A dirigist child policy?

Image par Alexandra_Koch de Pixabay

In an excellent interview of Mick Entringer at 100.7, there was, among other things, family policy or free childcare, which seems to be similar to the Prime Minister. Here is a small part of that interview:

X. Bettel: “But we would just like to have it not be the choice that if one has the opportunity not to turn his child into a childcare provider, because he says, then it is too expensive for him to makes!
Childcare is the place where children live together, where they receive the social component, where they receive the diversity of our society. We are of the opinion that it is important to encourage a family today, even if they have the resources, to provide for their children and childcare, which will result in the subsequent giving of this incentive, including a married woman. at the moment may not have worked, may be working, because then she knows that she has more time to build things on her own. ”(source 100,7)


Regardless of that huddle and the syntax, the Prime Minister wants to tell us: The children belong to devils come out, to a nursery, and a maison relay! In part, I can reconcile his considerations: as a child, one gets rather a social component when one is with many other children; Soon it was possible: in the morning you were sitting at the mother’s desk. In the afternoon you walked to the side where you were together with others and often under the supervision of your mothers. That is no longer possible, already alone, because the wisdom has now disappeared. I can also understand that the woman is in great danger as soon as she stops working: at that time the man can die (natural death or accident) or he can leave the woman who then often in the rain Don’t talk about this trend in poverty at the monopoly rate! And anyway, the wife often has a smaller pension because of her children!


“Gambia 2 refuses to tackle the gleaming iron of social selectivity!”


ere, however, a state doctrine is practiced which is not so smooth and does not fit with the DP, and which leaves no one other than Party President Corinne Cahen. I very much welcome that the maison’s relay is free. But does this actually have to be for everyone ?! It’s like using the public transport: free of charge, yes, but only for those who can afford it. The Prime Minister defended the idea of ​​the government in the sense that he believed that even among those households that have € 12,000 a month would certainly be under pressure for which a maison relay would actually be expensive; I believe that too, but assume that these are the exceptions. The Gambia 2 refuses, as did the Yemeni governments (black / red), to tackle the glittering iron of social selectivity!

The index tranche is for everyone, and the 2.5% rate for those with $ 10,000 of income is higher than the one with the minimum wage. What one does not need, he gets too much, and the other one too little. Another example: must an elderly person, with a pension of € 8000 / month in December, pay the so-called 13 month? Politics I can understand, because when one speaks of selectivity, one must think of new injustices that result: where does one stop, where does one stop ?!

“Today the situation has changed completely: wife / couple has the choice”!

Family policy is decided first and foremost in the couple themselves, and this is how it is to be a couple. The state should provide social support, with the necessary infrastructure and with financial support. Fortunately, there are many ways to do that today than before! 30 years ago, there was a single nursery on the ice ridge! That’s a must!

image credits:pixabay

There the woman / couple did not have much choice, at least the woman stopped working for a while until the children were big enough to stand on their own feet. Today, however, the situation has changed completely: the woman / couple often has the choice – except as mentioned, a woman who is alone.

I have seen many young women become mothers over the last 10 years. They have all – without exception – taken parental leave, in one way or the other. In the households that could afford it (single-mindedly), the woman worked on mi-temps (sometimes the man, here and there). These couples thus went on to a healthy mix: the child is still attracted to some of the parents, and the other goes into a maisonne relay.


” As said: the state is there to accompany its citizens in the organization of their lives. There is no way he can interfere in their private life! Liberal politics looks different!”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here