SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
childcare
Why 'Are You Going to Let Strangers Raise Your Baby?' Is the Wrong Question
What we should be asking is what would actually help families raise their children in the ways that work best for them. Unfortunately, the current administration isn't providing the answers.
Jun 09, 2026
Years ago, when I was pregnant with my first child, I called my mother in a panic: I had been trying to find a childcare spot for when I planned to go back to work. But every childcare center I called had a waiting list of at least a year. I was distraught. Then my mom suddenly cut me off and asked, “Are you going to have strangers raising your baby?”
Her question stopped me short. And yet, it was also nonsensical. I was a couple of years out of law school, and had just started a career that I loved. My husband and I had mountains of student loan debt. There was no way we could afford for one of us not to work. And we lived 3,000 miles away from my parents. The only choice for us, really, was to put our daughter in childcare.
I was reminded of that moment recently when, during a news conference, Alex Adams, who leads the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the US Department of Health and Human Services, bemoaned that childcare policies in the US limit parental choices and undervalue “mothers staying home with their children during their earliest years.” This follows reporting that Adams wants a “bonfire of regulations” around childcare, and recent actions by ACF that will increase childcare costs for families and financial challenges for childcare providers. As I listened, I realized that Adams is proposing the wrong answer, just as my mother was asking me the wrong question 23 years ago. What we should be asking is what would actually help families raise their children in the ways that work best for them.
The truth is that our country is not set up to give families real choices, then or now. Families can’t survive on one salary because wages have stagnated, with the federal minimum wage frozen at a measly $7.25 for over two decades. The costs of living are skyrocketing out of reach for an increasing number of families. We are one of only a handful of countries that do not offer paid family and medical leave. Our childcare system has been chronically underfunded to the point of crisis, with families unable to access or afford care, providers operating on razor-thin profit margins, and early educators earning poverty-level wages.
The policy failures that have limited families’ choices can only be fixed by making robust public investments—not by pitting families against each other.
It bears underscoring, moreover, that families’ needs vary wildly, and they want a range of options to care for their children, including having access to high quality, affordable childcare in a variety of settings. The policy failures that have limited families’ choices can only be fixed by making robust public investments—not by pitting families against each other. Cutting care supports and slashing programs that help families afford food and healthcare, as this administration has relentlessly done since last January, is only going to limit families’ choices even further.
My mother’s question still rings in my ears all these years later, even though that baby has since graduated from college. To be clear, I was startled by the question but not surprised. My mother comes from Southeast Asia. There was little care infrastructure in her country when she was young, by which I mean there was literally no alternative for caring for children, elders, and family members who are ill or have disabilities, other than family. Her grandmother took care of her when her mother was at work. That was the model in her mind.
When my parents got married and came to the United States, my dad was the breadwinner, and my mom stayed home to care for my two sisters and me (and at one point, for my grandmother while she was undergoing cancer treatment). For her, families take care of each other; there’s no other way.
Even though this administration likes to invoke a simpler, glorified past, the reality back then was more complicated, however: Part of the reason my mom stayed home with the three of us was that my parents didn’t have great options either. My mother, the first in her family to go to college, was a teacher who supported her extended family financially in her home country.
When she came to the US, her degree and teacher’s license weren’t recognized—she couldn’t have worked in her chosen profession without going back to school. For her to work outside the home, we would have needed a second car (which my parents couldn’t afford). There were even fewer childcare options then, and we didn’t live close to my dad’s family for much of my childhood—even if we had, my grandparents had their own health issues.
My mother is also quick to point out that, even though she and my dad raised three children on one salary, it was not easy. She cut our hair and made our clothes. She pretty much cooked everything from scratch, and it didn’t look anything like Ballerina Farm. She periodically watched kids in our neighborhood after school, and did some sewing to earn extra income. She traveled to visit her family only twice in 16 years, and the second time was to help care for her dying mother.
The truth of the matter is that raising young children is hard, especially in a nation that stubbornly refuses to invest in care. I am grateful that my husband and I had help, not only from exquisitely skilled and caring “strangers,” but also my parents who visited as much as they could, my in-laws who lived nearby, and friends and neighbors. To be sure, my family has had more options and flexibility and resources than many. But all families deserve choices that enable them to care for their children according to their values and needs. In order to give families real options, we must invest real dollars in care systems, communities, and in wages and benefits that allow all families to thrive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Chose War Over Daycare
The president says we can't afford both. My neighbors are already paying the price.
Jun 03, 2026
In a single week, the Pentagon spent $11 billion destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities—the same capabilities the administration had declared "completely obliterated" just months earlier.
On Easter Sunday, President Donald Trump explained his priorities. "It's not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things," he said. "We have to take care of one thing: military protection."
He's right that a choice is being made. But in a democracy, we the people are the ones who are supposed to have that choice.
