Gov. Bush Vetoes Pre-Kindergarten Measure

[GBD4]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-79prekveto,0,4663908.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

<<TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Jeb Bush vetoed a bill Friday that would have implemented a free prekindergarten program for Florida's 4-year-olds, which was approved by Florida voters two years ago.

Bush said the bill to implement the constitutional amendment fell short in several ways, including not laying out broad goals for what children should learn. The governor also wanted a requirement for a certain number of adults in each classroom to ensure safety.

Bush also said in a veto message that he will work with the Legislature to address his concerns next year. Among other items the governor said should be included are provisions strengthening training for prekindergarten teachers in reading and a provision making it clear that private and faith-based pre-k programs should be included as well as public school-run programs.

Voters approved an initiative in 2002 that called for a voluntary program to begin in the 2005-06 school year.

...>>

[Burma Jones]

1. Gee, with his Brother, you would think...........n/t

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

ENOUGHT WITH THE FAITH BASED BULLSHIT!!!!!! i swear it cant be any more obvious he wants to religiously brainwash people

[tlcandie]

3. I don't think he really cares ...period.

He manages Florida like his brother did Texas. :puke: I will NEVER forget that infamous line he spoke when he stated he didn't know he was going to be quoted and I quote from memory..

"Just wait I've got something evil/deceptive(?) planned."

This so reminds me of * and the gal who he laughed and mocked who was put to death in Texas.

[Snoggera]

12. He had something "devious" planned

That was the word.

[tlcandie]

25. THANKS Snoggera!

It temporarily escaped me :/

[Snoggera]

39. With so much crap rolling out of these people's mouths continuously

it's impossible to keep up.

I still don't believe the voters of Florida voted for him after that was plastered all over the news. He had a plan for subverting the will of the people after a referendum/vote (I think), and the dumbshits voted for him anyway. It's like saying, okay, I didn't really care much for this democracy thing anyway, so I won't mind if you take it and don't give it back.

(I'm grumpy today. Can you tell? Must be the heat.)

:)

[radwriter0555]

4. they're FOUR YEARS OLD !!! what should a FOUR YEAR OLD LEARN?????

Colors, the alphabet, shapes???? I guess that's too BROAD for a BUSH.

[Geo55]

5. Nooo....

The Rapture...of course.

[David__77]

6. FL Democrats should use the initiative process for "wedge issues."

Schools, the elderly, veterans, youth programs, low-income housing... the potential is endless. Florida Democrats have shown that they can win at the ballot box through initiative and force the GOP to take unpopular positions.

[bluedog]

8. hes trying

to do this with the high rail train.we voted for it.hes trying to get it back on ballot to revote......hey.reminds me of the republican house...waiting for votes to change........time .time.for this whole bunch of so called republican party leaders to be voted out...........

[tlcandie]

26. Yup .. !

Voting on constitutional issues in Florida means jack if this idiot of a governor doesn't want it done then he just balks and asks for re-votes, etc., etc.

The whole * family is a joke!!!

[BattyDem]

7. Typical Repug ...

Do anything and everything to protect an embryo/fetus without any regard for the woman whose body it's in ... but once the kid's born, SCREW 'EM! :grr:

[hightime]

9. requirement for a certain number of adults in each classroom

Wouldn't that be the same as in daycares?

[toopers]

10. Just out of interest . . .

why should the taxpayers be picking up the tab for pre-k?

[Rose Siding]

13. Looks like they agreed to it

by voting for it.

[toopers]

14. So, it is rule by the mob

not by what is right?

[Snoggera]

15. I thought voting on issues

was the way that they were decided in a democracy. Of course, times have changed in the past few years. I hadn't thought about the possibility of a group of voters being the same as an unruly mob of people storming the gates of the Shining City On the Hill in an attempt to destroy it.

Your response is intriguing in its ignorance.

Of course, perhaps you were simply being sarcastic? If not, you need to learn some serious critical thinking skills as well as the methods used in this country for the past 200+ years to decide issues.

