DJ Kathy G

A few weeks ago over at Ezra's, a commenter named Kathy G started posting incredibly interesting, well-argued pieces. I called for her to get a coveted spot as one of Ezra's guest bloggers when he was away on vacation. I'm happy to say that the people's (as defined by 'my') voice has been heard, and the inimitable Kathy G now speaks!

She has a fantastic post today about the completely inarguable case for universal Pre-K programs. You should read it. This is one of those issues where I guess it's good that we can make an economic argument, in that it seems like, between reduction in crime rates, high school dropout rates, teen pregnancy, and increased interest in education, community interest, etc. you get a 16-18% return on investment in these types of programs.

But, really, what kind of people are we if we have to resort to economic arguments to claim that the children of single working mothers should be given the opportunity for social interaction with adults and other children in safe, controlled environments?

Also, I do have a bit of an ulterior motive, as I posted what I feel was a pretty well-written comment to her post, which I will copy here for those too lazy to click over.
Kathy G,

I have enjoyed your tenure as a guest-blogger so far, and am proud to have been (I think) the first to call for you to fill said role. However, I think you're being fairly naive with this:

But I also think we can get through to the market-oriented conservatives by making the economic, return-on-investment argument to them.

If the last 7 years have taught us nothing else, it should be that there really is no such thing as a "market-oriented conservative". There are people who use the language of market-orientation to call for government action to bring about their desired outcomes, and there are free-marketeer libertarians, who make up a small portion of the electorate, and an essentially nonexistent portion of the political elite.

For the second group, you are at best going to be able to achieve a tie, since you are fighting the counteracting impulses between increased economic returns and the instinct that the government can't do anything right.

For the first, you are in a lose-lose, as you are fighting for the right to let more women not have to stay home with their children, and you are promoting a program which would have an especially salutary effect on poor, single women with children, which will infuriate the 'responsibility' conservatives who, actual tenets of Christianity aside, are generally only interested in punishing this demographic for the very fact of their existence.

That said, I have enjoyed reading you so far, keep up the good work!