The XX Factor: What women really think.

So What? Let the Taxpayers Pay for Palin's Kids' Travel!

For once, I find myself sympathizing with Sarah Palin. Today's Washington Post has a story on Palin's use of Alaska state funds as governor. Apparently she did two things the Post considers questionable. Charge No. 1: She accepted a state per diem while staying at her home in Wasilla (this was technically OK because her place of work is Juneau, but, uh, the per diem is supposed to cover expenses for meals, etc., while someone is traveling on official business and has to eat in restaurants and so on. The per diem is clearly not intended to cover someone's supermarket trips or trips to the diner when they're home or visiting relatives for the weekend. So, I agree: Palin should not have taken that per diem during days spent entirely at her own home.)

But charge No. 2 is different: Apparently, she often got the state to pay for her children's travel and hotel when she went places as governor.

I gave the article only a quick read, but I can't summon up a particle of outrage about charge No. 2. My feeling? a) We want women to serve in public office; b) Women often have these little appendages called "children"; c) Women (and men, too!) should not have to choose between serving the public and laying eyes on their children from time to time; d) If we want people with families to be able to serve as high-ranking public officials, and if we want to ask those high-ranking public officials to travel frequently as part of their jobs, then hell, yeah, we taxpayers should be willing to foot the bill for them to bring their kids along—perhaps not always, but certainly sometimes. It seems reasonable to have some controls on spending, but it also seems reasonable for Palin to feel that if she has to schlep all over the state (or the country), she should be able to bring her kids with her some of the time.

The alternative to taxpayers footing the bill for some of this? The only people who will serve in such public office will be the childless, those who don't care about their kids, and those rich enough to pay on their own. I'd rather contribute some of my tax dollars. Yes, even for Bristol.

UPDATE 5 pm: Yes, and I do think that everyone, not just governors, should have access to high quality  and reasonably priced childcare-- and would be delighted to see my tax dollars go towards that. But meanwhile-- I also think any employer who is serious about attracting and retaining women should consider a) subsidizing for childcare if employees are expected to work long or "unusual" hours and b) paying for kids to travel sometimes if they require a great deal of travel from employees as part of the job. No, this doesn't mean unlimited subsidization-- as I said above, it seems reasonable to have some controls on spending (so the person with ten kids might be out of luck). But again, if we want women, who tend to have greater childcare responsibilities, to be able to pursue the same kind of careers as men, then yes, we need to make sure that work and parenting are not incompatible. And I'll gladly pay a little extra on April 15 to help make sure women (and men who take parenting seriously) will be willing to pursue careers in public office, too.