Saturday, May 01, 2021

In Her Words: ‘I’m not a babysitter’

Childcare in America: Part 4
Josefina Lopez painting with children at Ohana Family Child Care.Virginia Lozano for The New York Times
Author Headshot

By Alisha Haridasani Gupta

Gender Reporter

"We are the essential to the essential."

— Belen Lopez, the owner of Ohana Family Child Care in Vista, Calif.

ADVERTISEMENT

In Her Words is highlighting the stories of child care providers from across the United States. You can read the full series here.

One day last April, Belen Lopez woke up at 2 a.m. to drive to the nearest Costco.

She needed to stock up on toilet paper, bread and fruit, and she knew the lines outside the store got long very quickly. She also wanted to get in during the allocated essential worker shopping hours because later in the day, most things were out of stock.

They didn't let her in. "I wasn't considered an essential employee," Ms. Lopez, 44, recalled. "I argued; I spoke to the managers and the supervisors and still, I had to wait until 10 a.m."

ADVERTISEMENT

Those items she wanted to buy were essential for Ms. Lopez's business — she runs a child-care center out of her home called Ohana Family Child Care. And she needed food for the children she was looking after, including one whose parents both worked as doctors at a hospital and a Covid ward. She had even carried her child-care license with her to show the Costco workers that she was shopping for work, not for herself.

"I've always said we are the essential to the essential. Without us, there's no nurses, there's no doctors, there's no infrastructure, because they need care for their children," she said. But that experience waiting outside Costco opened her eyes to the fact that even in a crisis, others don't see her that way.

Posters in English and Spanish telling children to wash their hands at Ohana Family Daycare.Virginia Lozano for The New York Times

"I'm not a babysitter; I don't sit at home, watching TV while these children are just doing what they want," she said. "I do instructional work and I prepare a curriculum. I go to school, I take trainings, I take coaching, I work with the San Diego county of education so that I can prepare my children for preschool."

Before the pandemic, Ms. Lopez looked after 10 children of all ages, from a 2-month-old to an 8-year-old who would spend afternoons with her after school. One toddler spent several nights at her place in 2019 when his mother went into labor to give birth to his baby sister. All her children call her husband "papa."

An analysis by the Department of Education found that, in 2019, about 18 percent of the children across the country enrolled in some kind of day care arrangement were cared for in residential-based centers, like Ms. Lopez's. While that seems like a small slice of the industry, it is a crucial segment that provides a safe space for parents who work nontraditional hours, are in low-income jobs or live in rural communities, according to the National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance.

Ms. Lopez used to charge up to $250 per week for children aged zero to 2. She had three other women on her payroll — a cleaner and two assistants — and, because she didn't have to rent a space, used to make a healthy profit of about $8,500 a month.

Now, a year into the pandemic, she has burned through her savings to stay afloat and is about two months away from shutting down her child-care center permanently.

At the outset of the pandemic, seven families pulled their children out of Ms. Lopez's center, leaving her with just three — an 18-month-old and two 3-year-olds. Most of her client families had lost their jobs and could no longer afford to pay for child care. But closing down on the three other children, when their parents needed her most, was not an option. "I can't shut my doors on them. They're a part of me as much as I'm a part of them," she said. "I don't see it just as a paycheck."

So to keep things running, she applied for a P.P.P. loan and a grant from the Small Businesses Administration. She got a total of $3,800, which helped her cover payroll through April. Then she had to let go of her staff and do everything herself.

Belen Lopez walks outside with her students to check on trees that they planted at Ohana Family Daycare in Vista, Calif.Virginia Lozano for The New York Times

Every day since, she has been waking up at 4 a.m. to prepare breakfast and lunch for the children, and lay out her teaching plan before the three children arrive at around 7.30 a.m. After a packed day of activities — exercise, story time, play time, snack time, nap time — their parents start picking them up at 5 p.m. Then Ms. Lopez goes through and disinfects everything in her house to reset for the next day.

