I find your argument weak, supported by wishful thinking.
“Why else would 70% of kids attend preschool at enormous sacrifices by parents?”
Who has quantified the enormous sacrifices? I’d like to see the data, because I know many parents for whom sending their kids to preschool is not much of a sacrifice. For many working parents paying for preschool is simply part of the family budget, no more a sacrifice than the second car or clothes for work. Should the government pay for those costs too?
“It seems coldhearted to deny kids those early benefits just because other obstacles interfere with long term benefits. Perhaps Kalmia and Snell would refuse a dehydrated man a bottle of water in a desert just because he’s going to die of thirst anyway.”
This seems to be an example of the typical liberal approach of ignoring that choices must be made. Paying for preschool means we cannot fund some other program, perhaps one with more important tangible benefits. Sorry, but I might refuse that doomed man a bottle of water if I had to give that extra water to a child with a better chance of survival.
“The benefits dissipate because the pressures of life for lower income kids increase as they get older and because of the failures of elementary schools.”
Yet, you oppose school vouchers that would give lower income kids better alternatives to the public schools that have been failing despite years of reform and increasing budgets. Even if I agreed with your position on preschool vouchers, why would I want to spend precious tax dollars now on benefits that will dissipate anyway?
