For the record, it isn't a show of "fiscal restraint" to cut funding for poor kids, especially when that funding goes toward one of the few programs that devotes itself to the children of the least well-off. Head Start is not without its problems, yes, but of the policy interventions we can make into the lives of children, early-childhood education is one of the most worthwhile. Budget cuts might save a few dollars in the short term, but they would come at significant long-term cost for the country at large.
Relatedly, this entire discussion over Head Start demonstrates the lopsidedness of the conversation over spending and taxes:
The fight over federal spending intensified on Capitol Hill this week when two bills — the House Republican version with large cuts to Head Start and scores of other programs, and a Democratic rejoinder with far fewer trims — both failed in the Senate.
As the two sides begin to bargain in earnest, it is increasingly clear that Democrats will be forced to justify the effectiveness and importance of a host of social programs singled out for cuts, while Republicans will have to grapple with the popularity of many of those programs among their constituents, and, as the case with Ms. Murkowski, in their own hearts.
In a rational world -- where we acknowledged our historically low tax rates and massive tax expenditures -- The New York Times would present the opposite formulation, "It is increasingly clear that Republicans will be forced to justify the effectiveness and importance of tax cuts and low rates on investment income." Tax cuts on the rich are far more expensive and far less justifiable than spending on the least well-off, even when that spending goes toward programs of varying effectiveness.
It's a testament to the influence of money on the political process that liberals must justify programs to help poor children, while Republicans can recklessly oppose any efforts to raise revenue, with little in the way of media scrutiny.
