Not an Onion article. I solemnly affirm to Scrappleface: New York Times columnist Judith Warner doesn't want social programs to be judged by how much they cost or whether they work.
Disclaimer notwithstanding, I bet you're still dubious. "Come on, Finkelstein - that can't be right. As liberal as the New York Times might be, there's no way one of its regular columnists would come right out and say that."
Wanna bet?
The particular government programs that Warner - the Times's family-issues maven - discusses in The Real Value of Public Preschool [subscription] are what she describes as "free" pre-school for three- and four-year olds. And here's what she says:
"I am finding the rhetoric in the debate over universal preschool disheartening. It’s all the usual stuff about cost-benefit and outcomes."
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
All that cost-benefit and outcomes stuff. Disheartening. Yeah, tell me about it.
So how should spending be judged? Writes Warner: "The argument I would rather hear is: universal preschool is good for today’s families right now." If it feels good, spend it!
Making Warner's devil-may-care attitude even more stunning is her blithe admission that the preschool programs might not work:
"Unlike many proponents of universal preschool, I am not sure that early academic instruction is all it’s cracked up to be." Warner advocates the programs not for their educational value but as "some form of childcare" - on the taxpayers' dime, of course.
Warner is similarly insouciant when he comes to the prospect of have-nots subsidizing the haves:
"Critics charge that addressing this situation with good public preschool for all amounts to subsidizing the middle and even the upper-middle class.
"Well, what if it does?"
The programs that Warner would create? Untold billions. A Times columnist laying bare the liberal mindset on government spending on social programs? Invaluable. Gotcha - didn't say "priceless."
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
These liberal types would lik
December 8, 2006 - 09:02 ET by msh1973These liberal types would like nothing more than to get their hands on every 3 or 4 year old in America so they can indoctrinate them into their liberal mindset. The idea that young children do better in a "preschool" setting than at home with mom is just ridicules. That's just my humble opinion.
As the father of a 2 month
December 8, 2006 - 12:13 ET by james789As the father of a 2 month old baby diagnosed with Down Syndrome, I can tell you the LAST people I want educating her on a daily basis is anyone remotely connected to ANY taxpayer funded daycare/learning program. Also I believe I can safely say that there is no substitute for the mothers role in a childs life just by watching the interaction between them verses the interaction between our baby and other people, myself included.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price,
peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of
soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt
Good post Mark, but I think y
December 8, 2006 - 09:09 ET by Tony SGood post Mark, but I think you need to look beyond Warners' admittedly nonsensical platitudes to her underlying philosophy. That philosophy is feminism, and one of the longtime concepts behind modern feminism is day care that enables women to work, work, work! So Warner's viewing of women (or people, for that matter) as mere economic entities is why she writes what she writes. I believe one of the flaws of Marx's thinking is that he only thought of people as economic entities, so his system of government kinda, you know, sucked.
Give her credit for at least not stooping to old cliches. The usual reasoning behind the "need" for government-sponsored child care is that they do it in Europe, so it must be right. This is a quirk of the left -- they love all things European, even though America has left these countries in the dust regarding almost every advance known to mankind. They all forget there is a reason our grandparents wanted to come to America.
Good point Tony. I'm pretty
December 8, 2006 - 09:33 ET by Al CzervikGood point Tony. I'm pretty sure that this is the same Judith Miller that wrote Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety.
In a interview back in 05' she is quoted as saying "When I began the research for the book, I was spending a lot of time with stay-at-home moms. Hearing the way they talked about their lives and looking at the effect of not working, so much of it reminded me of Friedan’s observations [from 1963] -- that sort of vague, indefinable feeling of emptiness and unhappiness and anxiety and angst. I found myself digging out my old copy of The Feminine Mystique to see how she had articulated it. She had written about a culture-wide “mystique of feminine fulfillment” that was driving women quietly insane. Today, of course, we no longer worship women who, like the “happy housewife heroine” of Friedan’s day, can find fulfillment in making their floors shine. Yet, while our world has changed so much, why were the women I knew speaking in such a similar way and seeming to feel such similar things? The concrete facts of their lives were different, but the stuff going through their heads -- and the internal struggles -- were so similar. "
Good thing they don't bring their preconceived biases to the keyboard.
