Most US adults say child care costs are a ‘major problem,' a new AP-NORC poll finds
But they're divided over how to solve the problem and what role the government should have in that solution.
About three-quarters of U.S. adults see child care costs as a 'major problem,' but only about half say helping working families pay for child care should be a 'high priority' for the federal government, according to the June poll from
The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research
.
The coronavirus pandemic was a tipping point, revealing the child care industry's vulnerabilities. The latest congressional
package of tax cuts
included tax credits and benefits for parents and businesses that assist employees with child care. Those changes have been praised by some, while others say millions of families at lower income levels wouldn't get the full credit and would be affected by
cuts in Medicaid and food stamps
.
The poll findings help explain the difficulty advocacy groups, elected officials and families navigate in trying to address the high costs of care: While most agree it's a problem, there isn't a simple fix. For instance, while government-funded child care is popular, that might not be everyone's first choice. Many U.S. adults also think it's better for children with two parents to be cared for full time by a parent.
'Everyone kind of agrees that it's a problem that we need to address,' said Sarah Rittling, executive director of the First Five Years Fund advocacy organization. 'By having this issue out there, it really is driving a lot of bipartisan conversations.'
Some consensus on free day care and paid family leave
Most Americans support initiatives to offer child care or additional time for working families to spend with babies. About two-thirds support providing free or low-cost day care for children too young to attend public school, and a similar share favor requiring employers to provide paid family leave for new parents.
Women are more likely than men to support the proposals, and Democrats are more likely than Republicans, but each is popular across the board.
Mary Banek, a nurse anesthetist of Midlothian, Texas, said she helps take care of her 1-year-old grandson so he doesn't need day care. When she had her kids, she left the workforce and got a license to start a day care from her home to watch 12 children, including her own, so she could generate income.
Banek said she's surprised at the high fees at day cares these days.
'I don't know what's happened and why it is so expensive,' Banek said, adding maybe there's a way to cap costs. She doesn't feel the government should foot the cost.
Many think parents should be caregivers
While many solutions focus on families with working parents, there isn't broad agreement this is the best arrangement for children. Just under half of U.S. adults, 45%, say children with two parents are better off when one parent doesn't have a job and raises the children. Only about 1 in 10 say children are better off when both parents work full time, and about 4 in 10 say it doesn't make a difference.
Vice President JD Vance has tried to push for ideas that would
encourage Americans to have families
but has opposed government spending on child care, saying children benefit from having a parent or family member at home as a caretaker.
About half of men say children with two parents are better off when one is the full-time caregiver, compared with about 4 in 10 women.
Stephen Yip-Wineman, 45, a high school teacher from Murrieta, California, who describes himself as a moderate, said he feels society doesn't see the value of parents choosing to be caretakers.
'A lot of people are pushed into the idea that everyone in their family is going to work and that's the way of being a productive member of society,' Yip-Wineman said. 'They think staying home and taking care of the kids is somehow not contributing.'
Yip-Wineman has two children ages 12 and 14, and their mother stays home, but he says his ideas of having a parent do the caretaking don't have to do with making the mother the primary caretaker.
'Having a parent raise the kids is not about pushing traditional Christian values and trying to keep women out of the workplace,' he said. 'It's about trying to be more personally engaged with each other.'
Are changes happening?
Many Democrats and Republicans have endorsed expansions to the child tax credit as a way to support families and lift children and young families out of poverty.
While campaigning as Donald Trump's running mate, Vance raised the possibility of increasing the child tax credit to $5,000, saying that would help more parents stay home with their children.
About 7 in 10 U.S. adults said they'd support increasing the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for parents who are U.S. citizens, a Washington Post/Ipsos poll from June found. Republicans and Democrats were similarly likely to support this: About 8 in 10 of each were in favor.
In the final bill, however, the child tax credit increased to $2,200.
Beyond expanding the child tax credit, the package also increased a benefit allowing most working parents to claim a higher percentage of their child care expenses and get more tax credits.
Organizations want increased funding for federal early-learning and care programs, including a child care program for low-income families and an early-education program called Head Start. Trump's Republican administration
backed away from a proposal
this year to
eliminate funding for Head Start
.
Other groups, including Child Care Aware of America, have pointed out the new law's cuts in Medicaid would result in a loss of health coverage for many child care workers.
