Editor's note - You can trust the integrity of our balanced, independent financial advice. We may, however, receive compensation from the issuers of some products mentioned in this article. Opinions are the author's alone, and this content has not been provided by, reviewed, approved or endorsed by any advertiser.
A different kind of analysis of Hillary Clinton's 'Baby Bond' proposal
Miami Beach, Florida (9/28/07)–Today Hillary Clinton unveiled her plan for Universal Pre-K. A $5 to $10 billion a year proposal to provide four year olds a “high-quality pre-kindergarten program,” Clinton said it was aimed at giving them a “chance to succeed and to fulfill his or her God-given potential.” What began as an uneventful speech at North Beach Elementary School, however, quickly turned into a free for all as angry toddlers stormed the stage in protest. Shouting “Hell no we won’t go,” the toddlers managed to shut down Mrs. Clinton’s presentation.

The protest appeared well planned and organized. The toddlers were carrying signs showing their displeasure at Clinton’s Universal Pre-K plan. One sign held by a toddler later identified as Samantha read, “Keep your proposals off my play time.” Another sign carried by an unidentified protester appeared to be written in purple Crayola Crayon and read “Barney for President.” In what was a well coordinated move, many of the toddlers then chained themselves together on the stage to make it more difficult for police and school officials to clear them from the area.

A visibly shaken Clinton at first tried to respond to the protesting toddlers. “It takes a village to raise a child,” she said. “And if elected, I’ll be that village. I know what’s best for you and all Americans.” In response, one toddler removed what appeared to be a soiled diaper and flung it at Mrs. Clinton. A quick thinking secret service agent launched himself in front of the former first lady and was struck in the chest by the flying load. He was treated at the scene and released.

Cindy Jones, a mother of one of the protesting toddlers, gushed with pride: “As soon as my son heard about the pre-K program he began organizing this protest. He’s such the little activist.” Others were less sanguine. One father who refused to give his name said that many of the toddlers were known trouble makers. “Some of these kids have been real problems at the community pool. This behavior doesn’t surprise me at all,” he said.

The protest subsided when most of the toddlers drifted off for their morning nap. Unable to continue her speech, however, an angry Clinton stormed out of the auditorium.

Author Bio

Total Articles: 1083
Rob founded the Dough Roller in 2007. A litigation attorney in the securities industry, he lives in Northern Virginia with his wife, their two teenagers, and the family mascot, a shih tzu named Sophie.

Article comments

plonkee says:

I’m not sure, but I’m guessing that the chances of you voting for Hillary Clinton are in the remote to non-existent range.

DR says:

Plonkee, my focus here is the financial impact of the proposals of all candidates. As it turns out, though, Hillary Clinton’s proposals to date would cost Americans over $700 billion in just the first four years. As a result, when it comes to money, she paints a pretty large target. Next to her Baby Bonds, I think $5 to $10 billion a year so we can now put our children in school at the age of 4 is just ridiculous, which I hope my post conveyed!

Kris says:

How ridiculous is it to educate 4 year olds when the money can be “better” used to fund the wars? Bushco has wasted many times this amount already on wars with no ROI. Is he not to be held accountable? If you are going to make this a politcal blog at least make an effort to educate yourself
then you would see that Clinton has provided a funding source for each of her proposals – something the GOP has not done.

DR says:

Kris, even if you think the ROI on the war is nonexistent, how does that justify Hillary Clinton’s Universal Pre-K plan? You are right that she has provided a “funding source” for her plans–it’s called increased taxes on the “rich” because such plans usually play well to the middle and lower class voters. And even if one believes the “rich” should pay more taxes, shouldn’t the money go to fix problems with social security and medicare before we launch new multi-billion dollar social programs? The fact is a $5 to $10 billion program for preschool is just plain silly. The money may pale in comparison to what’s being spent on the war, but that doesn’t justify the program. Finally, feel free to disagree with me all you want; that’s what makes the discussion interesting and informative. But I don’t understand your comment about my making an effort to educate myself. I have spent a lot of time educating myself on the proposals put forth by the presidential candidates. I’ve done so because these issues will have a major impact on our personal finances. If you think there is something factually inaccurate in any of my posts, by all means point it out.

That’s about the funniest thing I’ve read all week! Secret Serviceman being hit by a “load”! LOL

Thanks for pointing out the financial impact of Hillary’s proposal.

Most of the moms I know already think Kindergarten has gotten a little too demanding these days. I can’t imagine that a mandatory preschool paid for with tax dollars would go over well. I know I’d protest it.

Rob says:

Dough Roller — I think you hurt yourself with this post. You usually give reasoned, common-sense financial advice. I have enjoyed reading it! However, I didn’t subscribe for sarcastic political satire that suffers from a lack of knowledge of child development and the educational literature. Have you studied pre-K programs in other countries? Do you know the impact of these programs on children there? Are you aware of long-term societal benefits that can be measured in dollars?

There are a lot of sites on the net for personal finance advice. If you make more posts such as these, I think you’ll find that your readership begins to migrate to others…

Jon says:

Rob, were you asking those questions in earnest or just trying to support the pre-K plan by casting doubt on any detractors? I don’t know about European pre-K programs, but the Clinton plan references this study and the results don’t sound great. There are a few achievements, but when you get down to around page 30 they start revealing that the achievements are short-lived. For instance, discipline problems were reduced for kids in the pre-K problems when they were in kindergarten, but the effect faded into insignificance by 1st grade!

As for the plan itself, here are a few parts I take issue with:

“In addition, they would provide pre-K at no cost to children from low-income children and/or limited English homes.”

So high-income, limited English homes *need* to have free pre-K? Yeah. Okay.

“This means hiring teachers with a bachelors degree and specialized training in early childhood development”

Oh, good, that sounds affordable. And we need highly educated teachers for THREE AND FOUR year olds why? To read aloud to them?

“The proposal requires states to work with existing community-based preschools to ensure that parents a range of options when deciding where to enroll their children.”

Parents already have the choice of “existing” preschools. You’d have to open new schools to ensure a range of options. Duh.

“According to Nobel Laureate James Heckman of the University of Chicago, one half of the black-white achievement gap present at the end of high school is evident before children start school.”

It’s highly notable that the subsequent list of “benefits” of the pre-K program does NOT include “eliminating the white-black achievement gap”. This is obviously a case of trying to plant a suggestion in the mind of the reader without actually lying — but it’s still dishonest.

Matt says:

I hope I’m not the only one who found this line incredibly scary:

“It takes a village to raise a child,” she said. “And if elected, I’ll be that village. I know what’s best for you and all Americans.

…and I’m not even American.

Matt says:

Do you have a source for this article? I could not find it through searching.

Kris says:

There is no source. DR fabricated the entire story including the quotes.

@Jon. Based on references in your post, pre-k school is not the answer to closing the achievement gap. Removing the children from the derelict parents at birth is the only hope!

DR says:

@Jon, I did read the study thoroughly before posting my fictitious press release and noted the exact same thing you did about short-term benefits of pre-school. For example, with respect to developmental competence, the report notes that “By first grade, significant effects were rare. . . .”
And the conclusion of the study makes clear that the benefits of pre-k are uncertain. Thanks for linking to the study.

@Kris, I didn’t “fabricate” the story, which means to concoct in order to deceive. There was not intent to make others believe the story was true, and you obviously didn’t believe it was true. It was designed (1) to be funny (you can judge whether I succeeded), and (2) to look at the Universal Pre-K program through the eyes of a 4 year old. Apart from the $5 to $10 billion Clinton wants to spend, we are tossing our children into school at earlier and earlier ages, which I believe is counter-productive. Education is critical, of course, but where’s the balance in life?

@Matt, it is true that the story is a piece of fiction, but what better way to describe the Universal Pre-K plan.

Andy says:


I just wanted to say that I enjoyed your article. I appreciate how you wrote the article from a perspective of a 4 year old, I thought it was neat. I was not aware of the pre-k plan and reading the article made me take the initiative to do my research on the topic.


shadox says:

This post belongs in The Onion. FUNNY.

Kidding aside, the money would be well spent. I would whole heartedly support goverment funded pre-school. In addition to the positive educational impact, such investment would also boost the economy by allowing parents to join the work force, who would otherwise not be able to afford day care.

TC says:

This would be an unfortunate event. The public schools already cannot handle children with a high I.Q. Four years of age is a volatile period of development. Put a highly intelligent toddler in a room full of 20 or more children and they will suffer.

The other question…. Do I want some teacher with a B.S. in education being responsible for my four year old; along with 20 other toddlers?

Independence and free thinking is what makes the few in our nation great inventors and leaders. Not group education by a mediocre instructor.

Yes, please look at the other countries (communism comes to mind) that force parents to work, many hours a week, while their very young children get carted off to public school. Afterwards the government takes most of you pay for the common good.

Then you have this whole tax the rich and give to the poor crap. Cut medical deductions for the rich. Sounds great unless you are a physician already not getting paid by Medicaid and Medicare. Do you realize that 40% of failure to pay is from government insurance programs?

Would other people, in their right mind, work over 120 hours a week and for 60% of their paycheck? This is after 20 years of school and another 5 years of no pay training.

By the time a physician is 31 they start out at entry level physician pay. Which is about 260k per year. Then you have to pay your education loans and all those living expenses while you were training. (Not to mention full liability for being sued on anything your liability insurance doesn’t cover.)

My husband is a physician. On average, he works 16 hours a day, every day. He takes home after taxes about $500k a year. Sounds great doesn’t it? Well you take into the matter that he works so much that is an average of $84 an hour. We also have to pay for his practice insurance which is over 200k per year. By the way, we also have to pay for our own health care. No, he cannot treat everyone in our house as he specializes in one area.

How many people work at factories and make that as a foreman working overtime? This is without getting sued as well.

I tell you right now, if Hillary wins and gets her way, there will be a lot of physicians leaving the profession. Canada is a good example. They are overcrowded and get inadequate health care. Canadians come here if they have a serious illness.

Do you really want your four year old, that is provided with free pre-school and health care, to have to wait to be treated for a life threatening condition? What if he or she has a 10% chance to live and the government doesn’t want to pay for that 10% chance? Don’t think it won’t happen as it already does with our elderly.

People hear “Free” and they immediately dumb down. Why do you think so many other people come here for their health care? Think about the consequences of this plan…

I would give anything to have my child be healthy and happy. Again, I wouldn’t want the government telling me what my toddler or family member needs for treatment. That’s why we are a free country and why we have these choices.

Perhaps you should start taxing the attorneys more to subsidize health care. Maybe make pro athletes, that beat their wives and torture pit bulls, subsidize the health care for people that cannot afford it.

Anya says:

wow. So many children have had their differences crushed by the unfortunate cliques and bullying and fads of children in school and media. If this passes, then they have succeeded in the uniformity of children who will be told how to think and act the second they learn how to speak. it may sound good to some, but i notice the brainwash tendencies.

Natalya says:

well i think hillary clinton went to preschool yeah. And so cute as a little baby girl. Hillary clinton had fun in school and becoming a good senator.

DR says:

She has been a good senator, and I suspect will be a good Secretary of State, although I’ve never been a fan. The big question is whether government (i.e., taxpayers) should pay for parents to send their children to pre-school. If they answer to that question is yes, I’m not sure what distinguishes our government from a European socialist model.