In August, she asked her daughter, Josefina, 21, who plans to attend college later this year, to help out every now and then.

The fees that Ms. Lopez charges for those three full-time children amount to just over $1,800 a month. In September, when some schools opened back up, she took in one more 6-year-old child on a part-time basis — dropping him off at school and picking him up — and receives about $132 a week in government subsidies to look after him.

Food alone for the three full-time children costs her up to $600 a month. Extra sanitizing equipment and utilities more or less eat up whatever is left. She had applied for a second P.P.P. loan and was denied. She used to be able to give herself a paycheck of $2,300 a month, but can no longer afford to do that.

"It's getting to the point where I'm considering, should I just start looking for another part-time job?"

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

What else is happening

Here are three articles from The Times you may have missed.

Claudia Spellmant, a transgender activist, fled Honduras in 2013 and now lives in New York City.Natalie Keyssar for The New York Times
  • "Trans women live their lives in a vortex of discrimination and violence." Outraged by a long-ignored slaying in Honduras, lawyers are urging a human rights court in Central America to force governments to better protect transgender people. [Read the story]
  • "Nobody ever told me this, my mother never told me this." Why is perimenopause still such a mystery? Our parenting columnist digs in. [Read the story]
  • "It made me deeply uneasy." Ruth Franklin looks at the downsides of men writing about men — especially in the world of literary biography, in which literary agents and executors dole out access to prestigious writers or their papers based on opaque criteria. [Read the guest essay]

In Her Words is written by Alisha Haridasani Gupta and edited by Francesca Donner. Our art director is Catherine Gilmore-Barnes, and our photo editor is Judith Levitt.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here to get future installments. Write to us at inherwords@nytimes.com. Follow us on Instagram at @nytgender.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for In Her Words from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

instagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Politics: Joe Biden, the reverse Ronald Reagan

Decades later, another president aims to transform Americans' ideas about the size of government.
Author Headshot

By Lisa Lerer

National Political Correspondent

Hi. Welcome to On Politics, your wrap-up of the week in national politics. I'm Lisa Lerer, your host.

President Reagan giving his State of the Union address in 1987. Years earlier, as he kicked off his political revolution, he had stood before Congress and said, "Our government is too big, and it spends too much."Courtesy Reagan Presidential Library

Forty years ago, a new president stood before a joint session of Congress and delivered a simple message: "Our government is too big, and it spends too much."

Sitting in the audience, the junior senator from Delaware — a young Joseph Biden — couldn't possibly have predicted how President Ronald Reagan's words would come to define politics for generations. But for the decades that followed, Biden, along with most of his party, would operate in the shadow of Reagan, believing that an outright embrace of big government would be politically detrimental. Like so many Democrats, he joined efforts to curb deficits, fretted about government spending and generally favored more incremental kinds of policies that could attract bipartisan support.

Until now.

This past week, four decades to the day after Reagan's address, Biden put forward a very different approach, one that historians, political scientists and strategists in both parties believe could signal the end of fiscal conservative dominance in our politics. In his speech before Congress, Biden sketched out an agenda packed with "once in a generation" investments that would touch nearly every corner of American life, everything from cancer research to child care to climate change.

"It's time we remembered that 'we the people' are the government. You and I," he said. "Not some force in a distant capital."

ADVERTISEMENT

With Biden's early agenda, his administration is making what amounts to a $6 trillion bet that the dueling crises of the coronavirus pandemic and the economic downturn, paired with the political upheaval of the Trump era, have rekindled the romance between Americans and their government. Through his Covid relief bill and infrastructure proposals, Biden is striving to prove that government can craft policies that tangibly improve our daily lives, delivering benefits like improved roads, more education, better internet, paid time off to care for a sick family member, and help supporting older parents.

White House aides say that Biden also sees government as the solution for a more abstract kind of problem: a deeply polarized country that might be unified around a national response to a series of crises involving climate change, racial justice, public health and the economy. The administration is hardly hiding its effort — Biden has self-consciously cloaked himself in the legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, an attempt to hark back to an earlier age of liberalism when government pulled the country out of despair.

"We have to prove democracy still works," he said in his speech on Wednesday. "That our government still works — and can deliver for the people."

Succeeding in that mission will mean accomplishing a sea change in American politics. The idea that Reagan put forward in his 1980 campaign — that Americans were sick and tired of government — was internalized by both parties.

ADVERTISEMENT

For Republicans, it became a core belief. Democrats, for their part, tried for decades to co-opt the idea.

President Bill Clinton's strategy of triangulation was essentially an effort to lift pieces of Reaganism for Democratic gains. "The era of big government is over," he famously declared in his 1996 State of the Union address.

Deeply aware of the role Reagan played in shifting American views on spending, President Barack Obama took office in 2009 believing that his administration could help end the country's adherence to conservative economic policy.

"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not," Obama said during his 2008 campaign. "He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the '60s and the '70s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet Obama also struggled to escape that path, eventually moderating his agenda and spending months making fruitless efforts to get bipartisan support for his ideas. Even the health care law that would come to be named after him was a compromise between liberals, who wanted a single-payer system, and moderates, who feared the size of such a huge new program.

There's some evidence that Biden may be able to accomplish what Obama could not. Since the start of the pandemic, polling has found Americans expressing more positive sentiments about their government over all. Nearly two-thirds of Americans supported Biden's relief bill, with similar numbers backing his infrastructure plans. The most recent NBC News polling found that 55 percent of Americans said government should do more, compared with 47 percent who said the same a dozen years ago.

Unlike in 2009, when the government response to the Great Recession helped ignite the Tea Party movement, there's been no backlash so far to the big spending in Washington. After Congress passed the $1.9 trillion relief bill, many Republican voters told me that they were supportive of the legislation. Republicans in Washington have struggled to find a cohesive line of attack against the policy. And some who voted against the bill now highlight its benefits, an implicit acknowledgment of public support.

Former President Donald Trump, too, helped hasten the death of limited government, undercutting Republican credibility for making the case against federal spending. He drove the national debt to the highest level since World War II, pushing through a $2 trillion tax cut that did little for middle-class families.

While Republicans spent, Democrats embraced a liberal wing of their party that had long argued that free-spending proposals like universal health care, free college and raising the minimum wage were popular with voters. The enthusiasm within the party for Senator Bernie Sanders's presidential primary bid in 2016 helped drive that case. By the time he ran again in 2020, most of his rival primary candidates had adopted some of his ideas — including Biden.

Razor-thin Democratic margins in the Senate mean that Biden can pass some of his program without Republican support. Those efforts have their limits: Senate budget rules curtail what Democrats can push through with simple majority votes. But so far party leaders show little sign of restraining their ambitions. "Big, bold action," Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, promised in an interview this week.

"The center has moved," said Faiz Shakir, a political adviser to Sanders who managed the senator's 2020 presidential campaign. "And Biden is aware, as a politician, of the progressive moment in history that he's operating in."

That was clear as Biden made his way up the aisle of the House chamber after his speech on Wednesday, shaking hands and schmoozing with a small group of lawmakers who attended in person. After the president left the podium, one of the first lawmakers he greeted in the hall was Sanders.

For a brief moment, it wasn't totally clear which one of the two former primary rivals was the real winner. Sure, Biden has the presidency. But like Reagan, Sanders seems to be winning the political revolution.

Drop us a line!

We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We'll try to answer it. Have a comment? We're all ears. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com or message me on Twitter at @llerer.

By the numbers: 78

… That's the number of false or misleading statements, according to the Washington Post Fact Checker, that Biden made during his first 100 days in office. That compares with 511 such statements in Trump's first 100 days.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

… Seriously

Shut. It. Down. All of it. (For a week.) cc: Joe Biden, my bosses, everyone in America.

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Thanks for reading. On Politics is your guide to the political news cycle, delivering clarity from the chaos.

Is there anything you think we're missing? Anything you want to see more of? We'd love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018