My neighbors didn't get one. Until recently, our children went to the same daycare, at least until prices went up by 10%. They provided several weeks notice, then phased the increase over a few weeks. For us, the raise meant $200 more per month. Our neighbors, on the other hand, had three kids in daycare.
For the Pentagon, it's bomb first, figure out the money later. For parents, the bills are due today.
The increase added up to $600 a month more than they'd been paying, so they pulled out. Two kids went to a super cheap option—more like group babysitting, really—because they were about to age out and attend free pre-K. Their youngest daughter switched to a place they didn't love, with food they didn't trust.
Overall, they were disappointed. It meant more logistics for pickup and dropoff. They felt more pressure to teach and cook healthy food for their kids. But ultimately, they didn't have a choice. Financially, this was the only way to make it work.
Millions of American families make calculations like this every day—cutting corners on childcare, food, healthcare—just to keep the math working. They do it quietly, without a press conference, without a vote.
The daycare crisis was already breaking families before the Iran war started.
The average American family pays over $13,000 a year per child—more than the average cost of in-state college tuition in many states. Waitlists stretch for months. In some counties, there are more children who need care than licensed spots available. For working parents, especially single parents, affordable daycare isn't a luxury. It's the difference between holding a job and not. And after an election fought on affordability, it was getting harder, not easier.
Economic shockwaves from the war hit immediately. Gas prices surged, adding an average of $175 (and counting) to every American driver's bill. Food prices followed. And in May, Spirit Airlines shut down entirely, citing Iran War fuel costs as the final straw—grounding a low-cost carrier that millions of working families depended on.
There are about 10.8 million US children enrolled in daycare at a national average of $13,128 per year. Collectively, parents spend roughly $390 million per day making sure their children are cared for.
The Pentagon's official tally for the war is $29 billion—almost certainly an undercount. Administration sources told CBS the real figure is closer to $50 billion. Even at their own number, that covers daycare for 2.5 months for every enrolled American child.
But the Pentagon's figure leaves out Midnight Hammer, Southern Spear, and the ongoing ceasefire costs. Harvard professor Linda Bilmes, who has spent two decades tracking the true costs of American wars, estimates the full bill could swell to over $1 trillion within a decade.
And then there's what no spreadsheet can measure. Thirteen service members killed. More than 400 wounded. Military families lend their loved ones to this country on the promise that their sacrifice means something—that the people sending them into harm's way are making choices worthy of that trust.
The daycare math suggests otherwise.
The combined price tag of Trump's wars, plus over $40 billion in extra gas costs borne by American drivers since the war began, brings the total north of $79 billion—enough to fund more than seven months of daycare for all 10.8 million enrolled children.
For the Pentagon, it's bomb first, figure out the money later. For parents, the bills are due today.
Simply put, you cannot make a meaningful choice—at the ballot box or anywhere else—when the numbers in front of you are at best incomplete and at worst deliberately misleading. And every day this war continues, Trump is deciding what your family can and can't afford.
Relief won't come in time for my neighbors. Their kids will age out of daycare before Washington does anything about it. They made the best choice they could with what they had. Most American families don't get any other kind.
Demand a vote on this war. Demand the real price tag. And in November, remember who made this choice for you.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Providers, Parents Strike Nationwide in 'Day Without Childcare' to Demand Universal Program
"It's hard sometimes in our current political climate to imagine, but I think it's more important than ever for us to be imagining, because families cannot continue to be squeezed like this," said one advocate.
May 11, 2026
With the Trump administration announcing changes to federal childcare programs on Monday that advocates said would worsen the affordability crisis, the grassroots organizing group Community Change Action said President Donald Trump's attacks on the industry have made the push for a universal care system more urgent than ever as thousands of providers and parents joined the "Day Without Childcare" nationwide action.
"As families face a worsening affordability crisis and childcare costs are outpacing rent, providers have been shouldering the burden," said Community Change Action. "We can’t wait a second longer to create the universal childcare system we deserve—one that actually works, lifts the burden off of families and providers, and invests in our youngest generation to give them the strongest start possible."
The group said families and daycare providers are participating in at least 75 actions, including one-day center closures, across 28 states in its fifth annual Day Without Childcare (DWOCC)—an event that it said would "launch the nationwide campaign that will win universal childcare."
Events planned for Monday include a rally at the New Jersey Statehouse in Trenton; a gathering of childcare providers and parents during working hours in Yakima, Washington; lobbying visits to state representatives in California; and an early closure of People's Day Care in Gary, Indiana in solidarity with programs that have had to shut down "due to Indiana's choice to not fund early care and learning."
According to Meredith Loomis Quinlan, childcare lead for Community Change Action, more than 3,000 parents and providers around the country had committed to going on strike for the day.
In January, the Trump administration initiated a funding freeze targeting all states in what it said was a response to "fraud that appears to be rampant in Minnesota and across the country." The attack came after a right-wing influencer posted a video of a Somali-owned daycare center in Minnesota and accused its owners of fraud at the behest of Republican lawmakers. A small number of members of the state's Somali community were charged with defrauding the state's social services system.
The White House later said it would slash $10 billion in childcare funding for five Democratic-led states—an attempt that was blocked by a federal court last month.
And as families joined childcare providers and advocates on Monday to demand universal care with fair wages for providers, Trump was announcing changes to the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) that officials said would put "parents back in charge"—but would actually eliminate a 2024 rule that capped childcare copayments at 7% of household income for low-income families, according to analysts.
Loomis Quinlan told Common Dreams that the changes to CCDF will also end requirements that "direct services be provided through grants or contracts and [will pay] childcare providers in advance for their services," as well as "requiring payment based on enrollment rather than actual attendance."
"Every one of those things is a direct attack on our childcare system," said Loomis Quinlan. "And they're trying to frame it as advancements. But it is absolutely not that. These rules are... not going to make childcare more affordable. They're not going to make sure that childcare providers are paid on time with consistency."
The administration's cuts and regulatory changes have come as families across the US are already facing rising grocery prices linked to the president's tariff policies, gas prices have surpassed $4.50 per gallon due to the US-Israeli war on Iran, and the White House's policies have worsened the already existing housing affordability crisis.
A report by Care.com found in 2024 that the average US family with young children was spending 24% of their income on childcare.
"Having this really big childcare bill for families is just untenable," Loomis Quinlan said. "And on the flip side, we know that the childcare providers are not making much in take-home pay, averaging around $14 an hour. And so they also aren't able to make ends meet."
Community Change Action emphasized that while attacking childcare centers' ability to keep their doors open, the Trump administration is also taking direct aim at many providers, more than 20% of whom are immigrants, through its mass deportation agenda. In Chicago last November, federal agents raided a daycare center and arrested a teacher in what one angry parent called an act of "domestic terrorism."
"We’ve had our funds frozen, violent armed ICE agents show up at our childrens’ safe spaces and our places of work, and our Black and Brown communities scapegoated," said the group, referring to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "It’s time to take bold, sustained action that starts with this year’s DWOCC."
Loomis Quinlan said that while the Trump administration is waging war on the childcare sector, progressive leaders like New York City Democratic Mayor Zohran Mamdani are making strides toward securing a universal childcare program for all families in the US. Mamdani joined forces with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, also a Democrat, to fund a universal childcare program for the city earlier this year.
"We really feel like it's a moment to be clear about what families and providers need, which is a universal childcare program in this country," she told Common Dreams. "We need more investment, not less. Deregulating isn't the answer. The changes to the programs announced today by the Trump administration are not the answer. What we need, what we're organizing for today, is universal childcare."
Under the universal program proposed by the group, childcare providers would be paid "a wage that enables their own families to thrive, receive healthcare, paid leave, retirement, and other benefits, and be compensated on par with educators in their state’s K-12 system." It would also invest public resources to cover the true cost of care and professional development of the workforce, and protect against corporate profiteering.
Progressive US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has long advocated for a universal program, which he's said should be funded by taxing the wealth of the top 0.1% richest Americans.
Loomis Quinlan emphasized that once a publicly funded universal childcare system is a reality, "it's going to be so evident that this is something we always should have had in this country."
"Can you imagine what it felt like when we were setting up the K-12 public education system in this country?" she said. "People probably thought that this was just 'pie in the sky.' And here we are, we have a great public education system in this country."
"It's hard sometimes in our current political climate to imagine, but I think it's more important than ever for us to be imagining, because families cannot continue to be squeezed like this," said Loomis Quinlan. "We need to start envisioning what it really looks like for our country to set families and kids up to prosper and thrive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Bold Ideas This Country Desperately Needs': Progressive Caucus Unveils Affordability Agenda
"The New Affordability Agenda shows how Democrats can actually make things cheaper for working people by taking on special interests who are ripping people off," said Rep. Greg Casar.
Apr 29, 2026
The Congressional Progressive Caucus on Wednesday unveiled a sweeping affordability agenda aimed at combating a cost-of-living crisis that President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have supercharged with tariffs, a war of choice in Iran, and deep cuts to safety-net programs.
The CPC's New Affordability Agenda comprises new and previously introduced legislation designed to lower the cost of housing, groceries, childcare, prescription drugs, and more. The caucus presented its slate of policy proposals—which are popular with American voters across the political spectrum—as a positive agenda around which "every single Democrat should be able to unite" heading into the pivotal 2026 midterms and beyond.
“Affordability is not a ‘hoax,'" said CPC Chair Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), referring to Trump's efforts to dismiss mounting concerns about cost increases under his administration as consumer sentiment plunges to all-time lows and affordability continues to top Americans' list of concerns.
"It also has to be more than just a slogan,” Casar added. “The New Affordability Agenda shows how Democrats can actually make things cheaper for working people by taking on special interests who are ripping people off. These are the kind of bold, populist ideas Democrats should talk about in 2026 and pass in 2027. We are glad that many of these ideas already have support across the Democratic caucus, and we look forward to working to get them actually passed as soon as possible.”
