But today we learned that back in January, Mitt had this to say:
While I was governor, 85 percent of the people on a form of welfare assistance in my state had no work requirement. I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’
I'm not posting this to make a big deal about the hypocrisy, but to see what people have to say.
Does child care count as work? Does it make a difference if you're caring for your own children or somebody else's?
It often seems to me that many conservatives think that wealthy, white mothers should be staying home to raise their own children, but poor and minority mothers should be forced to seek paid employment (for their "dignity" as Romney puts it -- basically, work builds character, and poor and minority women are seen as deficient in character).
Consider two mothers, both doing exactly the same daily child-care tasks, except one is caring for her own children and one is caring for a stranger's. One gets paid, and earns social security benefits, etc. The other isn't paid and receives no benefits. Does that seem odd?
Is it better for a child to be cared for by her/his own parent than to be cared for by a stranger? If so, why does Mitt think that Ann Romney's children do deserve that benefit, but the children of a working-class Latina woman in East Boston don't deserve it?
Romney seemed very proud of this: "It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work." Should the state be subsidizing child care for working-class families? For middle-class families? For all children, or for none?
Have at it.