NY Times Columnist: Don't Judge Social-Program Spending By Cost Or Results

New York Times/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

This is not an Onion article. I solemnly affirm to Scrappleface: New York Times columnist Judith Warner doesn't want decisions on spending taxpayer money on social programs to be judged by how much they cost or whether they work.

Despite my disclaimer, 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."

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

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Liberal mindset Not-a-parody ping to Today show list.

[MNJohnnie]

Yes, having to care for our children is far too troublesome for us whiny self absorbed liberal types. We are too busy "
saving the world" to bother actually doing our job as parents.
And of course, WE are not responsible for having the children so YOU should pay so WE do not have to pay for day care.

Here is a better notion. Simply make all costs of daycare 100% tax deductible and let all the whiny liberal types set up a charity to provide daycare to the poor and needy. If they can waste 10s of billions on all sort of political "Causes" like "Global Warming" they can find a few billion for this.

[vikingd00d]

>> This is not an Onion article. I solemnly affirm to Scrappleface:

It's rather surreal that quoting a so-called "news" organization requires a "Dave Barry"-style disclaimer.

[the tongue]

I'm willing to bet that she's taken the government to task for spending in Iraq though, and the space program, and all the other stuff she disagrees with.

[sirchtruth]

Here's what's always been wrong with the liberal mindset. These people are smart people, most of them, educated. What they lack is something much more important in order to form any credibility for their belief system.

Wisdom.

[MadIvan]

Shocking. It's like she's saying, "It's only money...what's a few billion between friends?"

If she wants to be that insane with her money, that's her business...she has no right to tell others to do so.

Regards, Ivan

[AppyPappy]

When a liberal tells me about some great program, I always ask them how much they are willing to pay for it.

[Westbrook]

Don't Judge Social-Program Spending By Cost Or Results

Imagine telling your boss:

Don't judge MY PROJECT by cost Or results

These people are definitely living in a Separate Reality.

And it's more unreal than Casteneda's.

.

[Delta 21]

Well I, for one, have a very large warm and fuzzy feeling right now.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Yeah. Booksmart, just haven't read enough books.

[daviddennis]

What's even sadder is that her article is "TimesSelect" protected and so we'll never know what she really said.

Still, there is an infinite number of possible social programs. How do you decide which ones to run, even if you are a liberal, if it's not through cost/benefit analysis?

D

[Nomorjer Kinov]

Warner must have young children who are too immature to participate in an adult conversation. She is more comfortable with leaving their development to "specialists" who have more time to devote to somebody else's children.

The likely outcome will be "specialists" who are recent college graduates (B.A. Education) - the kind of employees with little experience and fewer children but who are in boundless supply. But since Warner reveals that they would be little more than babysitters, they will be perfect for the task.

[Puppage]

NY Times Columnist: Don't Judge Social-Program Spending By Cost Or Results

Yes. Judge them by feeeeeeeeelings.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Don't worry: Hillary will sort it all out for us ;-)

[snarks_when_bored]

Here's the syllogistic rendering of Judith Warner's 'argument':

1. Squandering vast sums of taxpayer money on government programs that don't work makes Judith Warner feel good.
2. Whatever makes Judith Warner feel good should continue.
3. Therefore, squandering vast sums of taxpayer money on government programs that don't work should continue.

Who says editorial standards at the New York Times are declining?

Next week, Winnie the Pooh will weigh in on the 2008 U.S. Presidential election...

[Chode]

don't judge the NYSLIMES by it's content, just buy it anyway... same-same

[newzjunkey]

I'll tell you what, she can give her entire salary to the gov't for these glorious programs and she can get what gov't thinks she needs to live on. Maybe in some affordable housing complex. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[beyond the sea]

It's rather surreal that quoting a so-called "news" organization requires a "Dave Barry"-style disclaimer.

It's becoming rather common.

[King of Florida]

Who would take Judith Warner seriously about anything she had to write about re: politics and government? She writes a "Today's Mom" type column -- an Erma Bombeck for the bobo set.