Should Your Tax Dollars Be Used to Buy Diapers?

Recently introduced legislation would allow states to use taxpayer dollars to provide diapers and associated supplies to needy families.

Earlier this month, a Connecticut congresswoman introduced legislation that would allow states to use federal funds to provide diapers and diapering supplies through childcare providers.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) wants to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to “relieve some of the stress on families facing hardship in this economy.”

The stated purpose of the Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery Act (DIAPER) Act is to help families who struggle with the cost of keeping a child in diapers.

“For many, even the cost of keeping a child in diapers, about $4 a day, or $100 a month, is too much,” according to DeLauro. “But without an adequate supply of diapers, a child cannot attend day care -- meaning that working mothers have a harder time getting to work, and can fall even further behind.”

Delauro adds that infrequent diaper changes can lead to diaper rash, increased risk of urinary tract and skin infections, and can even cause outbreaks of viral meningitis, dysentery, and Hepatitis A.

“No family should have to choose between buying diapers for their child or buying groceries -- but that is exactly what is happening today,” Delauro said in a released statement. “Diapers are expensive, but necessary, to keep children healthy and in daycare, giving their parents the freedom they need to work.”

Should taxpayers be responsible for providing diapers to financially struggling families? Should providing diapers be any less acceptable than providing food for infants? Has dependency on the taxpayers for basic necessities gone too far? .

