When Something is Worse than Nothing

Is there anything more universally appealing than helping disadvantaged kids? Is there anyone so heartless that if asked would they support reforms, programs, investments, that help kids born to difficult and challenging circumstances that they would answer "No"? I suppose somewhere there is, but no one I know. No matter what side of the political isle one sits or straddles, helping kids rise out of a tough circumstance is laudable, moral, and simply the right thing to do.

Now comes the punch to the stomach. If we really want to help poor kids, I think we should scuttle the Head Start program. Born in 1965 as part of the Great Society, the Head Start was intended to be a poverty fighting tool working to ready low income kids for kindergarten. Head Start has been reauthorized and expanded over the years. Over 20 million kids have participated in Head Start programs. The unfortunate reality for Head Start is that it doesn't work. Studies for decades have proved this point. Most recently a 2010 HHS study clearly showed that the impact of Head Start on the achievement of its participants is fleeting at best. This is only one of many studies over decades that have consistently shown that Head Start has no meaningful impact on the achievement of disadvantaged kids. Yet we continue to spend billions.

Now comes the unfortunate reality of politics today. How would you like to run for office with a plank of your platform to defund Head Start? Can you imagine the outrage? I can only imagine the insults that would be hurled your way. No campaign for office could suceed by promising to defund Head Start. It makes me cringe just thinking about the media outcries and vilification that would ensue. But ending Head Start is exactly what we should do...just not right now.

Here's my gripe: we spend billions in federal money to help kids who desperately need help, and we get no results, we don't help the kids in any substantive or sustainable way. So we all feel better about ourselves because we fund Head Start to help disadvantaged kids, but at the end of the day, the kids we want to help are no better off than when we started. This is tragic, not in the wasted funds but in the outcomes for the kids.

What to do? I am a big believer that if you raise an issue or have a gripe, you need to have a suggestion to fix the problem. I don't know how we solve this problem. I know that we spend billions annually to help kids who really need it, and they get no help. The opportunity cost of these misallocated funds is huge in terms of wasted funds, but staggering and tragic in terms of lives that are not advanced and kids continuing to go wanting. I think that's why we don't defund Head Start right now, but rather we set a date at which time we defund Head Start - two years, three years down the road so we have a hard deadline, and then we start working on alternative uses for the Head Start funds that actually might help the kids to which they are directed. We can't do any worse than we are doing today as studies show that any gains for Head Start kids are gone by the end of first grade. The down side is pretty flat on this one. Give the families vouchers for regional schools and programs, hold the funds for vouchers for college as a carrot to get through school...I don't know the answer, but I know what we are doing today is a double whammy against the kids we are trying to help. They kids get no help and the pressure is off the rest of us to solve the problem because Head Start is fully funded.

BTW, let's not just pick on Head Start. There are a multitude of ineffective federal programs that cross the idealogical spectrum that need to go through this same process. Teen pregnancy prevention programs, smoking cessation programs etc, none of which solve their intended problems, but we keep shoveling cash out the door, feeling better all the while that we are doing "something".

I hate the cliche, "something is better than nothing." I think we can prove that incorrect with Head Start and other well-meaning federal programs. "Something" is worse than nothing when "something" delivers no results, wastes scarce funds, and take the pressure off finding an actual solution. I think we can do better than "something".

The President from the Faculty Lounge

What happens when the lofty ideas of the faculty lounge are turned loose into the semi-free market? You get a trainwreck. This most recent trainwreck is called Obamacare. It is shocking to me how many people seem to be surprised that the rollout of the Obamacare has been a disaster. Even more baffling is the surprise of people who are just figuring out that this was a terrible implementation of a respectable and decent societal objective.

Despite what Obama, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Chuck Schumer, and the other democrat propagandists say, republicans and libertarians to not want people to lack for the basic necessities of life. A social safety net for those who are down on their luck, made a couple of bad choices, or were born into circumstance that was less than positive is a good thing, a moral thing, and a decent thing. However, there are many means to provide a social safety net and central planning from the federal government, as we are seeing to the dismay of many, is probably the worst way to provide most any social service beyond the military, the supreme judiciary, and interstate highways.

What the faculty loungers like Obama and his inner circle of government loyalists fail to realize is that they might be the smartest folks in the room when they are in the classroom or the faculty lounge, but when they get into the real world where people and organizations have to compete to survive, where tenure equates to the coming two weeks for your next paycheck, meeting next month's payroll,  or making next quarter's earnings report, there are thousands, maybe millions of people as smart or smarter than they are. When grandiose central plans, created by a select few of like-minded minions with swanky diplomas are released into the wild, they set the rules of of the road, the limits of the game, and millions of smart, motivated people who don't have tenure or fat government pensions start figuring out how to work the new rules of the game to their advantage...how to win playing by the new rules.

Therefore, it is shocking that the Ivy Leaguers who wrote Obamacare were caught off guard when thousands of companies started limiting employee hours to under 30/week to avoid the costs of hiring or holding full time employees as dictated by Obamacare. What did the central planners think was going to happen? Companies are in business to make money, to win, to succeed in a brutally efficient market place. If there is a way to avoid costs that is not only legal, but rational, then guess what is going to happen? A room full of faculty lounge smarties and government lackeys will never outsmart a market of motivated entrepreneurs. Never. So there will always be unintended consequences as a result of the most well intended plan which will doom it to absolute failure - 100% of the time, given enough time. Obamacare is the most recent and public display of this reality. The ridiculously complex system intended to provide the sick, the poor, and the uninsured with healthcare had no chance to work. Ever. Obamacare proposed to cover 30M uninsured Americans, eliminate lifetime limits on insurance policies, and save the average household $ 2500...all at the same time? On paper and over a latte in the faculty lounge, I have no doubt that this makes perfect sense. However, in the world of rational consumers and smart business leaders, at best it is a bad joke, at worst it is a total failure with lasting negative ramifications on both healthcare and the economy.

It is clear from his statements and actions that Obama thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. Based on what we have seen from his administration on policy, I hate to break the news to him, but I'm not sure he's even the smartest guy in the faculty lounge, but I have no doubt he thinks he is.