February 9, 2011
-
Women Should Stay Home With Their Kids
One of my friends posted this article on Facebook about my home county. Basically, the county commissioners voted to take away 2.3 mil in funding for Head Start, an education program for 3-5 year olds from families below the poverty line. The money will be used towards an almost 12 mil budget shortfall for the fiscal year. The commissioners stated in their decision and advised that ”Head Start mothers to stay home with their children, and not hold jobs outside the home.” Oh, and they all suggested that marriage is best for these families because certainly that’s the government’s place to say that
O rly?
I think it’s great when a family has the ability to have one parent (mom or dad, thank you very much county commissioners) stay home with the children. But to tell a family that is already struggling financially (remember Head Start is for kids at or below poverty level) that everything would just be peachy keen if the mother could stay home and it’s just not cool.
More and more, it’s becoming a luxury for families to have one stay at home parent. I know a lot of middle class families that aren’t able to make that arrangement work. It’s just not a reality for a lot of people. Raising a family is ridiculously expensive even if you don’t live extravagantly. And for someone to make that kind of statement just shows how out of touch they are with the reality.
I understand that state, local, and the Federal government are currently struggling with trying to come up with enough money to come close to balancing their budgets but there is absolutely no need to cut down the people who are already struggling AND taking away beneficial programs from them. All the commissioners would have had to say is that the county funding for the program is being cut in order to make up for some of the budget shortfall.
As some of you probably know, I’m pretty fiscally conservative and while it sucks that the county won’t fund something like Head Start (the county will still receive Federal funding for the program), budget cuts need to happen… we just don’t need to be nasty about it. Nor do I think it’s the government’s place to even suggest how a family should be set up and who should be the working parent. Don’t even get me started on the misogyny in the article… grr.
So my question to you is should governments be allowed to suggest what is best for a family?
Comments (46)
The program only serves 280 students and costs 4.4 mil….W.T.F?
@Uek - Yeah, I’d be interested to see what’s included in that cost. Certainly it could be scaled down…
Perhaps they need an administrative staff of 50 to handle the entire program, including a spokesperson and a few consultants.
Aren’t a lot of head star mothers single parents? Being a single parent makes it difficult to be a stay at home parent, unless they work from home (and even that takes away a lot of time to spend with the children).
that just seems so wrong. they could have first scaled down the budget like you said. maybe this wouldnt piss me off so much if they hadnt made that comment about mothers staying at home. thats absolutely insane. theyre living in poverty so they want these women to make things worse by having them stay home? im sure these families already rely on the government for some form of assistance. telling them to not work is just going to make them rely on govt aid even more.
oh and to answer your question… its none of their business telling these familes what to do.
Sorry if this sounds snarky, but perhaps the Frederick County board should use the money that they are saving cutting the Head Start program and reinvesting it in a P.R. firm…
If they are below the poverty line, why in the world would they be ABLE to have one parent not work? How does that make sense?! grrrrr.
I would like government to take a long walk off a short pier. And that county commish should get raked over the coals for those noises coming out of his mouth.
@Redshirte - lol, I was kinda thinking the same thing Chris.
Come now… The government tells us what’s best for our families all the time. In this instance, it’s offensive because it’s so completely wrong and poorly conceived.
I wonder if they have any employees using county owned vehicles or money being devoted to holiday decorations/displays/events. I’m sure there are a ton of things that could have been cut before the Head Start program. But why not that program? It ONLY serves 280 of the poorest students in the county. Everyone else is getting on just fine without it.
I’m going to go back to my corner and don my “Cynical B*tch” hat in silence now.
Wait.. what are you doing blogging? Get back to watching the children or in the kitchen.
(Please don’t take offense to the snark, its on the same page as how I am perceiving the county there). Anyways, to answer the question less is better when it comes to government so no.
@tjordanm - Hah, I’m not sure… gotta love overhead.
@Rob_of_the_Sky - Even if you just look at the divorce rate as being approximately 50%, it’s safe to say that there are a lot of potential single parents that are affected, which makes the commissioners’ statements even worse.
@HeLLo_Bianca - According to the article, in order to qualify for Head Start, a family of four has to make 22k or less! I have to imagine that those families are receiving other help and if not, I hope that they’re on their way to getting help. That’s so little money for a family of four!
@Redshirte - @macphoto - Hah, I’m with you guys. These commissioners apparently lack basic people skills!
@TheCheshireGrins - You probably could find it on one of their .gov sites.
@AlterEgo909 - And in order to be considered under the poverty line, a family of four must make less than 22k a year! That’s not a lot of money for that many people!!!
@dirtbubble - Fully agreed! Thank you for the rec!
@Automaton_Emotion - Yes, this is definitely not the first time that the government has tried to tell people how they should live their lives (nor will it be the last).
