by William Skink

Just the headline pisses me off: UM study says Montana parents struggle to find reliable childcare. Yeah, no shit. Why is a study needed to tell us this? What’s next, a study that shows people who jump in rivers get wet?

Reading the article is even more maddening, and raises a question in my mind, specifically what the hell is the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis doing funding this study? From the link:

MISSOULA, Mont. — A study by the University of Montana funded by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that unreliable childcare in Montana has an economic impact on the millions of Montana parents, employers and taxpayers.

Missing work, turning down job offers and changing from full-time to part-time work are three problems Montana parents say they faced this past year due to unreliable childcare.

I thought the job of central banks was printing fiat currency to buy toxic assets to cover insolvent banks in order to shift the consequences of systemic corruption from Wall Street to Main Street. Little did I know they also throw money at failing universities like UM to produce gems of economic insight, like this:

The study found that households making $30,000 or less each year lost more than 10% of their income in wages due to unreliable childcare.

If parents have to leave work to take care of their child, that parent loses wages and businesses have absent employees. Sonora said the economic impact affects parents, the state and taxpayers.

“If my income goes down then I’m paying less into state and federal government in terms of tax revenue,” said Sonora. “So other taxpayers have to fill in that space.”

Ah, the sacred taxpayer. I think I’m starting to understand where this is going. And my understanding was helped by also reading how the Missoulian covered this story. Here is an excerpt from that article:

Kelly Rosenleaf, the executive director of Childcare Resources Inc. in Missoula, lamented the fact that the Republican-controlled state Legislature and Democrat Gov. Steve Bullock were not able to find a way to permanently fund pre-kindergarten education in the past session. Montana is one of only a handful of states without publicly-funded “pre-K” education programs.

So, to summarize, the central bank gave the university money to study the economic impacts of unreliable childcare because our Republican legislature didn’t pass our Democratic Governor’s top goal of funding pre-k last session, which ultimately leads to a situation where other taxpayers have to fill the space.

This study SHOULD help make the case that funding pre-k for Montanans makes sense from a fiscally conservative standpoint. Once upon a time I thought making fiscally conservative arguments would make a difference for critical programs, like, for example, Medicaid. But I was wrong.

Conservatives in Montana don’t actually believe in fiscal conservative principles, which was crystal clear during the 2019 session when these assholes talked about drug testing Medicaid recipients. When Scott Sales says he wants to make Medicaid “more affordable for the taxpayer” he us utterly full of shit. From the link (my emphasis):

Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock, a vocal advocate of the program, is asking the Legislature to extend Medicaid expansion in its current form, including the state’s approximate $60 million-a-year share of the cost. The federal government covers the remainder.

But leaders of the Republican-controlled Legislature say if they agree to extend the program, it will come with some changes.

“That program needs to be more affordable for the taxpayers,” says Senate President Scott Sales (R-Bozeman) who voted against the initial approval of Medicaid expansion in 2015. “I believe it needs to have a lot more sideboards put on.”

Some of those “sideboards,” or additional requirements for those getting coverage from the program, could be an asset test, work requirements or a drug test, Sales told MTN News.

The hard-on conservatives have for spending tax money on drug testing is one of the more stupid and fiscally irresponsible things they seem to constantly support. Who cares if spending over $200,000 only caught about 300 nefarious drug users? From the link:

Thirteen states spent more than $200,000 screening federal-aid applicants for drugs last year. Only 338 people tested positive, according to data gathered by ThinkProgress.

In total, the states required more than 260,000 people to submit to drug screening or testing as a condition of receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which provides cash assistance to low-income people. In some states, not one person tested positive.

With this context in mind, I’m going to make a prediction. Next year, during our legislative session, I expect Democrats will once again try to fund pre-k in Montana, and Republicans will once again be the assholes who ignore the beneficial economic impacts. As always, those who are struggling will continue to struggle, and those who are vulnerable will pay the price.