___
The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
39 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Republicans Block Vote to Release Epstein Files
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. Republican lawmakers have blocked a move that could have forced President Donald Trump's administration to release the files on the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's death and investigation. All but one of the GOP members of the House Rules Committee voted against a Democrat amendment that would have allowed Congress to vote on whether the files should be made public or not. Republicans in the House Rules Committee just stopped an amendment that, if passed, would force Congress to vote on whether the Trump Administration should release the Epstein files. What are they hiding? — Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (@RepTeresaLF) July 15, 2025 The amendment, introduced by Californian Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, was voted down 5 to 7 on Monday evening. Khanna posted on X, formerly Twitter, saying: "Rules voted 5-7 to block the full House from voting on my amendment to have a FULL release of the Epstein file. People are fed up. They are fed up. Thanks Rep. Ralph Norman. Need to put the American people before party!" Rules voted 5-7 to block the full House from voting on my amendment to have a FULL release of the Epstein file. People are fed up. They are fed up. Thanks @RepRalphNorman. Need to put the American people before party! — Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) July 15, 2025 The Epstein case has remained a lightning rod in American political discourse, fueling conspiracy theories and mistrust in governmental institutions over the past several years. The controversy reignited after the Justice Department's recent memo concluded there was no evidence of a client list or blackmail materials, contradicting previous statements. Tesla CEO Elon Musk previously claimed in a now-deleted post that Trump's name appeared in the Epstein files, and he called on Trump to release the files "as promised." Trump, who has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, has tried to move the conversation away from the issue and there is no evidence that Trump is mentioned in any unreleased files related to the sex offender. Jeffrey Epstein pictured in 2017. Jeffrey Epstein pictured in 2017. New York State Sex Offender Registry/AP This is a developing story. More to follow.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The megabill's Medicaid cuts shocked hospitals, but they may never happen
And 2028 is not only an election year, but a presidential one. 'Are they really going to want to cut rural hospitals in an election?' asked Chris Mitchell, head of the Iowa Hospital Association. 'We're going to talk to our delegation early and often about the impact of these cuts and how looming cuts down the road impact how hospitals run in the interim.' Heartening for hospital executives is a now-long history of Congress delaying or repealing the painful parts of major legislation. Congress, for example, never allowed a tax on high-end 'Cadillac' insurance plans in 2010's Affordable Care Act to take effect, and rescinded a tax on medical devices. 'We saw it with the Affordable Care Act, and we will certainly see it with this bill,' predicted Ben Klein, a former Democratic Senate aide and founding partner of Red+Blue Strategies, a lobbying firm that counts major hospital groups and systems among its clients. Congress' habit of revisiting painful cuts also guarantees a multiyear windfall for K Street, the Washington corridor where many lobbyists have their shops. Lobbyists with ties to Trump or Republicans in Congress have already seen a surge in revenue this year. Several state-based hospital associations say they will ramp up meetings with lawmakers to stress the need for an off-ramp before the 2028 elections. Even before the megabill's enactment, some Republicans in competitive districts were suggesting Congress may need to tweak a provision restricting states' ability to extract more money from the Treasury if it causes problems for hospitals. 'If it looks like we have issues and we're not comfortable, we can change it,' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said before the House voted to pass the bill last week. 'Things are subject to change. We're going to have different members of Congress. We're going to have a new president. Things are going to be different.' If the lobbyists are successful in undoing the cuts — which mostly target Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for low-income people — it'll mean the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will be even more expensive than the Congressional Budget Office expects: $3.4 trillion in deficit spending over a decade. That will have ramifications across the U.S. economy, exposing Americans to higher interest rates and slower economic growth, budget experts warn. 'If they are successful in getting these reductions delayed, modified, scaled back, … it will be a tax on future generations,' said Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and longtime GOP Senate budget aide. But that's a deal hospital executives — who have predicted the cuts could threaten some facilities' survival — are willing to take. Delays and cuts States use two tools to get higher Medicaid payments from the federal government. The first is a tax on hospitals and other providers. States use the tax revenue to pay their share of Medicaid, which offers insurance to more than 70 million low-income Americans. Hospitals don't mind because states cover the tax with bigger Medicaid payments. Conservative advocates of reining in the practice say it amounts to 'money laundering' because states with bigger Medicaid budgets qualify for larger federal contributions. That can also free up money in state budgets to pay for other things, like coverage for undocumented immigrants. But states and hospitals say the tax is vital because Medicaid reimbursements don't cover the true costs of care. The megabill incrementally lowers the rate states can levy from 6 percent of patient revenue to 3.5 percent. In 2028, the cuts start to phase in at 0.5 percent and continue for several years until reaching 3.5 percent. The new law permits the 10 red states that have chosen not to take advantage of a provision in Obamacare encouraging them to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people