I think some of us are trying to, but it is a bit difficult to get the message out and, at least in current times, it tends to be pushed back towards a discussion of whether people should be at home and kids should be raised at home. There was a long five- or six-year period when we thought $100 a month was a child care plan—which it clearly isn't. I think there is some residual fear that it's some kind of institutional model, but really there has been a huge social change. Back in 1976 about 27% of women with young children were in the workforce. Women's employment marched up year by year, and we didn't get a corresponding social program to support that.
We all know that incomes have stagnated. It takes two incomes to feed a family, and if a woman is alone and can't afford child care, the choice is social assistance. It's not only that there is a lack of investment in the kids getting out and being with other kids and being in an enriched environment of child care, it's also the example they see.