Debate on “domestic issues” neglects child care, student aid, immigration and much more
Yesterday we asked whether the first presidential debate would tackle some of the most important issues facing children and families. After all, we’d been disappointed before, in the debates during the primaries. Well, last night’s debate, while spending a lot of time on Medicare and Social Security, completely neglected issues like child care, student aid and more.
Both candidates would gesture vaguely in the direction of the idea of budget cuts without actually naming what program would have to suffer. That’s because voters actually support the programs that are protecting families in these economically tough times. Support for child care, for example, lets parents know they get jobs without having to worry they won’t be able to find affordable, nurturing care for their children. Student aid, on the other hand, is the answer to the skyrocketing cost of a higher education in this country, and key to keeping our promise of the American Dream for our next generation. And none of us here can believe that neither candidate were prompted on the issue of immigration.
But if you came away from the debates wishing there’d be more substance on child issues, we’ve got some good news for you. Our Iowa member organization, the Child and Family Policy Center, has released its analysis of how the official party platforms discuss children’s issues. The guide stacks up Democratic and Republican philosophies on everything from child protection to teacher accountability to show where both parties really stand on the issues most important to families right now. Read the party platforms side-by-side and the analysis of presidential websites online.
Worked up about how children have been neglected so far this election season? Sign our pledge to make children a priority!












Comments
October 14, 2012 at 1:18 am by CheungI own a dog grooming busneiss. I HAVE to be discriminating or I will go broke in short order. A blanket price means that folks with little dogs that require virtually nothing, would have to pay an excessive amount of money while folks with extremely large dogs who require a great deal of time and energy would pay not nearly enough. Doesn’t seem fair now, does it?Every health care reform we’ve ever had has failed to bring down the cost. Why? Because they’re treating the symptoms and not the cause.Take the last great attempt for instance. Proposed by first lady Hillary Rodham-Clinton (now Sec. of State), she demonized doctors as being a bunch of good ol’ boys who scratch one an-others backs, ordering tests that are un necessary and expensive drugs. She stripped them of the health care decision making process and instead, turned it over to the for profit insurance companies believing THIS would drive down the cost of health care. Suddenly, you weren’t allowed to see the same doctor and what the doctor thought was appropriate and necessary was not allowed (covered) by the insurance companies. Folks like my father ultimately died of cancer that went undiagnosed because the all knowing insurance company wouldn’t approve the necessary tests.People forget that insurance companies are in the busneiss of making money and that they employ hundreds of thousands. Forcing a company to write a policy that is a guaranteed money loser will have far reaching effects sort of like Bill Clinton’s forcing banks to make loans to people they KNEW could not repay. Created the whole housing bubble, financial melt down and massive foreclosure set up that we are now dealing with. Brilliant.So, why wait to implement? Because this thing is a guaranteed money loser. Let’s look at the basic numbers put out by the non-partisan CBO:You’re going to see tax increases over the next 10 years to raise the projected cost ($ 500,000,000,000,000)You’re going to have to strip the retired military and grandma and grandpa of their Medicare. Cuts over the next 10 years to save an additional $ 523,000,000,000,000.All, so that you can provide coverage for the approximately 13% who cannot afford it out of pocket. Trouble is, while you pay for 10 years, they are only getting 6 years worth of coverage. Pay for 10, get 6. Anyone curious (like I am) about what happens at the end of that 6 years? Will we be required to pay another 10 years so the losers can get another 6 years? Sounds like a sure fire recipe for bankruptcy to me!As much as I’d love to tell you that the cause is poor education (slightly more than 15% will not graduate from high school). That without a college degree, the best people can hope for is a job that pays little more than minimum wage increase the education standards and levels so that people graduate with a marketable skill. The ugly truth of the matter is that regardless of educational opportunities (we already provide Free K-12 and reduced tuition for anything above and beyond), there will always and forever be a certain subculture of society that will refuse to listen and learn. They will make bad life decisions and will always be under served, under represented and a drain on society. People NEED to make some seriously hard decisions.
April 17, 2013 at 6:12 am by pluginsWe are fascinated as well as thinking about what you are covering the following.
May 13, 2013 at 12:46 pm by win an ipadI am trying to find tips on how to increase the quantity of remarks on my own website, just how do you achieve accomplishing this?
Leave a Comment