[toopers]

27. Of course, the US is not suppose to be a democracy.

It was formed as a representative republic. A Democracy opens up the possibility of majority rules, just like what happened for so many years until the civil rights era of the 1960s. If there are enough in the majority, the constitution can be amended.
In the future, keep your personal attacks to yourself. It certainly was not called for in this message board.

[FlaGranny]

29. Your post gives me a chuckle

If there are "enough in the majority, the consitution can be amended." Isn't that the same thing as saying "if the majority votes for pre-kindergarten, we should have the pre-kindergarten"? Isn't either occurence a majority rules kind of thing?

You are using a favorite right-wing argument that we know all about. We all know this is a representative republic. I believe that this just means we vote and the "majority" decides who will represent us in Washington. I don't believe it means that when we hold elections, we should disregard the vote of the majority. If that's what it means, then I see no reason to hold elections at all. I guess our leaders could ascend by assassination, but it seems much better to have a majority choose.

[dansolo]

32. Our *Federal* government is a representative republic

Individual states can and do decide many issues with ballot initiatives that are directly voted upon by the people.

[RedStateDem]

36. Not to side with the strict constructionists, but...

Your comment, "We all know this is a representative republic. I believe that this just means we vote and the "majority" decides who will represent us in Washington. " is not 100% accurate.

Article II and Amendment 12 of the constitution establish the electoral college for determining who will be president. The electoral college actually can prevent (intentionally) a "majority rules" result in the presidential election as we saw in 2000.

Besides, your comment that "I don't believe it means that when we hold elections, we should disregard the vote of the majority."

But don't you see how important it is to disregard the will of the majority sometimes? After all, the majority of citizens in California were against gay marriage. The majority of Americans, and the majority of their elected representatives are against partial birth abortion, and the majority of Coloradoans are against homosexual rights. Obviously, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT to disregard the will of the majority. Majority rule can be flat out dangerous!

So, being in a representative republic does not necessarily mean "majority rules" as you define it.

RedStateDem

[FlaGranny]

47. If something is not unconstitutional

and the majority wants it, it should get it. It is unconstitutional to prevent certain people from marrying, or to discriminate against someone because of sex or race, or tell a woman what medical treatments she can receive. It is perfectly constitutional for folks to decide they want to vote for a pre-kindergarten.

The electoral college is a whole nuther thing.

[Snoggera]

40. I honestly don't understand your reply

what is the point? We were originally a representative republic, are not a democracy, and the '60's caused what to happen?

but do apologize if my strongly worded reply was seen as being a personal attack.

Of course, a part of me wants to tell you to, in the future, make sense.

Shit. Did I do it again?

[Rose Siding]

16. Usually it's called "self-rule" as a form of govt

Unless the "mob" voted for something deemed unconstitutional by the judiciary, they get to decide what's right for themselves.

[Snoggera]

18. Well put, and

I might add that the minority in a vote has historically had to face the reality that what they thought of as being "right" is not seen by the majority of voters as being "right". Can you imagine what would happen if the minority was always continually whining and complaining and attempting to subvert the intent of the Constitution? Oh, never mind.

[prolesunited]

17. In civilized society, you don't think

it's in the best interest of all to see that its citizens receive a solid education? Study after study has documented that youngsters make the most gains at this age and that it levels the playing field.

Those with money already send their children to preschool. Don't you want everyone to get an equal chance to succeed in life?

I believe education is one of the BEST investments taxpayers can make in the future of the U.S. We all have a vested interest in laying a solid foundation for our future doctors, nurses, teachers, scientists, etc. Don't you agree?

