Support for child care is popular as Ohio advocates still fighting for funding
Polling continues to show government support for child care is a popular issue among all political sides. But advocates in Ohio are still preparing their arguments to boost state support as the budget process rolls on.
The Ohio Senate is working toward a draft budget after the House approved its version earlier this month.
As the process continues toward its July 1 deadline, child care advocates hope to get some things into the Senate budget that didn't appear in the House version. They say they're important not only for families in need of child care, but also for the state economy and the workforce that supports it.
The House proposal included $200 million for the Child Care Choice Voucher Program over the next two years. The funding comes from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant.
Also included in the House proposal is the establishment of the Child Care Cred Program. It's a provision originally introduced as Republican-led legislation to split the costs of child care three ways — between the state, the business and the employee — when an eligible individual is employed by a business willing to apply for the program.
Parents and workers involved with child care space met with advocacy group Groundwork Ohio on Tuesday to discuss the current level of child care support. They also discussed how additional state spending would increase child care affordability and access, and boost the wages of child care workers.
Cheryl Rose said when she was a young parent working in food service, child care assistance based on her income helped her remain in the workforce and grow professionally.
Now a partner at Constellation Wealth Advisors, Rose said workforce growth is the one thing that will drive prosperity, and workforce growth is possible through support for child care. That support creates longterm ripple effects that may not appear instantly, but will impact the state's financial future for years to come, she said.
'What happens is, 18 years from now, there are companies (growing because of an increase in workers), there are more opportunities,' Rose said. 'It creates multitudes.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Improving the lives of child care workers has its own ripple effects, said Christian Davis, founder of the Cincinnati Parent Empowerment Network. With historically low pay, child care workers are often on public assistance and can't afford food, let alone care for their own children. Bringing wages up and giving workers the ability to thrive boosts the care they can give, she said.
'The quality of your center is really a determinant of the quality of the staff to fill those needs,' Davis said.
Groundwork Ohio wants to see the Child Care Voucher Program receive more funding to address affordability, and the group, among others, will to push for an increase to the eligibility level for the state's Publicly Funded Child Care.
Gov. Mike DeWine's executive proposal raised eligibility for care to 160% of the federal poverty line. For a family of four in Ohio, that's $51,440. But the House left eligibility at 145% in its version of the budget, a level that the head of the Ohio Department of Children and Youth say is the lowest level of support in the country.
The budget also comes at a time when 4 in 10 Ohioans don't have access because of a lack of child care facilities in their area, according to new analysis by Groundwork Ohio.
The survey also found that, on average, a mom working full-time spends 27% of her median earnings on child care for an infant. It's worse for moms who are primary earners. Just 32% of Ohio households are headed by women, but they make up 59% of those in poverty, the study found.
The average cost for an infant to be in child care in Ohio is more than $12,000 per year, according to Child Care Aware of America.
Government support of child care enjoys significant public approval. New polling released by the First Five Years Fund, found 'strong support' among Republican voters for child care-related tax credits at the federal level.
The recent polling found that 75% of Republicans think the inability to access or afford child care as a 'crisis' or a 'major problem' for American working families. A majority said expanding child care tax credits would 'strengthen the overall economy.'
Of those Republican voters, 83% support increasing the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. It might be on the chopping block as congressional Republicans decide what to include in a funding blueprint approved earlier this month.
The Trump administration is also considering a proposal to eliminate funding for Head Start, a child care program for low-income households.
Head Start is among the programs child care advocates have said should be supported further to improve education outcomes and child care opportunities, rather than be cut.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Makes Concession After Lawsuit Filed in Washington, D.C.
