And Crunchwise, Do You Really Care?

Family values. You’ll hear that phrase a lot as the election campaign heats up but much of the chatter will be off the mark.

Candidates will insist that preserving families requires more prayer, fewer abortions, less drug use, greater respect for authority.

Those are all estimable goals. But in practical terms, the most important family value for many Americans is time. No household has enough of it.

That’s what folks really talk about around their kitchen tables, and the politicians who would be president should be talking about it, too.

As President Clinton told the graduating class at Grambling State recently, being a parent “will be the most important work you’ll ever do.” And society should be helping parents cope with the “enormous stress” caused by the competing pressures of work and home.

A new study by the president’s Council of Economic Advisors documents just how serious the time crunch has become. Over the last 30 years, parents have lost an average of 22 hours every week to spend with their kids. By the time children reach 18, that’s more than two extra years their parents are away from home.

You can do a lot in 22 hours. Go to a game. Supervise homework. Talk to a teacher. Perhaps most useful of all, just hang out. Be available when kids - particularly teenagers - want to talk. At the very least, more time at work means any parent is less patient when she or he finally gets home.

The reasons behind the time crunch are by no means all bad and the single biggest cause is the progress women have made in the workplace. In 1969, 38 percent of married mothers worked for pay; by 1996, that was up to 68 percent. Discrimination is declining and pay is rising, making it more attractive for women to join the labor force.

But in most cases, women work because they have to, not because they’re making a lifestyle choice. The hours men work, and the wages they earn, have stayed flat. Any increase in a family’s living standard usually comes from the wife’s paycheck.

The other main cause of the time crunch is the explosion of single-parent households, up from 13 percent of all families three decades ago to 30 percent today. Most of them are headed by women. These mothers face a double whammy - less income and less time to spend on their kids than parents with partners.

In his Grambling speech, Clinton told the graduates that “it is imperative that your country give you the tools to succeed, not only in the workplace but also at home.” He’s right about that, and while public policy can only help around the edges, there are a number of issues that demand more discussion.

One is flexibility. Any parent will tell you that the key to family sanity is not just how many hours you work but who decides which hours you work.

When our kids were young and we were covering politics, we tried to avoid traveling with candidates. If our child had a concert and our candidate had a rally in Omaha at the same time, we had to be in Omaha. But if our assignment was writing about meatpackers, we could hear the concert and fly to Omaha the next day.

The use of flextime is up sharply, from 15 percent of all full-time workers in 1991 to 28 percent in 1997. The reason is simple: it works. Employers are finding that less-harried employees are more productive and more loyal, and the concept should be broadened.

One promising proposal: Allow workers to take overtime pay in the form of time instead of cash. Another good idea: Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, which now permits 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family emergencies. Twenty-four hours a year for parent-teacher conferences or medical visits could be a great stress reliever.

Commuting time rose 13 percent from 1983 to 1995, and every minute spent sitting on a freeway is one less minute at home. Al Gore has been kidded for mentioning the topic of traffic but it is certainly something people care about.

Working at home is still a small trend, up from 1.9 percent of the full-time workforce in 1991 to 3.3 percent in 1997. But government policies that encourage innovative technology and electronic commerce will mean more parents avoiding a commute in the future.

Yes, time is money but money also buys time. Policies that provide more cash for low-income families - from a higher minimum wage to stricter enforcement of child support laws - give parents a better chance of staying home a few extra hours a week.

The single best thing parents can do for their kids is get married and stay married. Government can’t do much there but eliminating the marriage penalty from the tax code would be a start.

So let’s hear it from the candidates. How would they help parents cope with the time crunch?