This mother’s day, let’s skip the adorable kitten greeting cards and bunches of roses bred to within an inch of scentlessness, picked by fourth-world residents working in inhumane conditions, trucked halfway across the globe and sold at ridiculous markups, shall we? Instead, let’s talk about the politics of child-rearing! Or, more specifically, the politics of taxes for child-education and other kiddo-focused expenses.
I recently heard a new-to-me, somewhat shocking opinion on the topic. Here it is in summary:
“People who make the responsible choice not to have squalling brats should not have to pay to educate and feed other people’s mistakes.”
Harsh words, no? I doubt that that’s exactly how it was put, but that was the basic premise.
As a properly trained tax-and-spend liberal, I like having lots and lots of social services, some of which I use, some of which I don’t: Maintained roads, public libraries, rest stops, Medicare, social security, food stamps. And I’ve seen the contrast between public schools in well-heeled communities and those in poor towns: I have matriculated at some of the west coast’s best-funded and highest-performing public schools, and also attended the educational equivalent of Siberia in the state’s poorest county. But still, it got me thinking.
As an adult, my senses and my pocketbook are constantly assaulted by pleas for the children. Stop domestic violence … for the children. Build new libraries … for the children. Fund high school sports teams … for the children. Build shiny new after-school facilities with free classes in underwater basketweaving and Tae-Kwon-Do and other oh-so-useful life skills … for the children. Build cushy juvenile detention and drug rehabilitation facilities … for the children, dammit!
It makes one wonder – who is looking out for the old people while we’re busy babying the babies? Social services (in this state, at least) are almost exclusively focused on children, or people with children. As an example, kids under 18 can get subsidized health insurance, but adults cannot (the one notable exception being pregnant women).
This makes a modicum of sense. Faced with a choice between cutting the service entirely or funding it for kids only, it’s a no-brainer. But still. There are a lot of very sick, very poor adults out there not getting the care they need. Why? Because they don’t have cute button noses and tiny little hands. They’re not helpless. Poor children, they just can’t help being born poor! It’s not their fault their parents made such terrible life decisions like being born poor themselves. But once they’re adults it is 100 percent their fault that they’re still poor. What’s changed, other than 15 years, give or take? Nothing but society’s attitude toward them.
And don’t even get me started on the blatantly pandering marketing campaigns around school-funding measures. It’s voting time here, and The Hizzy is being hit with slick upon slick, all featuring pictures of cherubic, well-scrubbed white kids with pleading, watery eyes in grayscale. Turn the slick over and you’ve got the skinny white moms, looking concerned and wearing North Face sweaters, standing sternly with crossed arms next to bulleted lists of reasons why their little Madisons and Jacobs need music programs, shiny new cafeteria platters and better insulation.
So my opinion is wavering. I don’t have kids. I’m not GOING to have kids. Why should I pay to polish the silverware at the elementary school in my neighborhood? Those children having their school spiffed today will be the bitter, abusive high school dropouts that will wipe my nose at the health-code violating old people’s home I’ll live in during my infirmity. If I want care that minimizes humiliation in my old age, I’ll have to shell out for a private facility, since wrinkled faces with watery, pleading eyes just don’t test well with the focus groups.
Grown-ups, especially those with lots of wrinkles or otherwise socially undesirable characteristics (like poverty or disability), get the short end of the stick. They work their whole lives paying taxes to educate and care for the next generation, only to get tossed aside once they can no longer care for themselves. Where are the direct-mail marketing campaigns advocating for safe wheelchair routes and better elder-care facilities? Where are the ballot measures begging for community education and outreach programs designed specifically with old fogeys in mind? And what about crime – why does a 17-year-old get leniency and a clean record, when an 18-year-old in the exact same circumstances gets prison and a lifetime of employment discrimination?
Cutting services to young people can’t be the answer, but a more balanced approach to public policy is certainly worth a look-see. What are your voting habits? Does your having or not having kids influence how you vote on school tax measures and the like? Or are you an across-the-board voter in one way or the other? Any tea party types out there? If so, do you make an exception for social services for youngsters? Any socialist types out there who’ve sworn off baby-having? How do you vote? No name-calling in the comments, please – but do tell me your opinions!
Into moving pictures? Here are some amusing parent- or mom-themed videos you might like:
Happy Mother’s Day, pedophobes!
Pregnant women are smug
Hipster parents: The perfect target market
In my opinion, being a mother is the hardest, best thing a woman can ever do with her life or her body. And children are the future of the human race, so we should spend the most time, effort and resources on them. If aging adults can't afford nice rest homes, well maybe they should have managed their money better in they're younger years.