Endorsed by a broad coalition of labor unions, advocacy groups, and policy experts, the CPC agenda includes 10 planks, each with corresponding legislation.
The first six planks pertain to lowering the costs of essentials: medicine, groceries, housing, utilities, childcare, and gas.
On prescription drugs, for instance, the agenda calls for passage of the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, which would establish a federal program to directly manufacture generic medications and offer them to consumers at an affordable price.
On childcare, the CPC is urging passage of a bill led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that would ensure "every family in every community has access to high-quality, affordable childcare and early learning opportunities by establishing a network of federally supported, locally administered childcare options."
"In 2026, Democrats cannot politely nibble around the edges when taking on a rigged economic system,” Warren said Wednesday. “Americans want leaders who will fight for bold policies like universal childcare and affordable housing so that we can build an economy for everyone. The New Affordability Agenda is about fighting for the big structural change we need to put working people first."
The CPC agenda also calls for ending AI price gouging, guaranteeing paid vacation to every full-time worker, raising federal overtime pay, and capping contributions to super PACs.
“At a time when 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and billionaires and large corporations have never had it so good, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is putting forward bold ideas this country desperately needs,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Wednesday. “This agenda says that in the richest nation on Earth, we can create an economy that works for every man, woman, and child, and not just a handful of billionaires."
"Yes, we can lower the cost of prescription drugs," said Sanders. "Yes, we can build millions of units of low-income and affordable housing. Yes, we can provide universal, high-quality, affordable childcare in every community. And yes, we can create a vibrant democracy by abolishing super PACs and making sure billionaires can no longer buy elections.”
New polling conducted by Data for Progress indicates that all of the individual policies championed by the CPC are broadly popular with the American electorate.
"Every policy tested earns majority support from at least 3 in 5 voters," the polling outfit found. "Requiring two weeks of paid time off for all full-time workers and restricting private utility companies from passing unreasonable costs on to customers are the most popular policies on the list—each earning support from 79% of voters."
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), who heads the CPC's Ending Corporate Greed Task Force, said Wednesday that Democrats "need to be listening deeply and fighting hard for Americans."
"They have been loud and clear that everything is too damn expensive, and we must respond," said Balint. "This New Affordability Agenda is a strong slate of policy proposals that will help bring down costs. From increasing pay and taking on the corporations that have rigged our economy, to lowering everyday costs on housing, groceries, and childcare, this concrete approach reflects that we understand the scope of the problems and we are ready to take real action."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'There Is Only One Majority in This Country, That's the Working Class,' Says Mamdani
"It's time we have a politics that puts them at the heart of what it is that we're pursuing and not as part of the appendix."
Apr 16, 2026
As he has done numerous times before, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Thursday rejected the notion that democratic socialism has limited appeal outside of progressive urban centers by asserting that his worker-centered policies are aimed at uplifting the nation's biggest demographic cohort—working people and their families.
Mamdani appeared on "CBS Mornings" and was asked what grade he'd give himself after 100 days leading the world's most important city.
"You know, I'll always leave it to New Yorkers to give me the grade but I will say that I'm proud of what the team has accomplished over the 100 days," Mamdani told "CBS Mornings" hosts Gayle King and Vladimir Duthiers. "I mean, we saw $1.2 billion secured in a partnership with Gov. [Kathy] Hochul to deliver universal childcare in our city."
"We held bad landlords accountable for $32 millon, fixed 6,070 apartments," he added. "We filled 102,000 potholes and we did all of this while also returning $9.3 million back to workers and small businesses that have been ripped off by megacorporations."
Duthiers asked whether "a democratic socialist platform can translate into something that's electorally viable in a statewide election or a national election given that, according to Gallup, many older and rural voters still have issues with the term, with the label, socialist."
Mamdani replied: "You know, what I find is that New Yorkers ask me less about how I describe my politics and more about whether my politics includes them, and I think what we can see is that a democratic socialist politics is one that should be judged on its delivery, like any ideology. And what we're showing in this city is we can we can pursue the big things like universal childcare and do the pothole politics at the same time."
"I think that this is a politics that can flourish anywhere," he added, "because frankly there is only one majority in this country that's the working class and it's time we have a politics that puts them at the heart of what it is that we're pursuing and not as part of the appendix."
Turning to the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against Iran, Mamdani lamented that "we're talking about spending close to $30 billion to kill thousands of people an ocean away while we're told that we don't have even an ounce of that money to help working-class Americans across this country."
According to a Marist poll published earlier this month, 48% of New Yorkers approved of Mamdani's overall performance, while 30% disapproved and 23% are unsure. A majority of respondents—55%—"have either a very favorable or somewhat favorable view of the mayor, and 33% have either a somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion."
