When I first came to The Virginian-Pilot in the mid-1980s I worked with a male reporter about my age.

He was married and by the time he left the paper for a better-paying job, he had at least three kids.

He was smart, an excellent reporter and a good writer.

But every time his wife gave birth to a baby he headed in to the editor and begged for a raise, complaining that he couldn’t support an extra mouth on the wages he was being paid.

As best I could tell, he always got it.

This infuriated me. I was single, but I believed I was every bit as talented as my colleague, yet he was getting pay hikes unrelated to work.

My feelings then, and when I had kids of my own, and now are the same: If you have children, be prepared to make financial and creature comfort sacrifices to rear them. Your employer isn’t there to reward you for your fertility.

Neither is the government.

I know. Radical thinking, that.

News flash: Kids cost money. Lots of it. THAT should be a big part of sex education in schools.

Which brings us to the latest outrageously expensive, expansive government giveaway scheme from the fevered brain of Kamala Harris, whose presidential campaign is on life support. 

Apparently Harris just now realized that most kids are in school for about six hours a day, while parents often work eight.

No fair! .

So Harris just introduced legislation that would eventually keep public schools open 10 hours a day so parents wouldn’t have to find their own after-school childcare.

You and me? We get to pay for this munificence.

Carefully currying favor with the teachers’ unions, Harris claims that under her proposal no teacher will be forced to work in these “free” government daycare centers. Nope, the taxpayers will simply hire a second fleet of workers to come in to provide babysitting for every school child in America.

Under Harris’ plan, working parents will be able to warehouse their kids at school and be spared the hassle and expense of finding babysitters, enrolling their kids in after-school programs or leaving work in time to take care of their own offspring.

Great. What could be better for children than spending 10 hours a day in government-run institutions? 

Of course Harris is forgetting something. What about all the parents who work nights? This plan won’t help them. Why not build dorms and let those kids live at school? 

Yes, yes, I know. This is being cast as a women’s issue. Childcare falls disproportionately on women, Harris says. As does childbirth. So far Harris hasn’t figured out a way for government to make that fair.

As a former working mother, daughter of a working mother and granddaughter of working mothers, I can tell you it has always been this way. Somehow, most of us figured out how to take care of our own kids.

If government really wants to help working parents, why not figure out a way to encourage businesses - through tax incentives, perhaps - to allow workers flexible schedules or to telecommute, if possible.

Better yet, if Harris wants to help families, why not slash federal income taxes so workers can keep more of their own money. That way parents can decide how to best take care of their kids. Best of all, they’ll have the cash to make good choices.

Locking kids in school buildings for 10 hours a day? Verges on child abuse.