Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


headstartclassroom_lt980.jpg
A program in White Center serves 2,000 families in the community and would have to eliminate Head Start education and child care services for 131 if the federal sequester cuts happen Friday. (Linda Thomas photo)

Federal budget cuts 'chip away foundation' for local families

February 26, 2013 @ 4:42 pm (Updated: 8:37 am - 2/27/13 )

"When they start behind, they stay behind," says Lori Pittman.

Many of the kids with busy hands at the Educare Early Learning Center in White Center would be behind, if not for their Head Start program.

Head Start is an early education program three- and four-year-old children from low-income families. It's to give them an academic boost before they get to kindergarten.

Pittman, who was once a recipient of Head Start services for her family, is now a leading advocate and policy adviser for the program.

She's seen a transformation in a little girl who came into Head Start with a vocabulary of six words and problems at home. She's now in her first year of kindergarten with no behavioral issues, reading at the same level, or slightly above, her peers.

"That's just one. We have thousands of stories," she says.

What if the young girl hadn't been in Head Start?

"I believe she would be in a self-contained classroom with children who are having many behavioral issues, where the focus is on managing behavior rather than on learning," Pittman says.

"She would have been somebody who ended up needing lots of support from the community and society for the majority of, if not all of, her life. Now she will end up being a successful citizen."

Most of us know, in theory, that infants and toddlers who have quality child care and educational opportunities before the age of five would do better once they get to school.

Teacher Quinn Flanagen sees that reality every day.

Among the things she does, she teaches "calm down" techniques to toddlers such as counting and deep breathing.

"When you see children start to practice those same skills at home, I think that's where the success is," Flanagen says.

She also reassures me she could teach Congress and the President some of those calming techniques, if it meant avoiding the automatic budget cuts that are supposed to hit Friday.

The sequester will result in an overall 5.3 percent cut to Head Start and early learning programs in Washington. That means a cut of 1,000 children. At the program in White Center program, it would result in 131 slots, or 131 families that would lose services that include child care and more.

"These are working parents who rely on food stamps to feed their children because their wage is paying rent and gas and utilities. So, when we think about our families that's our worry. How much can they take? How much of the foundation can you chip away at before they are really falling through the cracks? Families who live in poverty are taking the biggest hit," Pittman says.

"Head Start, child care, children's medical - when you think just about those things, it could really cause some families to have hardship that none of us have probably experienced."

There are no signs that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans are close to a budget deal just two days before $85 billion in cuts are set to hit federal programs.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, says the cuts to start Friday are "haphazard," and affect "good programs and bad."

By LINDA THOMAS

Related: Expect these automatic cuts in Washington State by Friday

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (51)


  • Add A Comment

  • Keitho wrote...
    Federal Debt
    February 26, 2013 5:16 pm
    Has chipped away at all of our lives. Until the budget is balanced and regulations are back in check we will all be negatively affected. Right now its affecting a relative few but it will spread as long as people are solely dependant on government programs. We need to trim at least 10% off of the current budget to make a dent in the deficit. The sequester is a 2% reduction in the projected increase in spending. We will still be spending much more than last year.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    Real austerity
    February 26, 2013 11:47 pm
    Will have section 8 recipients , EBT cardholders , and people on food stamps rioting in the streets.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    OKAY - Maybe I'm just not good with budgetary math. BUT...........
    February 27, 2013 4:38 am
    Just HOW does an overall budget reduction (not a cut, as it's still higher than last year) of 2.3%, or so - with military cuts in the 4%+ range reducing the percentage for all other items - result in a 5,3% cut to Head Start ???????

    And I hate to observe, BUT isn't $85B about the same as the funds voted for emergency relief for Sandy that were magically created WITHOUT supposedly any impact on other spending ???????

    .

    Oh, of course. Just like cutting fire fighters & police officers when local funds are short, rather than administrators. ... ........... Why can't we all see through the mist and recognize that, rather than "haphazard".. affecting "good programs and bad", somehow the powers that be (let's see - who was just re-elected?) are TARGETTING the good ???????

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Another day...
    February 27, 2013 5:20 am
    another story about how Armageddon will come...if Barry doesn't get carte blanche.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Country_Dog wrote...
    Bull Droppings
    February 27, 2013 5:26 am
    Head Start has been shown to have no effect on a child's progress. It is little more than publicly subsidized baby sitting.