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration and District of Columbia attorneys agreed Friday to partially scale back U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's order placing the city's police force under federal control, preserving the authority of the D.C. police chief rather than handing full command to DEA Administrator Terry Cole. Earlier Friday, the nation's capital filed a lawsuit to block Republican President Donald Trump's takeover of its police department. Chief Pamela Smith will now remain in control of the Metro Police Department (MPD), but the Trump administration will still be able to use MPD officers for federal purposes on an emergency basis, according to ABC 7 News' Tom Roussey. Speaking to reporters, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, standing alongside Mayor Muriel Bowser, both Democrats, said he was grateful a judge affirmed that under the Home Rule Act, only the mayor can appoint the chief of police, adding, "the chief of police remains the chief of police." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Wall Street Journal
2 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Will the Democrats Go Centrist in the 2028 Election?
New York A pair of safe predictions: The winner of the 2028 Republican presidential nomination will have to negotiate the protean wishes of Donald Trump. And the winner of the Democratic contest will have to confront the party's attraction to socialism and an array of factions that would rather see Democrats lose than compromise: the climate lobby, advocates of open borders and transgenderism, and, above all, the anti-Israel left.
Wall Street Journal
23 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Gavin Newsom's Risky Gerrymander Gambit - Opinion: Potomac Watch
Full Transcript This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated. Announcer: From the Opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Paul Gigot: The gerrymander wars heat up again as California Governor Gavin Newsom says he'll change the district's maps in California, in order to give Democrats five more seats in the House of Representatives, if Texas goes ahead with its Republican plan to add five more Republican seats in redistricting. Can Newsom make that work, and how will that affect Republican plans in Missouri, Ohio, Florida as the mid-decade redistricting battles continue before the 2026 election? And how is all of this going to be affected going forward in the future as Americans continue to move out of some of the most-heavily Democratic states into Republican-run states, like Texas, Florida, Utah, and others? So, welcome to Potomac Watch. I'm Paul Gigot. This is our daily podcast for WSJ Opinion, and I'm here with Kim Strassel and Allysia Finley. Let's listen to Gavin Newsom on Instagram talk about his plans for redistricting in California. Gavin Newsom: It's time to make another phone call to Greg Abbott. This time, instead of calling him and telling him you're "entitled" to five congressional seats, it's time to tell him to stand down. It's time to recognize that democracy is at risk. It's time to, dare I say, do the right thing. Actually see how that feels for you doing the right thing. If you don't, California will neutralize anything you do in the state of Texas. California will continue to punch above its weight. We believe in democracy. We believe in the enduring values of our founding fathers. 249 years. We're not going to sit back passively. We're not going to sit back and watch you light democracy on fire. Paul Gigot: Well, Gavin Newsom's already running for president, we know, and he's made a big issue of this redistricting battle. But let's look at the math here, Allysia. California has 52 seats. Democrats have 43 of them, Republicans have nine, if I'm correct. That's a pretty heavily gerrymandered map for Democrats. Can he really get those Republicans seats down to four in the state? Allysia Finley: Well, I think what he would have to do is to draw these kinds of districts that you see in Illinois, which stretch out these tentacles from San Francisco all the way to the Nevada border. The districts that the Republicans hold in the state tend to be very rural, up in the north as well as in the Central Valley. And then you have a couple again along the border with Nevada and Arizona. These, again, are more rural districts in order to- Paul Gigot: And they're compact. Allysia Finley: They're compact districts. Paul Gigot: I mean, they're pretty compact. Allysia Finley: Right. They're very compact, and they were intentionally so. There was an independent redistricting commission, but the Democrats hijacked this commission, and when they did that they intended to essentially pack Republicans into these districts. Hence, where you have Democrats have about 80% of the statewide districts, even though Donald Trump got about 40% of the vote. So that already indicates that they're heavily gerrymandered. In order to get five more seats, you'd really have to, as I said, draw these districts that may not even be contiguous. And then if you were to actually try to draw certain seats, like up in Central Valley where David Valadao, who has a very competitive seat, if you were to try to pack more Democrats into that district, you'd probably have to take some