Evening star., 1946-02-18
Letters to The Star
Defends Child Care Centers
As Social" and Essential"

AS Social and Essential"
To the Editor Of The Star:
To native and yoteless taxpayer 1t
would appear that Commissioner Guy
Mason's reasons for deciding against
seeking supplemental appropriation
to continue present Day Care Centers
for children of working mothers now
operated by the Board of Education calls
for both scrutiny and challenge. In
effect, he argues that in turning down
the continuance of this socially con-
scious community welfare technique
which currently serves the children of
472 families, the real question was not
finding the necessary $4,000 but "the
principle involved" Apparently, it is
the thesis OF our Commissioners that
the project was wartime expedient
to stimulate war production and, If
continued, would be dangerous ideo-
logical precedent and a needless subsidy
to mothers OF an economic grouping who
could finance their own solution of day
nursery care because their average in
come bracket is estimated at $4,000.
Then. too, they suggest that If work.
ing mother really is INDECENT she can
elect to remain at home and collect the
$6567 average monthly grant of the
Board Of Public Welfare which Is cost
Ing mere 1851 900 year.
But as confessedly amateur econo-
mist, this writer presumes to question
the essential wisdom of an administra-
tive policy which would rebuke working
mothers who aspire to living standard
above the indigency level and which
cruelty discourages and handicaps the
working mother who is enough of a.
rugged individualist to insist upon work.
ing out her own economic survival
rather than predicate 1t on the pre-
carious makeshift of an unpredictable
subsidy. What assurance does the de-
pendent working mother have that on
similar plea of "the principle in
volved" the honorable Commissioners
may not arbitrarily decide to curtail the
monthly grant now available or default
altogether for reasons Of a purely fiscal
nature? Even in such matters as teach
ers' pay the honorable Commissioners
have had their fiscal difficulties. so
what could happen to a subsidy?
Obviously, the Commissioners have
duty to establish and maintain those
social welfare mechanisms and tech
nlques purposed not only to encourage
higher standards Of living but to tighten
the burdens of the taxpayer. Even If so
purposed. an experienced public admini-
strator like Mr.. Mason must realize
That his pious hand washing decision
WILL not interdict single selfish or de-
hnquent working mother who In his
opinion better might dedicate her full
time to the kitchen and children, Bv his
own observation this group is capable of
sunsidlzing and implementing their own
day nursery problems. Rather this do
nothing policy unfairly will penalize
the truly deserving working mothers,
heroically striving to achieve their own
economic stability and Independence
surely, we can not let them down.
In comparison with other large metro
politan areas. the voteless CAPITAL of
this Nation is woefully behind the times
IN essential social welfare technioues
dispassionately dedicated to unselfsh
principles of social justice. The dav
nursery problem for preschool-age chill
dren OF needy working mothers is one
tnat every socially conscious communitv
must work out. An alternative is larger
subsidies designed to impose upon fam
lies wherein the mother is Obliged tn
work standard of living bordering on
the lndigency >yel and dependent upon
the unpredictable mercies of those who
must subsidize the subsidy. During the
war this community through trial and
error acquired the know-how. Is IT
either wise or profitable summarily tn
abandon an essential social welfare
technique which encourages working
mothers to work out their economic sur
Vival rather than to depend upon the
wavering benevolence of economy-mind-
ed administrators who frequently con-
1use principle" with "principal?"
THOMAS E. MATTTNGLY, MD
Opposes District Franchise
TO the Editor of The Star: