Child care is a necessity for the middle class

Columnist takes a giant leap connecting massive electrical blackout with saving for RRSPs

I envy Mr. Fletcher’s position of being able to publish his half-thought-out ideas and opinions without the nuisance of having to respond to his critics.

In this instance, he makes a great leap from the “worst electrical grid failure on record” to the following:  “Are you competent to save for your retirement with RRSPs and a tax-free savings account, or do you need the government to do it for you, by force? Are you capable of managing your own child care, or should the nanny state create a hugely subsidized system…”

One can only imagine the circuitous route he took to link the one to the others. But it’s government that tells its citizens that it will take care of them, all through taxation – without actually naming what this care will be. No hard contract as it were, save such advice as “don’t arm yourself against intruders and let the police handle what they are paid to do.”  Somehow though, we are (according the Mr. Fletcher) to take care of our own RRSPs and TFSAs.

Likewise, we are to arrange for our own childcare – in spite of the plain fact that, since the late ‘70s to the present day, middle-class families have been dual income, out of necessity and not just to have a little spending cash. In order to pursue  the middle-class lifestyle that both Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau make much mention of, daycare is a necessity in this society.

Another necessity in this society are roads, and infrastructure in general. Yet I hear not a peep from Mr. Fletcher regarding “the nanny state” that subsidizes these.  But I do not read about  how citizens should band together to build roads and sewers and water lines, rather than depend on “the nanny state” to do this.  What’s up with that, Mr. Fletcher?

Richard Weatherill