Democratic votes from Democratic Congressman Jim Costa's district right up north of him. And Costa barely won his reelection last year, so it's a high risk gambit. Paul Gigot: What's the process? If a redistricting commission under California law is required to redraw districts, how can Newsom do it unilaterally? Allysia Finley: Well, what they're talking about doing is the legislature would put a ballot initiative on this upcoming November ballot that would give the Democrats authority to redraw the district for one time mid-decade and only if Texas passes its map. And they're hoping that this makes it more palatable to the public who generally opposes such gerrymanders. In fact, there was a recent poll that came out from Politico saying two-thirds of the public support this independent redistricting commission and would oppose the legislature redrawing of the maps. But the idea is that the voters would have to approve this redrawn map. Paul Gigot: So they'd have to approve the redrawn map after Democrats draw it, and presumably there would be some pushback. I mean, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was a big promoter of the commission idea, he's opposed to it. Others are opposed to it. So it's not a sure thing that it would pass. And it sounds to me, Kim, that Allysia is saying we might be able to squeeze out a couple of seats, but it's far from a sure thing, and far less easy for California Democrats to do it now than it is for Texas Republicans who seem really set on doing it, redrawing the map once the Democrats come back from their sojourn into the great state of Illinois and the protection of JB Pritzker to give a quorum. Kim Strassel: Yeah. I mean, look, all Texas Republicans have to do is wait out Texas Democrats, and that's likely to happen. We already have Texas Democrats meeting and, as I expected would happen, they'll wait out to the end of this legislative session, which ends at the end of this week, and then they'll have a reason to come back and Republicans will pass their plan. This is what's happened in prior walkouts. Nothing new there. By contrast, what California is trying to do is actually quite a lift. Allysia just described the process. There's also a very short timeline for this. The legislature would need to get this passed essentially by the end of the week in order to hit all the necessary deadlines in California to have it on a ballot in early November. They can probably do that. They have super majorities. It will take two-thirds of each chamber in California to pass it, but again, Newsom essentially commands that many Democrats anyway. This in the meantime is going to be an off-year referendum, which means it'll probably have lower voter turnout. It's going to be very expensive on both sides. You have potential lawsuits may be coming. Steve Hilton, who is the gubernatorial candidate, has already said that he'll litigate against any measure the legislature passes, and he's going to make the legal argument that the state lacks the adequate data to accurately redraw these lines, especially given population shifts during and after COVID. You're going to have a lot of high-dollar people that are opposing this. You mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger. One of the original proponents of this independent redistricting commission was not just Schwarzenegger, but Charles Munger Jr. who is the son of the former Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman. He spent more than $12 million passing it the first time, and he's already said he'll spend what it takes to defend it this time around. You have traditional allies of Gavin Newsom's, like the League of Women Voters, who oppose this move as well too. And then you've got the public support. That initiative initially passed with 60% of the vote. That Politico poll now shows that Republicans and Democrats both support this commission by more than 60%. 72% of Independents favor an independent commission. So to say that Gavin Newsom has set himself a high bar here, he has. Paul Gigot: But he feels, I think, that he has to fight this because this shows he's in fighting trim to take on the Republican in 2028, which he thinks that or he hopes will help him in the Democratic primaries as he runs for president. All right, we're going to take a break. Here, we're talking about gerrymandering, and when we come back, we'll talk about where Republicans think they can squeeze out more safe seats outside of Texas, when we come back. Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigot with Kim Strassel and Allysia Finley talking about the gerrymander wars. One of the intriguing sidelights of this redistricting brawl is that we're seeing the opposition to it come from Republicans in swing seats in the red states. There's a congressman from California, Kevin Kiley. It's the third district of California. That's one I think is on the Nevada border. It's a big district, rural district, and he has sent an op-ed into our paper, we will publish, basically saying, look, this is a terrible idea, this mid-decade redistricting, and he's introducing a bill in Congress to say you can only redistrict once a decade coincident with the census that happens every 10 years. The next one would be 2030. Mike Lawler, another Republican from New York, the northern New