Sunday, April 17, 2011

Why Obama's sacred cow, Head Start, should be dead meat!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster


 By Megan Fox

Posted on April 13 2011 7:00 pm
Megan Fox is a stay-at-home mom, blogger, radio-talk show host and conservative folk-singer. Visit her at

Now, if the study had been done on the mothers, I’m sure there would be measurable benefits like less stress, better complexions and nicer looking fingernails, but it’s supposed to be about the kids, right? Typical of the Left when faced with the realities that their ideas are failing, instead of scrapping the bad idea and moving on, they want to throw more money at it.
We’ll increase Head Start funding and quadruple Early Start to include a quarter of a million at-risk children. I will create a Presidential Early Learning Council to coordinate this effort across all levels of government and ensure that we’re providing these children and families with the highest-quality programs.” –Obama, 2007
Obama did indeed get more federal dollars allocated to Head Start in 2009. Truth be told, as difficult as it is to fight against programs that everyone thinks are “for the children,” these are the battles worth fighting so conservatives learn how to communicate with the people and end the practice of using children as human shields on the battlefield of ideas.

Let’s get the kids out of it for once and look at the actual evidence. The HHS study proves Head Start is a useless endeavor. But if that isn’t enough to convince you, maybe the fraud and theft of taxpayer funds at Head Start will.
•Head Start workers at eight centers “actively encouraged” fictitious families to misrepresent their eligibility.
•In at least four cases, applications were “doctored” to exclude income information.
•Workers at seven centers “knowingly disregarded” part of families’ income.
•At two centers, workers falsely wrote on application forms that one parent was unemployed.
It’s no secret why Head Start would want to fill its rolls to the brim. For each child they have enrolled, they get more money. And that’s what it comes down to.

The Left isn’t interested in actually cutting programs that don’t benefit taxpayers because they always benefit somebody. (I’ll give you a hint: it’s not the children.)

The phrase I’m looking for is “slush fund.” Whenever Americans allow more of their money to leave their control and go to Washington, they are taking the risk that it will end up funding useless programs and lining the pockets of unsavory people.

The question is, do you want to be able to pay for preschool? If the answer is yes, then what can the government do to help you do that? The answer is not another billion dollars to fund a failing program but to let you keep more of your money which you will put to good use on your children’s education, thus improving the lives of children (and their parents) everywhere!