One of the things I loved about moving to Canada six years ago was that this wasn't as common up here. Our national healthcare covers everyone. Some social assistance organizations (private or government-funded) focus on children, but many more are for people of any age who need help.(It's _not_ a perfect system by any means…but it does seem to be more compassionate for those over the age of 18!)I'm childfree and tend to vote for social assistance programs across the board. Private charities can be wonderful but I don't think they should be left to shoulder the responsibility of keeping entire groups of vulnerable people fed, sheltered or, you know, alive.
My parents had three kids and occasionally relied on public and private assistance to take care of their kids while my mom went to nursing school. My choice to not have children in no way conflicts my belief that we as a society have an ethical and moral obligation to take care of vulnerable citizens at any age. I believe this is often (but certainly not always!) best accomplished through government-sponsored organizations.
@sheila44 So what of women who are infertile? Are they a waste of space? And in a world where overpopulation is bringing down the quality of life for millions of people, I'd argue quite the opposite: not having children is one of the best things a person can do with their lives/bodies. And why is the argument always "becoming a mother is the best thing a woman can do, blah blah blah" and never "becoming a father is the best thing a man can do blah blah blah"? And have you ever thought about the fact that old people may not have had any money to manage in the first place?
@Lydia: Well put, and I'm the same way – although as you probably gathered, it can be frustrating for me to be peppered with tax-increase requests for kid-focused services when the services I want – a bus or train that will take me to my workplace in fewer than three hours, sidewalks in front of my house, a library within walking distance, some kinda crackheads-peeping-in-my-windows mitigation program – will never even make it on the ballot. And I really do worry about my – and others – old age a great deal.Tell me, did you live in the US before moving to Canada? What kinds of public systems do they have in place there to care for older folks?
Tough questions there Sarah.. Sometimes there just isn't an in the box type of answer. There is a lot that you've said that I agree with.. The school system angers me. Its like Animal Farm all over again. I don't know what they are teaching my children and the last thing I want is to find out 10 years down the road that my kids are apart of another Hitler-Jugend. The public school bulling sucks and I didn't get the one on one education that would have benefited me. After saying all of that I BELIEVE THAT EDUCATION IS PARAMOUNT to spring forward the next generation. I happen to know a lot of poor Mothers that truly love their children and helping them receive a good education is important. It does benefit you to benefit the younger generation even if you don't plan on having children. Thus being said I'M PISSED OFF AND UPSET that more and more people are shoving children out of society. I work my butt off to raise good children and it takes a lot of pain and energy to give them what they need. I've sacrificed a lot for them and for our next generation who will be wiping our b#hinds in 50 years. .
So I had a couple of kids, brought them up and now am old and well fixed. What's all the kerfluffle about anyway? It's all this extremist thinking, like having kids or not having kids is this enormous deal, paying taxes is killing us, old people are dying of neglect in the streets: c'mon. You're worrying too much.
Hattie: That's probably true – I'm a worrier, a characteristic I came by naturally. But I can't help it! I worry about my parents all the time, and how I'll be able to afford to care for them in their old age. I don't want them to have to be alone or in a home, so I make a lot of my life decisions based off the assumption that I'll be the sole caregiver for them in about 10 or 15 years.Besides, if I wasn't so neurotic, what on earth would I write about? Sunshine? And to your other points: I don't think taxes are killing us, I didn't mean for the post to come across that way. Also: For me, having kids/not having kids is a big deal. It may not have been that way for you, but everyone has a different life experience. Perhaps I'll look back on this post a few years from now and laugh at myself while I hold a chubby baby in my lap, or feel sad that I don't have one. One never knows.
First of all, I get really tired of that "I don't have kids so why should I pay for them" argument. Especially from feminists. Unless someone is part of the Voluntary Human Extinctionist Movement (and if they are thats great because I too can see the point) you have to acknowledge that replacing a certain portion of the human population is necessary. I know that when I am old, if I have to call 911 for medical help or police or whatever, I sure as hell hope someone shows up. And guess what? It will be someone else's kid, by some woman who sacrificed disproportionately to raise him or her. That kid will have a mother who probably sacrificed career prospects, or promotions, or stayed home and suffered that hell-hole known as economic dependance on a man, or raised that kid as a single mother, etc. She probably put all her efforts into raising a valuabe worthwhile human being who would be an asset to society. Why should women be punished for doing that kind of work for society? Because they are in myriad ways. It should not be an either/or situation about where to spend taxes. We need to find a way to take care of children in a way that does not disenfranchise mothers (free daycare, etc) AND take good care of the elderly.