York suburbs, he's opposed to this redistricting because if Texas goes forward, then there's a lot of pressure on the Democrats who run the state legislature and the governorship to also do the same. But they have a similar issue with commission, which has set the terms in New York. I guess, Allysia, these swing state Republicans, and Kiley's got a pretty safe seat now, but he could not have a safe seat after this. These swing state Republicans could be a roadkill. Allysia Finley: Right. And so that's why you're seeing the movement in Congress to do something about this. Now, I'm not sure you're going to get other Republicans to jump on board with this, because they figured that they could probably gain more seats than Democrats could actually subtract, given that the Democratic states are already so heavily gerrymandered. Now there's talk about Ohio Republicans in Ohio, Missouri, obviously Texas redrawing their maps, and you could get 10 or 11 seats out of that. Paul Gigot: Hold it here, Allysia. 10 or 11 seats gained overall? Allysia Finley: The reason why is because you're probably going to get some redrawn districts also because, well, this is making a presumption that the Supreme Court might end up ruling in favor of Louisiana in this racial gerrymander case. And so you're likely then to get some lawsuits against some majority minority districts in these other states Republican that were drawn that give Democrats an extra seat. Paul Gigot: That would be Louisiana in particular. Allysia Finley: Particular. But there are several states where these majority minority districts were explicitly drawn and benefit Democrats. Paul Gigot: So Kim, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Missouri could possibly squeeze out one more Republican seat. Democrats have two in the state now. They could get one. What are potential Republican gains in Ohio and Florida as you look at it? Kim Strassel: So Ohio's in an interesting situation because essentially its map was not agreed to, so it was already in the middle of a process. It's not reopening anything. It's actually midway through a process of doing it. It also has an independent redistricting commission, but a bit of a mirror of California's. By the way, these independent redistricting commissions, that name is very misleading. They're not very independent in most states. If they are independent, they usually end in a deadlock. If they've actually successfully made a map, it's because they are dominated by one side or the other. In Ohio, they are dominated by, this one is dominated by Republicans, and they'll get a couple of seats; two, maybe three seats out of Ohio. You mentioned Missouri. One, they're looking at Indiana. You could maybe squeeze one more seat out of Indiana. And then a big discussion where people are looking more closely is Florida, where the House Speaker is now forming a special committee to look at the maps. Florida has a map that is helpful to Republicans, but it has not in any way gerrymandered itself the way that say California or Illinois or New York has. And if you went in there, I mean, could you get another four seats, something like that? And add in Allysia's majority minority point and, yeah, you could be looking, all told, at 10, 11 or so seats. Paul Gigot: And on the Democratic side, let's say you got two or three out of California and maybe one, two out of New York. Although, that might have to happen after 2026 in New York. Kim Strassel: Yeah, they can't get in this. Paul Gigot: Given the complication, they can't get it this year. So where else are the Democrats going to get it from? Kim Strassel: Yeah, I mean, look, they're looking at Oregon. That's my birth state. That's going to be pretty darn hard to do. Democrats hold five out of the six seats there, and the sixth seat is basically all of Eastern Oregon, which is a very conservative spot. You could redo all the maps to essentially have lines that reach from one end of the state to the other, basically cut it up like a layered cake maybe and get something like that, but it'd be pretty tough to do. Washington State, they're also looking at. But they don't have a lot of options, Paul, and this is why it's a very mismatched contest for them to have entered into, because guess what? Yeah, I mean, what Republicans are doing in Texas is quite an aggressive move, and they are following in the footsteps of what Democrats have already done. And that's the point, is that they have gerrymandered the dickens out of all of their states, and finding any more room for growth is going to be tough. But what they are doing by engaging Texas in this is giving Republicans the excuse they needed to reopen redistricting in a lot of states where they could actually squeeze some seats out. Paul Gigot: We're going to take another break, and when we come back, we'll talk about migration trends and how those are going to affect reapportionment in 2030, when we come back. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, "Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast." That is, "Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast." Announcer: From the Opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Paul Gigot: Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigot here on Potomac Watch with Kim Strassel and Allysia Finley. A point as we go into 2026 here, I think worth mentioning, is that when they talk about gerrymandering safe seats, they can now with the science of analyzing voter behavior and voting patterns, they can be very precise. But any given election still depends on the public mood. And if you get a status quo election in the House midterm, and sometimes there are, where it's closely fought and closely divided, those redistricting new maps would really matter. But if you got a wave election, as the Democrats had in 2018 and Republicans had in 2010 and 1994. You get big wave elections where the public mood swings remarkably against the president in office and his party, then you could put some of these gerrymandered seats would be in jeopardy, Allysia, because they would be facing new voters that don't know the incumbent, for one. Second, they'd have less safe margins. They might have moved down from a Republican 15 seat down to Republican five or six. Still, you'd think Republican would win, but in a wave, no guarantee. Allysia Finley: Right. So it's ironic if you go back and look at 22 years ago when Texas did a mid-decade redistricting, there was much ado and Democrats were warning, "Well, these partisan gerrymanders, Republican gerrymanders mean that we'll never have a chance of retaking the House until maybe after 2010." And then look what happened in 2006 and then 2008 where Democrats picked up 50 seats. And those were basically wave elections, illustrating your point. What's also important to know is that there are a lot of voters who are crossover voters, split voters who aren't partisan. So when we focus on the Republican voter advantage in certain districts, maybe they have a 15-point registration advantage or even a 20. In many of these districts, actually, independent unaffiliated voters actually constitute a plurality, and they are the ones who decide the elections. Now, in certain states and certain districts, they have trended more toward Republicans, but they could easily just as well go for Democrats. And a case in point in the opposite direction is David Valadao's district has a 16-point Democratic voter registration advantage, but he has managed to get a lot of crossover Democratic voters and Independents. And so in a wave election, like potentially 2026 could be if the voters are really upset and frustrated with Republicans or Donald Trump's policies, some of these gerrymanders could backfire, thinning the Republican margins and give Democrats more seats. Paul Gigot: Yeah, Valadao has proven to be a pretty resilient politician in the Central Valley of California. Kim, we also had a development here recently where Vice President Vance said that what we really need is not just a redistricting mid-decade, we need a new census mid-decade, because the census in 2020 was flawed, he says, because it included too many illegal aliens in the estimated count that determined which states would get which districts. And because of those flaws, he wants a new census mid-decade. And then of course all kinds of redistricting mayhem would flow from that. But the Constitution, of course, doesn't rule out a national count, a national census mid-decade. What it does rule out is reapportionment. It says very plainly that you can only reapportion once every decade coincident with the census. Kim Strassel: Right. So you couldn't use that census to now say, "Oh, look, all these people have moved to Texas. Texas gets yet another congressional seat." You can't do that. There is actually legislation that Congress passed that does allow for a mid-decade census, mostly in case if there's issues or problems and they think they might need to reorient federal funding allocations. That was the driving idea behind that legislation at the time. The problem here is logistics. It's actually amazing that we even pull off a census every decade given how difficult it is to conduct a census and how bad our federal government is at conducting censuses. And the idea that you could gear something like this up in six months and have it rolled out in any time of the conceivable near future is ludicrous. And if you did engage in such a process, I can promise you that the results that came in would not be very accurate. It might make the BLS look like a shiny example of statistical smartness by comparison. So I don't think that that's a very good idea. But don't underestimate just how sore a lot of Republicans are about the last census and the Supreme Court ruling that essentially ended their plan to disallow immigrants as part of the count. Donald Trump remains obsessed on this question. He's very, very grumpy. He believes that if they had been able to do what they wanted to do, that Republican states would have a lot more seats than they have now, and that the Republican Party was done ill by this. But again, even if you were to try to gear this up and somehow made it happen, you're not going to change that bottom line in terms of what states have seats now. Paul Gigot: Allysia, you know more about this than I do, and you followed this court case and so on. But on the census point, isn't it true that Texas has an awful lot of illegal migrants? So if you couldn't count the illegal migrants in Texas, it might not gain as many seats as it would otherwise, and then the Republicans