Is Iraq ahead of children in the war on priorities?

Dr. Richard Chase, who has led much of Wilder’s early childhood research, has mentioned that preschool children are among the people most likely to live in poverty and to lack health care in the United States.

Yet, ensuring all children have health care and/or supporting their early learning would cost less than the $340 million that we spend each day on the Iraq war. I challenge us to consider how we collectively establish priorities and to try to understand why war is apparently more important than the well-being of our children.

At Wilder Research, we have focused a lot of attention on early childhood issues, early education, and child care for preschool children. We know that children who lag behind their first five years stay behind.

Demographically, many of the children on whom our nation’s future depends come from racially and ethnically diverse families; many live in low income, urban neighborhoods. Research shows these children are most at risk for failing. Improving the early learning experiences of these children Dr. Chase stresses, requires the development of approaches that are “targeted, tailored, and comprehensive.”

“Targeting” our approaches means that we must direct greater attention to children and communities where needs are highest, and less attention to children and communities where needs are lowest.

“Tailoring” means that whatever we do should fit the cultural preferences of children and their families. We should take steps to eliminate obstacles that can arise from language, literacy, and other aspects of children’s lives.

“Comprehensive” means that we must take steps to improve the social and economic conditions of children and their families, not just the ways that we care for children. Larger conditions, if negative, can often undo the positive effects of quality care provided by either families or formal caregivers.

Implicit in the recommendations of Dr. Chase is the need for collaboration and “co-creation” of the specific activities employed to improve the quality of life of children, their families, and their communities. We may need to establish some universal policies, standards, and mandates. However, as long as local communities can work within them, respectful of the basic rights of children, they can shape their own activities to best align with their cultural expectations.

That brings us to policy questions; it returns me to the question in the title.

Set aside your feelings about the war for a moment. Whether we should have started it, whether we should continue the war or pull out of Iraq - these are topics for another discussion, another blog. My point is that Democrats (including one of the leading Presidential candidates) and Republicans joined together to vote to invade Iraq, remove its leader, and attempt to establish a democratic government and improve the well-being of Iraqis.

The fact is that we did enter the war. Someone somewhere decided that we should spend hundreds of millions of dollars per day on this effort. Our legislators (that same “someone”) have decided that they cannot join forces across parties to ensure that all of our children in the United States have health care and that they all receive the preparation they need to succeed in school.

How does that happen?

According to February 2008 data from the Congressional Research Service, the Iraq War costs us at least $340 million dollars per day; that’s about $124 billion, yes billion, dollars per year. You can add to that a recent estimate from a RAND Corporation study that we will spend $6.2 billion dollars in costs related to veterans who return from this war with post traumatic stress syndrome during the first two years after they return.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a good estimate of the total cost of providing health care to all children under 18 would be approximately $88 billion dollars per year. The cost of health care only for children under 5 might be $25 billion. Note that this is the cost. It is not necessarily what government (the taxpayers) would pay; funding for much of this could come via sliding fees, if for example, we want employed parents to contribute toward the cost of their children’s health care. In the case of war, on the other hand, the taxpayers pay the full bill.

The Committee for Economic Development is an independent research and policy organization of some 250 business leaders and educators. CED is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and nonpolitical. Its purpose is “to propose policies that bring about steady economic growth at high employment and reasonably stable prices, increased productivity and living standards, greater and more equal opportunity for every citizen, and an improved quality of life for all.” These business leaders, who include board chairs and CEOs of major U.S. corporations, estimate that preschool for all of our children might cost $33 to $41 billion each year.

So, $124 billion per year for war in Iraq (not including other billions for Afghanistan, other military operations, etc.); $88 billion or less, for children’s health care; $41 billion for preschool education.

Whether intentional or not, we have established priorities which put spending for Iraq ahead of spending for our children. A bipartisan decision was made that invading Iraq had higher priority than providing health care to all children in the United States or providing high quality preschool education to all children in the United States.

To me, the continuation of democracy depends on having skilled, educated members of our society who will lead our communities, work in our businesses, raise healthy children, and do everything else that's necessary to maintain the strength of a nation.

Lack of school readiness imperils our freedom, in the long run, probably more than any danger in Iraq. Loss of competitiveness weakens our businesses; it can make us losers in the global marketplace; it will threaten our well-being more than Sadam Hussein ever had the faintest chance of doing.

