Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger OK, I've decided - I'll only support this measure if they allow military recruiting in preschool.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>I understand. And yet, that's exactly what school voucher programs would do, and many of the opponents of prop 82 are FOR school vouchers.<< No, it is NOT exactly... For those who want School Vouchers, they would get a choice of where their kid would attend Kindergarden thru 12th Grade, which is currently paid for by the government. They could have their choice. This NEW program creates a new program, which many folks say would eliminate choice, and convert pre-school to just another part of the public K-12 system. It would close down a lot of current privately run pre-schools. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/01/BAG4VHGFQV1.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/01/BAG4VHGFQV1.DTL</a> >>Perata objected that the initiative does not focus on lower-income California families. "I question if the billions of dollars mandated for preschool in Prop. 82 is equitable. Critics argue that Prop. 82 wouldn't improve access to those who need it most: poor, disadvantaged and English learners," Perata wrote. "Instead, the initiative would be a financial boon to families that already pay for their children's preschool education." Perata also said the half-day program was expensive -- some $8,000 per student -- which is more than some kindergarten through Grade 12 schools pay for a full day. << And in reply to this comment... >>The Children and Families Ready for School Program which was previously funded by Prop 10 has all but lost its funding and now relies on donations, etc. to pay for their programs.<< But we spend all the Prop 10 money on ads, here is a proposal mentioned in the link above... >>Assembly GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield introduced legislation Tuesday that would strip First 5 of its advertising budget and one-third of the money used for its administration -- some $42 million -- and use it to expand to statewide a five week, half-day preschool program used by two school districts in Kern County. McCarthy denied the bill introduction had anything to do with the opposition to Prop. 82. "Instead of lining the pockets of L.A . ad executives, we're trying to do something for real children," McCarthy said. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer California Chamber of Commerce Press Release (February 13, 2006) -- The California Chamber of Commerce is leading a broad-based and growing coalition of educators, private preschool providers, business groups, minority groups and taxpayer organizations opposing Proposition 82, Rob Reiner’s initiative on the June 2006 ballot that would increase personal income taxes to fund a new, government-run preschool program. While expanding educational opportunities is a laudable goal, this initiative creates a complicated, costly government bureaucracy and is an inefficient use of the $2.4 billion raised from taxpayers and small businesses. Reasons to Oppose After reviewing the facts, the majority of local chambers are coming out in opposition to this seemingly well-intentioned but flawed measure. Here’s why: >>>> There are more important uses for limited state resources, like K-12 schools. With California facing chronic budget deficits and a shortage of funding for existing important programs, we should not be creating a new, multibillion-dollar preschool bureaucracy. Currently, 66 percent of preschool age children attend preschool in California. Proposition 82 aims to bring enrollment to 70 percent. That’s $2.4 billion per year for a 4 percent increase in preschool enrollment — hardly a wise use of limited taxpayer dollars! >>>> We should fix the problems we have with our current K-12 system before spending $2.4 billion annually in limited resources to create an unnecessary and duplicative new preschool bureaucracy. The Legislative Analyst predicts this program will cost as much as $8,000 per student for a part-time, three-hour-per-day program. That’s almost as much as we currently spend for full-day instruction for K-12 students! California taxpayers already spend more than $3 billion each year to subsidize preschool for low-income children in the state. Rather than raising $2.4 billion in new taxes and creating an entirely new bureaucracy, a more fiscally prudent use of resources would be to expand the preschool opportunities for lower-income children and families most in need. For example, the Chamber Board was moved by a recent presentation from two superintendents of public school districts in the greater Bakersfield area. Their districts had developed a five-week preschool program for children just before they enter kindergarten. The children are taught by certificated teachers in existing facilities at a cost of no more than $350 per child. The academic results of children in this program are consistent with those of other preschool attendees. Clearly, there are affordable, successful alternatives, and all these should compete in the legislative budget process for scarce resources. The measure fails to focus on expanding preschool availability for those children most in need. According to an analysis by respected former Legislative Analyst William Hamm, only 9.4 percent of funding from the new program will go to enroll “high risk†kids in preschool who otherwise wouldn’t have gone — those children from lower-income families or children that historically have shown achievement gaps. All the academic evidence (even the RAND report cited by the proponents) shows that lower-income, minority and high-risk children benefit most from preschool. We should target limited resources to help those kids most in need. Proposition 82 would reduce existing funding for schools, roads and other state programs and services, and could cost all taxpayers! History shows that raising taxes on higher earners causes them to change their investment patterns to avoid the increased taxes. The personal income tax is now more than 50 percent of state General Fund budget revenue. Only 11 percent of California taxpayers pay 73 percent of this tax. Proposition 82 imposes an 18 percent increase in the personal income tax rate currently paid by higher earners and will have a significant negative impact on revenues for other important programs such as schools, public safety, transportation and health care. What’s more, it is highly likely that the new bureaucracy will cost much more than the $2.4 billion per year the