Nobody can outdo me as a Conservative. No really, I'm serious. This may sound odd, coming from a voice that is normally Liberal, but the secret to Conservatism is that its ends are often best brought about by Liberalism.
Take, for example, the current Tea Party effort to defund Planned Parenthood, Head Start and WIC (nutritional assistance for new mothers). Take away the support for Planned Parenthood, for example, and what do you get?
* More abortions, as low-income parents make 'mistakes', then 'correct' them.
* More of a need for healthcare, as low-income mothers miss out on simple, preventive medical attention.
* More babies born into poverty, thus adding to the burden of the welfare state.
* Probably, a slight increase in unloved babies, meaning more delinquency, crime, etc.; dysfunction in general.
It's intuitive, and also a studied fact, that spending on mothers and newborns returns an initial investment manyfold.
Interestingly, the single most predictive factor in the academic success of a child is the level of schooling reached by the mother. No matter how hard teachers and a school system may try, a child's intellectual trajectory is all but decided by the age of three. Which would seem to suggest that if a Conservative like myself really wants fellow citizens who are well-adjusted, peaceable and productive, perhaps the most likely prescription is an increased investment in mothers and infants.
And I do just that. Planned Parenthood is a group that I've donated to out of each paycheck (thanks, United Way) since 2002. But the real problems among us aren't going to be solved with drops in the bucket like mine; there are simply too many needs for that. And so we have programs like Head Start.
As for the Tea Partiers' good intentions, they and most Americans would agree that financing something like 40% of a nation's budget with borrowing is just plain wrong. Except that a large majority of that 40% (something like two-thirds) is our paying for Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, etc., as large numbers of workers are out of work, and the fact that tax revenues decline with an economic slide. So, as most economists will attest, getting the economy on a sound foundation is step one; a first step that will erase about half of the problem. Then come cut-backs. Otherwise, there is the very real danger of economic free-fall, when businesses opt not to invest, because nobody has the money to buy; a tailspin of unchecked depression that is a Conservative's worst nightmare.
Update (June 13th, '11):
A Head Start Fan
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones links to a recent study published in Science that shows, statistically, what we get for investing in Head Start. Drum estimates that for roughly $15 a year we could provide Head Start to 25% of the 3- and 4-year-olds in this country; those who would most benefit from it; this would be 25% of those who aren't already enrolled.
The study followed mainly black Chicagoans born around 1980, tracking them up until a few years ago.
And what would we get? From the charts it looks like a significant improvement in high school graduation rates, for one, from 65% to 85%, for example, among those whose mothers didn't graduate from high school. Improvements are also found for crime and drug abuse prevention.
An interesting sidenote: almost all the improvements between those who attended Head Start and among those who didn't came from males.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/06/building-better-kids-its-preschools-stupid
No comments:
Post a Comment