A recent article in The New York Times noted Bill Gates’ statement that he is “terrified for our work force of tomorrow”. Although his fears stem primarily from the condition of our high schools which in his words “cannot teach all our students what they need to know today”, critical determinants of academic performance exist in the earliest years of life and must be addressed long before high school.

Again, we can separately debate the pros and cons of invading Iraq. I just wonder why such an invasion, followed by many years of military action in that country, has higher priority than health care and education in our own country and local communities. If you have thoughts, I welcome them.

Progress as a Unified Community

Our partners, the Itasca Project, a coalition of business leaders, and Twin Cities Public Television, will air a series in April based on findings from Itasca's Mind the Gap project. Those findings point to disparities between Whites and Persons of Color with respect to education, housing, health and income. On May 8, following the broadcast of the series, Twin Cities Compass will hold a seminar to discuss the implications of these disparities for the future of our region.

To understand those implications, consider three things.

First, the baby boom generation is aging; Boomers will leave the workforce and leave positions of community influence in large numbers over the coming 15 years. Second, Persons of Color increasingly make up the younger population - those who will replace the baby boomers and the generation following the baby boom as the community leaders, managers, workers, parents of the future. Third, the data (which you can see on the Twin Cities Compass web site) show that this growing part of our population is:

More likely to live in poverty
Less likely to graduate from high school
Less likely to own their own home
More likely to suffer from chronic illness

The future for all of us requires that the younger generations in our communities have the skills, knowledge, and resources to maintain high levels of economic productivity and community well-being. Current trends suggest that they will not have such skills, knowledge, and resources to the extent that they deserve and need them.

I encourage you to assess the information and to form your opinion on what should be done. Watch the television series premiering April 6 on channel 2 at 6:00p.m. to learn more about the widening gaps and hear from some of those most affected; look at the facts in Twin Cities Compass; participate in various forums for discussion, come to our seminar on May 8 (find information on the Twin Cities Compass web site.) I think you will conclude that this is a pressing issue for us locally, nationally, and globally.

But let's not just think about it and discuss it. We can't change history, but we can act as a united community to include all of us - young, old, different colors and cultures - in creating the future. We won't just eliminate disparities; we will enrich, improve, and elevate the lives of all of us.

Twin Cities Compass

Has our region become better or worse? What direction are we headed? What can we do to improve? We ask questions like these when we consider volunteering or donating, when we try to vote for the best political candidate, or when we form an opinion about where our tax dollars should go. In fact, we all ask these questions whenever we wonder about what we can do to produce the highest quality of life for the residents of our communities.

To make the region as good as it can be for all of us, we must "KNOW" and "DO". That is, we must first understand who the residents of our region are, and what the major trends are. Then, we must commit to action.

Last month, Wilder Research launched Twin Cities Compass - a new, non-partisan initiative that measures the 7-county Twin Cities region’s well-being with respect to civic engagement, early childhood, economy and workforce, education, health, housing, public safety and transportation. If you go to the web site, www.tccompass.org, you will find easy-to-access information on these topics, that will enable you to understand (to "know") the major trends affecting the region. Several hundred volunteers, whose names are listed, assisted us to identify the most important measures for understanding trends. You can see those trends displayed for the region, over many years if possible, and for counties and large cities. You can also see comparisons - how our region compares to other regions of the U.S. - in order to develop better understanding of how we are doing in the larger context of our nation and our world.

In addition, the web site contains links to resources, so you can learn how business, government, and nonprofit organizations have attempted to improve their communities; you can learn what seems to work locally and elsewhere.

That's the "KNOW". There is also the "DO".

The group of funders who support and govern this project want the information to be used. Our goal in the next phase of our work is to inspire people from all sectors--government, business, nonprofit and concerned individuals--to get involved in coordinated efforts to address needs. Some organizations have told us that they would like to take the lead on topics like housing, early childhood, and civic engagement. We'll report on their progress in future blogs and newsletters. We hope that as many people as possible use Twin Cities Compass, in large and small ways, to strenghten their efforts to improve education, health care, the economy, our transportation system, and all the aspects of our life that are so important, now and in the future.

If you have suggestions or comments regarding the web site, we welcome them. Feel free to use the "Contact Twin Cities Compass" feature on the web site.

Super Tuesday and My Vote

As a voter, I have been extremely nonpartisan ever since I first became eligible to vote. I proudly vote for Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in whatever combination makes sense - based on (a) an examination of where candidates stand on issues and (b) my level of confidence in their ability to do what they say they want to do.