[Rose Siding]

22. Here's some quick documentation

http://jep.csus.edu/journal2003/paper7.htm

From academic to social success, preschool and quality child care is being touted as the answer to the student achievement gap and social maladjustments later in life. How can the answer be so simple? A research fellow at the Brookings Institute has concluded that quality preschool or child care experience is one of the most effective strategies for improving later school performance (Sawhill, 1999). This position paper underscores the need for universal preschool.
...
The largest studies (Currie, 2000) conducted on the effects of preschool on children demonstrate how the participants greatly benefited from these early experiences. The Perry Preschool Project showed long-term gains in achievement tests, high school graduation rates, earnings and lower crime rates and welfare use. The Abecedarian Project also showed long-term gains in staying in school and attending a four year college. Lower incidence of special education was also a finding of this project, as well as, The Early Learning Project. Although effects have been more pronounced in disadvantaged children, all children benefited from early interventions. Recent brain research has demonstrated that the optimal age of interventions is between birth and three years, although slightly older children have shown benefits, also (Currie, 2000).
----------------------

I have to admit I was happily surprised when Florida got this one right. There is an inexplicable element that doesn't recognize the societal advantages of a quality education. Even if I don't have kids, I want the cashier to be able to make change. I want the EMT to know what to do when I call. And I want training for the pilot flying the plane.

[toopers]

28. What I think will probably be ridiculed.

I think that people should not have children if they can't afford them. I think that when you start doing what is best for society you start taking steps towards socialism or communism. I think providing a solid education for your own children is one of the most important jobs a parent has. However, I am not sure it is my job to raise someone else's child. I just see individual responsibility slowly eroding away, and with an individual's responsibility so goes the individual's rights.

Where does my responsibility to educate a child begin and end? At this point, there is no reason to believe that at some point in the future I will be responsible for the education of a person from birth to death. There certainly isn't anything limiting that possibility.

[Rose Siding]

30. Libraries, traffic laws, consumer protection, air quality-in fact all law

is for the benefit of society, and hardly communist or socialist.

[sandnsea]

31. Read your words

"I think that when you start doing what is best for society you start taking steps towards socialism or communism."

Nothing personal, but do you have any idea how insane that sounds???

[prolesunited]

34. So, are you a Republican or a Libertarian?

because I've certainly NEVER heard a Democrat making the arguments you put forth in this thread.

Are you saying that you don't believe in public education at all? That doing what's best for society does not benefit the individual? Judging by the education level of many adults, many should NOT be put in charge of educating their children.

Why should children be forced to suffer for the ignorance or bad decisions of their parents?

When a country's citizens do NOT have access to education and equal opportunity, do you not think that ultimately drags the whole country down.

What country or time period best illustrates your philosophy on the role of government and social programs?

[Bridget Burke]

35. Because it is so worthy of ridicule!

Public education has been around a long time & we need to keep it. Earlier education has been proven effective. And we need to make "later" education affordable for all who want it.

I don't have children but any of my tax dollars that go toward education are well spent. I'd gladly contribute to a fund which would enable any child of yours to be free from your influence for a few hours a day.

[Snoggera]

11. This struck me as funny

"The governor also wanted a requirement for a certain number of adults in each classroom to ensure safety."

Safety for the children, or safety for the adults from the li'l terra'ists?

[jpak]

19. This is payback

for that kid stumping him (in public) on that FCAT math question.

JEB's "Every Four Year Old Left Behind" program...

[noahmijo]

20. You guys are missing the big picture on this

Other than saying to the kids "go cheney yourself" how well do you think this will go over with Flordians who vote, whom by a majority wanted this bill to pass?

[Rose Siding]

23. There's an obvious answer but

Jeb! got away with worse than this before the last election. I can't begin to imagine just what it would take to tip it away from him.

[FlaGranny]

21. I've always found it quite

interesting that Jeb has "won" two terms while, at the same time, when voting on issues, the voters vote against Jeb every time. Could it be that the voters are familiar with the issues, but not familiar with Jeb's position on those same issues? It makes me think that the voting machine people haven't gotten to those issue votes yet, but they probably soon will.

[Book Lover]

24. Broad goals?

I don't understand why a "less is better" repuke wants to codify the curriculum of kindergarteners. Oh, wait, that's right, because he's a hypocrite. Guess I forgot. This kind of political football is why I'm homeschooling my kiddo.

[RedStateDem]

33. Thanks for your thoughts, GBD4...

A lot of initiatives for additional funding for Head Start and similar programs are coming at the state level. Current eligibility is poverty level or below. Howard Dean suggested a threshhold at 3 x poverty level, and I've seen some as high as 4 x poverty level.

So, under these proposals, a family of four (2 kids) making $56,000 would be eligible for free Head Start enrollment under Dean's suggestion. I think there are similar initiatvies in NY, TX and MI, and probably a lot of others.

These proposals are much better at providing state funding for lower-income families than a universal pre-school option would be. The median income in the US is in the mid-$40,000s or higher, so we're talking about free pre-school for probably more than half of all pre-k kids in the country if these initiatives are followed through on.

Contrariwise, a universal pre-k program would not only provide free preschool to the lowest income families, but would also provide it for the richess. That's right--it would be yet another tax break for the rich so they end up keeping even more of their money than they do now, which is hardly fair to the rest of us.

Even if the public voted to support 100% universal preschool, I think we can all see why we should be careful not to make a policy out of every thing the public votes on. (Like when the public in Colorado voted on that homosexual rights issue, and when the public in California voted on the gay marriage issue). Even if this is a democracy and the people should normally get a vote, some things are too important to risk by putting it before the people. (That's why it's so important, for example, not to put the Marriage Amendment on the ballot in this election cycle--too many people would vote for the Amendment, and that would be bad for our cause. We have to wait until no so many people would be voting--like in an offyear election, or special election).

Anyway, I don't know exactly what Jeb Bush was thinking when he vetoed universal pre-K. But you can see why it would not serve progressive purposes to give free pre-school to the children of the rich. They should have to pay for it themselves. But it should be mandatory--the sooner we get kids into a communal social environment, the sooner they'll be prepared for life in a collectivist progressive environment.

RedStateDem

[Bridget Burke]

38. Really good satire!

Some brain-dead lurking freepers will read your post as proof that we're all far-Left commies here.

...you can see why it would not serve progressive purposes to give free pre-school to the children of the rich. They should have to pay for it themselves. But it should be mandatory--the sooner we get kids into a communal social environment, the sooner they'll be prepared for life in a collectivist progressive environment.

A slight quibble: The rich have nannies & governesses. The almost-rich use exclusive pre-schools where prenatal registration is recommended. Otherwise, you're right on, Comrade! (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)

[RedStateDem]

41. hardly satire, GBD4! It's reality

Well, thanks for you kind response, but I wish my input was not taken so lightly. Everyone knows that the purpose of public education is to prepare individuals to function in the collective (society), and this is done by instilling the values of the collective. This, from the Spring 2004 National School Board Association newsletter, "How public schools serve the public interest and promote the common good":

"Public education provides that common base of information and expectation among people that allows both individuals and the society--especially one as large, diverse and complex as ours--to function and thrive... And the public schools have been the primary place where that function is performed."

In other words, it's where individuals are trained to take part in the collective.

As Hillary Clinton would remind us all, "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton )

As regards your quibble, indeed the rich and near rich doni't need free preschool All the reason NOT to implement 100% free preschool.

Where's the satire?

RedStateDem

[Dogmudgeon]

42. Sounds like sarcasm

All the rhetoric of "collectivism" comes from right-wing talking points. It has no basis in reality; preschool is no more "collectivistic" than is life insurance. I'm not sure how you picked up the idea, but it's part of a long, well-documented trail of rhetoric that goes back to the 1920s. Here's the major rhetorical tropes ("memes") involved:

1) Republic vs. Democracy (Republic=Good, Democracy=Bad)

2) Democracy as Mob Rule

3) "Collectivism" as a polite variant of "Communism"

As Ayn Rand would say, "Check your premeses!"

--bkl

[RedStateDem]

43. Uh, mind your universals.

> All the rhetoric of "collectivism" comes from right-wing talking points.

BNL, be careful about saying all or none. Universals are hard to prove and easy to disprove.

Please note principles III and V of the Kwaanza:

III. UJIMA (COLLECTIVE WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY) (oo-JEE-mah) - To build and maintain our community together and to make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems and to solve them together.

V. NIA (PURPOSE) (nee-AH) - To make as our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.

Are you saying "All rhetoric of collectivism comes from right-wing talking points except those that come from Kwaanza"?, or are you saying that the principles of Kwaanza are rhetoric.

RedStateDem

[Dogmudgeon]

45. Collectivism vs Collective

The abstraction is what gives it away.

"Collectivism" is the straw man. The word appears far more often in RW screeds than "collective". For the same reason, the words "common" and "social" are not used rhetorically, while "Communism" and "Socialism" are.

Conservative rhetoreticians are very careful about how they load their language; as a collective group, they have far better skills at it than "we" do. It allows them to put maximum effect into a minimum of words -- but it also makes them highly visible to B.S. detectors.

People outside of the movements will pick up these terms, too, and spread them without knowing about the "secret meaning". For instance, the idea that a Republic is a "limited government" is a similar political phantom. But if enough people use it that way, it will slither its way (and its pseudo-meaning) into common usage. (Republic actually just means a form of government established and maintained by the people it governs. From Latin, Res Publica, "A Public Thing." Communist governments are all republics, but they are certainly not limited in the sense the RW would like.)

The use of the word collective by Dr. Karenga (originator of Kwanzaa) was in no way a Right Wing talking point. You're right about the universalism -- my mistake was not adding a qualifier -- but the rhetoric used by the Right is well-established.

--bkl

[RedStateDem]

44. Who said pre-school was collectivistic?

BNL,

I didn't say it was. I said, "the sooner we get kids into a communal social environment, the sooner they'll be prepared for life in a collectivist progressive environment."

It is society that is the collective, not the pre-school classroom. You're objecting to something I didn't say.

RedStateDem

[Dogmudgeon]

46. Collectivism and its anaphora

Technically, it's a use of the word "communal" as an anaphora for "collectivist" within the syntactic structure of the sentence. Or, a so-called "Do A For B" sub-argument.

However, I wasn't objecting to your use of it. I was drawing an analogy with life insurance.

You have a high level of skill in analyzing arguments, and that's a good thing. However, if you missed the point about the (ab)use of the word collectivism, you should give it another look. Neo-Conservative political and intellectual tracts rely heavily on the argument that liberalism = collectivism = bad. I've seen it used in writings as early as 1925, during the anti-IWW "Palmer Raids" era of anti-Communism.

If you've picked up some RW talking points along the way, you should give them extra scrutiny. Don't feel too bad about it if you have -- I've done it, too. It is the price anyone who reads a lot must pay.

There's no such thing as "just words" -- though no one should rebuke him/herself about not being perfect. Words are powerful weapons, and the word collectivism -- and its variants -- have proven to be more powerful than most.

I have to run now, and I will concede the last word to you. (I usually do so about half the time, but not in such a hurry!) If you have an interest in political language at all, please do yourself a favor and check it out. It's not for political correctness that I caution against words like "collectivism" (and the associated syllogisms I wrote about) -- these word-weapons have been used to create a more cynical, treacherous world, and should be exposed for the poison delivery systems that they have become.

--bkl

[RedStateDem]

50. thanks, BKL!

Super response--I'll check it out, and as always, I appreciate the opportunity to expand my horizons. Have a good one!

RedStateDem

[2Design]

37. the people pass amendment and he like his brother ignores the

people and goes outside of the law....BFEE stricks again....why these people ever voted him back in is beyond me...

[harpo]

48. People approve bills...the Bush clan kill them

[drscm]

49. They've already been born. Once born, what the hell did you expect

him to do with these children? Help provide for their needs? They are no longer fetuses, so to hell with them.