Lack of child care costs Ohio economy $5.48B each year, new Chamber report finds
"Child care is a national crisis. Everyone is struggling with child care," Aaron Merchen, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation's executive director of early childhood education policy, told those gathered for an Ohio Chamber of Commerce child care summit. "You're in good company."
The report estimated the economic drag for multiple states: Michigan is losing $2.88 billion each year in economic potential, Florida is seeing a $5.38 billion hit to its economy and Texas is losing $9.39 billion a year in economic output.
The new Ohio-specific report details the struggles that working parents know too well. Families spent an average of $572 each month on child care and 70% use some financial assistance program to pay for it. The most popular was the federal child tax credit.
One in four parents reported that they or someone else in their families shifted their schedule or worked fewer hours to accommodate for child care. About 22% worked while caring for a child, according to the new report.
'Even if child care issues are not forcing parents out of the workforce, they do have an impact on employment,' said Blanche Delrieu, a business analyst for the Cicero Group, which conducted the review.
About 40% of parents attending school or training had a disruption to their education because of child care issues.
But the report also details the overall economic impact of that child care access problem, estimating that Ohio is losing out on $1.52 billion in tax revenue and businesses are losing $3.97 billion in earnings from turnover and absenteeism.
Publicly funded child care is less accessible in Ohio than in other states. Ohio sets eligibility at 145% of the federal poverty level, which is about $46,600 for a family of four. All surrounding states have a higher threshold, making public assistance easier to access.
Ohio does offer child care vouchers for families up to 200% of the federal poverty level, a new program that Gov. Mike DeWine championed.
Merchen said that cutoff, wherever a state decides to put it, impacts who can access affordable child care and who can't. "There is a correlation between the line at which you are eligile for state investment in child care costs and the accessibility," he said.
DeWine proposed a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per child in his two-year budget. But House Republicans axed that idea along with the cigarette tax hike that paid for it. Instead, they proposed a pilot program where businesses, state government and families each pay a portion of child care costs.
The chamber report is the latest sign that businesses are taking child care access seriously. A recent Groundwork Ohio poll found 86% of Ohioans believed that increasing access to high-quality, affordable child care would strengthen Ohio's economy.
Business groups like the U.S. Chamber and Ohio Chamber of Commerce are prioritizing access to child care in their discussions with state lawmakers.
That's a good sign as child care providers, business leaders and legislators work toward solutions, Merchan said. "Ohio is taking this seriously."
Read the report here:
U.S. Chamber Foundation report on the cost of child care in Ohio by Jessie Balmert on Scribd
State government reporter Jessie Balmert can be reached at jbalmert@gannett.com or @jbalmert on X.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Lack of child care costs Ohio economy $5.48B each year, report finds
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
an hour ago
Hundreds cheer Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego as Democrats take offensive against Trump's tax bill
DAVENPORT, Iowa -- Hundreds of people cheered Sen. Ruben Gallego at a town hall meeting in eastern Iowa Saturday as the first-term Arizona Democrat assailed the massive, Republican-backed tax bill signed by President Donald Trump as likely to make 'America poorer and sicker.' Gallego's upbeat event struck the opposite tone from Rep. Mike Flood's town hall meeting earlier in the week, when an even bigger crowd jeered the Nebraska Republican for most of a 90-minute event in his state to promote the bill. Democrats, searching for months after last year's election defeat for footing in opposing the aggressive tone struck by Trump in his second term in the White House, have gone on the offensive this month, still united in their frustration with Trump but suddenly energized in full-throated opposition to his signature legislation. 