We now have a choice among four candidates: Barack Obama; Hillary Clinton; John McCain; and Mitt Romney.

I will compare them on perhaps 15 to 20 criteria. Some of these criteria appear below, in case you might find them helpful as you make your choice about the next U.S. President.

Consensus-building. Which candidate can most effectively bring people together - internationally, to address worldwide issues affecting humanity - nationally, to form multi-partisan strategies to achieve our goals - locally, to facilitate collaboration among increasingly diverse communities across the United States?

Pork/Earmarks. Which candidate has the courage to stand up against favoritism and against irrational systems of allocating our national resources? Who is willing to pioneer better ways to address issues and make our government more efficient and effective by taking action to eliminate earmarks and to transform the government bureaucracy?

Environment. We all live in the environment. The environment affects everything we do - locally, nationally, and internationally. We can't replace it with anything else. We can only care for it. Which candidate offers the soundest approach to addressing global warming, energy use, water and air resources, in cooperation with our fellow inhabitants of this earth in other nations? Which candidate will promote wise use of land to save energy and improve air and water quality?

Health Care Coverage for All. Everyone deserves adequate health care. After living in Europe for a year, I realized how shameful it is that we, in the United States, have such a large portion of our population who lacks access to health care. Which candidate can achieve the health care coverage we need in this country? (Although I'm not my sharing ratings of any specific candidates, I will say that none of them has so far proposed a plan for health care that seems both effective and feasible. However, I could be wrong and will continue to analyze this.)

Education Gap. We have two gaps - internal and external. Within this country, Persons of Color constitute our fastest growing populations. They will make up many of the leaders of the future, the workers of the future, the parents of the future. Sadly, our systems have not brought their level of educational achievement up to the level of the White population. Which candidate will best promote school readiness (of both the students and the schools)? Which candidate will best elevate our educational systems? Which candidate will lead the way to ensure that all children graduate from high school, ready for post-secondary education? Externally, some evidence exists that other nations' educational systems out-perform ours. Which candidate can change this, so that we remain on a par with other countries?

The Vulnerable. Our compassion and care for the vulnerable within our communities make up one defining element of our culture. Which candidate offers the clearest vision, and the most feasible approaches, for building the capacity of vulnerable people and enabling them to live with dignity? Whether social spending increases, remains level, or decreases, money is not the answer; creativity, energy, and commitment are what we need.

Housing. A last item I'll mention is housing. Which candidate offers the best strategy for our housing markets and systems to create an adequate supply of housing, accessible to people at all income levels?

Well, as you participate in primaries or caucuses, and as you make your decisions as a voter, I hope you apply these and other criteria, to take a thorough look at who can best provide the leadership we need.

Homeless Older Adults

People 55 and older make up an increasing number and proportion of homeless adults. That's a key finding in a report presented by our homelessness study team to the Gerontological Society of America a few weeks ago. Ten years ago, about 1 of 25 homeless adults was 55+; today, it's almost 1 of 12.

This reflects a general trend we've noted earlier: With respect to our aging population, we can expect more of everything. More people will live longer. Many of them will remain healthy and active into the 70s and beyond; many others will live with chronic conditions that limit their ability to do everything they want to do, and even to care for themselves. (Some recent research suggests, incidentally, that the generations coming into their sixties and seventies now might not experience the disabilities of aging in the same proportions as previous generations. If this turns out to be the case, as perhaps further research will show, that would be very fortuitous.)

In any case, we can expect more homeless older adults, or at least more older adults at risk for homelessness.

In Minnesota, based on the most recent survey by Wilder Research, the majority of homeless adults are male; 44% of homeless males over age 55 are military veterans. About half of homeless older adults are persons of color, compared to about 10% of Minnesota's overall population.

The Wilder Research study found a number of differences between homeless adults over age 55 and those below that age. Older homeless adults are only half as likely to be working for pay; they more likely receive income from General Assistance, Social Security (old age benefits, disability insurance, and/or supplemental security income). Their monthly incomes tend to be higher than the incomes of younger homeless adults. Older homeless adults report more chronic health conditions that limit daily activities; in general, they have a greater level of physical and mental distress, compared to younger homeless adults.

In addressing homelessness, we need to understand that it can involve all ages, and different age groups can have different types of needs.