Decisions made under Biden are treated differently in the "nonpartisan" Colorado Sun. How changes to government-subsidized childcare made it so there are now waitlists.
Decisions made under Biden are treated differently in the "nonpartisan" Colorado Sun.
When I first read the title of the Colorado Sun article linked below, "Thousands of vulnerable Colorado families can’t access child care after federal rule changes" I thought it was going to be yet another in their series about the horrors the Trump administration has wrought upon the earth, the collage at the head of this post being a mere fraction of headlines in this body of work.
But it wasn't. Reading into the article you'll note that the rule changes here are courtesy of the Biden administration. See screenshot 1 for a picture juxtaposing the headline with the relevant part of the article.
The differential treatment here is curious.
It's curious because we know to a certainty that if Trump's hands were anywhere near this rule his name would be all over this article. Trump = page clicks for the Sun audience and they can't turn that kind of reader engagement down.
It's curious too because the rule implementing an executive action by the Biden administration (see the second link below) dates back to late February 2024, only becoming newsworthy to the Sun in 2025 when adverse consequences started happening.
The third link below is to the only earlier story that I could find after multiple site searches of the Colorado Sun's page about childcare and reimbursement. It is only news if a Biden rule carries a negative consequence; this has decidedly NOT been the case for Trump's executive orders.
Good on the Sun for covering this--it's not nothing--but I'd like to remind us all that covering the occasional unflattering story about a Democrat doesn't balance unrelenting negative, often speculative, coverage of team Trump. The rules at the Sun are clearly different for different political parties and elected officials.
Further, it's clear from the apparent lack of coverage that the Sun's orientation and perspective do not admit of the kind of simple foresight that makes the connection between increasing the subsidization of childcare and problems with funding. Maybe it's just me, but when I see that the government is increasing a subsidy, the first things I ask are "how many more will get it?" and "how will we be funding this?"
In the post that follows this one, we'll dig in a little on the Biden policy and the state law that made Colorado in synch with it (as well as perhaps adding to the problem on its own).
https://coloradosun.com/2025/05/13/colorado-child-care-assistance-program-enrollment-freezes/
https://coloradosun.com/2025/01/21/child-care-assistance-freeze/
How changes to government-subsidized childcare made it so there are now waitlists.
In the post prior to this one, I talked about the Sun's disparate coverage of Trump vs. Biden on executive orders.
In this post, I want to look in on the Biden executive order and Biden administration rule itself. Putting media bias aside, Biden's order and the Federal rules are a classic example of government subsidies and interference in the market causing problems.
After we look at that, I also want to highlight how the 2024 state bill which brought Colorado into line with the Biden policy might have added to the problem (a look at the sponsors would certainly give one immediate suspicions).
The two Sun articles linked first and second below (in reverese chronological order) detail the impat of Federal rule changes that came about after a Biden executive order in early 2024. They also give the stories of several Colorado child care providers who are struggling and the current freeze/waitlist on government subsidized childcare.
Before getting to that, however, let's back up and look at the changes that spurred the problem. A 2024 law (passed and signed by Polis) followed shortly behind Biden's orders, and was intended to synchronize Colorado policy with these Federal rule changes. That bill, HB24-1223 is linked third below.
Screenshot 1 is from the bill's fiscal note and summarizes the Federal changes.
The first two bullet points are mostly procedural. Focus in on the last two, however. It is these provisions which are causing the problem. The third bullet point requires counties to pay for low-income child care to centers based on the number of low-income students enrolled and not the number who show up.
As an example, you might have 100 eligible students enrolled but only have 70 who show up regularly. Prior to Biden's change, the county only had to pay the child care center for the 70. After, they pay for the 100.
The fourth bullet point puts a cap on the low-income family's copayment for childcare at 7%. Absent the prices dropping (they didn't), what this does is shift more cost burden back onto the local government.
The latter Sun article below puts some numbers to things. Quoting:
"Paying providers more — to reflect the true cost of care — will add nearly $26 million to the state’s tab every year, [Colorado Child Care Assistance Program Director Sarah] Dawson said, while reducing family copays will cost Colorado more than $9.8 million per year. Meanwhile, shifting from paying providers based on attendance to paying them based on enrollment will amount to a projected $33 million annual expense for the state. The slate of changes will dramatically increase how much Colorado pays per child to cover the cost of care — from about $6,600 per child per year before the new rules to an estimated average of $18,000 per child per year, according to Dawson."
Small wonder, then, that Colorado counties are freezing enrollments for this program. Returning to the Sun article for numbers on this:
"More than 5,700 children from low-income families have been shut out of child care programs across Colorado, where 23 counties have, as of May 1, frozen enrollment or set up waitlists for the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, according to data from the Colorado Department of Early Childhood."
Thus the outcome of market control by government fiat. Politicians, governments in general, often struggle to understand basic economics. There doesn't seem to be the kind of common sense that asks basic questions like "how will we fund this?" before acting in a way that makes us all look and feel good. Then when the bills come due, it's "oops!"
This is bad enough at a faraway Federal level, but the state of Colorado made some of the same kinds of basic errors in thought with the state-level changes in HB24-1223.
Screenshot 2 (also from the bill's fiscal note) has the state changes. As with the Federal rules, some of the items on the list are procedural, but focus in on the first and second bullet points.
Both of these items fall under the same rubric as would the federal changes I mention above: both expand eligibility, making it easier to be in the program and boosting eligibilty. If you invite more people in, you strain the system more.
Whatever your thoughts on the role the government ought to play in providing child care, I hope we could agree that reality and basic economics ought to be in the discussion. We can throw wide all the doors and gates we want to, we can subsidize at whatever level we choose to, but at some point, a realistic assessment of how we'd fund it needs to happen.
I don't get the sense that this happened with the Federal changes or state changes. And now we see the outcome.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/05/13/colorado-child-care-assistance-program-enrollment-freezes/
https://coloradosun.com/2025/01/21/child-care-assistance-freeze/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1223
Related:
And speaking of blinkered, feel-good government moves that go bankrupt, the free school lunch program is out of money (see the article linked first below).
So the solution is to ask people to pay more. Well, ask us to allow the rich to be taxed more. That referendum is linked second below.
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/colorados-voter-approved-school-lunch-program-running-out-of-money
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1274
This will be the last post for a today and also for tomorrow. I'm going to take Monday 5/26 off in observation of Memorial Day.
Remember this Memorial Day to think of and thank someone who served.
Thank you Nate.
Thank you Dad.
Thank you to those no longer with us.