'I think this bill is helping Democrats see clearly what's at stake with the future of protections for so many regular Americans,' said Pete Wernimont of Waterloo, who drove 140 miles (225 kilometers) to see Gallego. 'I just hope they are there when it really matters a year from now.' While some Republicans in safe Republican districts are braving crowds to sell Trump's law, most in Congress are heeding GOP leaders' suggestion to keep lower public profiles, especially noteworthy during the August recess following closely on Trump's signing of the tax cut and spending reduction bill last month. Democratic activists are rallying to point out what they see as the measure's political liabilities for Republicans trying to hold their narrow majorities in Congress in next year's midterm elections. 'This is the galvanizing moment that's happening because Democrats now understand, we're the people that fight for the middle class and the working class of America,' Gallego told reporters before the event Saturday. 'This is a clarifying moment for us.' For two hours, the audience of some 300 people applauded and at times stood cheering for the Arizona Democrat, one of several party figures who have been attacking the bill in congressional districts represented by Republicans. He was in Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks' 1st Congressional District, among the most competitive in the nation in the past three congressional elections. For a party frustrated with an array of Trump administration initiatives, the measure has had its own energizing effect. "I came here because I work in health care and this bill will hurt health care,' said Alexandra Salter, a physicians assistant from Davenport. 'I think we are getting more vocal about it, because we need to speak up.' The meeting contrasted sharply with Flood's meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska, on Monday, when an even larger crowd of 700 voiced vigorous opposition to the bill, locking in especially on its changes to Medicaid, the federally funded health care program for low-income American. The bill, which passed with no Democratic votes in the House or Senate, makes substantial cuts to the health care program, notably by imposing work requirements for many of those receiving aid. The same frustration that drew Wernimont to Davenport Saturday convinced Ann Ashburn of Aurora, Nebraska, to drive the 70 miles (113 kilometers) to Lincoln to face Flood on Monday. Ashburn learned about Flood's appearance through an Omaha-area Democratic group called Blue Dot and reached out to friends who joined her. She dismissed any suggestion that such opposition had been orchestrated. 'I think the momentum could have been much greater had we been better organized,' the 72-year-old retired executive said. For now, Republicans have their work cut out for them if they hope to use the measure as a reason for voters to return them to the majority in the 2026 elections. About two-thirds of U.S. adults expect the new law will help the rich, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Most — about 6 in 10 — also think it will do more to hurt than help low-income people, according to the survey taken last. Gallego used his trip to Iowa, which included a requisite stop at the Iowa State Fair, to burnish his own profile in a state that, until 2020, traditionally had hosted the first event in the Democrats' presidential nominating process. Iowa Democrats hope to return to the front of the parade when the 2028 primaries and caucuses begin. Other figures already popular nationally with Democrats such as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been making stops in Republican districts decrying the legislation. Ocasio-Cortez last month headlined an event in New York's 21st District, represented by Republican Elise Stefanik, noting among other items its Medicaid provisions. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is scheduled to hold rallies Sunday in Republican-held House districts in North Carolina. He too planned to focus on Medicaid cuts, and note their impact on rural hospitals in the state where former Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat now running for U.S. Senate, worked with the GOP-controlled legislature to expand Medicaid coverage in 2023.
