Cutting childcare subsidies costs money in the short- and long-term, California edition

[Former employee of a non-profit organization Clarissa] Doutherd, who lives in Oakland, Calif., with her 4-year old son Xavier, had been able to cover the nearly $1,000 monthly child care bill thanks to a state subsidy that helps lower-income working parents. The support disappeared after budget cutbacks last year.

"In June, I had to quit my full-time job," after her salary was insufficient to cover her child care costs, she said. "I was on the brink of being able to pay the full cost, just another raise away from being completely self-sufficient" (MSNBC).

I love a good cliché, and the one that works best here is "penny-wise, pound-foolish." How much money is the state of California saving by cutting childcare subsidies? Better to ask, how much income is the state losing? Now that California forced Ms. Doutherd to quit a full-time job where she was expecting a raise, the state treasury is no longer receiving from her . . .

• Income tax, which would likely have gone up with her raise
• Sales tax, to the tune of 8.75% minus Oakland's cut, on purchases other than groceries, medicines, etc.
• Tolls, which finance road construction and seismic retrofitting of bridges

I don't know exactly how much her subsidy was, but it was something less than $1,000 per month. Clearly, she probably wasn't paying $1,000 per month in taxes. But let's say that she was, or that the state was actually spending that full amount, while keeping in mind that a 4-year-old kid won't require full-time daycare for much longer. For $1,000 per month, the state of California was helping her earn, save, and spend money, keeping it moving around and working for her and for the businesses and services she used. It was allowing her to maintain and even build her skills, and spend time with her colleagues and professional peers. It was helping her "bank" time at her job so that she'd get seniority and earn a raise. The other side of that coin: the non-profit organization employer was guarding some institutional memory, and thus was better able to use its state tax-exempt status to the benefit of its constituents in the state, by avoiding turnover in her accounting job. And the state was moving money to the federal government in the form of income and social security taxes -- the federal government loses some taxes now, and Ms. Doutherd will have a number of months or years where she won't be putting money into her own social security for later. And more, the state was helping Xavier get pre-school enrichment and socialization outside of the home that will help him when he enters kindergarten or first grade, particularly if the program he was in was something like Head Start (PDF), (PDF).

How long will Ms. Doutherd's household make it before she needs to apply for food stamps, utilities aid, subsidized housing, or some other assistance? Luckily for her, the article appears to state, she has just the one kid, and at age 4 he'll be in full-time school sometime soon. Until then, the household will be treading water and doing absolutely nothing to rebuild the state or national economy, all to save the state under $1,000 a month, on the back of a single mother. Great job, California!

Twelve versus seventy

Today in job search news, my anecdotal, unscientifically tested impression lately is that open job positions either pay $12.00 per hour, or require 70 hours per week and a resumé with about 15 fewer years on it than mine has. There is no in between, there is no happy medium, there is no reasonable option for a mid-career professional.

I don't want to go so far as to say that I never should have gone to law school; but right now that diploma looks less like a career-boosting, life-changing credential, and more like $150,000 worth of mental masturbation. And not that I'm totally against mental masturbation -- my long-term, post-childrearing plans include pursuing a Ph.D. -- but right now I'd prefer to be getting some regular cash.

Speaking of which, couple of paying tasks today, so I'm off to get to work.

And again with the voter ID issue

Did you notice that all but one of the plaintiffs in ACLU-PA's lawsuit against Pennsylvania's voter ID law are women?

If you are an otherwise voting-eligible woman in Pennsylvania, check your wallet. Does the name on your poll-acceptable ID match the name under which you're registered to vote? There is a one in three chance that it does not. If not, start the ball rolling now to fix the situation. Either change your voter registration to match your driver's license exactly, or get a new driver's license so that it matches your voter registration exactly. If you need a birth certificate to get a new driver's license, request one immediately. It can take 14 weeks (not a typo) to get it, and that's even if the state complies with the request: ACLU-PA's petition includes a plaintiff who has been requesting a birth certificate multiple times over several years but hasn't gotten an answer.

This is a 19th Amendment problem because it disenfranchises women overwhelmingly, denying them at a rate of potentially one in three their right to vote -- to the obvious satisfaction of Governor Corbett and the state GOP. This is a 19th Amendment problem that none of the civil liberties lawyers groups is addressing as such. It's up to you.

Forty-two years on

4 May 1970:

As they arrived at the top of the hill, twenty-eight of the more than seventy Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13 second period. [ ... ] Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard.

To understand who came looking for a riot, see who came dressed for a riot. When a protest situation gets out of control, you have to ask, every time, who did the escalating? Who brought in horses? Who is carrying pistols? Who is using billy clubs? Who is wearing military- and SWAT-style protective gear like helmets, body armor, body shields? Who arrived in a Blackwater armored vehicle? Who brought a panjandrum to a knife fight?

Honestly, I think the only reason we're not getting murders like this with Occupy events is that the actual National Guard is in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, instead of staying stateside to help evacuate cities during hurricanes and stuff.