Possible cuts reflect displaced priorities

The article “White House outlines deep cuts it may have to make” [seattletimes.com, Feb. 8] caught my eye. It may be convenient to simply chop off funding for programs that affect people who don’t have a voice (small children). The cut could mean that 70,000 children would lose Head Start and thousands more would lose child care.

Regarding Head Start, critics have noted that the advantage its preschoolers gain in test scores fades by the third grade. But it has been found that Head Start actually has a strong impact on graduates, including lessening the chance that they’ll be convicted of a crime years later.

Some of the most cost-effective antipoverty programs involve very young children. For instance, the Nurse-Family Partnership has a home-visitation program that encourages new parents of at-risk children to increase hugging, talking and reading. The visits stop at age 2, yet studies show that those children are less likely to be arrested as teenagers and the families require much less government assistance.

Meanwhile, our CEOs are earning up to 380 times what the typical worker makes and our military machine is as bloated as ever. Where are our priorities?

--Donna Schindler Munro, Bremerton