A couple of days ago President Obama revealed a new agenda to push for state and federally funded early childhood education. I am sure this is with the best of intentions, but much like other social programs their are unintended consequences to every action.
First of all, every social program in existence today started with the best possible intentions of MOST of those involved. This obviously doesn’t apply to Lyndon B. Johnson who started most of these programs:
These programs were designed to be a “safety net”. Some people use these programs as such, but more and more these programs simply trap one generation after the next into the despair of poverty. An important economic concept in this equation is that whatever we subsidize, we will get more of. Reflect on that. Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare are set up in such a way that many people who are married are ineligible due to a slightly higher income. They are set up so that if the individual receiving the aid becomes just slightly more successful then their aid is discontinued. The result is that many people born into the system are simply trapped there.
If these systems were really about providing a safety net and not an attempt to buy votes, then why are they not designed to help people? Many of my friends would be eligible for significant quantities of monies from the state if they were unmarried. If they just got divorced and lived with their spouse and were willing to lie on that little form, they would be a candidate for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid and our already present head start program (which provides free daycare to preschool children).
I will say again, what we subsidize, we will get more of. We should offer incentives under welfare programs if the partner stays in the home, and if they are able to make just a little extra money. If we subsidized married partners, and emerging success then we will get more married partners and emerging success. This is a system I could get behind rather than just expecting people to be grateful enough for the crumbs that slip down to them that they will vote for the right candidate.
The second point behind my tirade is that I really don’t trust the government. There are ideas popular within society that I don’t want my child to learn. I would like to teach them in a compassionate, educated way about our beliefs. I know that this is going to sound really paranoid, and take this for what it is worth, but it is right out of the communist manifesto to indoctrinate children early. Don’t believe me, actually look up the ten points of the communist manifesto as presented by Karl Marx written in 1848. This was point ten on his list of how to control society.
This was practiced in Russia. It was practiced in Nazi Germany. Ever hear of the Hitler youth? It was encouraged under Mao in China. Children were indoctrinated and encouraged to spy on their parents in the home and report them to the government for “wrong thinking”. I know how this sounds, and for those of you who think I sound crazy. Yeah, you’re probably right. Nothing LIKE that could EVER happen here! I am sure we are all a completely different class of parents than those in Germany, China and Russia who were subjected to this. No worries! Whew…. I feel better already.
Lastly, some of the smartest, kindest women I have the privilege of knowing are stay at home moms. They have made this difficult and valuable choice. Their personal choice should not be discouraged and derided by the government but recognized as the high calling that it is. Why are we called upon to celebrate every choice in our society as equally valid and to be lauded except this lifestyle? I wish with all my heart that it made sense in my family for me to be a stay at home mom. It makes more sense for my husband to stay with the girls most of the time, and this is a blessing to us and I am jealous every day. Instilling character, kindness and knowledge into little hearts and minds is the most important job there is.
It is not the place of the government to overreach yet again into the private lives of families. They should stick to roads, and post offices and providing for the common defense like the constitution delineates. They should stop trying to socially engineer America. They are doing a bad job of it. If they are going to continue to practice socially engineering, perhaps they could do so in a way that would actually lift people out of poverty instead of trapping them there. This sounds like the truly compassionate thing to do.