A majority of respondents also said the city is heading in the right direction under Mamdani, while nearly three-quarters believe the mayor is "working hard," and 58% "have a great deal or a good amount of trust in Mayor Mamdani to make decisions that are in the best interest of New York City."
Previous polling has also shown that Mamdani's economic policies are popular across the country.
Responding to Mamdani's "CBS Mornings" appearance, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) shared its newly published "Majority Agenda," a “roadmap” to passing policies that most Americans see as major priorities to improve their lives.
"The Majority Agenda is a collection of policy briefs on important issues where Americans generally have broad agreement across the political landscape," CEPR explained. "The project organizes these reports into three main areas: good jobs, strong infrastructure, and fair play."
"We're not as divided as some media and politicians want us to believe," CEPR contended.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Wow, He Actually Admitted It': Trump Says US Can't Pay for Childcare Because It's 'Fighting Wars' Instead
"Trump is right. A pointless war or universal daycare," said one Democratic politician. "He’s right: That’s the choice."
Apr 02, 2026
Two days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio unironically advised Iran to spend its public funds "helping the people of Iran" instead of on weapons, President Donald Trump announced that the US government has "to take care of one thing: military protection" and isn't able to provide people in the US with necessities like healthcare and childcare.
"Oh wow, he actually admitted it," said US Rap. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) in response.
At an Easter lunch at the White House Wednesday, the president said that "the United States can’t take care of daycare" and demanded that states fully fund childcare programs.
"We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare. You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too," said Trump. “It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things."
Trump: We can't take care of daycare. We're a big country. We're fighting wars. It's not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these things. pic.twitter.com/vLGpp7KJnm
— FactPost (@factpostnews) April 1, 2026
The wars the president has waged and threatened to wage since taking office last year include his invasion of Venezuela in January and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro; the killing of more than 160 people in boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean; an oil blockade on Cuba that's left tens of thousands of people waiting for surgeries and unable to access essential medications, with Trump threatening to take over the country by force; and the current US-Israeli war on Iran.
The conflicts that Trump said Americans must sacrifice federal funding for public programs in order to continue are opposed by a majority of Americans, according to polls. All have been called violations of international law by legal experts.
Trump's comments on the government's inability to provide public services came as the Pentagon is seeking $200 billion to continue funding the war on Iran, which has killed nearly 2,000 Iranians and more than 1,000 people across the Middle East as the conflict has widened, and exacerbated the US affordability crisis by raising average gas prices to over $4 per gallon.
A 2021 analysis by The New York Times found that the US spends about $500 per family each year on early childhood care, or roughly 0.2% of its GDP. Other wealthy countries that the US considers its peers spend an average of more than $14,000 per family annually, with Norway spending close to $30,000, Finland spending more than $23,000, and Germany spending over $18,000.
The president has previously attacked childcare spending, cutting $10 billion in federal childcare funds to five Democratic-led states in response to a social services fraud scandal in Minnesota. Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last year are projected amount to about $1 trillion over the next decade, and hundreds of hospitals are at risk of closing or having to reduce healthcare services as a result of the cuts—which, in addition to funding Trump's military actions, helped pay for tax cuts for corporations and the rich.
"The warmongers in the White House and Congress will always fund death and destruction," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) Wednesday night after Trump's comments. "They will let people in our country starve and die before they stop funding wars."
Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Maine, said Trump's remarks were a simple statement of fact about the choice the administration has made about its priorities.
"Trump is right. A pointless war or universal daycare," said Platner. "He’s right: That’s the choice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Probe Launched Into Soaring Childcare Costs Driven by Private Equity Takeover
“Private equity firms have increasingly brought their playbook to essential care industries," warns Sen. Jeff Merkley, by rolling local childcare centers nationwide "into large chains, and prioritizing investor profits over the well-being of the families.”
Mar 24, 2026
US Sen. Jeff Merkley announced the launch of a new investigation into the role of private equity firms in making childcare increasingly unaffordable for American families.
Merkley, the Oregon Democrat who serves as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, sent letters to KinderCare Learning Companies and Learning Care Group (LCG), the two largest childcare companies controlled by private equity firms, seeking information about the impact of the relentless profit-seeking of their owners on day-to-day business decisions.
Among other things, Merkley wants the companies to provide insight into the influence that their private equity owners exert over facility acquisition, expansion plans, staffing levels, employee wages and benefits; and capital investments.
Merkley is also asking the companies to "describe how tuition increases... are determined and whether financial obligations to lenders or owners are considered in pricing decisions." He also noted that both KinderCare and LCG faced serious accusations of mismanagement in multiple states.
KinderCare, which is owned by Switzerland-based private equity firm Partners Group, has been cited by state regulators in Indiana and Wisconsin for maintaining facilities with "inadequate supervision, staff-to-child ratio violations, unsafe or unsanitary conditions, and failures to report or respond appropriately to alleged abuse," Merkley wrote.
