Republicans and Democrats agree that childcare is in crisis. Why aren’t they fixing it?

Lately, an unexpected voice has been highlighting childcare challenges: Fox News. While the childcare crisis has long been a Democratic talking point, over the past few weeks, Fox has run several segments about the high cost of childcare and the threat posed by pandemic stabilization funds expiring (aka “the childcare cliff”). During this week’s Republican presidential debate, a childcare question was posed within the first 15 minutes.

So if there is bipartisan acknowledgment of the problem, why isn’t there real movement toward a solution?

Beyond the usual partisan games, I believe there are three obstacles to overcome:
1. The childcare policy discussion too often excludes stay-at-home parents and relative caregivers.
2. There is a reluctance from both parties to name how to fund government subsidized childcare.
3. While lack of affordable childcare impacts most parents, parents haven’t taken large scale action as voters have with issues like abortion and gun control.

If these barriers can be hurdled, the nation may not be as far away as it seems from major childcare reform. In a recent survey commissioned by the early-childhood nonprofit Zero to Three, nearly half of both Democrats and Republicans said that the government is “most responsible” for tackling childcare challenges like cost and availability. That was by far the top opinion: Only 18% of respondents said parents themselves were most responsible. Contrast those findings with a 2000 survey that asked parents of young children, “who should take primary responsibility for making sure that working families have childcare for their children?” The majority, 60%, of the very families struggling with childcare, said parents should hold the primary responsibility, with only 22% saying the government. Americans are apparently finally beginning to understand that the government has a leading role to play in helping families flourish.

Build a more inclusive policy

Of course, if public opinion was sufficient to decide policy, America would look very different. There has long been an organized opposition to substantial public funding of childcare, and their first line of attack—one used since the 1970s—is that the government would be incentivizing external childcare over parental care. Rather than debate that argument’s veracity, the better option is to fly above it. That means crafting a childcare policy that simultaneously supports options like licensed centers and family childcare homes alongside stay-at-home parents and “family, friend, and neighbor” caregivers.

That inclusive system could involve flowing money to childcare programs so they can lower parent fees and raise educator compensation while also offering families a “home care” stipend if they want to have a parent or relative provide the care. Ideally, such a policy would also bring school-age childcare (like after-school and summer care) into the mix.

Agree on how to fund it

Even with an inclusive policy proposal and growing bipartisan agreement that the government needs to act, as The Washington Post’s Alyssa Rosenberg has put it, “How big that investment needs to be is the sticking point.” Due to its human-intensive nature, childcare is expensive to provide. Yet in a nation that invests over $700 billion of public money a year on K-12 education, America only spends around $30 billion a year on early care and education. Proposals like Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Child Care for Every Community Act is projected to cost about $70 billion a year, while a fully comprehensive birth-to-five system will likely cost $100 billion or more annually. While these numbers are entirely reasonable in the context of the millions of families served—and, as a recent report about Virginia’s childcare investments confirmed, the outlays largely pay for themselves—they are still big numbers in an era of rising government debt.

The answer, then, is to do the often-unpopular work of identifying pay-fors. Recently, economist Kathryn Anne Edwards proposed dedicating estate tax revenues to childcare; as the Trump-era estate tax changes expire in the coming years, Edwards projects that could single-handedly bring in $40 billion a year while helping level the economic playing field. Similarly, I have suggested looking at employer payroll taxes, since businesses benefit from their employees having childcare; Vermont took that approach this year as the primary financing mechanism for a major childcare bill. Identifying specific funding streams can sometimes make the political road harder, but in this case it could move the conversation forward and create a basis for compromise.

Parents channel their angst into action

Finally, the internal work of designing an inclusive policy and deciding how to pay for it must be driven forward by the momentum of parent demand. Unlike issues ranging from gun control to climate change to abortion, childcare—despite the broad pain point that crosses partisan lines and affects all but the most wealthy—has not generally brought voters out to the streets. Politicians do not appear to feel much electoral threat from putting childcare on the back burner; the sector has little lobbying power, so if parents are not making their voices heard, elected officials have too easy of a time dismissing the issue. Advocates and donors have an opportunity ahead to consider how to help parents channel their widespread angst and their belief that the government needs to step up.

There is a political science theory that circumstances conspire from time to time to open windows where significant policy change can happen. One such window may be opening, however narrowly, as the childcare crisis deepens and the public’s feelings shift about government’s role in supporting families’ childcare needs. The immediate step to be taken is staving off fee hikes and closures via additional stabilization funds. But if good policy with pay-fors can align with lawmakers realizing this is a kitchen-table voting issue for parents, there may be a surprisingly bipartisan path through to a transformed future.