By Chris Reed

The recent flap over an MSNBC promo in which commentator Melissa Harris-Perry declared that  Americans “have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to their communities” didn’t last long. But the Tulane professor’s sort of thinking is more widespread on the left than one might imagine — and it has the potential to blow up into a racial flap that divides Democrats.

Driving this issue is the increasing body of evidence that shows early childhood, from birth to kindergarten, is  crucial to long-term cognitive development. This research is why President Barack Obama earlier this year introduced the “Early Childhood and Preschool for All Initiative,” which has led to proposed reforms that amount to more government programs for the very young.

But on this issue, a growing number of liberal education reformers and social scientists are also going onto extremely sensitive ground. They don’t just want government programs for kids under 5. They contend that cognitive development is driven by parents’ behavior, and that some parents are better for their kids than others. This is how City Journal put it:

“The difference between middle-class and low-income child rearing has been captured at its starkest — and most unsettling — by Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley in their 1995 book ‘Meaningful Differences.’ As War on Poverty foot soldiers with a special interest in language development, Hart and Risley were troubled by the mediocre results of the curriculum they had helped design at the Turner House Preschool in a poor black Kansas City neighborhood. Comparing their subjects with those at a lab school for the children of University of Kansas professors, Hart and Risley found to their dismay that not only did the university kids know more words than the Turner kids, but they learned faster. The gap between upper- and lower-income kids, they concluded, ‘seemed unalterable by intervention by the time the children were 4 years old.’

“Trying to understand why, their team set out to observe parents and children in their homes doing the things they ordinarily did—hanging out, talking, eating dinner, watching television. The results were mind-boggling: in the first years of life, the average number of words heard per hour was 2,150 for professors’ kids, 1,250 for working-class children, and 620 for children in welfare families.”

For infants, government as Big Mother

These findings have increasingly led social engineers on the left to hint, delicately, that maybe these less-verbal parents should have less definitive of a role in their kids’ upbringing and that the government should have much more of a role. Rob Reiner and Kris Perry — the driving force behind and the first head of the First Five California program, respectively — are national leaders of the government-as-parent cause, which has deep California roots. Here Perry makes the case:

“With all-day, year-round schools providing high quality early education services to disadvantaged children and families in 17 sites across the country, Educare demonstrates that with the right resources and collaboration between public and private partners, the investment in the earliest years really pays off.

“According to research conducted by the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Educare schools in six cities — Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, Omaha, Seattle and Tulsa — showed positive results in preparing disadvantaged children for later academic success. The study revealed that disadvantaged children who enroll in Educare as infants or toddlers entered kindergarten with the same vocabulary and school-readiness skills as their middle-income peers.”

Social engineers: ‘Middle-income’ parents > ‘disadvantaged’ parents

It is easy to see fury in minority communities over what many would see as the blame-the-victim overtones of this approach, and over the idea that “disadvantaged” parents just aren’t as good as their “middle-income peers.”

Even if they are well-meaning, Reiner, Perry and other social engineers are playing with fire with this line of thinking.

Should we be less worried when discussing public policy issues with racial overtones? In an ideal world, of course. But in the world we live in, claims of racism are used so wantonly and effectively as weapons that it’s no wonder people tread carefully.

Most of the time, those claims are aimed at people on the right who believe in small government or who oppose affirmative action or welfare programs. But in this case, those claims could be aimed at people on the left who believe that “all-day, year-round” government is a better parent than the ones that disadvantaged kids have.

By Chris Reed

The pro-gay marriage movement continues to gather momentum, and I fully expect the Supreme Court to get aboard, with a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy upholding a lower federal-court ruling scrapping California’s Proposition 8 and its ban on same-sex marriage. I generally don’t like courts overturning ballot measures, but as a libertarian, gay marriage is fine by me.

But however one feels on the issue, it’s utter media malpractice that one of the married gay protagonists in the case, plaintiff Kris Perry, has a scandalous history that no one ever brings up. Here’s the background from a 2010 blog item I wrote:

“Last week I wrote at my amazement at how Kris Perry was being touted as the perfect plaintiff in the fight over gay marriage. Why? Because she played a central role in a brutal assault on California taxpayers: First 5’s decision to use $23 million in taxpayer funds in winter 2005-06 to pay for ‘preschool for all’ TV ads as First 5 founder/overlord Rob Reiner gathered signatures for his ‘preschool for all’ initiative. … [She refused] to testify at the March 8, 2006, hearing in Sacramento of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee that looked into this ripoff … .