to keep their taxes but not increase them. Restricting the provider taxes will hit hospitals that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients hard, their advocates say. Second, the bill targets a wonky financial tool states use to boost hospitals' Medicaid revenue called state-directed payments. The tool enables states to boost the rates privately run managed care plans, which contract with states to cover Medicaid patients, reimburse providers. States have ordered higher rates for chronically underfunded hospitals and facilities. In some cases, states have required the plans to pay providers at commercial rates, which are much higher than those paid by Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health insurance program for elderly people. Overall the bill will cut more than $1 trillion in health spending over the next decade, with the majority coming from Medicaid. This includes not just the state cuts but also the effects of other provisions, such as new rules requiring some Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer or attend school. Hospitals are trying to figure out how to make up funding gaps that could reach billions of dollars — and warning their representatives and senators of what's ahead. States could raise income taxes or find ways to shed Medicaid enrollment to help contain costs, hospital executives said. In West Virginia, facilities may delay construction projects or cut services, said Jim Kaufman, president and CEO of the West Virginia Hospital Association. Some areas that could be targeted are obstetrics or pediatric care, which are already in short supply in rural areas. 'One out of every two births is covered by Medicaid,' he said. Getting grandfathered Lawmakers are likely to hear more in the coming months about the impacts on their local hospitals. The industry has always been a powerful one in Washington since hospitals care for lawmakers' constituents and also employ many of them. The Iowa Hospital Association's Mitchell said lawmakers may think twice once they see the consequences of the cuts. 'We won't be talking theoretically,' he said. 'Unless there's intervention, we know how things will shake out.' Republicans did include a $50 billion relief fund for rural hospitals to stretch out over five years. Details on how that money will be distributed remain scant as states await guidance from the Trump administration. But it is unlikely to fully offset the losses, several hospital groups said. That's because rural hospitals serve mostly Medicare and Medicaid patients and the rates the government pays are usually far less than what private insurers do. In Virginia, large hospital systems in urban areas might get a sixth of their revenue from state-directed payments. For rural facilities, it is closer to a third, said Julian Walker, vice president of communications for the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association. Advocates for rural hospitals, as well as urban ones that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients, are highlighting their vulnerability. Larry Bucshon, a Republican lobbyist and former heart and lung surgeon who served seven terms representing an Indiana House district, said he expects Congress will have to do more to help them. 'There is going to have to be some work done to say, 'Well, we need to have more grandfathering,'' he said. Still, lobbyists for hospitals said they aren't taking that for granted. They point out that the Paragon Health Institute, a Trump-aligned think tank, made the case for changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments and that many Republicans believe strongly that Medicaid costs have grown too rapidly and that some states provide benefits to people who don't need them. That threatens the program's stability, Republicans said during the megabill debate. 'They may not be as from the Paragon Institute work inside the White House and have been pushing for these changes that have now become enshrined in law,' a lobbyist for multiple hospitals, granted anonymity to speak freely on the situation, said. At the same time, any changes going forward will likely need bipartisan support and Democrats might not be eager to help Republicans out of a jam if the GOP finds itself trying to stop unpopular provisions from taking effect in an election year. 'I don't want to hear Jeff Van Drew, or any Republican from New Jersey, or any Republican in this House telling me that they're going to correct bad things that they did today,' said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) after the final megabill House vote last week. Still, Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he wants to reverse the Medicaid cuts. 'I'm determined to ultimately reverse all the terrible things they've done to Medicaid, to the ACA, to make health care less affordable, more costly,' Pallone said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
DC Council partially funds ranked choice voting, falls short of full implementation
The Brief D.C. council voted to partially fund a ranked choice voting measure, supported by 73% of D.C. residents. The initiative has not passed yet; however, the Council is headed towards approving it ahead of the 2026 election season. The council is expected to meet again in August to further discuss implementation options. WASHINGTON - The D.C. council voted to partially fund Initiative 83, which includes ranked choice voting, but fell short of fully implementing it on Monday afternoon. What we know In ranked choice voting, voters can rank candidates in order of preference, rather than choose one. If passed, the initiative would take effect in time for the 2026 election, so voters can rank mayoral candidates regardless of party affiliation, and rank their preferred candidate at number one. Why you should care D.C. is a diverse city with a not-so-diverse voting population. In a 2024 poll, 92% of registered voters were Democrats, and 6% were Republicans. With ranked choice voting, voters can rank Democrats rather than just pick one. What they're saying DC Shadow Representative, Oye Owolewa, says he appreciates the council for "hearing the voices of the people" and for the initial funding of ranked choice voting. "As someone who fights for DC's full democracy on the national stage, I'm encouraged to see progress at home," Owolewa says. The Source Information in this story comes from U.S. Representative Oye Owolewa's press release.