@Ro_ad808 - Oh it’s okay, I get two breaks a day (one in the afternoon and one at night) and I can see the kitchen from where I’m sitting with the computer
@Uek - Yeah, I’ll have to poke around a little bit to see what I can find.
Hah. My mother stayed home with my twin sisters and I, and homeschooled us while Daddy brought home the money. Which still didn’t change the fact that my sisters basically ran away at 18, and got into alot of shitty situations, and make alot of shitty mistakes because they didn’t want to think of consequences. Sometimes the mother staying home means nothing….it depends on the parents, really. Would that mean the government needs to create standards of good parenting, then train parents to raise their children according to those standards?
No – governments aren’t always in the best position to understand what a family really needs. I think they are letting their own beliefs and political convictions get in the way. Maybe they are saying those things to pander to their base. Sad…
I’m sure to save more money, he will then suggest that girls not be sent to school, because, after all, they are just meant to marry and have babies and stay home, so what do they need an education for? It’s not like they are REAL people with their own aspirations and abilities. I’m all for choice as well, for BOTH parents, but the “women belong in the kitchen” garbage makes my skin crawl.
Somebody ought to tell that Caveman that 1950 called and it wants its stupid back.
Wow, rob the poor to balance the budget! They are taking the easy way out.
“We did our research. We’ve been on the internet.” LOL
I’ve been on the internet, too, and I gotta say ~ there’s a lot of bunk floating around there. Maybe a certain Commissioner should do some ACTUAL research, and stop searching shit on Google and Wikipedia.
@Uek - Sounds like somebody’s walking around with a few million dollars in their pocket.
@the_rocking_of_socks - I doubt any one person could pocket that much over a fund so small. I’m not even trying to imply there is any fraudulent behavior involved, just extreme inefficiency which is not uncommon.
Every one has already commented more or less in the same vein as my own feelings. Next thing the government might do, is to perhaps tell you, that it’s not necessary for children of low income parents, to get any education at all. OMG! Can you imagine that??
Marriage is a basic institution of society…the building blocks, if you will. It’s not rocket science or shocking to say that marriage is best for families with kids.
Sure, the government is allowed. Freedom of speech and all.
I am also allowed to say that their sexism is plain stupid.
@NightCometh - Only if it’s a healthy and stable marriage. There are plenty of married couples with children that would be better off divorcing each other.
@tenshii_rage - Hah, the rules and regulations of child rearing is one business that I don’t think the government needs to get into!!!
@ElusiveWords - Both of the commissioners that stated how awesome stay at home mothers were are both pretty conservative Republicans so it’s definitely foreseeable that they were pandering to their base.
@Sunrise_Hope_Joy - Your last line is amazing. I love it!
@icepearlz - Yeah, I definitely feel like they didn’t look at other ways that they could balance the budget.
@the_rocking_of_socks - @NightCometh - As Socks said, I think it’s important to look at the family’s specific situation. If you have parents that are fighting all the time or violent towards each other, I would say that the kids are definitely going to be more adversely affected than if you have a tranquil one parent household. I think it’s unsafe for the government to make a blanket statement that marriage is better for families with kids. There’s just some situations where the kids are going to be better off with one parent or another.
@Uek - I would not be surprised if there was inefficiency going on. The county is not particularly well known for running efficient programs…
@ZSA_MD - I thought this was pretty crazy. Who knows what these guys will come up with next???
@SoapAndShampoo - Yeah, that part of the article definitely grates on me a little bit. I don’t take kindly to being told what to do.
If the Government feels it’s best for mothers to stay home then give tax credits for it.
We had a city commissioner say in a public meeting that renters should be discouraged from participation in the election since they don’t PAY (property) TAXES. And she was one of our town’s slumlords! How magnanimous it is of her not to pass on the property taxes she pays on her rental properties with an increase in the renters’ monthly payment!
Head Start is a wonderful program to ready kids for the classroom. I love how they look for programs to cut that aren’t necessarily being utilized by people in their own family. How about they put an excise tax on monster SUV’s? Then they would be screaming themselves.
And just where does the government suggest that these families (usually headed by single mothers) get money for rent and food now that “welfare queens” have been forced out into the work force, now that the 99ers are no longer eligible for unemployment compensation? And, while marriage might be the ideal situation (assuming that the husband actually can find a job and doesn’t beat the hell out of his wife and kids), who’s going to force the MEN to stay? Nah, this is just a way of balancing budgets on the backs of the poor. The poor don’t tend to vote, nor do they have the money to donate to politicians’ campaign funds. The poor, therefore, powerless.
@Randy7777 - Oh I hope they wouldn’t….
@Marshall1250 - I vaguely recall seeing something about that particular commissioner on tv. It happened within the last couple months, right?
@VilaSpiderHawkAuthor - It just isn’t right. I feel bad for these families and I wish that the commissioners would have found better things to cut before cutting funding to this beneficial program. One of my friends pointed out that the meeting was also held early in the morning so that many teachers and/or affected families couldn’t attend… sigh.
Ofcourse they should be allowed to make a suggestion. It’s important for government to be envolved in people’s life. It may open up their eyes to possiblities they haven’t thought about themselves.
Ofcourse it depends on the situation.
I’m sure if it were up to these morons, we’d be going back to the time when women were used as bartering materials and married off by age 15, with at least three children by age 20.
Gees, where do you live? Yes, I agree with you. Even if you agree with the cuts, the rest is none of their business.
no, that’s ignorant to think they should!
@Days_likethis - Are you talking about opening the government’s eye’s or the general population’s eyes?
@SerenaDante - Sadly, they would probably like that…
@distractedbyzombies - Luckily, I no longer live in this area. This is in the county where I grew up.
No, I don’t think that the government should be allowed to suggest what’s best for a family, if that family doesn’t receive benefits from them. Once you take something from someone without earning it, they do have the right to suggest changes to your present lifestyle. The thing is though, we already allow them to butt into many areas of our life where they aren’t needed.
As for that specific program, the government isn’t obligated to provide educational services for children younger than school age. In fact, I would venture to say that it’s not good for kids that age to be cooped up in anything resembling school.
I’m not trying to be nasty about it, and I don’t dare to suggest that mothers stay home- I know that there are many who simply can’t. But providing care for young children really shouldn’t be a role of government, and once it becomes so, our future is in trouble.
@Smokin_SultrySally - Thanks for stopping by!
@MrsJenBean - You do have a point and I can see where you’re coming from. For instance, I’m in favor for things like food stamps only being able to be used for approved foods (something along the lines of what WIC uses as standards).
The government definitely isn’t obligated to provide this sort of education (nor are they really obligated to offer any other programs that help people in bad situations). I’m wondering if there aren’t benefits to having some education at this level for children though. I have a late birthday and when my parents enrolled me in school, I was only four years old (I turned 5 the October after school began) so I was well within the age range of the Head Start kids. It may prove to help kids be more successful one they reach Kindergarten although I’d have to see a report of some kind before I definitively state that.
I think it can work both ways. Government may get a little more empathetic towards peoples lives and problems. And it may open the peoples eyes for solutions and ideas they didn’t thought of themselves.
Sometimes you need someone less close to the situation to decide what’s the best solution.
@Days_likethis - I would say in some cases it does indeed help to be further away from the issue but in this specific case, I believe that parents should be autonomous enough to decide what’s right for their families.
man this time in our country seems to be a volatile one…everybody wants to make cuts everywhere…and often times for no ‘real’ reason…they just think no one is watching…it is easier to add then to take away though…that is for sure…
Christians outsourced their duty of charity to the government decades ago and now we have a government that is totally out of control.
Mothers have been killing their unborn babies for decades too. So why not outsource motherhood to the government too?
A lot of those kids benefit so much more from going to a place where people actually give a crap about their educational and social development.
BTW, I worked on and off (mostly on) during my kids’ developmental years and they are doing wonderfully.
Staying at home with the kids is a choice that is the luxury of those with $$$. It’s not a given for many (if not most) Americans. How dare those commissioners be so callous and narrow-minded. Head Start is such a good program. I realize that some programs need to be cut to balance the budget, but I can’t condone their choice.
It’s normal for laws to reflect the value of the people. And it’s not unheard of for taxes and/or government funds to be used to try to teach the people to better themselves…such as high taxes on cigarettes in the USA, or Gorbachev trying to get Russians to drink less by pulling some government moves to ration the supply of vodka. He was sincerely worried about his countrymen and their alcholism. And he saw it as the root to their lack of productivity and other problems. (Unfortunately, gov’t regulation of the Russian alcohol supply just caused a sugar shortage because citizens simply made home made alcohol.) So I’m sort of neutral on your question about governments trying to force on the people what’s in their best interests. I’m very pro taxation on cigarettes. BUT, on this particular item, I’m angered at the commissioners attitude and lack of reality. They really made themselves out to be a**holes.
Seems to me we could order a few less tanks or bombers or decomission a nuclear bomb or three then use that money to fund head start programs. I’m fiscally conservative, too, and I think pragmatism suggests that funding early childhood education is a much higher priority than many other things simply because it helps reduce burdensome costs down the road. Children with a solid childhood education will be more employable, take better care of themselves, and be less likely to get in trouble with the law than children who do not start out with a good education.
That said, I don’t think the government should be in the business of saying what’s best for a family especially vis a vis marriage and the number of parents who stay at home. Instead, the government should be in the business of making sure that all members of society have equal access to opportunity.
@NightCometh - No, it certainly isn’t rocket science to say that. With all due respect, it isn’t science at all, but only an opinion. Stable, loving guardians are what is best for kids, whether those be parents, grandparents, or other adults, married or unmarried. Sure, marriage may in many cases correlate strongly with guardians being stable and loving, but it is not a causal condition.