Kris Perry: Ducking questions, responsibility

This is from the L.A. Times’ story of March 9, 2006, about the hearing:

“A committee of state senators and Assembly members directed the Bureau of State Audits to perform the fiscal review of the commission. First 5 ‘s executive director declined to answer the legislators’ questions, ‘at the advice of counsel.’ ….

“[Sen. Dave] Cox likened Reiner’s activities to those of former Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush and Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, both of whom resigned amid investigations into whether they used tax money to further their political goals. ….

“The audit also would ‘determine, if possible, whether there was coordination between the commission and the Proposition 82 campaign in the media purchases by the commission or expenditure of other public funds,’ Howle said. ….

“First 5 Director Kris Perry appeared at Wednesday’s hearing of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and said the commission welcomed the inquiry, but added that she would not answer lawmakers’ questions ‘at the advice of counsel.’

“Sen. Chuck Poochigian (R-Fresno), a member of the audit committee …, said Perry’s refusal “elevates my concern about charges of wrongdoing.”

First 5 emails were also deleted; media don’t care

As I wrote back in 2010:

“Perry and Reiner aren’t just ripoff artists. They’re sanctimonious ripoff artists who think they hold the high ground even though they used $23 million in taxpayer money for a political campaign. Pathetic.”

And the coverup didn’t just involve Perry’s refusal to testify. Emails of key officials were also deleted, as I wrote about in 2010. Nexis indicates I’m the only one who ever wrote about this possibly criminal activity. WTG, Sacramento media.

Kris Perry is a hero to some. To me, she’s just another shady public official — as well as a symbol of how poorly California journalists cover scandals when they sympathize with the alleged good intentions of the scandalous officials.

By Chris Reed

Lance Izumi does a great job in the Orange County Register of documenting how President Obama’s push for universal preschool is a retread of actor-director Rob Reiner’s failed, scandal-scarred push in California — right down to citing the same shaky study to justify changing the lives of vast numbers of families.

“Both Reiner and Obama pointed to supposed research showing that for every tax dollar invested in government-run preschool several times that amount would be saved by higher graduation rates, lower teen pregnancy and reduced violent crime. The trouble is that there is no such long-term evidence for children of all income backgrounds.

“Reiner and his campaign made much of a RAND Corp. study that purported to show what universal government-run preschool would have cost and student-outcome benefits. However, even RAND admitted that there was only one study done on the long-term impact of preschool on non-poor children. According to RAND, this study found that non-poor children attending preschool ‘were no better off in terms of high school or college completion, earnings, or criminal justice system involvement than those not going to any preschool.’ In other words, President Obama’s argument for universal government-run preschool is totally baseless.”

Surveys say: No long-lasting benefit despite hype

And guess what? Much broader and more scientific studies sharply undermine the case for Obama’s and Reiner’s crusade, as Izumi lays out:

“Further, even evidence of the impact of preschool on low-income children is mixed. True, after longitudinal study, a few preschool programs have shown positive results, but there are critical caveats.

“First, the reasons for the positive results are tied to very specific elements, such as long-term parental involvement, and there is no guarantee that such elements will be included in Obama’s program. Further, some of these ‘positive’ studies are based on tiny sample sizes and have never been replicated.

“Finally, there’s a lot of data to show that whatever beneficial impact preschool has on poor children fades away after a few years.”

But what’s striking to me is that even though RAND acknowledges the weakness of the study that’s being touted by the president and his Hollywood pal, the Santa Monica-headquartered think tank is back on the pulpit pushing for universal preschool. A search on its website turns out lots of hits that suggests universal preschool is part of RAND’s agenda.

Silly me. I thought think tanks were supposed to be both ideological and empirical.

A whiff of ugly paternalism

And do I detect a slightly ugly whiff to our liberal elites’ eagerness to help poor families — often minorities — in raising their kids? This is coming from the same educrat wing of the Democratic Party that increasingly implies that teachers can never help broad swaths of students. I’m always struck when I read the comments sections of education blogs by how ready teachers are to argue that some kids just can’t be helped.

I am not a Pollyanna. I know students have varied skill sets. But it’s worth remembering that a central rationale for “No Child Left Behind” was a cliche — “the soft bigotry of low expectations” — that has some real truth to it. If teachers assume individual students — or categories of students — aren’t reachable, they don’t reach.

