WIC Cuts: Short Term Savings-Long Term Costs
It appears that there is going to be a 20 percent cut int he WIC program that provides women and young children with assistance to get them nutritional food: http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-16/news/29425689_1_wic-cuts-budget-gap This is a classic example of a policy that might save money in the short term, but may cost more money in the long run because children who do not have solid nutrition from birth to 4 will most likely have more health problems later in life. There is a case to be made that WIC like other government programs could be run more efficiently and a 20 percent cut will force them to find ways to be more efficient; I am all for stuff being efficiently run, but I don't think you can cut 20 percent (even if they do find waste to reduce) without cutting back on the actual services. I have heard economists talking about changing the frame of the debate from "at risk" children to "high return" children. While this might seem like political correct language, it is based on the economic theory that maximizing the potential of the children with the most adversity actually provides strong economic return on the investment in the long run especially when it comes to things like health costs because the foundations for life long health are estrablished early on.
If you want more info on how this is an economically bad policy, here is a link to video by award winning economist James Heckman discussing studies that prove the long term benefits of early investment.
and her is a link to another article written by 2 award winning economists Arthur Rolnick and Robert Grunewald: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/investments/0709/economics_early_childhood.pdf
Comments