proponents claim this tax will raise. When program costs exceed tax revenues, the Legislature will be forced to either raise taxes again or start charging parents of preschool kids. In fact, hidden in the fine print of this measure is a provision that allows the state to assess user fees for parents with kids in this preschool program if the program runs out of money. A new parent tax! Small businesses targeted. This increase in personal income taxes for those earning $400,000 or more will be particularly harmful to small businesses, the backbone of our economy. According to the California Taxpayers’ Association, 80 percent of California businesses pay taxes under the personal income tax. The government-run preschool bureaucracy will also shut down thousands of private, community-based preschools that currently enroll nearly half of all children in California preschools — replacing thriving businesses that provide jobs and tax revenue with a government-run program. Join Coalition The groups opposing Proposition 82 support expanding educational opportunities and enhancing the availability of preschool for more children, particularly those most in need. However, Proposition 82 is riddled with problems, creates a new and unnecessary large bureaucracy at the expense of small businesses, and will not serve our children or our state well. We hope you will join us in opposing Proposition 82. Go to www.stopreiner.orgfor more information and to sign up in opposition to this flawed measure.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a link to the actual letter the Democratic California Senate Leader sent to Rob Reiner... <a href="http://www.stopreiner.org/pdf/02-28-06_Perata_Letter_to_Reiner.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.stopreiner.org/pdf/ 02-28-06_Perata_Letter_to_Reiner.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Reading Sen. Perata's letter brings up some good points. One major one, the new program only provides a half-day, what does this do to working parents who can't pick up their kid at lunch? Another point, it has unknown conflicts with Head Start, that shows the proposition was poorly written, also, there are many other unanswered questions, including what happens to Community based groups that currently provide this service... Plus many problems, you should go read the letter Sen. Perata wrote.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Ya know...when the Chamber of Commerce opposes something, it's usually because it will help working class people. Not a very good indicator of a "good" plan.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008026" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110008026</a> >>The state has been here before, as a new report from economist Arthur Laffer reminds us. In the early 1990s under Republican Governor Pete Wilson, the state raised its top income-tax rate to 11%, triggering one of the worst fiscal crises in the state's history. Tax revenue fell as high-income people fled the state, while public debt exploded. That tax surcharge was removed in 1995, but now the state's politicians want to do it all over again. Ironically, Mr. Reiner sometimes seems to understand the reverse supply-side impact of his tax policies. Last November a coalition of liberal health groups proposed raising the tobacco tax yet again to pay for more public subsidies. Mr. Reiner opposed that increase by arguing that the higher cigarette tax would cost $35 million in revenues because smokers would buy cigarettes out of state. But he refuses to acknowledge that steep income-tax rates also affect taxpayer behavior, as high-skilled high-earners look for better opportunities out of state.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/education/v-print/story/14223762p-15048687c.html" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/content/ news/education/v-print/story/14223762p-15048687c.html</a> >>Here are some excerpts of state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata's interview with the The Bee Capitol Bureau. Among other things, he talked about revelations that the state First 5 Commission possibly spent tax dollars for campaign purposes and about the FBI inquiry into whether he received outside income for legislative work. Q: Is this whole (preschool) issue raising red flags for you, or do you think it's being used for politics? A: I think it's a legitimate concern. In November, I commented to my staff, 'How can they get away with that?' I think was the way I put it. ... You know, it wasn't even cleverly disguised. It was just blatant. And I didn't know then and I still don't know how that happened, how was it allowed to happen? Who played a role in that? But it's flagrant. If I did that, they'd have me by (my) thumbs. If any politician did that. So, you know, it is very troubling to me. Twenty-three million dollars is what I was told. I mean, you could do a lot of creative and important things for children for $23 million.<< >>Q: Do you support the preschool initiative as it stands? A: I have been, and I'm in the process right now of reviewing my position. But it wasn't because of that (advertising issue). Q: It wasn't? Why? A: I've had more time to analyze this now. And we've had the (Legislative Analyst's Office) look at it. And I think there are some flaws there that are I think fatal. ... There's no means test, and so it looks to me like it would be really a boon for middle-to upper-middle-class families, though it would not serve equally - it would not provide equal access. There's no mandate in there for county superintendents to use anything other than school districts, and if you come from a community like mine, where community-based organizations - or what economists call NGOs - they provide a huge swath of social and health care services. ... So that's another flaw. Spending $8,000 for three hours is more than some school districts' K-12 can spend for an entire day. And, I mean, the list kind of goes on, unfortunately.<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Darkbeer, you're leaning on the Post-O-Matic button again. >>For those who want School Vouchers, they would get a choice of where their kid would attend Kindergarden thru 12th Grade, which is currently paid for by the government. They could have their choice.<< Yes, but people who are already sending their kids to private school would also get to use vouchers. So exactly the same as Prop 82, that would be spending MORE tax dollars than we are currently. To me, to be for one and against the other is inconsistent. I'd appreciate a response from you yourself sans link to someone else's opinion on this. Thanks.