Gary Fox November 02, 2011 at 12:33 PM
Couldn't have said it any better myself Rich - I have also refrained from entering into dialog w/Brian. My father used to tell me an empty wagon rattles the loudest, & now I know what he meant.
Brian Crawford November 02, 2011 at 04:00 PM
Aw c'mon fellas, my debate skills can't be that intimidating. Empty wagon? I get called names all the time but that's a new one. Ha ha ha, well done.
Brian Crawford November 02, 2011 at 04:17 PM
Thank you for your honest answer on abortion. I agree wholeheartedly that people should take personal responsibility for their choices, unfortunately children born into poverty didn't have a choice. It's true that because of the financial crisis and high unemployment more of our neighbors are needing assistance but the overwhelming majority of them aren't looking for a hand out; they're looking for jobs, food for their children, and shelter for their family. I don't see the willingness to help folks in this time of need as a Robin Hood mentality, I see it as a Jesus Christ mentality.
Brian Crawford November 02, 2011 at 04:34 PM
Kelly, over 45 million Americans live in poverty and unfortunately our churches just aren't equipped to take care of that many folks. In fact if you take a quick look at some of our local church websites you'll find very few ministries directed at the poor, they're hardly even mentioned.
Dacula Momma November 02, 2011 at 06:19 PM
First of all, cloth diapers are still sold everywhere...Target, Walmart, Babies R Us to name of few. And you don't need a diaper service to use them -- many people choose to use them because they are better for the environment. And if your issue is that you can't use them at daycares, then why would the child be in daycare if the parent is not working? My assumption would be that if the taxpayers are providing these diapers to people that can't afford them, then the children should be at home with the parents that supposedly aren't working. In a nutshell, if we (taxpayers) pay for diapers to mothers that can't afford them, we are now providing formula, diapers, food stamps, and welfare. Where is the incentive to work and support yourself and your children?
Brian Crawford November 02, 2011 at 08:30 PM
Erin, if you follow the link in the article the proposed legislation amends the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 which helps provide child care for poor working families so presumably the parents receiving these diapers are working.
Rich Rewkowski November 04, 2011 at 01:35 PM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/diaper_bailout_MQyvayzZT9VAEBQUpEQOBJ A little satire mixed with a lot of truth.
Dacula Momma November 04, 2011 at 05:19 PM
What I don't understand about this article (and maybe it's different in other states), but NO daycares around here supply diapers or diapering supplies. That responsibility is the parent's.
Brian Crawford November 04, 2011 at 07:25 PM
A couple of important things to note. The proposed legislation does not involve the outlay of any new funds. It simply allows existing funds under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to be used to provide diapers to those who qualify for child care under the Act. Further, since this is a block grant program it is up to the individual states to decide if they want to provide diapers should this proposal pass. Why would anyone oppose something that involves no additional funding yet facilitates poor working mothers retaining employment and also lowers society's medical costs?
Rich Rewkowski November 04, 2011 at 07:41 PM
"Why would anyone oppose something that involves no additional funding yet facilitates poor working mothers retaining employment and also lowers society's medical costs?" Perhaps because those of us who foot the bill don't believe in earmarks of this sort to begin with. What is hard to understand about this?
Brian Crawford November 04, 2011 at 08:18 PM
Sorry Rich, I'm not following how this is an earmark. Or are you opposed to providing day care services for poor working mothers in general? By the way, I foot the bill for this just like you.
North Georgia Weather November 04, 2011 at 08:46 PM
Please Brian, do your best to guilt us out. Of course we care, that's not the point. We can't take care of EVERYONE, and that's the direction we're headed. You can't see that? We'll keep giving and giving until there is nothing left to give, then what? Everyone just gives up and dies? Sorry Brian, I'll do what I can but like someone else said, people HAVE to take responsibility for their own lives. And don't bring abortion into a welfare discussion, that's VERY low.
North Georgia Weather November 04, 2011 at 08:49 PM
Yes Brian, and the number is growing. How do you stop it? Certainly not by giving more, people start to accept that as the way of life, and it isn't. And what did people do before the government started giving away money hand of fist?
North Georgia Weather November 04, 2011 at 08:53 PM
Brian, everyone is tired of giving to those that don't have. We see the abuses of the system, we see generations of families that know no other way of life. We're not helping these people with your method, we're training them that they don't have to work because big brother will be there to supply all their needs. The system has been abused for years and it's getting worse. It HAS to stop somewhere.
North Georgia Weather November 04, 2011 at 09:40 PM
And let me say this so none thinks I don't care... I work in an elementary school. I see kids that need help, and we do our best to provide what we can for them. But I also see some kids that we can't help for various reasons. But I feel compassion for all of them. I was president of DAA and did my best to make it a better place for kids. It wasn't easy and some parents fought you all the way. It was a 40 hour a week job on top of 40 hours a week, but I was doing it for the kids. I do care. What angers me are the parents that don't/won't care for their kids properly, don't teach them respect and manners, don't care about education, and neglect their health. But as much as I want to help everyone that's suffering in this world, I can't do it. We're already doing all we can, and now people want to hand out free diapers? What I'm tired of is giving my money to people who don't spend it wisely, and I'm talking about the federal government. Brian, I can't help everyone, and we can't help everyone, it has to stop somewhere.
SomeLady November 05, 2011 at 12:09 AM
They ARE working. This is not additional tax dollars. Poor Brian, I feel ya, man. Keep trying, maybe someone will listen. Lots of hateful hearts - towards innocent babies' well-being, no less. Makes me sad.
M.K. OSBORNE November 05, 2011 at 03:05 AM
They could just reduce the grant size instead of justification to keep it going at the current allotment . But hey that would be taking government the wrong way . They need to get away from the if we dont use it we lose it attitude about taxes ,because we all can think of ways to extend it , so i propose taking that surplus grant money and make all lunches free to all kids in school .
M.K. OSBORNE November 05, 2011 at 03:08 AM
And heck lets throw in the breakfast program too. after all we need something to fill those diapers ...... dont we !
Rich Rewkowski November 05, 2011 at 03:23 AM
Yes, Brian, make sure you use the poor kids as a pawn. If it satisfies you, I'm against 'poor working mothers in general'. I'm also 'mean-spirited. I wish you the best of luck in your retirement as a banker, and hope you are successful in your new career as an internet troll.
North Georgia Weather November 05, 2011 at 11:55 AM
Pretty much all kids get a free lunch anyway, all a parent has to do is fill out the paperwork. No one ever checks to see if they qualify or not. I've seen parents driving Mercedes with kids on the free lunch program.
M.K. OSBORNE November 05, 2011 at 01:19 PM
Same thing with food stamps .But you have to remember its not what you have ,the criteria is gross pay .If you are a millionaire but your gross pay qualifies ,you will get free lunch. under my plan we would desolve the stigma of free lunch and provide true equality to all kids.
Brian Crawford November 05, 2011 at 08:25 PM
So which is it Rich? Am I an empty wagon or a troll? Perhaps I'm an empty troll. Now that we've gotten to the truth of what this legislation is all about I'm still not clear why you think this is such a bad idea.
Brian Crawford November 05, 2011 at 08:32 PM
We stop it by investing in education and creating good paying jobs Dac. How can welfare in the state of GA be a way of like when the maximum lifetime benefit is 48 months? The maximum monthly TANF benefit for a single parent with 2 children is $280 a month. Food stamps come out to less than $5 a day per person. You call that a way of life?
Rich Rewkowski November 06, 2011 at 03:30 PM
Brian...I feel that public blogs/boards are useful to voice an opinion, not to engage in debate. Apparently, you do not feel the same; that's fine. However, you use the 'moral high-ground' approach in an attempt to prove your point, e.g., that anyone opposed to the Blumenthal legislation is 'mean-spirited' or anti working mother. Nothing can be further from the truth. The difference between you and those of us who disagree with this proposal is that we have the moral courage to take a stand if we feel this allotment of funds is ill-conceived or an abuse of taxpayer funds. Nowhere in any of the original posts did I see an opponent resort to labeling or name-calling of those who favor the legislation; the denigration and mockery came, as usual, from the 'left', of which you are proud to be associated with. (See 'mean-spirited' and "the children should be working too in the fields picking fruit and cotton.") So...if i oppose every ridiculous idea to 'benefit' poor working mothers, I am therefore 'mean-spirited'? In answer to your question, yes, you are an internet troll. (The 'empty wagon' comment cannot be attributed to me, but that doesn't mean it's untrue :>)
Wayne Hanson November 15, 2011 at 05:06 PM
Hell no! I'm tired of the Democrats spending my money on social programs. If a child needs diapers or food there are plenty of Churches that will help out. The government has no right to spend my tax dollars on dead beats.
Wayne Hanson November 15, 2011 at 05:13 PM
I know a fellow who lives with a lady and they have a baby together but aren't married. She gets $600 a month in food stamps so they eat free on the tax payers. They eat steak every night on you and me.
Dacula Momma November 15, 2011 at 05:50 PM
If they are living together, then HIS income is considered as well. Food stamps is NOT based on people being married; it is based on the number of people living together in a household. They don't even have to be related. So, the only way that she could possible be receiving this amount is if NEITHER of them is employed and they have others living in the household with them.
Brian Crawford November 15, 2011 at 07:43 PM
Wayne, since the average food stamp recipient receives less than $5 a day I doubt they're eating much steak.
GwinnettWeather November 15, 2011 at 07:53 PM
Brian, I've watched people in grocery stores that are buying a lot more than $5 a day worth.
Brian Crawford November 15, 2011 at 09:46 PM
First of all, how could you possibly know that? Secondly, statistics on the SNAP (food stamps) program are easily accesible online through the USDA website. The average per person benefit is $134 a month which is actually a little less than $4.50 a day. There's no guesswork here.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something