LCG, which is owned by private equity firm American Securities, operates facilities that have been reported for health and safety violations in numerous states, including Georgia, Missouri, and Texas, Merkley noted, "with incidents involving children left unattended on buses, supervision failures, and alleged physical abuse by staff."
Merkley said he was concerned that the failings at these facilities were being driven by the profit considerations at Partners Group and American Securities.
"Private equity firms have increasingly brought their playbook to essential care industries," said Merkley, "buying up independent providers, rolling them into large chains, and prioritizing investor profits over the well-being of the families and communities that depend on these services."
The senator urged both the childcare companies and their private equity owners to "fully cooperate with this investigation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'People Can't Afford Healthcare': Sanders Rips Pentagon Request for Another $200 Billion
"People can't afford childcare," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
Mar 20, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that it is absurd for the Trump administration to demand another $200 billion from Congress for an illegal war on Iran after lawmakers already approved $1 trillion in military spending for the year—and while millions of people across the nation are struggling to afford basic necessities.
"You got people all over this country, 20% of households, spending 50% of their income on housing," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an appearance on MS NOW. "People can't afford healthcare. People can't afford childcare. And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
The senator's remarks came as President Donald Trump, who has not yet formally requested the funds from Congress, suggested another $200 billion would be a "small price to pay" as the US-Israeli war on Iran heads toward its fourth week with no end in sight.
"I think the Trump people are in a bit of panic," Sanders said Thursday. "They're losing ground. Gas prices are soaring. There is massive discontent against this war. It's got to end, and we've got to make sure that Trump is neutered in 2026."
With the Trump administration considering a plan to deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East amid widespread fears of a ground invasion of Iran—which would explode the price tag of an already costly war—the National Priorities Project (NPP) released an analysis highlighting where the $200 billion requested by the Pentagon could be better spent.
The group estimated that $200 billion would be enough for all of the following this year:
- Medicaid for the 17 million people who will lose it due to budget cuts and other policies;
- Food stamps for the 22 million people who will go hungry due to Trump's budget cuts;
- Medical care for the 1.8 million veterans of the last forever war who still live with disabilities; and
- Tripling the number of kids in Head Start, from just over 700,000 to 1.4 million kids.
"Pete Hegseth would rather the US bomb Iranian families than feed American families," wrote NPP's Lindsay Koshgarian, referring to the Pentagon secretary. "We should remember the lies that led us into war in Iraq a generation ago. That war ultimately cost nearly $3 trillion. We must not go down that path again. Our tax dollars should be helping struggling Americans, not feeding new forever wars."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mamdani Endorses Hochul, Citing Commitment to Ending 'Era of Empty Promises'
"New Yorkers deserve leaders who believe in transformation. Leaders who understand that hope is inspired by a vision, and sustained by change."
Feb 05, 2026
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani opened his essay explaining his decision to endorse Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in her run for reelection with the same words she spoke last month when the pair announced—just days after Mamdani was sworn in—that they had reached an agreement to deliver a universal childcare program for his city.
"The era of empty promises ends," Mamdani, also a Democrat, wrote at The Nation.
The universal childcare program for children aged 6 weeks to 5 years, which Hochul agreed to fund for its first two years, is "as consequential a policy victory as our movement has seen in quite some time," said the mayor, who is an avowed democratic socialist.
Although he and Hochul have "real differences, particularly when it comes to taxation of the wealthiest, at a moment defined by profound income inequality," Mandani wrote, the governor moved to provide $1.7 billion in state funding to expand the social safety net for millions of New York City families.
"We delivered this historic win together," he wrote, emphasizing that the unlikely duo, should Hochul win reelection, plan to continue engaging "in an honest dialogue that leads to results."
I'm endorsing Gov. @KathyHochul because she's someone willing to engage in honest dialogue that delivers results.Along with the movement that powered our campaign, it's how we secured a historic agreement on childcare. And we're just getting started.www.thenation.com/article/poli...
[image or embed]
— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@zohrankmamdani.bsky.social) February 5, 2026 at 9:25 AM
Mamdani endorsed Hochul over Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, who chose India Walton, a democratic socialist who ran for mayor of Buffalo in 2021, as his running mate this week. Delgado has positioned himself as a progressive challenger to Hochul, who has faced criticism from environmental justice groups for approving a fracked gas pipeline and has not thrown her support behind the single-payer New York Health Act as Delgado has.
Although Mamdani and Hochul disagree on some key issues, the mayor emphasized that he has “come to trust” the governor since she endorsed his campaign last September, when other top Democratic lawmakers like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) refused to do so.
"For too long, our politics has been defined by a familiar cycle: big promises, bitter fights, and little tangible progress. This stagnation has taken a toll," wrote Mamdani. "Those of us entrusted with the sacred oath of service must heed that call and work together to honor it. That requires not the absence of disagreement but the presence of trust. We must be able to disagree honestly while still delivering for the people we serve. Over the past six months, Gov. Hochul and I have done exactly that."
