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

[beyond the sea]

Judith Warner ---

..... well, she's got nice cheekbones and beautiful thick dark chestnut hair............ so who needs a brain?

[andy58-in-nh]

Do you suppose Ms. Warner tends not to judge military spending by its cost or results?

[AmericaUnite]

Just another way to start the kiddies off at government institutions.

[beyond the sea]

Writes Warner: "The argument I would rather hear is: universal preschool is good for today’s families right now."

Should read: "The argument I would rather hear is: universal preschool socialistic/liberal propaganda is good for today’s families right now."

[7thson]

What are the 3 questions Thomas Sowell says we should ask - I think when is what is the cost. Well, you can throw that question out the window.

[7thson]

Not so much as reading enough books but having limited life experiences. I believe wisdom comes to a person by - one - travelling and living through life and - two - allowing yourself to remain open to the experience. When you have certain belief systems and refuse to move out of where you live, your belief systems never get challenged.

[chimera]

Judith Warner looks rather a youngster. I don't know if she is or not, but she sure sounds like a recent J-school graduate. Unfortunately, these are the kind of people journalism schools are cranking out by the thousands these days. Total airheads.

[WesternPacific]

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

Correct, it should be judged by the resulting permanent welfare state it has caused.

[ShandaLear]

They also lack common sense and the ability to conceive something as simple as cause and effect.

[sportutegrl]

It isn't enough to just say this is a stupid comment. You have to take these liberal columnists by the head and rub their noses in it. Obviously she actually believes this or she wouldn't say it. So, to Judith: Of course one must consider cost when evaluating a government program, or any spending for that matter. Look at the amount of money spent on a program: Would other spending choices give us better results? If you are going to take money from people against their will, then you owe it to them to get the most value for their money. Another concept to consider is whether to take and spend this money at all. Some government programs have been shown to be more harmful then beneficial, so that it would have been better to just set the money on fire. Before you dare to take anyone's hard earned money to spend it on your whims and feelings, then you better make damn sure that 1. This is the cheapest way to achieve this stated goal; and 2. Achieving this goal would be a definite benefit. Would that all government spending would have to meet these two tests.

[wtc911]

These people are definitely living in a Separate Reality. And it's more unreal than Casteneda's.

Just had a flashback.....pretty cool.

[joylyn]

Not only will these "specialists" be very expensive babysitters, they will be civil servants who can't be fired just because a supervisor suspects them of impropriety. They'll keep their jobs until there is proof that they've beaten or molested their charges.

The current teacher training and certification system is responsible for what's wrong with the public schools today -- so, by all means, let's hand over our preschoolers to the same people and see what damage they can do there.

[Carolinamom]

Here is where Ms. Warner is coming from...Mommy Madness

Synopsis: Motherhood and career goals are too hard to balance, and childcare is too expensive, so the government should provide excellent childcare (like the French government did when she was there) so that women can have rewarding careers and not have to spend exhausting time w/their children. (Long whine article.)

[goldstategop]

Just like the AMT... every one else should pay more so the affluent pay less. That's a crash lesson in post-modern liberalism for y'all - along with spending more, of course.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Aquinasfan]

Sure she's an idiot, and sure, the plan's idiotic, but don't think that this can't happen. Public schooling is an unqualified disaster, and yet the institution continues on unopposed. College today isn't much different.

If public schooling is all about free babysitting, public preschool is all about free daycare; same principle, different age group.

The goal of liberal and socialist educrats is "free" school institutionalization for children from birth through age 22. They want complete governmental oversight of children because they reject the principle that parents should be a child's primary educators.

Read it and weep.

[Aquinasfan]

We are too busy " saving the world" to bother actually doing our job as parents.

Like I say to my kids, everyone wants to save the world but no one wants to clean the toilet.

(Not to compare parenthood to cleaning the toilet, but you get my point.)

[Aquinasfan]

These people are smart people, most of them, educated.

I think even that is too charitable. They aren't even smart. What's worse, they think they're smart, because they have a piece of paper that says so.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Apparently she could not get her kid into private pre-school so she wants us to pay for it.

[OESY]

In other words, liberals should not be blamed for the failure of their programs. If they were not wearing ideological blinders, they would be able to analyze correctly the causes of underlying problems and design more effective counter measures. /sarc.