most certainly never intended to authorize Congress to dole out charity or support payments to individuals. The power to collect money and pay out was for the benefit of the functioning of the government.

                Disingenuous fucks these days like to read words written 230 years ago as if they were understood to mean what they mean today. “General welfare” was not, by any stretch, understood by anyone back then to mean that Congress can or should pay your living expenses or pay for your food.

                “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
                ? James Madison

                I’m assuming, of course, that you have a clue who James Madison was.

                1. He invented ice cream, right?

                  1. No, that was his wife, Sha-ne’ya Madison.

              3. I did read it. The text is here. How on God’s green earth did you manage to misread the damn thing twice in exactly the same fashion? Are you attempting to quote it from memory?

                We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

                1. I hope no one is citing the preamble, because that would be insane.

                2. If you got past the preamble and fast forward to Section 8 you would read the following:

                  to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
                  Welfare of the United States


                  1. Yup. Derp indeed. Can’t believe I missed that.

                    1. Even though handouts don’t do anyone any good, us Communists like to call them “welfare”, we like to stretch The Constitution as much as possible.

          2. Look, Jason, you’re making the same mistake millions of people have made:

            provide =/= we get free stuff whenever we fucking feel like it or are too fucking lazy to work


            1. Provide for common defense… defense of everyone.

              Promote the general welfare… gov’t gets the hell out of the way.

              Promote the general welfare is not taking money from a specific person and giving it to another specific person. That is specific welfare as stated above.

              1. “Welfare” has been bastardized for decades.

                MANY decades.

  4. I thought all we needed to do was counterfeit some babysitting scrip.

  5. Dude, there’s only one step and we’ve already got it covered:
    Send your child to a public school.

  6. Alternative proposal: Nancy Pelosi pays a teenager like $10 an hour if she chooses to go out for the evening.

  7. I suppose we just have to wait for them to pass it before we find out what’s in it this time too, right Nancy?

    1. Child birth mandate: In order to ensure that the program stays funded, the federal government will fine you every year you don’t produce a child.

      1. Also part of their plan to “fix” Social Security – two birds, one stone.

        1. And it’s bipartisan as well… someone has to fly all those drones.

      2. There are some who say the child birth mandate is unconstitutional. Let me be clear, the mandate is obviously constitutional. The presidential eligibility clause discusses natural born citizens. I think if you have to go to the dictionary definition of ‘presidential eligibility’ then you’re clearly stretching.

        1. They already started issuing waivers for the Childcare Mandate to citizens in several blue states due to their connections within the administration.

          Ironically, the Childcare Mandate waivers will end up raising the percentage of red state populations because most liberals are petrified by childbirth or Vaginas in general.

      3. No. Shit!

  8. Here in Minnesota, our POS governor is forcing home daycare workers to unionize. That’s where this is leading.

    Hitler did a lot of evil things, but outlawing unions wasn’t one of them.

    1. He probably only outlawed them because he knew how powerful they were.

  9. Nancy Pelosi[‘s] aspiration these days is “doing for child care what we did for health care reform”…

    Making it twice as expensive and ensuring it gets rationed?

  10. I think you all misunderstand. Nancy Pelosi IS a child, and she’s just trying to get some adult supervision for herself and her fellow congressional babies.

    1. No way a child has a dick that big.

  11. Rock-a-bye baby,
    On the tree top…

  12. …are feminized domesticates who live in fear of gamboling.

    They can’t take personal responsibility for their lives, so they are submissive to agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)

    The libertarians do mewl a bit under the harsh city-Statist discipline imposed, but not much.

    They mewl much less than if they had to take personal responsibility for Non-State gamboling.

    1. Yawn.

    2. Hows the weight loss coming? You’re too fat to be an indian!

      1. We ceased to give a fuck about your bullshit tirades a long time ago, Jason.

  13. As a society, we cannot afford to postpone investing in children until they become adults, nor can we wait until they reach school age ? a time when it may be too late to intervene. The best evidence supports the policy prescription: invest in the very young and improve basic learning and socialisation skills.

    1. Because if we don’t catch them early enough, they may learn that they are individuals under no obligation to the greater good?

    2. How much return do I get for investing in a newborn? Does my rate of return drop if I wait until they’re say, 3 months old? Can I hold child investments in my IRA?

      Oh, wait, you don’t really mean investing, do you? You just mean ‘spending money on’. I think I’ll go ‘invest’ in lunch.

      1. The return on a gyro is the best lunch investment you can ever have.

      2. Didn’t you hear Michelle Obama? Everything we do must be for the children! How is your lunch choice serving the children? Is it up to government health standards, thereby keeping you strong and fit enough to serve The Children? Is your sandwich wrapper recyclable so as to create eco-friendly toys for The Children?

        1. Have you done your part, comrade?

          Until a woman is a mother, she shouldn’t have a public voice. Only the Brutals should rule.

    3. Or, because our learning institutions have proven time and time again to be the best path to an educated populace?

      1. Can’t tell if serious…

    4. “As a society, we cannot afford to postpone investing in children until they become adults, nor can we wait until they reach school age ? a time when it may be too late to intervene”

      The issue is child care. You know, baby sitting?

    5. I remember when we started school in grade 1, now they start with pre-K, then K before even starting grade 1 making 14 years of government education that produces young adults who can’t read anything more complicated than a stop sign and can’t even comprehend the meaning of the sign. This obviously means we need to start even earlier.

  14. We now know that nurture in early life as well as nature is important in early human development and that nurture in the early years has major effects on learning in school and physical and mental health throughout the life cycle.

