In the article "Children 'tied to economics'", First Five Years Fund Executive Director Kristin Perry said that all American children "deserve to have quality early childhood experience" (emphasis ours).
Well, perhaps we can all agree that it would be nice if everyone had a quality early childhood experience, but we believe that to contend that it is "deserved" and should be paid by taxpayers reflects seriously unrealistic expectations about what's achievable.
Kris Perry also said: "We should all be outraged. It is completely and totally infuriating,” Perry said. “There’s 73,000 children who live in poverty in San Bernardino County.”
That's just laughable coming out of the mouth of someone who made a $200K comp package with a pension for giving away taxpayer money. Was that comp package deserved? Really? For giving away free money? Oh what sweaty work . . . and where's the proof that it has made a difference?
When you hear stuff like this, you have to wonder if the Early Childhood movement is designed to build a voter base, because thinking that a few billion here and there (where a lot of the money is in fact creating long term pension obligations) will change millions of kids' life direction is really rather ludicrous.
However, it does make sense to say these things and spend that kind of money if you are looking to move a particular segment of the population from Republican to Democrat.
As you know if you've read flopped5 for any period of time, our work group here is made up of people across the political spectrum, but none of us are in denial when we look at the Early Childhood movement in this way - it's clearly social engineering in a way that is embarrassing at best, as there are no measurable outcomes to speak of thus far other than pension paying job creation.
Facts are that there are just too many people for everyone to get everything that even the most progressive amongst us hope they can have or experience. Healthy childhoods that level the adult playing field are a utopian pipe dream that most people realize is unachievable. It does not mean they are not worth striving for, but the First 5 law is not the way to do it, given the resignations and the mismanagement.
Most people do their best in raising and caring for our young, but we do not believe that anyone really seriously believes that spending $200 per child (which is about what the First 5 commissions spend) is going to make any real dent in the future of a kid's life. That's why we feel such quotes are laughable. No one with good common sense really believes it, but yet if you say it enough, some people believe it's magic with words.
And - since the article claims that there are so many big name philanthropists involved, why not let them fund such any effort to provide all children positive early life experiences?
It's our opinion that tax money should be used for essential services, like children's healthcare; let philanthropy do its job (separate from government) for these other campaigns.
Well, perhaps we can all agree that it would be nice if everyone had a quality early childhood experience, but we believe that to contend that it is "deserved" and should be paid by taxpayers reflects seriously unrealistic expectations about what's achievable.
Kris Perry also said: "We should all be outraged. It is completely and totally infuriating,” Perry said. “There’s 73,000 children who live in poverty in San Bernardino County.”
That's just laughable coming out of the mouth of someone who made a $200K comp package with a pension for giving away taxpayer money. Was that comp package deserved? Really? For giving away free money? Oh what sweaty work . . . and where's the proof that it has made a difference?
When you hear stuff like this, you have to wonder if the Early Childhood movement is designed to build a voter base, because thinking that a few billion here and there (where a lot of the money is in fact creating long term pension obligations) will change millions of kids' life direction is really rather ludicrous.
However, it does make sense to say these things and spend that kind of money if you are looking to move a particular segment of the population from Republican to Democrat.
As you know if you've read flopped5 for any period of time, our work group here is made up of people across the political spectrum, but none of us are in denial when we look at the Early Childhood movement in this way - it's clearly social engineering in a way that is embarrassing at best, as there are no measurable outcomes to speak of thus far other than pension paying job creation.
Facts are that there are just too many people for everyone to get everything that even the most progressive amongst us hope they can have or experience. Healthy childhoods that level the adult playing field are a utopian pipe dream that most people realize is unachievable. It does not mean they are not worth striving for, but the First 5 law is not the way to do it, given the resignations and the mismanagement.
Most people do their best in raising and caring for our young, but we do not believe that anyone really seriously believes that spending $200 per child (which is about what the First 5 commissions spend) is going to make any real dent in the future of a kid's life. That's why we feel such quotes are laughable. No one with good common sense really believes it, but yet if you say it enough, some people believe it's magic with words.
And - since the article claims that there are so many big name philanthropists involved, why not let them fund such any effort to provide all children positive early life experiences?
It's our opinion that tax money should be used for essential services, like children's healthcare; let philanthropy do its job (separate from government) for these other campaigns.
