What Does Trump's Childcare Word Slop Mean?
Interviewers this week questioned Donald Trump and JD Vance on childcare affordability. The answers were a mess.
Can the childcare crisis be resolved by prodding family members into staying home with the kids? Well how about by imposing tariffs on imports?
Donald Trump and J.D. Vance offered these suggestions this week when questioned on how their administration would reduce childcare costs. I’m surprised that the GOP ticket’s chosen interviewers even asked about childcare at all, as the right is broadly disinterested in professional care. The conservative worldview encourages women to stay at home with children, and Vance has derided the problem’s easiest solution, universal childcare, as “class war against normal people.”
Of course they don’t have ready answers to the childcare affordability crisis; they don’t want them. Their platform depends on austerity and women’s economic oppression. But these guys have a very good shot at winning the White House in November, so let’s take their comments seriously for a second.
Here’s what Trump said on Thursday when asked whether he would commit to legislation that would make childcare more affordable. (It’s long but I’m pasting it in full because editing for clarity really obscures how goofy this is.)
“Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down. You know, I was somebody — we had, Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka, was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue.
"But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about — that, because look, child care is child care, couldn’t — you know, there’s something — you have to have it in this country. You have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers, compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to. But they’ll get used to it very quickly. And it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us. But they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re going to have — I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country.
"Because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care. But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just — that I just told you about. We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers will be taking in.
"We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people. And then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about make America great again. We have to do it because right now, we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.”
So we’re… going to increase tariffs to the tune of trillions of dollars? And use those proceeds to fund childcare? I really don’t think that’s likely, for a host of reasons, including that, to make “trillions” by taxing imports, Trump would need to impose something like a 50 percent tariff on all imported goods. He’s suggested a 20 percent tariff on all imports, and a tariff of 60 percent or more on Chinese goods, which economists describe (I’m paraphrasing here) as catastrophically stupid. (Here’s a good breakdown on what the tax hikes would cost typical American families.)
I also just don’t think Trump is serious about dumping federal funding into childcare, as evidenced by his previous failures to do so. I think this is the word slop of a candidate with rapidly diminishing mental faculties who uses a single, blunt policy proposal as a fallback when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or potentially even where he is.
But Trump’s never marketed himself as a policy wonk. That role falls to Vance, whom supporters describe as something like a Dark Enlightenment Elizabeth Warren.
Here’s what Vance said this week when asked how he would make childcare more affordable.
“One of the things that we can do is make it easier for family models to choose, or for families to choose whatever model they want, right?” Vance told interviewer Charlie Kirk at a Turning Point USA event. “So one of the ways that you might be able to relieve a little bit of pressure on people who are paying so much for day care is make it so that that, you know, maybe, like, Grandma or Grandpa wants to help out a little bit more or maybe there’s an aunt or uncle that wants to help out a little bit more.”
Vance also suggested that more people want to work in childcare but that licensing restrictions are dissuading them from doing so. “Don’t force every early child care specialist to go and get a six-year college degree,” Vance said.
This is a bad answer on several fronts. Many children don’t have grandparents willing and able to provide full-time, free childcare, which is genuine work, not merely “helping out a little bit.” And rather than requiring a six-year degree, licensing requirements are actually pretty scant for daycare jobs. The actual understaffing issues in childcare usually relate to the industry’s notoriously low pay, the often-long hours, and the outright difficulty of looking after lots of small children. (I’ve done it and there’s a reason I prefer email jobs!)
After public criticism, Vance had another crack at it in a Twitter reply. Vance wrote:
“1) Many don't fully appreciate how federal (and state) policy penalizes particular family models--particularly in-home care and kinship care--over others. That's true of the Child Care Development Block Grant and the Dependent Care Tax Credit, though in different ways for each. So yes, parents or grandparents might not be able to help, but they might *want* to, and for those families federal policy should not be forcing one particular family model. We should try to encourage whatever is best for each individual family. Right now we don't: we try to force or at least subsidize one model on every family in this country. And if you open up kinship and other options for families, you will relieve some pressure on the daycare system in this country.
2) If you subsidize something but don't increase the supply of it, you're going to raise prices without getting an increase in quality. This is what's so broken about Kamala Harris's approach to child care. You can't just write a check if there aren't additional providers. So while I obviously support health and safety regulations, there are some absurd regulations out there that restrict the supply of child care providers--from kinship providers to local churches. Just because the interests of the market are not always aligned with families--I agree and have said so myself!--doesn't mean that all government regulations make sense.
3) Finally, we have to consider the broken educational pathways that exist for a whole host of professions. A consistent thing I've heard is that there is great demand for a lot of jobs, but a totally broken pathway for young people to get into those jobs. It's true of plumbers and advanced manufacturing, but it's also true of child care providers.”
But this isn’t actually suggesting anything tangible, either! Vance’s allusions to “penalizing” policies are just references to public programs that help families afford childcare. He’s not even arguing here to expand those programs to fund family members who care for children at home! He’s just playing the hits by describing daycare as insidious (“force,” lol) while suggesting in-home family care as an uncompensated alternative.
Would it be nice if the government offered more funding for people to pursue childcare training, as is alluded to in Vance’s third point, if you squint? Sure, but again: training requirements for childcare providers are usually pretty relaxed. (I’ll use myself as an example again: iirc, I took a couple days’ courses and was good to go in New York state.)
The best way to increase supply is the same way we keep costs down for parents. We need high-quality, federally funded childcare that pays workers a living wage.
We’ve already seen this experiment play out recently, in small form. Under the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, the federal government allocated $24 billion to child care centers, which went on to employ more than 1 million workers and care for as many as 9.6 million children.
Congress allowed the plan to expire in 2023, leading to daycare closures.