wouldn't be able to gain that many additional seats. Allysia Finley: So there's a few actually different questions here. There's the question of, well, everyone gets counted. The census requires that every person be counted. Paul Gigot: Person, not just citizen. Allysia Finley: Person. Every single person. It says person. Paul Gigot: Right. Allysia Finley: Right. What the Trump administration wanted to do in its first term was to add a question on the census to ask if they were citizens. Now, Democrats sued to try to block that. They said, well, this will result in potentially illegal immigrants or people not responding to the census and that could hurt us. Now, the Supreme Court intervened on Administrative Procedure Act grounds and ruled that the administration's attempt to add a citizenship question was (inaudible). So it was not added. But there's the separate question is whether you can redistrict and reapportion seats based on citizenship or immigration status. Now that opens up a whole new can of worms. Are we going to only consider when we apportion House districts at the end of the decade or then redistrict? Are we only going to do that based on citizen voting age population and then exclude children because they're not voters? Are we only going to do it again based on citizen, or could we include immigrants who have green cards and aren't illegal? That's a whole nother court case, legal challenge that hasn't even been raised if they were to try to do that. And I think that would actually, as I said, open up a whole new can of worms. Paul Gigot: Kim, the larger big picture backdrop here, of course, are migration trends between the states. And what's really been happening for a long time now, and it accelerated during COVID, was the migration from states like California and Illinois and New York in particular to Texas, Florida, and some other Republican-run states, more rural states. And so the Brennan Center, which is a left-leaning outfit, has done an estimate. Current trends: Texas after the 2030 census could gain four seats. Florida, four seats. Utah, Idaho, North Carolina, and Arizona, one seat each. Meanwhile, California is expected to lose four. Lose four. New York, lose two. Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, lose won. Now, most of those losers are Democratic-tilted seats. So you look ahead to 2030 and the House gets more difficult for Democrats. Kim Strassel: Do you see the trend there, Paul? I always like to say that actually American citizens have two very powerful tools when they're unhappy with governance. One is the power to vote and the other is a U-Haul truck, especially if you do not like your state and local governance. And that's actually really been a fascinating theme in particular since COVID, because if you really dig into numbers and migration, we've always had migration in the United States, but a lot of it in the past was driven more by economic opportunity or change of life, retirement for instance, or maybe better schools in a different place. It's increasingly becoming a political choice for people, and that really accelerated, as you note, during COVID, as people had frustrations with lockdowns and certain forms of local governance that they just decided that they were done with. But it has accelerated, it's continued. These numbers are huge. It's been very good for Republican states, or at least states that are Republican now. One interesting question is if all these people move in, do they change the political tenor of the states and vote in a different way, shift the politics there? We'll have to see how that comes. But from an immediate perspective, this is something that ought to concern Democrats deeply. And as they are doing their non-autopsy at the moment, they might put on the list of things that they're not deeply looking into, this question of state and local governments, millionaires, taxes and economic penalties that are driving people out of their states, because this is going to be a big boom for Republicans. We're talking about the immediate redistricting problem and issue and political fight at the moment, but the long-term trends are the ones that really matter, and those are all going one direction. Paul Gigot: We've been writing about taxes, moving migration trends in some of these states. I saw the story in The Journal this morning about Democrats in blue states looking at the Massachusetts model to squeeze more money out of the wealthy. And of course, Massachusetts raised its top marginal tax rate to above 9%. It had been a flat tax of about five or so. Moved it up above nine, and then they're getting a windfall of revenue from that, at least here in the short to medium-term. And these blue states are saying, "Oh boy, we can try that." Well, they've tried it. It's very hard to get the tax rates higher in California than it already is. 13.3% I think is the top marginal rate there, and it hits at a very low level of income. The glorious city of New York, of which I am a not-so-proud resident, 14.8% top marginal rate. Where are you going to get that? Mamdami wants to raise it to 16.8. I can tell you that's going to drive more people out of the state. All right. We'll leave it there for today on Potomac Watch. Thanks to Kim. Thanks to Allysia. Thank you all for listening.