    1. You get better nurturing from a government educrat than a parent? Are you serious?

      1. Because if the government doesn’t provide it, it never gets done!

        1. Yes, he IS serious, James.

          Say hello to our newest liberal spoo-slinger… Mar!

    2. Which is why parents should actually take care of their children instead of trying to dump them int some government provided child care.

      1. Yeah, but it’s hard to do that if you have to work 20-50% longer just to pay for the government in the first place. The only way out for most parents in the future will be shrugging off sleep with some type of methamphetamine, and teaching their children during the hours they would have spent snoring. As a well-spoken toothless individual said on the bus the other day “We Fucked.”

  15. A lot of the politics around public schools are about them operating as a daycare option for working parents.

  16. Imagine the population boom we would have when you no longer have to pay for child care! I’d have 10 kids just for the tax write off.

  17. Learning starts in infancy, long before formal education begins, and continues throughout life. Early learning begets later learning and early success breeds later success, just as early failure breeds later failure.

    1. So you’re saying the parents need to take responsibility and provide for their offspring.

      1. The democratic administration of child care services can play a key role in enhancing the child care setting by involving community, staff, parents and children in the decision-making process. A good child care program is one that acknowledges diversity, is unbiased and offers affordable high quality care to disadvantaged and at-risk children. Appropriate remuneration, a solid education and ongoing training for all child care providers are essential to promoting the standing of the early childhood sector.

        1. Where did you cut and paste this text from?

          1. http://www.child-encyclopedia……-done.html

            Gotcha. Thanks for playing.
            This shit is gold.

            1. damn you got me.

              1. Your last post was the sure tell. But good job up to there.

        2. So how do you enjoy working in Obama’s re-election campaign? Is it fun?

  18. Or how about this: If you can’t afford, or just can’t be bothered to take care of a child, don’t have fucking kids. If you have kids anyway, don’t fucking complain about the things you knew would happen if you had kids.

    1. There’s a problem with this though; only people smart enough to foresee the consequences of having a child don’t have children. The dumb ones continue to procreate at an unbridled pace.

    2. It’s libertarian.

      1. Please, please stop beating me.

      2. I have a modest proposal that would solve these problems.

        1. MMMMMMMMmmmmmmmm! Can I get a baked potato with that…?

    3. That would mean taking responsibility for your own life and making meaningful decisions, and who the hell needs THAT when you’ve got a god-state to do it for you?

    4. I have this one licked, I go ahead and reproduce but then I eat my young. It’s cheaper than feeding them and they taste better than cow.

      1. Soylent veal?

    5. In other words:
      If You Can’t Feed Your Baby (Yeah, Yeah)
      Then Don’t Have A Baby (Yeah, Yeah)

  19. I’ve been iffy on some of Hinkle’s past articles but this is pretty good.

    Most Americans are completely ignorant of the effects of 8-10 on limiting competition and driving up costs for health care.

  20. Ok, I’ll just say it:

    That picture is RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!

  21. Child care? Really? Who would want to procreate after this? Everyone, forget about Nancy Pelosi. Shake it off. Let’s be human.

  22. This is like the worst chat room ever.

    1. That could be because this is not a chat room, it’s a message board. If you want to chat try YIM.

      1. C2C?

  23. 1. U.S. healthcare is not horrible.
    2. The U.S. did not “launch” World War II.

  24. I’ve got the solution. A picture of Nancy Pelosi naked must cover at least 2/3 of each condom package. If that won’t take the starch out of your laundry we throw you in jail because you’re obviously a danger to society.

    1. Pretty much like the diseased lung photos on cigarette packs?

      1. That’s already Nancy. They decided a real diseased lung wasn’t horrifying enough.

      2. I would prefer an actual diseased lung attached to my condom then a naked picture of skeletor.

    2. Condoms can be opened and applied to tally-wackers in the dark.

      1. Especially the glow in dark ones.

  25. Why do libertarians insist on insulting potential allies ?

    Any sane parent finds the idea of the government getting their grubby hands involved in childcare horrifying. This sort of talk is a clear first step toward nonsense like mandatory pre-k programs.

    1. Any sane parent

      I’m sure both of those people will get over it.

    2. Because parents meeting your definition of sanity are in the minority. Welfare dependents plus liberals equals a majority.

  26. “Nancy Pelosi once had trouble finding a babysitter. ”

    omg It actually was able to Breed?

    We are doomed.

  27. Dominika is what can only be described as a great girl – accomplished, sexy and with a stunning body. She is half Italian and speaks Italian perfectly.

    The mother of a 5 year old son, Dominika was on the national team for her country in swimming and gymnastic. Despite her tiny frame she has a strong and very flexible physique. She just oozes sensuality and also tells us that she loves to hang out on nude beaches!

    Dominika started modeling as little as 3 months ago as previously her ex-boyfriend stopped her from doing any kind of modeling.

    Small but perfectly formed, this newly born model is a natural in front of the camera!

  28. Buying child care coverage whether they need it or not? Hey…That’s what they do in Canada!

    1. Careful there. Subsidized daycare only exists in Quebec. And what an EFFEN mess and unjust racket it is. I know. I own a daycare.

  29. All they need to do is write the bill and then vote on it before reading what is in it. That should fix the problem. NEXT problem?

  30. Mr. Hinkle, (or may I call you A.?), you hit this one right on the head. As a doctor who has researched this issue heavily, I can say that you correctly related the important developments in the history of the American health care mess.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.