If you had 48 years and a $180 billion budget, think you could help kids do better in school? Maybe a program with a catchy title, like ‘Jump Start’ or ‘Gi-PhD-ed’…

After 2 studies, looks like anything would be better than the Head Start program.

According to the latest study, “…By third grade, Head Start had little to no effect on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting outcomes of participating children.”

Oh, did we mention it was a federal (translation: Obama Administration) Health & Human Services study? There’s just one tiny problem…someone forgot to tell Obama the results, ‘cuz according to his website he wants to double down on this fairy tale.

And, as usual, it’s doubtful the mainstream media will ask the relevant question. So it looks like, once again, BCP must boldly go where ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN fears to tread.

Mr. Obama, sir, your HHS study from 2010 followed 3 & 4-year old kids through Head Start, kindergarten, and the 1st grade. Your HHS study in 2012 followed them through the 3rd grade. Both studies reveal no benefits compared to non-Head Start kids.

When did ‘no benefit’ become the acceptable norm for multi-billion dollar programs?

Or, is reality the problem here?

Your autobiography and 2012 campaign reveal a penchant for composite girls… is it possible they went through a composite Head Start program that was successful?

If that’s the case…could we suggest you use composite tax-payer funds to pay for it?

Maybe with the next $180 billion your composite Democrat team will get it right…?

Otherwise, we’re assuming your compositie Julia’s life was totally dependant on federal government largesse BECAUSE she went through the failed Head Start program…

…and she’s giving you a snow-job now…

…compositely speaking.