Is their paternalism now broadening out to suggest that there may be categories of parents who are so incompetent that they need government-supplied role models to save their 3- and 4-year-olds?

Could be. There is a grim history to liberals’ condescension and contempt for the downtrodden they allegedly care most about.

By John Seiler

Barbara Streisand is so rich she’s way beyond the “1 percent.” So she never would feel the tax increases from Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax increases on incomes and sales.

But she would pay more money to the wasteful state government. She would have less money to invest in creating new jobs for other people.

On the other hand, if Prop. 30 passes, she also would have less money to give to tax-increase propositions like Prop. 30.

Not that she’s thinking of any of that while endorsing Prop. 30. She’s contributed $5,000 to the campaign. Which will buy a couple seconds of a TV commercial.

Rob Reiner — the Meathead — last seen in public discourse as part of his severe ethical violations as the head of the California First Five bureaucracy, also is contributing.

Reported the L.A. Times, “Studios, including Warner Bros., Fox and Disney, have contributed at least $700,000 to the governor’s campaign committee, according to records filed with the secretary of state’s office.

“Brown has yet to decide whether to sign one of the industry’s top priorities: a bill that would extend a $200-million tax credit for film and television productions.”

I get it. Streisand, Reiner and the studios get massive tax cuts — paid for by tax increases on others (and to some extent, on themselves).

Just another great benefit of living in Hollywoodland (a/k/a Taxifornia).

Smoke ’em if you got ’em.

Flopped5.org is a great new site setting fire to the First 5 California program that taxes cigarettes 50 cents a pack to fund programs that supposedly help kids. First 5 is paid for by Proposition 10, which actor/director Rob “Meathead” Reiner tricked voters into backing in 1998 with Proposition 10.

Flopped5 writes:

“Flopped 5 exists to provide an uncompensated and independent view of the First 5 Commissions, also known as the California Children and Families Program….

“Based on wide and deep reviews of available information, it is our opinion that the California First 5 Commission is a ballot initiative experiment that has flopped,  contrary to the 100 percent taxpayer paid marketing that attempts to convince voters otherwise. After over a decade in existence, it is our opinion that the Proposition 10 law‘s commissions have offered little to no evidence that they have ‘made a difference’ to improve the lives of children up to age 5. Moreover, we feel it is a law that is structurally flawed and contains improper incentives for public officials and others who both sit on the boards and receive funds”

Here’s some of the waste and abuse by First 5 honchos that Flopped5 found:

* Jelly Belly Factory tours;

* Camping lessons and at least one overnight trip to Big Sur;

* Overnight stay at  the Four Points Sheraton in Pleasanton, CA where couples from San Francisco took marriage workshops and were given $250 in Target gift cards to spend on whatever;

* Holiday party  space rental and the purchase of a costume;

* Monterey Bay Aquarium field trips;

* Halloween party supplies;

* A play area at a foreign government’s consulate;

* Ice-skating lessons;

* Belly Dancing classes for expectant teenage moms;

* $200 per hour to pay a consultant to listen to the radio;

* $4 million was spent on a national cartoon show (KCRA broadcast 11-18-08); funds are only supposed to be spent to support services in California;

* Large comp packages for people who mainly give away public funds and go to meetings for a living (this is just salary so does not include pension/benefits; thus add $50,000 or more). First 5’s top 5 salary grabbers:

— First 5 LA: $248,178;

— Children & Families Commission of Orange County: $247,227;

— First 5 Alameda-Every Child Counts: $181,310;

— First 5 Santa Clara County: $162,289;

— First 5 San Bernardino: $154,714;

* Kern County‘s problems and the exiting of its Executive Director:

— paid $17,000 for a consultant’s new convertible 

They had fun, fun, fun till the taxpayers took the T-bird away.

I’m looking for more great stuff from Flopped5.

All these examples are reason enough to repeal the tax and cancel the whole First 5 program. Let parents, families, churches and other voluntary organizations take care of kids. Government only does harm, beginning with robbing parents through high taxation.

As “Meathead” Reiner’s arch-nemesis, Archie Bunker on the old “All in the Family” show, used to say: We gotta get our prior-orities straight.

(The picture at the top right shows “Meathead” Reiner, the clueless liberal, losing another argument to Archie, the wise conservative.)

— Feb. 22, 2012