During the vice presidential debate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) called for expanding federal subsidies to increase access to child care. As he put it, “We’re going to have to spend more money.”
I agree that the cost of child care is a huge problem. Once upon a time, I was a speechwriter in his running mate’s White House. Now, I’m a stay-at-home dad in Omaha, Nebraska, who left the workforce to care for my children when our daycare options became too expensive.
But while Vance is right that families deserve more child care options, expanding subsidies won’t solve the problem. In fact, it will more likely make it worse — by driving up costs and reducing access. We don’t need more government money in child care. What families such as mine really need is less red tape and more of our hard-earned money left in our pockets.
After all, we’ve seen what expanding subsidies has done in other areas. In higher education, the government’s endless supply of student loan dollars has caused tuition prices to skyrocket — up more than 140% in the last 20 years alone, far outpacing wage growth.
Farm subsidies prop up land prices and food costs. As just one example, U.S. consumers pay an extra $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion annually for sugar alone because of the federal dollars sent to producers.
And when the pandemic prompted a flood of federal funds, inflation soared — especially as businesses adjusted to the increased supply of money by pushing up prices.
Why would we expect a different outcome in child care? Throwing more money at the problem will only incentivize providers to raise prices, making it harder for families to afford care.
The real cause of high child care costs is burdensome regulation, not too little federal funding. Just look at the federal program Vance mentioned during the debate: The Child Care and Development Block Grant.
While some on the Right celebrate it as a model of federal support for state-level experimentation, in reality, the CCDBG program is packed with strings attached that make child care even more costly for parents and families.
Consider the mandate that caregivers in licensed facilities meet certain education thresholds. Proper training is important, but blanket rules drive up costs. For example, a study by the Mercatus Center found that requiring teachers to have at least a high school diploma can increase costs by as much as 46% per child.
Similarly, requirements for buildings and physical spaces can cost providers tens of thousands of dollars to get up to code. Researchers determined that in Massachusetts, child care centers spent an average of $18,000 to achieve basic regulatory compliance, and nearly $100,000 to meet accessibility and other professional standards.
All of these regulations add up, and the costs are inevitably passed on to families. Expanding subsidies doesn’t fix this — it exacerbates it.
So, what’s the solution? Two things Vance understands well and should focus on more: Deregulation and tax cuts.
First, let’s cut the red tape. Both states and the federal government should roll back regulations that drive up costs for child care providers. Simplifying licensing requirements, relaxing space mandates, and allowing for more flexible staffing rules would help make child care more affordable and accessible.
Second, instead of relying on subsidies, we should let more families keep more of their money. Real tax cuts, not just deductions or credits, would give parents the flexibility to choose the best child care option for their needs, whether that’s daycare, a neighbor, or a grandparent.
And third, we need economic growth. The best way to support families is to make good-paying jobs abundant. That allows one parent to stay home, if that’s what works best, or help dual-income families afford a trusted caregiver.
The answer to the problem of child care isn’t to try to outdo the Left with bigger government programs and more handouts. It doesn’t work, and we’d never win that bidding war anyway.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Instead, we should give parents real freedom to choose the best care for their children by cutting regulations that drive up costs and letting them keep more of their hard-earned money.
Thankfully, Vance’s running mate has done both of those things before — and if they want to win next month, they should both focus their messaging on how he’ll do those things again.
Andy Reuss is a stay-at-home dad and part-time writer at The Penn Ave Group, a Nebraska-based communications firm. He served as a White House and Justice Department speechwriter between 2017 and 2019.