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan In other words, vouchers would likewise be "a boon to middle-to upper-middle-class families", since I've never heard anyone in favor of vouchers propose any "means testing." I can see being for vouchers and for Prop 82, I can't see being opposed to one and not the other. Democrat or Republican, it's simply inconsistent.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Prop 82 gets RID of private Pre-schools, and I am against that. I am FOR Private K-12 schools, and giving folks choice. Prop. 82 takes away those choices for pre-school (See Sen. Perata's letter re NGO's.) Giving vouchers to private K-12 school children is giving them back the money they are currently paying for. Competition is good, and should help improve public schools as they would have to compete to get the parents to choose them over a private school.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Giving vouchers to private K-12 school children is giving them back the money they are currently paying for.<< Not if the child is already in private school, Darkbeer. Or are you for "means testing" in order to give out vouchers only to low income families?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>giving them back the money they are currently paying for<< First, I don't pay more taxes because I have children in school. You help pay for the education of my kids in public schools. If I take my kids out of public school and go private, whatever was spent on my kids gets redistributed into the system. Every voucher plan I've seen would change that. Regardless of my ability to pay for private school, the voucher would come from tax payers, unless you are proposing some sort of means testing.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That's an aspect of school vouchers I hadn't considered, 2oony - it would make everyone's taxes go up, wouldn't it?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer A parent who is sending their kid to private school is paying twice, once for public school, and a second time for private school. But I am for some of the programs and proposals out there, where school vouchers are handed out to those who are going to under-performing schools, and/or lower income students. I think it is a good start. But I would love to see the privatization of the K-12 school system, where a MUCH smaller group of government adminstrators handle the vouchers, and make sure the schools meet some very basic standards. The choice of day to day running of the school, the reference materials, etc. should be the choice of the school, and not all the crazy rules they have now regarding textbooks. The government could require each school to have a set of things they plan to teach for each grade level, and the materials they plan to use, plus things like class size, hours of class, the teacher's credentials, and how many days a year they plan to have students attend, etc. and then gather that info into one central database to allow the parent(s) to decide where to send their child. The current school system is basically broken, and change is needed.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Ah, and the truth about vouchers really comes out...the rich don't want to pay for their kids education themselves. Why not get the rabble to pay for it...thus vouchers for private school.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It sure could. You're potentially taking "extra" money from students who aren't in the public school system currently and in essence bringing them back as a "cost" at the same time you're encouraging people to move to private schools with their dollars. It's a huge can of worms. That's why I can understand being opposed to Prop 82 as it could increase taxes if people quit buying cigarettes at the same level, but not being for one (vouchers) and against the other (Prop 82). And while I am in favor of pre-school in general, I'm not wild about the idea of building school programs based on sin taxes like booze and alcohol (lotteries and the like). It's kind of a mixed message.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cb_20.htm" target="_blank">http://www.manhattan-institute .org/html/cb_20.htm</a> >>Why school choice? Two reasons: excellence and accountability. Parents want academic excellence for their children. They also want to know that there is someone in their child’s school who is accountable for achieving those high academic standards. In most cities in this nation, however, if your child is zoned into a school that is not performing well academically, and where teachers and administrators don’t see themselves as being responsible for academic performance, parents have no recourse. Parents can only send their child to that school and hope for the best. Under a school choice plan, a parent would have options. There would be consequences for a school’s poor performance. Parents could pull their children out of poorly performing schools and enroll them someplace else. If exercising this option leads to a mass exodus from certain underachieving schools, schools will learn this painful lesson: schools will either improve, or close due to declining enrollments. Any corporation that tolerated mediocre performance among its employees, unresponsiveness to the complaints of its customers, and the promotion of a large number of failed products, would not survive in the marketplace very long. What is true of corporations should also be true of poorly performing and poorly run schools. These are some of the ideas that I expressed when I first came out in support of school choice in a speech at Johns Hopkins University in March of 1996, not as a panacea, but as another way to improve public education. Though I thought my remarks were relatively benign, the speech sparked a great deal of controversy. One of my own aides even joked that he wanted to see my voter registration card to see if I was still a Democrat. Well, I am still a Democrat and I have no plans to change my political affiliation. I, nonetheless, believe that the Democratic Party should reevaluate its position on school choice issues. In actuality, choice should not be included in partisan rhetoric. School choice should be about giving our nation’s children the best possible educational foundation. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer K2M, do you understand that Prop 82 is NOT a sin tax, but an increase on the highest tax rate for California Income Taxes.
