November
23, 2004
Colin Powell Can Once Again Put Kids Atop the U.S. Agenda
By Mort
Kondracke
As much as Colin Powell's departure is a loss to the State Department,
it may be a gain for the nation's children, who need special assistance
amid stingy budgets.
Realistically, Powell probably can't get much more money spent
on kids. But he can once again pioneer efforts to energize voluntary
activity and try to get government money spent more efficiently
at all levels. And to make children a national priority again,
he and his allies can educate adults and politicians about how
it's in their self-interest, and not just a humanitarian gesture.
Right now, the federal government spends a paltry $2,500 per
American child, mainly for education and health programs, while
it lays out more than $17,000 per capita on the nation's seniors,
mainly for retirement support.
Funds for almost all discretionary domestic programs, which include
most programs for children and youths, are likely to be cut in
the coming years as the Bush administration puts its top priority
on defense, homeland security and deficit reduction.
In fact, in the Republican Congress, the slashing has already
begun. Last week, it cut federal education spending for the current
fiscal year to a level below the president's own budget request.
Special education for handicapped children, to cite one of many
programs affected, is likely to get less than half of the $1 billion
increase that Bush proposed.
In addition, as it moved closer to leaving town for the year,
Congress was on the verge of failing to restore $1 billion in
unspent funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program
that could have provided health coverage for some 200,000 low-income
children in the next three years.
Enter Powell, who before becoming secretary of State was a champion
of children and youths as a board member of the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America and founder of America's Promise-The Alliance
for Youth, a broad coalition of communities, agencies and volunteer
groups around the country.
Powell got America's Promise launched in 1997 with a first-ever
domestic summit attended by all the nation's living presidents
(except for Ronald Reagan, who in his illness was represented
by his wife, Nancy). The project attracted national attention
for children's needs until Powell took over at State in 2001.
The board is still chaired by Powell's wife, Alma.
On his travels as secretary, Powell often visited children's
projects overseas. Associates say he will renew his activity domestically
when leaves office. There's lots of work to be done. Issues involving
children and youths came up strikingly short during the presidential
campaign and rank low on the next-term agenda for both Bush and
Congress.
Bush talked frequently about his No Child Left Behind education
program, and he intends to propose extending its standards-and-accountability
requirements to high schools. And he has said he intends to make
sure that more children eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid receive
it.
But beyond that, there isn't much on his agenda for the nation's
8.5 million children who lack health insurance. Democrat John
Kerry (Mass.), by contrast, proposed guaranteeing all children
health insurance.
So, what's to be done to get children onto the national agenda?
What likely won't work is traditional exhortation (that "children
represent our nation's future," true as that is). Nor will
making appeals on a purely humanitarian basis or trying to guilt-trip
adults.
There are plenty of statistics to demonstrate need. Almost one
in five children in America lives in poverty. The United States
ranks 23rd in the world in infant mortality rates and 16th in
low-birth weight rates. Child obesity rates have tripled in the
past 20 years. National reading, math and science scores have
been flat for a decade and are still below their 1970 levels.
The nation has lived with such numbers all too comfortably. So,
it's time Powell and his allies made adults take notice by showing
how their own future is caught up in the future of children.
If the baby boom and post-boom generations are going to have
adequate retirement benefits, for instance, that will depend on
the productivity of present children.
If the United States is to maintain its standard of living in
the face of low-wage, higher-tech international competition, then
U.S. children will have to do better than to score 19th in math
and 18th in science in international tests.
If the U.S. health system is going to be affordable, then children's
health has to improve, lest obesity lead to an epidemic of diabetes
and heart disease.
The self-interest argument is this: Practically everything connected
to the long-run well-being of America is tied up in the welfare
of children. Even foreign policy is affected, insofar as American
children lack language skills - especially in Arabic - and have
a dim understanding of other cultures.
Before asking the federal government for more money for children,
Powell & Co. should try to help it figure out better ways
to spend the $225 billion it currently spends, by breaking down
barriers between the several departments that handle children's
issues, evaluating what programs work and encouraging bureaucratic
cooperation.
The same applies for interaction between federal, state and local
governments and voluntary agencies such as United Way and Boys
and Girls Clubs. Powell and America's Promise might be able to
convince the White House Office of Management and Budget to judge
programs according to how well they satisfy the five goals for
every child set by AP: the attention of a caring adult, a safe
place to go after school, a healthy start in life, education and
training to give them marketable skills, and an opportunity to
serve others.
Abundant research, including an exhaustive 2002 report by the
National Academy of Sciences, demonstrates that children who benefit
from the AP's "five promises" are more likely than others
to finish school, avoid teen pregnancy, forgo drugs and crime
and attend college.
Powell deserves the nation's thanks for his years of military
and government service. If there were a Congressional Medal of
Honor for interagency combat in Washington, he deserves to receive
it. Now that he's out of government, however, he may do even more
for the nation's future than when he was in.