Oh yea, she also wrote: You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy to America (with Howard Dean) and the biography Hillary Clinton: The Inside Story.
I agree with your insight on
December 8, 2006 - 10:35 ET by dscottI agree with your insight on feminism being at the core of government paid pre-school as a form of babysitting so women can be freed up to carry on their careers. But it is far more insidious than that, remember the government does not define the family as father, mother and child; it defines the family as one adult and one child. This is part of the social engineering promoted by liberals, enforced by the family law courts and now being funded by our tax dollars. Children are being stripped of their human rights, that of being denied the nurture, discipline and roll model of both a mother and a father. If anyone doubts the truthfulness of my statement, consider the 70% out of wedlock birth rate in the Black community and now 25% out of wedlock birth rate for the population in general.
Actually, this is the first I heard that pre-school doesn't help, I thought the real issue was that any advances from pre-school or Head Start were erased by the 3rd grade due to the failed public school model?
In essence what we have here is a failed family social engineering experiment, from a failed government policy of separating children from their fathers requiring government babysitting to suppliment and mitagate a failed public school system and then resulting in 2 million people (most of whom are from single parent families) in our prison population. Now that's cradle to grave Socialism for you!
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Points well-taken, dscott.
December 8, 2006 - 11:27 ET by GalvanicPoints well-taken, dscott. We learned from decades of broken welfare schemes that the more money we pumped into them, the worse things got. That programs with good intentions based on seemingly logical assumptions, can be more harmful than beneficial. The crazy rules of welfare destroyed many black American families --- an institution that not ever the barbarism of slavery could destroy.
Anybody who blindly advocates a government-run program for children without regard for outcomes, doesn't give a damn about children.
"preschool"... alon
December 8, 2006 - 09:23 ET by AlgerHiss"preschool"... along with "Head Start" and "daycare" are nothing more than euphemisms for babysitting.
Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!
Exactly - and Warner admits
December 8, 2006 - 09:24 ET by Mark FinkelsteinExactly - and Warner admits it. Indeed, it's the very reason she favors preschool!
As the father of a child fr
December 8, 2006 - 09:54 ET by kenro85As the father of a child from China, I tell you, much of the behavior he came home with at 17 months was exactly what you see in early childhood daycares. Really, too many of our children are being raised in what are essentially orphanages. And the feminists think this is great. Children, especially young ones, need their parents (one male one female) to be active in their lives.
As I try to explain, children rarely pick up good habits from each other. How many kids come home with sudden great manners? Now, how many come up knowing how to burp their ABC's. The first day of Sunday School, do you know what my son learned? How to make tooting noises with his armpit.
The bottom line is, if you let someone else raise your children, then they are no longer 'your' children, with your moral compass. Well, that's not true. You will have taught them that you believe that your children should be raised by someone else.
At least your child learned something
December 8, 2006 - 10:27 ET by Challenger GrimIn all seriousness though, I do think moderation is in order. While the left has forgotten that children need guidence and structure to grow up (like a tree that is anchor to a post to ensure it grows straight), it does seem at times that the right (in response) forgets that kids need to be kids and learn lots of silly, useless things.
Look at it this way: Buy a video camera and record these priceless moments so you can then use them as blackmail when the teen years hit and your child is trying to date ("Here, let me show you when Junior was working on his musical career...").
Kids don't need a village, they need a neighboorhood with responsible parents and other adults (family or grownups down the street - to keep an eye out when the parents can't) and they need other kids to have fun and fill the ranks of G.R.O.S.S.
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to
December 8, 2006 - 16:40 ET by kenro85I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply that I didn't find it funny. Especially the gusto with which he would do it (and yes, I have some excellent video).
Well....
December 8, 2006 - 11:25 ET by heldmywWell... Kinda.
But HeadStart is really a form of babysitting that involves some honest, decent nutrition, an exposure to education that is desperately needed, and some support for some people who REALLY need it!
It's a surprisingly good 'bang' for the buck, and there are statistics from U.S. dept of health and human services that support the performance and efficacy.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/publications.htm
I have to agree somewhat. B
December 8, 2006 - 12:00 ET by alcatrazI have to agree somewhat. Being from Mississippi, I see that putting some of the children in programs is much more beneficial to the child than leaving them at home with deplorable living conditions, uneducated/unemployeed mothers who either don't have the ambition or desire to want to better themselves or make things better for their children. Exposure to a program that offers anything (food, learning, interaction with others) better than the child would otherwise receive at home is OK with me. What is not OK is when you see abuse of the system when administrators of these government programs find ways of using the government dollars to line their own pockets.
She must have some out-of-wor
December 8, 2006 - 09:24 ET by benrandShe must have some out-of-work teacher friends.
Graft, nepotism and buddy favors is the liberal way...
"Critics charge that add
December 8, 2006 - 10:27 ET by HypocriteHater"Critics charge that addressing this situation with good public preschool for all amounts to subsidizing the middle and even the upper-middle class."
As far as I'm concerned, putting "good" and "public" together is an oxymoron.
"Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong." - Ronald Reagan
"Come on Finkelstein -
December 8, 2006 - 10:41 ET by Chris Norman"Come on Finkelstein - that can't be right"
Mark, at this point, there is practically nothing you can report about what Liberals say or do that I won't find believable. What used to be satire is now reality.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Chris - can we now call them
December 8, 2006 - 11:35 ET by FastEdChris - can we now call them socialists, instead of liberals? Seems now they have removed all restraints on their preaching (oops, can't use that word), indoctrination to the group good, and redistribution.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Ed,I guess we can. Actually,
December 8, 2006 - 11:57 ET by Chris NormanEd,
I guess we can. Actually, we really do need to formulate terms and descriptions that would better descrbe the politically correct, loony toon characters that so much of the Left has become. I don't know how to begin to describe them since it has gotten so bad. Words like unhinged, whacked-out, etc. take too long and have become rather tired. I wish I was a better phrase coiner...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
I had suggested that they now
December 8, 2006 - 12:38 ET by FastEdI had suggested that they now belong to a "gang" called the Floods (playing on the Crips and Bloods):
Frustrated Liberals Oozing Odiferous Democrat Stupidity
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Ed,Did that come from Acronym
December 8, 2006 - 14:03 ET by Chris NormanEd,
Did that come from Acronyms R Us? :)
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
It would be nice if the lef
December 8, 2006 - 10:59 ET by sarcasmoIt would be nice if the left were the only ones in the habit of ignoring costs & results of big-government, but if you believe that you're either not reading NB very carefully or you're in a fantasy-world.
JMR
sar - you might be more right
December 8, 2006 - 11:37 ET by FastEdsar - you might be more right than even you know - just try saying it with a smile, the constant scowl makes it come out as sarcasim. ; )
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
The best I can do these day
December 8, 2006 - 14:51 ET by sarcasmoThe best I can do these days is usually a grimace. Spending's not a smiling-issue with me (hell, I thought big government under Nixon, Ford & Carter was way-too-big, and I'd give my left nut to get the USA back to those "fiscally responsible" spending-levels now, but back then I never imagined calling any of those 3 anything like fiscally-responsible!).
JMR
"It’s all the usual st
December 8, 2006 - 11:32 ET by FastEd"It’s all the usual stuff about cost-benefit and outcomes." . . and she whants to be considered smart and intelligent - 'usual stuff' - another example of not having a clue when it comes to economics. I will bet, that she does'nt know how the government gets the money it spends. I will further bet, that because there is a govt. Printing Office, she believes that's where the money comes from!
I'm also wondering if SHE went to pre-school, was left by her "working" parent(s) and is now trying to "find herself" and make amends to herself for not having a childhood. She would do well in moving to the EU and find out how the other half of socialists really live - but don't let her back!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
This is typical for the lefti
December 8, 2006 - 12:14 ET by Dave RThis is typical for the lefties in their blind support for all social-welfare programs. The outcome is unimportant, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence that a program is failing to produce the desired results, or even when it is clear that a particular program is fraught with all kinds of abuse, neglect and even outright fraud, the left’s only response is to throw even more money at the “problem.”
Rarely, if ever, are these programs cut, and any attempt at even reducing the automatic increase that is embedded within many of them are met with howls of derision by the left. It is only the good intentions that matter to these people. What is even worse is that the MSM, who bills itself as the "watchdog of the people" and always seems to be out front in supporting government programs never seems to be around when the the programs are shown to be boondoggles.
Warner
December 8, 2006 - 12:49 ET by iveseenitallWarner's remarks are typical of the liberal mindset. Work in any educational institution in this country, for even a short time, and you will hear this kind of thing. Liberals are sick with emotion; it's a disease. But don't ever try to change them; they'll call you every name in the book. Their "liberalism" doesn't apply to those who challenge their idiotic notions.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
pre-school logic
December 8, 2006 - 13:38 ET by Conservative Voice"The argument I would rather hear is: universal preschool is good for today’s families right now."
OK, lets look at how pre-schools is good for the family. First, by admission, its a waste of taxpayer money, so more taxes are taken unnecessarily, which means less money for the family.
Second, the kid doesn't learn anything, in fact often becomes more of a trouble maker as they feel their parents have left them, and all learning happens from children (lord of the flies anyone?) and the teacher is not the mother, is tired, and is more of a babysitter than a teacher. So the kid is basically growing up, as someone put it above, an orphanage. So looking at the family, though the parents had some free-time to do what they want, they end up with an even more out of control kid to deal with. The kid loses from actually learning something (they learn better in the home, and 99% of what is important to learn at that age is behavior, not the ABCs). So at least 1/3 of the home suffers.
Lets now look at the parents. If someone else takes care of their responsibility, how does that help their character? If the parent is so anxious to let someone else be the parent, put the kid up for adoption, in fact give the kid to the teacher to adopt, and make it official. The only benefit is it gives the parents a few hours of free time. Is that really worth it?
So how about society in general. Well we have more out of control kids, parents who don't want to take responsibility, and an over-eager government willing to follow the communist way...break down the influence parents have over their kids and the kids are easier to brainwash while at the same time look like a saint stealing from your neighbor so that it can pay a stranger who doesn't really care as much about the kids as a mother/father does (and if it is the case, then please give the kid up for adoption).
So to answer your question Mrs Liberal, universal pre-school care is never good for the family.
Miller's statement that she
December 8, 2006 - 16:35 ET by robert108Miller's statement that she doesn't care about "cost/benefit" thinking is a blatant lie: She is using it, just not honestly. She is trying to sell her social engineering programs for children by stating their benefits, without discussing the cost. When lefties want to eliminate something, like tax rate cuts, they talk only about the costs, and ignore the benefits. This is especially true about the "human-caused global warming" meme.
what are the benefits?
December 8, 2006 - 16:58 ET by Conservative Voicewhat are the benefits?
I love this argument. Let m
December 8, 2006 - 17:33 ET by Al CzervikI love this argument. Let me try.
"I am finding the rhetoric in the debate over Iraq disheartening. It’s all the usual stuff about cost-benefit and outcomes."
That was fun. I think I'll trot on over to kos and see how that flys with the tinfoil brigade.
http://www.kxxv.com/Global/
December 8, 2006 - 21:17 ET by james789http://www.kxxv.com/...
Here is the best reason I have seen yet to keep your kids out of pre-kindergarden programs I have seen yet.
A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into in-school suspension,
four-year-old son was lining-up to get
on the bus after school last month, when he was accused of rubbing his
face in the chest of a female employee
The prinicipal of La Vega Primary School
sent a letter to the Blackwells that said the pre-kindergartener
demonstrated "inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual
contact and/or sexual harassment."
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price,
peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of
soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt