Schwarzenegger Will Not Endorse Universal Preschool Inititative

[realFedUp]

Governor Will Not Endorse Universal Preschool Initiative
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-preschool13apr13,1,207093.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

By Peter Nicholas, Times Staff Writer
April 13, 2006

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign said Wednesday he would not endorse a universal preschool initiative that filmmaker Rob Reiner has championed, citing the governor's long-standing opposition to tax increases.

"Put simply, the governor does not support tax increases and is opposed to Proposition 82 because it will raise taxes," Katie Levinson, communications director for the Schwarzenegger reelection campaign, said in a statement.

The initiative would make available to all California children free half-day preschool taught by credentialed teachers. To pay for the program, the state would raise $2.4 billion annually by increasing taxes on individuals earning at least $400,000 and couples making more than $800,000. Voters will decide the issue in the June 6 election.

State Treasurer Phil Angelides and state Controller Steve Westly, the two major Democratic candidates vying to challenge Schwarzenegger in the fall governor's race, have endorsed the initiative.

continued

[Virginia Dare]

1. No millionaires left behind....n/t

[IndyJones]

2. Our taxes are high enough. I agree with Arnold.

If Rob Reiner wants it, let him pay for it.

I live in CA and have 2, 3, and 4 year olds. I am in the group of parents who have children in that age category and even I don't want to pay for it.

[displacedtexan]

3. Do you make $400,000?

If so, paying for Kindergarten isn't an important issue, I suppose.

[Bridget Burke]

4. Then Proposition 13 must have made you really happy.

It saved you a bundle in property tax. Of course, California schools are no longer among the best in the nation. No problem for those who can afford private schools.

I'll bet you blame the sorry state of your schools on the "illegals" instead of the tightfisted taxpayers.

[Telly Savalas]

8. We could lower taxes even more by getting rid of schools altogether

Does it just drive you batshit crazy that our nanny state big government thinks it knows how to spend our money better than we do, and taxes us to pay for schools?

[IndyJones]

10. If they want programs like that, then they need to eliminate pork

somewhere else. Californians are already over taxed.

[IndyJones]

9. If Prop 13 was revoked too many CAs would not be able to afford

their property taxes. Are you suggesting Prop 13 be revoked?

Tightfisted taxpayers? Are you kidding me? Do you live here?

If you buy a new home in SD county, you get a new $26K tax on top of the cost of the home and in addition to regular property taxes and mello roos. Californians pay enough in taxes. We also pay a lot in gasoline taxes. You've got to be kidding me if you really think we don't pay enough in taxes.

And my kids do not and will not go to private schools. We cannot afford that.

[brook]

17. I'm not sure...

but I think I heard of a couple the other day who bought a smaller home than the "Joneses" because they wanted to give their children some of the more relevant advantages in life. :sarcasm:

I happen to live in California and had a home almost identical to the one next door. Thanks to Prop 13, my taxes were about 4x that of my neighbor. I'd bought the home I could afford -and it never occured to me to complain about tax monies that went to give every child a better start in life.

I venture to guess you have no problem with us older folks paying the freight you "can't afford" for your children?

[realFedUp]

5. So, you or your spouse takes care of your children fulltime?

or do you pay now for private preschool?

[ima_sinnic]

14. so glad "you've got yours" --

and to hell with everybody else.

your concern for your money over your children is impressive. at least you're honest about it. may you spend many happy hours counting your loot.

[realFedUp]

6. Argument for universal preschool..

Proponents of Prop. 82 say that preschool is a vital part of a child's future success and that it's important that all California's children have access to early education. Supporters of the proposition point to studies such as "The Economics of Investing in Universal Preschool Education in California," a recent Rand Corp. report, which found that every dollar California invests in preschool would return $2.62 in savings later on through lower juvenile crime and high school dropout rates. Other studies cited show that children are more likely to read by the third grade and are less likely to need remedial education. They are also more likely to graduate high school and go to college.

Supporters of the act believe that financing the preschool program with tax increases to the wealthiest Californians is the best way to pay for a program of this size. Reiner and other supporters argue that wealthy Californians won't feel the tax increase, while many low income children will have an opportunity previously unavailable. They say that it's necessary to generate new income rather than rely on an already cash strapped budget. They argue that wealthier Californians received an average tax cut of $77,000 from the federal government last year and would be giving less than $9,000 of that amount back to fund the program.

[Telly Savalas]

7. I'm too lazy to look up the links...

but I'm pretty sure I've seen studies that show a return on investment of greater than the 162% that you cite.

[saltpoint]

11. I thought the polls of voters in California overwhelmingly

supported the notion.

With Arnold on the ropes, I'm surprised he hasn't gone over to that side of this issue.

What's going on out there, anyway?

[realFedUp]

12. just bidness as usual for Arnie and his Pete Wilson handlers as usual

[saltpoint]

13. Oh. Well I hope there's a big push to remove the man from office

in November.

I'd like to see him on the way out this afternoon. Absent that, I'll settle for Angelides or Westly to defeat him at the polls.

I bet a lot of nurses and teachers etc. are not going to be throwing their vote to Arnold.

[patdem]

15. It's pay now for education or pay latter for prisons..but of course

prisons are 'privitized' so it matters not how much is spent per person by taxpayers to house prisoners, since all the money gets into one poltiicians pocket or the other. :grr:

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Just a quick FYI

prisons in CA are not privatized -- they're run by the state or the feds (state vs. federal prisons). The state Correctional Officers Association, which includes all those working in the California Department of Corrections have a VERY VERY VERY strong union; therefore, privatization is not an option here. Nor should it be. Check out Texas' privatized penal system. From what I understand, privateizing the prison system is actually costing Texans MORE money than when they were publically-owned.