    Here's a better solution. Don't have a kid until you can stay married and raise that kid in a stable two parent home.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    AMEN
    February 27, 2013 7:06 am
    Ditto Country-Dog and Sickofseattlite
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Considering 50% of first marriages, 64% of second
    February 27, 2013 10:07 am
    and 73% of third marriages end in divorce this would eliminate half of the people in this country from ever having children. As for Head Start, if you are referring to the latest study maybe you should leave interpretation of the results to the professionals. Your statement is overly simplistic even for this blog.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • southi5 wrote...
    Half the people in this country not having children
    February 27, 2013 3:53 pm
    Is not a bad thing, not at all!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • southi5 wrote...
    Dare to dream
    February 27, 2013 3:52 pm
    If your solution was the norm we wouldn't be in this mess, wanting people to take care of themselves is asking way too much in most cases around this state, Western part anyway.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    Whose fault is it when the start behind? Maybe the parents?
    February 27, 2013 5:28 am
    When the parent starts teaching it helps the teachers teach more. Teaching children is not just the job of our grossly over unionized teachers....it is the responsibility of the PARENT first! We are their first teacher....Reducing federal spending will not change the root of the problem. Lack of parents who give a crapola.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Interesting side point, Sickof, but whoever's fauly it is, it's not the KIDS' fault.
    February 27, 2013 6:36 am
    And Head Start has been around to nearly 50 years, supported by most sides of the political spectrum.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    If we can't get parents to parent then maybe it's time to consider an alternative.
    February 27, 2013 6:44 am
    Putting children in boarding schools away from the failing life style and somewhere safe..........allowing the parent or parents to find work or get the education needed to better themselves without getting the monthly stipen from the government. And they, like non custodial fathers, can visit their children every other weekend. Time to start thinking outside the enabling box of going no where.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • shark75 wrote...
    @mnpat - I don't see them as kids
    February 27, 2013 7:00 am
    I see that as goverment leeches in training. Screw 'em. If they want to turn to a life of crime, good. We'll get them in the prison system even sooner.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Have you ever read Les Miserables? Do you know the
    February 27, 2013 10:13 am
    story of Fantine? The only people who could think you could change your life without any help from anybody whatsoever are people who were born sliding into third base. Well, that or incredible athholes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • southi5 wrote...
    gaywhatever
    February 27, 2013 4:01 pm
    Letting fiction be the guide of your life, priceless. From a single wide trailer in a trailer park to a couple acres, kids colleges paid for and very little debt was all done by me and my wife, no help from anyone, including the government or anyone else whatsoever, the key is doing things within your means and making good decisions, if that makes me an athhole, fine with me.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    right, with no help
    February 27, 2013 4:41 pm
    Unless your children went to private school you were sucking off the government teat just like 90% of Americans. Les Miserables was a social commentary of France's social conditions and the treatment of the poor. Fantine's character shows how women of the proletariat were brutalized in nineteenth-century France...Fantine represents Hugo's deep compassion for human suffering, especially for women born into low estate. Illiterate.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Leave it to Gaymarried Moron
    February 27, 2013 5:07 pm
    To base his/her opinion on a frigging fictitious novel/musical...LOL! What a tool! Maybe we can let them all live at Disneyland and pay for it with more tax dollars?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Lol! Hey, does stoopid hurt? Lol.
    February 27, 2013 5:47 pm
    Just because conservatives get their opinions from one source doesn't mean we all do. Now on your way loser, I'm sure the village is wondering where their idiot is.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • shark75 wrote...
    End 90% of the assistance programs - let them riot
    February 27, 2013 6:57 am
    Arrest or shoot the rioters and let them receive the only benefit I dont mind paying taxes for: Shelter in the form of prison.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mike Hunt wrote...
    More propaganda LInda?
    February 27, 2013 8:18 am
    It seems the posters better understand this than the reporters (who should be skeptical of anything gov't does).

