The Value of Preschool

President Obama wants to provide government subsidies supporting the availability of preschool to more income classes. Why is this good policy? Here's a graph from a widely-respected 1999 study that captures at least one aspect of the argument: when we look at different life situations by age 27 in a population, what is the breakdown of those who had the benefit of preschool vs those who did not:

So, for example, in groups that have five or more arrests by age 27 (frankly, I was pretty close to that myself; no, I did not have any preschool), five times as many did not have preschool; likewise, among those arrested for dealing drugs (yep, me again), a large majority didn't have preschool. Those who did have preschool were much more likely to earn more than $2000/month and own a home, and somewhat more likely to have a 12th-grade education or more (I beat the odds here; even without preschool, I attained the earnings, the home and the education). Those with preschool are much less likely to need public assistance as an adult and to have birth out of wedlock.

Here's the full study:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/181725.pdf

And here's a discussion led by Chris Hayes around that study:

video.msnbc.msn.com/up-with-chris-hayes/50831282

Here's another analysis:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/preschool-economics/

Speaking for myself - I'd much rather live in a society where there are fewer crimes (i.e. fewer folks getting arrested), less need for public assistance and less birth out of wedlock; I'd rather that it was found more likely that society had successful career trends, leaned towards home ownership and had higher education - or at least high school. And I'd be willing to invest in that, so that when my son Connor grows up, this is the society he experiences.

As such, I support Obama's proposals. I consider it an investment that will pay itself back many times over.

Why Should Tax Rates be Progressive

Some elegant reasoning around the value of a progressive tax-rate structure:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/02/why-tax-rates-should-be-progressive.html

Liability Insurance

Stealing an idea I heard in an MSNBC interview the other day - a Democratic strategist (whose name I've lost track of) suggested that, since we require automobiles to have insurance, why shouldn't possession of guns call for the same thing?

Automobiles require liability insurance in case the driver brings harm to others through his actions. The insurance industry evaluates risk on an individual basis, as per someone's  history and medical conditions, among other things. The cost of the insurance for a given driver can be prohibitive if that person is considered too high a risk.

When I substitute "guns" for "automobiles", and "gun owner" for "driver" in that paragraph, it still sounds pretty sensible. When we factor in mental illness as part of the insurance cost criteria, or when we consider the liability potential for ownership of an assault weapon, it's easy to imagine a self-regulating marketplace that brings some sanity to the debate.

As conservatives will suggest, let's put our faith in free markets.

Self-Defense Gun Use

From this article; please visit that site for details from this Harvard study:

• Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
• Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal 
• Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.
• Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime. 
• Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.
• Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime (NB: i.e. they are not shot by law-abiding citizens in self-defense)
• Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens 

For Moms

One Million Moms for Gun Control:

http://www.facebook.com/OneMillionMomsForGunControl

Moms Rising:

http://www.momsrising.org/

Please, take a look.

Things to Fix

Twenty 6- and 7-year old children were murdered by an assault weapon with high-capacity magazine clips by a socially withdrawn individual with a mother who was not only a gun advocate but apparently didn't take rational precautions to keep those weapons safe; doctors who offered advice around how to keep weapons safe in one's home were for a short time considered criminals in Florida.

That's just a short list of things we might consider fixing.

Keep Children Safe with Guns at Home

From this article, by the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Gun Safety: Keeping Children Safe

Research shows guns in homes are a serious risk to families:

• A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than to kill someone in self-defense.
• A gun kept in the home triples the risk of homicide.
• The risk of suicide is 5 times more likely if a gun is kept in the home.

Advice to parents:

The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home.

• Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.
• Remove all guns present in the home.
• Talk to your children about the dangers of guns, and tell them to stay away from guns.
• Find out if there are guns in the homes where your children play. If so, talk to the adults in the house about the dangers of guns to their families.

For those who know of the dangers of guns but still keep a gun in the home.

• Always keep the gun unloaded and locked up.
• Lock and store the bullets in a separate place.
• Make sure to hide the keys to the locked boxes.