New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
Gasparino: Inside the enormous Biden effort to 'debank' Trump after Jan. 6
The scale of the effort to 'debank' Donald Trump because of pressure from Biden administration regulators went far beyond JPMorgan and Bank of America, The Post has learned. At least 10 other financial institutions closed their windows to the billionaire real estate tycoon over his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill melee. The moves came in the months after Trump left the White House in 2021, sources inside the Trump Organization told me. The stunning scale of the blacklisting is being revealed here for the first time. 3 President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 8, 2025. REUTERS It should be reported as much as possible for the simple reason that if any big bank can cancel a former president over politics as opposed to illegality, then every American citizen is in danger of facing the same mistreatment. For expressing an opinion, or starting a business out of step with the progressive culture norms that have infected so much of society, you too can see your economic livelihood go up in smoke and 'debanked.' Debanking is such an odd word for one of the most insidious parts of cancel culture, and its sponsors like it that way. It sanitizes, via clumsy, obtuse lingo, what is essentially something of dangerous Orwellian magnitude: negating an American citizen's ability to save, and conduct business through a big bank. That's why Trump and Republicans like South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott are taking steps to end the politicization of banking. Keep in mind, there are already laws preventing the likes of JPMorgan, BofA and Capital One — the banks Trump has publicly stated canceled him — from being conduits for drug kingpins and Mafiosi. (Trump has sued Capital One, which denied Trump's allegations.) Debanking takes it further. It forces banks to remove customers who might pose nothing more than 'reputational risk,' a flighty rule enforced by bank regulators in recent years to keep financial institutions from doing business with people like Jeffrey Epstein. The now-deceased convicted child sex predator was a JPMorgan customer for years, and in theory making it impossible for Epstein to finance his illegality sounds like what should be happening. That is until you dig deeper. Under pressure from the Biden administration, just after Trump lost the 2020 election and started to act out (which the last time I checked was his constitutional right), the enforcement of reputational risk took a decidedly political turn, bank officials tell me. If you believe people at the two largest banks, Jamie Dimon's JPMorgan and Brian Moynihan's BofA, the Biden administration unleashed its bank regulatory cops at the Office of Comptroller of Currency, the FDIC and the semi-independent Federal Reserve to go beyond nixing perverted financiers from their platform. 3 A Chase bank sign in Richmond, Virginia, Wednesday, June 2, 2021. AP They used the amorphous nature of what is reputational risk to enforce a political regime, the bank officials said. The Bidenistas hated crypto, thought it was an affront to their power to control the economy, and pressured banks from doing business with this somewhat heterodox emerging industry, according to the bank sources. So was anything related to guns and certain conservative religious organizations, they added. And most of all, anything MAGA, including the multibillion-dollar real estate and resort empire of Mr. MAGA himself, Donald J. Trump. Such an effort isn't easy to prove because there's no direct smoking gun, no memo (at least not yet) telling banks to cancel Trump from their system. 3 A general view of a Bank of America sign as seen in Wyckoff, New Jersey, on April 13, 2020. Christopher Sadowski The banks say the pressure was more subtle but still real: Failure to remove Trump or crypto types and others would result in heightened enforcement, harassment and possibly fines. The banks decided to drop customers, even rich ones like Trump, because it wasn't worth the hassle. I have covered finance for three decades now and thought I saw it all: Bernie Madoff, Epstein, the 2008 financial crisis, Wall Street scandals, penny stock scams and hedge fund implosions. But what happened to Trump in 2021 was truly surprising given the breadth of big banks dropping him as a client and scary given their rationale. As bad as the events of Jan. 6 were, Trump did tell the crowd that crazy afternoon to protest peacefully. Trump didn't break the law holding a rally. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters You may disagree with his rhetoric that day. He had just lost a closely fought election against Joe Biden. Trump said he really won it. Millions of people seemed to agree. He wouldn't be the first politician to pull that lever. Democrat Stacey Abrams never really fully conceded when she lost in her first attempt to become governor of Georgia against Republican Brian Kemp. How many times did Hillary Clinton say Trump was an 'illegitimate president' after she lost the 2016 contest to him? During the violent social justice protests of 2020, Gwen Walz, the wife of Minnesota Gov. and 2024 Democrat VP candidate Tim Walz, said she 'kept the windows' open to smell the burning debris. 'I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening,' she said. Or how about what Kamala Harris proudly said around the same time. The then-Biden VP candidate, who went on to get trounced by Trump in 2024, supported the defunding of the police movement that led to much more mayhem than what occurred on Jan. 6. Her rationale for the 'largely peaceful protests' that burned cities to the ground, delivered to fellow-traveler lefty late-night host Stephen Colbert, is at least as cringey as anything Trump said on Jan. 6. 'They're not going to stop,' she said during an appearance on the show. 'They're not. This is a movement. I'm telling you. They're not going to stop, and everyone, beware . . . That they're not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.' Did Jamie Dimon tell Harris that her money isn't good at JPM?