He added that in his collaboration with Hochul, he has seen a model for what the Democratic Party can be.
"At its best, the Democratic Party has been a big tent not because it avoids conflict but because it channels conflict toward progress," Mamdani wrote. "A party united not by conformity but by a commitment to structural change—and to the work required to achieve it."
"New Yorkers deserve leaders who believe in transformation. Leaders who understand that hope is inspired by a vision, and sustained by change," he wrote. "Gov. Kathy Hochul has earned my endorsement because she has chosen to govern in that spirit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Will Employers Invest in Our Kids? An Interview with Nancy Folbre
Children are getting more expensive for parents even as investment in future workers is becoming less cost-effective for employers. What should be done about it?
Jan 11, 2026
The Trump administration has suspended over $10 billion of federal childcare funds for five Democratic-led states over alleged fraud. So what if childcare in the United States is already outrageously expensive, much higher than in other developed countries? And why is it that childcare in the US is so expensive?
Socialist and feminist economist Nancy Folbre sheds light on these questions in the interview that follows by pointing out the various changes that have taken place over time in the organization of social reproduction and argues, in turn, that universal childcare, an idea that is becoming increasingly popular with voters across many parts of the United States, is very much needed.
Nancy Folbre is professor emerita of economics and director of the Program on Gender and Care Work at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
C. J. Polychroniou: You’ve written widely about the rising price of parenting. Despite concerns about a national birthrate that is now below replacement level, there seems to be relatively little public effort to increase economic support for parents and children in this country. Why?
Nancy Folbre: The undeclared wars the Trump administration is conducting include a brazen process of reducing public support for the next generation. This process began last spring when billionaire Elon Musk spearheaded budget cuts and layoffs in programs benefiting children and began dismantling the Department of Education. It escalated in the first week of 2026 when the administration used accusations of fraud from a partisan video of childcare centers in Minnesota as an excuse to freeze federal childcare funds to five Democratic states.
The strategy is transparent: Tar all social spending with a sticky claim of fraud and abuse. This includes spending on parents and children, already hurt by cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. These cuts have reduced the affordability of family care for all but the affluent, making a mockery of the Trump administration’s promises of prosperity for all.
An understanding of the deeper forces driving this strategy requires a deep dive into historical changes in the organization of our social reproduction.
A similar logic applies in a different direction to investments in us and our children—why risk them if they are not cost-effective? Robots may soon be cheaper, and they never go on strike OR vote.
Children are getting more expensive for parents even as investment in future workers is becoming less cost-effective for employers. Economic pressures became evident centuries ago when child labor was outlawed and technological change increased the demand for skilled labor. This shift in demand helped incentivize investments in public health and education that were financed by higher taxes. The need for future workers—and soldiers—also intensified the need for wages sufficient to support at least a modicum of family care.
While employers constantly sought ways to reduce labor costs, their need for an ample supply of skilled labor at least partially aligned their incentives with those of workers themselves through support for the so-called welfare state (better termed a “social investment” state) that helped develop and maintain the capabilities of the working population.
Fast forward to the present. The huge amounts of money being invested in artificial intelligence represent a new bet on reducing labor costs both directly (through reduced employment and wages) and indirectly (through reduced investment in health, education, and social services).
A recent Wall Street Journal headline put it this way: “AI Job Losses Are Coming, Tech Execs Say. The Question: Who’s Most at Risk?” The answer: most of us—because general artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to reduce private incentives to invest in humans rather than data centers. Elon Musk, who spearheaded efforts to cut federal spending in early 2025, is happily promoting Tesla’s new Optimus robot.
C. J. Polychroniou: You seem to be suggesting that class conflict affects public policies, which affect demographic outcomes (and vice versa). How do most economists think about these issues?
Nancy Folbre: Mainstream economists seldom pay much attention to collective identities or interests such as those based on class, gender, citizenship, or parenthood. Their general confidence in the efficiency of market forces makes them hopeful that that the labor market will adjust to changing prices—that new jobs will replace those rendered obsolete. However, college-educated, entry-level workers in the US are already experiencing diminished job prospects. Some economists predict that the “adjustment costs” will be high—a polite way of saying that the younger generation is in for an unpleasant economic shock.
Some ideological adjustment is also underway. The theory of “human capital” successfully promoted the view that the labor market would reward the skills represented by a college degree, reinforcing the claim that employees are generally paid according to the value of what they produce. The very term “human capital” suggests that there is no real distinction between capitalists and workers—everyone can be a capitalist by investing in their own earning power.
This utopian fantasy has long been countered by evidence that the environment people grow up in—including many factors well beyond their own control—shapes their economic trajectory. The fantasy is countered even more powerfully by evidence that the returns to a college education are now declining for individuals coming from low-income families. The surge of investment in AI raises the distinct possibility that the supply of “human capital” is likely to further exceed the demand for it, threatening downward mobility for a segment of the paid labor force once considered relatively secure.