    Please explain how a budget (after sequester) that is 15 BILLION higher than the year before should result in any cuts. Most private sector people would be happy with a ~3% raise

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Oh, are you an Economist? If you are you're a really bad one.
    February 27, 2013 10:32 am
    Obviously you have no concept of how federal budgets work. Here's a clue brainiac, you can't just look at the cold numbers. If you analyze trends, then over the last 83 years sending has rise by .24 percent of GDP per year, but since the 1970s it had flattened out almost completely until the recession of 2007. Given that the baby boomers are starting to retire entitlement spending is set to rise over the next 10 - 20 years, but government spending in general is not on an upward trajectory. It's a myth, like the compassionate conservative. It is just another thing conservatives have no clue about but like to repeat over and over.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mike Hunt wrote...
    Technically I am an economist
    February 27, 2013 11:13 am
    As it was one of my dual undergrad degrees (sigma cumme (sp) laude) combined with science. I am also a registered D in my home state - but in Seattle I guess I'm a conservative because I support a balanced budget. Whatever - names don't matter regardless of how often you chant them

    The fact is the CBO projects that 2013 will bring the feds the largest revenue in US history (2.7T); unfortunately the feds are spending almost 1T more than they bring in. As any household economist knows from this situation - it is a spending problem

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Hmmm, is your home state Texas? I also support a balanced
    February 27, 2013 12:46 pm
    budget, go figure. What I don't support is people purporting baseless facts. Sorry I implied you were a conservative, it must have been the lack of cognitive thinking that threw me off. Whenever any kind of conservative moron (not talking about you) they will almost always make reference to a household budget. If I were you, I wouldn't fall for it. A government bears no resemblance to a household budget. For one, a government/country/sovereign nation has an incredibly long life span. When a person dies, their debts are assumed or resolved. There is no such day for sovereign nations. Nor can a household levy taxes or issue currency or demand that the taxes be paid. And, if you look at history, the federal government has been in debt nearly every year since 1776 (brief exceptions). Other than that, the government has been in debt ever since. There has only been seven periods of substantial budget surpluses and significant debt reduction. The last of course being Bill Clinton. So out of the past 230, we have accumalated debt for 190 of them and life has gone on. And, whether by coincidence or not, every surplus has been followed by a depression with the exception of the Clinton surpluses (but the jury still out on this one, although if conservatives have their way it probably will turn into another depression). Also, no household is able to spend by crediting bank deposits, reserves or issuing currency. In short, debt is a problem, but keep it in perspective and don't join the chicken littles. CBO estimates that even with all the Bush tax cuts, even with the crappy economy, and even with all the money we've spent to deal with the crappy economy, interest on the debt will start to flatten out in 2020 at about the same level it was at after Reagan ballooned the national debt in the 80s.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Wiz wrote...
    cuts?
    February 27, 2013 9:01 am
    Can we PLEASE stop calling these cuts? Also, is it too much to ask of people to not pump out kids if they aren't able to care for them? Shouldn't parents provide the "head start" instead of the Government? Think about the message that is being sent to the great folks of White Center. 1. Today (and in the recent past) the Government will provide you with free child care. 2. The Republicans want to take it away. 3.If we can only stop the Republicans, and let Barry have his way, we can have free child care again. This allows us to have more kids that we don't take care of. I'm not going to go as far as Shark, but there is a point here. If times get tough for the folks having kids that can't take care of them, maybe they will think before having kids. Today, people know that they will have the Government's assistance. If that isn't available, will they think twice about having kids?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    What do you want to call them? If the funding is being taken
    February 27, 2013 10:41 am
    away then it's a cut. Also, are you saying poor people should never have kids? Conservatives never want to deal with reality. They want to live in a world where there are no low income wage earners who have to work two jobs or 14 hour days just to make ends meet. And if they do exist, they are dumb, lazy, not worthy of any kind of assistance or compassion. Go to any restaurant, any retailer, drive down any street in the summer, visit any large farm,go to any hotel, you will see dishwashers, farm workers (fruit pickers), cashiers, dishwashers, busboys, etc. and you will notice two things, 1. they are working and 2. they are not all young people. We have a tremendous amount of people who work for little money. It's what separates liberals and conservatives. Liberals see the world for what it is and think that every job has dignity, conservatives see the world for what it should be and think that low wage income earners should not be allowed to breed or have any sort of assistance. Pathetic, pitiful, sad.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    You say "Liberals see the world for what it is and think that every job has dignity", how quaint,
    February 27, 2013 12:35 pm
    In the US the following are generalities only. There are exceptions on both sides: Liberals believe that individuals are collectively responsible for the welfare of the entire community. Thus more programs to help the entire community means that higher taxes and bigger government is needed to oversee the programs. Pro-choice Equality Feminism Affirmative Action Gun Regulation Social Help Insurance that covers all Support welfare program Separation of church and state-No religion in schools Against the death penalty Regulated Market Conservatives believe that individuals are responsible for themselves, and that the community benefits from the efforts of the individuals acting in their interests. Thus less governmental programs, less taxes, and less government is the goal. Pro-life Equality takes a back seat Patriarchal Believe there is reverse racism in affirmative action No Gun Regulation No social help No separation of church and state Religion in public schools Support the death penalty Free Market
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    You lost me when your grammar got a little out of control. What!?!?
    February 27, 2013 1:01 pm
    I think you are a libertarian, yes? But you are pro choice, right? But you believe in gun regulation, true? I'm sorry, I couldn't make sense of your post. I think I got the jist of it though. Look, if what you're saying is that you want a leaner more efficient government, I'm with you. But people forget we don't grow government workers in labs. They are picked out of the same masses as every other industry and every other industry has waste. A leaner, more efficient government should be the goal though.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood
    February 27, 2013 2:21 pm
    Somehow through spell check I lost all the commas and periods....my bad! I was making a comment on what you believed to be the differences of a liberal and a conservative so……What I was saying IN GENERAL.....(I will try once again) and I readily recognize there are exceptions on both sides: Liberals believe that individuals are COLLECTIVIELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WELFAR OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. Thus more programs to help the entire community, means that higher taxes and bigger government is needed to oversee the programs. Pro-choice, Equality, Feminism, Affirmative Action, Gun Regulation, Social Help Insurance that covers all, Support welfare programs, Separation of church and state-No religion in schools. Against the death penalty and a Regulated Market. Conservatives believe that individuals are RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES, and that the community benefits from the efforts of the individuals acting in their interests. Thus less governmental programs, less taxes, and less government is the goal. Pro-life Equality takes a back seat. Patriarchal Believe there is reverse racism in affirmative action, No Gun Regulation, No social help, No separation of church and state, Religion in public schools, Support the death penalty, Free Market. I believe the American Republic has a rule book, the Constitution, it is a document that can be amended through amendments….so if we really care about children as the story represents, my posts have been consistent with the fact we need to really address the problem and stop trying to throw money at just making people feel good. If we the people really want Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Obama care, welfare funding……it should be done with passing an amendment, not by playing games with congressional rules and backroom deals.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the repost.
    February 27, 2013 3:59 pm
    I do understand the difference between the two ideologies. I do believe we are responsible to one another to some extent, but I think we have plenty of liberty and freedom. The Constitution also established the Supreme Court, which decides what is and isn't constitutional, so if there is something that people don't believe is constitutional they can take it up with them. By the libertarians definition of what is or isn't allowed, we would have never built a federal highway system or introduced vaccination programs that have reduced by 95% our risks of contracting potentially debilitating diseases like hepatitis B, measles, mumps, tetanus, rubella, and diphtheria, or any of the other things the government has done well. Sometimes I talk like I have a big problem with libertarians, when really, I agree with the basic principles. Yes, we are responsible for ourselves, but we do live in a society and so we must be accountable to each other to some extent as well.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Wiz wrote...
    but is it really a cut
    February 27, 2013 4:20 pm
    if it is just a decrease in the increase of spending? Also, don't lump me into your "vision" of all conservatives. As a matter of fact, I don't want to live in the world you explain. Seems like YOU have put an awful lot of thought into it. What I would like is for people to realize that Government funding cannot, and should not, replace the attention of a parent. Do you think this girl mentioned in the story would only speak 6 words, or need a headstart program if there were 1 family member that can spend a few hours a day with them? If you really "see the world for what it is" then you also realize that Government funding isn't helping the kids. They don't need money. They need parents.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    What the hellz are you talking about?
    February 27, 2013 7:12 pm
    Why do you say government funding isn't helping the kids? Where are you getting that from? I don't know about this little girl, but my mother is a special needs therapist and to answer your question, no, parents don't know how to teach a child with special needs. They don't have the training or the time to learn it. And by the way, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, ideally it would be wonderful if somebody at home had the skills and could spend time with the child, but if you are 3 or 4 with a vocabulary of 6 words don't you think she could use a little bit of help? Her parents probably work long hours and are low income, otherwise they would be paying for a speech therapist themselves. To anwer your question, yes it's a cut. Why is that controversial? A reduction in spending is a cut in spending.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }