Lieberman cancelled day care subsidy for avreichim

I probably should not be writing anything on this topic, and anything I do write, its point will almost definitely be taken out of context and/or misunderstood... so to pre-empt any assumptions base don what I write, I am NOT in favor of the canceling of the subsidies to day care for avreichim that Finance Minister Avigdor Lieberman just announced a few days ago.

Here is the thing though. 

the day care subsidies are run through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce. They were intended to be a form of assistance and stimulus that would encourage more people, especially more women, to go out and joint he workforce. With the young kids taken care of at a reasonable price, parents, especially mothers, would be more willing to go out and work. Receiving the subsidy as always dependent on both parents working.

At some point, I recall, the Haredi political parties lobbied the government and got avreichim included in the deal as if they are working fathers, so if the mothers would go out to work, it would be considered both parents working and they could qualify for the subsidy. They worked this out despite that not being the intention of the subsidy. It was also despite the fact that the avreichim receive a stipend, not a salary, which is a big legal difference in many government offices for many discounts received and many subsidies.

(I tried to do some research on the history of this subsidy but could not really find anything relevant. The search results were overwhelmingly about the current situation and I could not find anything relevant about the history of when avreichim were included - if anyone has specific information and details, please fill us in, even, or especially, if I am wrong)

I totally understand why the Haredi community, especially the politicians who have been speaking out about it the past few days, are outraged. This is significant money being taken away from their constituents. I have seen different estimates, but they are all pretty significant. 

I do not believe a significant number of women will stop working, as the politicians are claiming, because of this. For most women it will still be "worth" going out to work. That genie is already out of the bottle and it wont be put back in so easily - women are out in the workforce making decent salaries, having careers to some extent, meeting and communicating with other adults, being intellectually stimulated, and won't want to go back to being stuck at home changing diapers and reading books to 3 year old children all day. As honorable as being a stay at home mom is, most women who go out and feel intellectually stimulated by that and enjoy the additional income wont want to go back to being stay home moms. They won't stop working (though surely some will, especially those working in near/minimum wage positions) but they will find other solutions. Some will pay the increased full rate, because it is still worth it for them, some will find cheaper day care solutions, and some will have family to rely on to help with the kids...

I am not against the avreichim getting included in this subsidy, but just like the previous government had the right to decide to include the avreichim in it, this government has the right to say it is only for working parents, as was the original intent. The loss of one discount isnt going to destroy the Haredi community. Of course, Lieberman may still tack on a few more and that could definitely hurt many when combined, but this specific subsidy was never intended to be welfare assistance but was meant to be a stimulus for gainful employment (hence why it is processed through the Ministry of Economy and Trade and not through the various welfare departments). 

This isnt even a surprise. This is what Avigdor Lieberman campaigned on. The anger that Bennett said he would have veto power religious issues is laughable - considering how the Haredi parties have continuously attacked and bad mouthed him since the formation of the government, they still expect him to be their savior for every little thing? Besides, if he vetoes this, he might lose his government, and there are likely far more important issues coming down the pipeline that will need his veto far more than this. He can't veto everything, and they do have to pay a price for not being in the government - you can't oppose the government, stay out, attack it regularly and then still expect to get everything as if you are senior members of the government.

This is not the government starving Haredi children, or punishing them. The government isnt obligated to pay for everything just because some people want it. I can say that if you can't afford to have children, don't, and if you have them anyway, it isnt anybody else's fault when you cant feed them, but I dont even think that is the situation. But even if it is, and even if it is for some, blaming the government for them not being able to feed their own children is passing the buck. It is nice when the government does help, but raising children is the responsibility of the parents, not of the government. 

Again, I am not opposed to them getting it, as they have until now, but I am not upset and angry that it is being stopped. Agreements, discounts and subsidies come and go - that is just the way it is.

The most reasonable argument against Lieberman's decision, I think, is that the new school year is just several weeks away and this is somewhat of a last minute decision and announcement, leaving many people unsure of how to make alternate plans, should they need to. Obviously they could not make the decision and publicize it earlier, because they only recently took office and started to work on the new budget and new plans, but maybe this should have been announced as a plan for some time in the future (ie 6 months down the road, next school year, etc), leaving this year as it was already set to begin. I am not sure how far in advance similar decisions have been announced recently, but this should have been given the standard amount of advance notice (assuming it wasn't - but maybe it was)

The most interesting argument that I came up with, I think, is that this was a change promised very loudly by Avigdor Lieberman during the election campaign. When Naftali Bennett broke a campaign promise, the Haredi parties were apoplectic about it (along with Likud and Smotritch voters, but the Haredim have been specially vocal and consistent in their outrage) and speak non-stop about how you can't break [integral] campaign promises and all that. Well, this was an integral campaign promise of Avigdor Lieberman. Not only is it expected, but it would be horrible of him to go back on it because one is not allowed to break campaign promises. By the Haredi parties' own position of indignance against Bennett, Lieberman just had to keep his promise. Had he broken it and not canceled the subsidy for avreichim, I would expect the Haredi parties to equally flip out about that, and that would just be mind blowing!

------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel

------------------------------------------------------