Of course, even conservative economists recognize that a good education—from preschool to college--does more than merely increase lifetime earnings. It enhances the skills that people need to manage their own lives—skills like troubleshooting phones, making good decisions about what to buy, how to save, how to vote, and how to parent. Well-educated people live longer—and not just because they tend to earn more money.
But these benefits are not as profitable as increased productivity for a private firm.
Because they have characteristics of a public good, their economic contribution is difficult to measure, much less privately capture. Policies such as universal childcare, paid family or sick leave, and options to engage in employment from home yield significant economic returns, but these are not channeled directly to those who pay for them.
Standard economics textbooks note that firms have economic incentives to pollute the environment if this increases profitability, even if future inhabitants of the planet will pay a high price. A similar logic applies in a different direction to investments in us and our children—why risk them if they are not cost-effective? Robots may soon be cheaper, and they never go on strike OR vote.
C. J. Polychroniou: It sounds like you’re arguing that the theory of “human capital” no longer holds much water. But there are some economists out there who have articulated larger criticisms of capitalist institutions in general. How do these criticisms connect the rising private cost of children, fertility decline, and the possible obsolescence of the white-collar labor force?
Nancy Folbre: Kind of a long story, but I’ll keep it short! Economists like myself, influenced by socialist and feminist ideas, highlight the institutional arrangements that shape the distribution of the costs of raising children and the reproduction of human society itself. In many precapitalist societies, parents enjoyed at least partial payback for the costs of childrearing, as adult children contributed to family income and the support of their elders. Capitalist institutions encouraged labor mobility and reliance on individual earnings, weakening such family and community-based transfers.
Democratic engagement and bargaining over the role of the state gradually led to a different system of intergenerational transfers, taxing employers and the working-age population to help finance public education for the young and pensions and healthcare for the elderly.
This institutional compromise helped stabilize the process of “social reproduction” but also led to unequal distribution of its costs. It allowed employers to keep their contributions to the production of the next generation relatively low. It delivered fewer benefits to parents (those devoting time and money to producing new workers and taxpayers) than to non-parents. It also reinforced a gender division of labor that imposed a disproportionate share of the private costs of family care on women.
We can’t continue to treat care as a kind of expensive hobby rather than a productive contribution to our collective future.
These inequalities amplified increases in the private cost of raising children (for mothers in particular), encouraging efforts to limit family size. New technologies, increased demand for skills, and opportunities for employment outside the home also played an obvious role.
Until recently, fertility decline was considered an economic boon, allowing more women to enter paid employment and promoting the growth of Gross Domestic Product. As is now widely recognized, however, below-replacement fertility poses problems of its own. When women bear less than about 2.1 children over their lifetime, they don’t generate enough surviving children to “replace” their biological parents.
If this rate persists, the size of the youngest generation declines steadily over time, increasing the share of the elderly population relative to the employment-age, tax-paying population. The economic burden of increased old-age dependency increases political conflict over who should pay the costs—and can intensify the economic stresses of caring for younger dependents as well.
Reduction in the size of the global population offers some potential benefits, given current threats to the global environment (not to mention the dicey future of decent jobs). But if we prove unable to get back up to replacement levels of fertility at some point in the future, we will render ourselves extinct. I’d call that a pretty acute crisis of social reproduction.
C. J. Polychroniou: How can we avert such a crisis? Are you suggesting that we adopt pronatalist policies? How do responses in other countries differ from those in the US?
Nancy Folbre: No. We’re not in a state of demographic emergency and we don’t need to encourage a higher birth rate. Much of the global population is suffering from lack of decent employment. And the number of children in the US harmed by poverty makes investment in child health and education a much higher priority than increasing births here.
However, investments in child “quality” can help stabilize and strengthen private commitments. Many other countries are implementing policies designed to make family care more affordable. As is well-known, most affluent European countries have put such policies in place. South Korea began providing universal childcare services in 2013 and is now increasing parental leave allowances. Canada is a more nearby example, with its rollout of a new federal childcare system that will offer universal childcare services at a private cost of $10 a day. Within the US, both New Mexico and New York City are setting an example with new initiatives.
The US as a whole is lagging beyond for several reasons. Racial and ethnic divisions, regional differences, and exceptionally high levels of earnings inequality have weakened the solidarity needed to build a “pro-care” coalition. Imperialist rhetoric and illegal military actions have literally bloodied the water.
As I argue in my forthcoming book, Making Care Work, we need to do a better job explaining the public benefits of investment in human capabilities, including the care of people experiencing illness, frailty, or disability. We can’t continue to treat care as a kind of expensive hobby rather than a productive contribution to our collective future.
Let’s talk about how to move forward in another interview—I think that a universal basic income will be part of the solution, even though it will face vehement opposition. Will employers invest in our kids? Only if we can make them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy