Posted on 11/17/2013 9:29:14 AM PST by Kaslin
When the government shutdown began on Oct. 1, it forced the closing of Head Start facilities in several states, stopping educational services for thousands of low-income kids. So heart-rending was this spectacle that a pair of Texas philanthropists gave $10 million to keep the programs going.
Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas appeared at a rally of parents protesting the Head Start closures, holding up a child's chair and declaring, "Here is the empty chair of the next astronaut. Here is the empty chair of a captain in the United States military."
House Republicans were not about to be accused of depriving poor children. They approved a measure to provide funding for Head Start, with one member attesting, "As we work our way out of this government shutdown mess, we shouldn't let some of our most vulnerable citizens, low-income children with no recourse, suffer."
That was not good enough for President Barack Obama, who prevailed in his insistence that the House agree to fund the government across the board through Jan. 15. Amid the bitter quarrel, no one bothered to ask whether Head Start is actually serving the purposes that justify its budget.
Maybe that's because they know the answer is no but aren't willing to face being denounced for cruelty to disadvantaged tots. For decades, Head Start has consistently disappointed anyone who expected it to make a real difference in the fortunes of the poor.
A 2010 study by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that though there were modest benefits to participating kids, they soon evaporated. "The benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by first grade for the program population as a whole," it admitted. "For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits."
A federal social program that burns though billions of dollars, year in and year out, despite showing scant value to those it's supposed to help? That may sound like a regrettable anomaly. In fact, as David Muhlhausen documents in his new book, "Do Federal Social Programs Work?" (Praeger), it's pretty much the norm.
The author, a longtime scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, appears to have reviewed every study of these undertakings, as evidenced in 47 pages of footnotes. The overwhelming majority, he finds, don't accomplish anything resembling their stated mission, and some even "produce harmful outcomes."
The dismal results might be excused as the price of showing concern for people in genuine need, if not for the fact that these efforts cost so much -- $443 billion in 2011, exceeding 3 percent of gross domestic product.
This book, whose importance is inverse to its likely readership, excludes Social Security, unemployment insurance and veterans' benefits because they must be earned through work. Muhlhausen concentrates on the Great Society programs enacted in the 1960s under President Lyndon B. Johnson, which were meant to "eradicate the fundamental causes of poverty by providing opportunity to the poor" and "ultimately make redistribution unnecessary." So far, you may have noticed, they have accomplished neither objective.
There was a sound idea behind LBJ's approach, namely that the way to help the disadvantaged was to give them the tools to become prosperous. Head Start would confer a boost in learning that would have a permanent payoff. The Job Corps would equip them with the skills to earn good wages. Upward Bound would prepare them for college. But the federal government didn't really know how to do these things.
Anything coming out of Heritage will be dismissed by critics as right-wing propaganda, but Muhlhausen backs up his findings with masses of data. He also finds comparable results for Republican social programs aimed at reducing teen sexual activity and strengthening families. His overall conclusions, in any case, are not particularly novel or radical.
Isabel Sawhill, co-director of the liberal Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families, wrote in 2010 that in the 10 most rigorous assessments of individual federal social programs, "nine of these evaluations found weak or no positive effects." When I contacted Ron Haskins, a welfare expert also at Brookings, he cited a few successful ventures but said, "I generally agree that social programs do not work."
No quantity of stirring words or noble intentions can justify expensive measures that leave little trace behind. Our elected officials generally agree that withholding money from social programs shortchanges the poor. They fail to notice that for the most part, providing money has the same effect.
Head Start has never been about the children. It gets them out of the home so that their mothers can indulge in their alcohol, drug, and boyfriend habits; and, it provides low expectation jobs for the inner city. Development of young children is not a priority, so it should not be surprising that Head Start fails in that regard.
Obamcare, likewise, is set up to redistribute wealth, enhance government control of a large piece of our economy, promote union penetration of the health care industry, and get Democrat politicians reelected. Delivery of health care is not only not a priority, the real priorities cannot be accomplished unless the quality of health care declines. It will, just like Head Start.
In the beginning...the parent had to be at school, too. It was totally social for the kids...about 2 hours. Learning to be with others.
Go back to the old days. We had full time kindergarten..cutoff was Feb 1. (1/2 the school year). I was 4 8/12. My granddaughter was 5 9/12....more than a year difference is a huge gap.
>>>Isn’t it the fact that it was the democrats who shut the government down and not the Republicans?>>>
Yes you’re right. The Dems had a choice. They chose to make the people suffer.
Here is the chair of the next gangbanger.
YES!
Good comeback to that moron from TX
Head start has not been a failure. The failure is our inability to understand our opponents. Many Conservatives have real-world business experience. We learned quickly the importance of Return On Investment (ROI). We learned to apply our resources, especially money, where it would provide the most “profit”. And “profit” meant money on the bottom line. In government, this meant getting the most efficient and effective use out of the taxpayers hard-earned dollars. The Democrats don’t invest money that way. They look for the Political Return On Investment (PROI). They don’t look at efficiency and effectiveness when spending the taxpayers hard-earned money. They spend the taxpayers money to buy votes.
“Understand yourself and understand your opponents and in one hundred battles you will not be defeated.”
While I agree that Amtrack is a failure, I can not agree that the Space program was a failure. The Challenger and the Columbia disasters were unfortunate but do not belong in the category of federal failures
Sorry Shiela, those potential leaders were aborted thanks to you and your fellow democrats.
Hear, hear!
However, this presumes that the purpose of these social programs is to elevate the poor. If one rejects that superficial purpose and understands that the true raison d'etre for these programs is wealth redistribution, then it all makes sense. There is no accountability -- or even measurement -- of success, because success is achieved by the very existence of the program. It is not a means toward an end, but an end in itself.
She held up an electric chair and didn’t have to say a thing.
Good one!
What good does it do when they go back home and learn nothing? It is only a babysitting service for baby mamas.
Aww it’s stupid crap like that...
Yes every working mother that has children in Head Start (even under stupid idea it makes a difference ) is just wanting it so they can have sex and do drugs. Jeez
And it provides more cash from the stash for more teachers to push for more Marxists like Obama to get into political office. Its a giant money laundry for the left.
“Head Start has never been about the children. It gets them out of the home so that their mothers can indulge in their alcohol, drug, and boyfriend habits; and, it provides low expectation jobs for the inner city. Development of young children is not a priority, so it should not be surprising that Head Start fails in that regard.
And it provides more cash from the stash for more teachers to push for more Marxists like Obama to get into political office. Its a giant money laundry for the left.”
The beginning of wisdom is to understand that these multifarious government programs are not failures, but time-tested successes.
Do not make the mistake of categorizing the authors of these “welfare” systems as parasites. Far from that, they are the predators at the top of the food-chain on this American Serengeti.
The Forgotten Man is the wildebeest.
She may do drugs, she may entertain her boyfriend. Or she may not, but she most certainly votes, and she votes for the Democrat and always will. It’s not about the children.
Jeez
Too bad Jackson Lee couldn’t hold up an unoccupied suit of clothes and identify it as the empty suit occupying the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.