Which captures your imagination most: the prospect of fighting evil around the world or the chance to protect vulnerable American children at home?

On major federal spending issues, there seem to be two types of people in the U.S. They line up this way: If fighting bad guys floats your boat, you probably haven’t flinched at the $700 billion cost of the Iraq war. If visions of nurturing children get your heart racing, you probably aren’t losing sleep over the price of the new health reform law.

Now I’m not on the side of the world’s evil leaders. Some of them – Osama bin Laden comes to mind – need to be stopped. But I also suspect evil may be part of the human condition, and even the American military cannot put an end to it all. Besides, I can never figure out why certain evildoers seem worthy of massive American military investment (Saddam Hussein) and others (Kim Jong Il, Muammar al-Qaddafi) do not.

Those who toss and turn at night worrying over the consequences of the new health reform law may hold another belief system: The poor will always be with us, and it’s they who are responsible for their children’s health, not the American taxpayer.

So we wind up with diametrically opposed ideas about exactly where the federal government should grow its deficit.

Here’s why I’m with the child-first bunch: America has become a lousy place to be a kid. Children are more likely to live in poverty in the U.S. than any other age group. In 2006, 46.2 percent of new babies in Spokane County were born to low-income moms on Medicaid. American infant mortality rates are higher than those in most European countries.

When they grow up, too many young Americans drop out of high school or graduate from college with excessive student debt. Too many children and young adults lack health insurance.

That’s why news surrounding the details of the new health reform law strikes me as hopeful.

Along with providing young Americans more access to health insurance, the new law will:

•Allow more working moms to continue breastfeeding during their baby’s first year, with provisions for work breaks and private places for expressing milk.

•Prevent insurance companies, such as the one that years ago refused to pay for my daughter’s ear infections, from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

•Provide $1.5 billion for innovative new home-visiting programs for pregnant young women, such as Spokane’s Nurse Family Partnership. The Spokane program pairs a visiting nurse with a new mom, starting before delivery and continuing up to the child’s second birthday.

These evidence-based programs, according to the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, provide $3 in benefits for every $1 spent.

Joan Sharp, executive director of Washington’s Council for Children and Families, expects the state will receive $2 million in the first round of funding, and Washington could add as many as 30 new home-visiting programs.

Early research results for Spokane’s Nurse Family Partnership appear promising, says Elaine Conley, the Spokane Regional Health District’s director of community and family services.

Elsewhere, these programs have been shown over time to reduce child abuse and neglect, improve children’s grades and reduce their rate of juvenile crime.

The Spokane program, which served 249 mothers in the last three years, was originally named Summer’s Project, for the 4-year-old girl who died in one of Spokane’s most horrific child abuse cases.

As Summer Phelps’ tragic story illustrates, perhaps there is not so much division between the desire to fight evil in the world and the impulse to protect children.

These motivations aren’t mutually exclusive. A Harvard University child development researcher has concluded that one of the best child care systems in the country belongs to the U.S. military. Certainly many American soldiers are committed to protecting children at home and abroad. And law enforcement leaders, in an organization called Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, advocate around the country for more home-visiting programs.

In the end, there is plenty of overlap between Americans who care about the well-being of children and those eager to fight evil. We need both kinds of protection.

But if I had to choose one type of federal spending over another, my heart always lies with the kids.