04 June 2006
Proposition 82
Who's against 4 year-old kids? How could we let every 4 year old child have to have private funds to afford pre-school? Given the research conclusion that preschooling enhances a child's ability to learn in future years, this proposition should be, as the Montclairion wrote, "a slam dunk." I hope not.
In the first place, all public education programs should be part of the state's Education budget and future plans. If preschooling is so vital to improving our children's learning abilities, then it should be as much of the Education budget that the K-12 programs are. So, instead of spending less in the K-12 programs, Prop 82 calls for additional income taxes on a particular group of Californians. To me, this proposition has to meet the requirements of Prop 13 for success. The official literature does not state that 60 percent of the voters must approve this tax increase. Further, this initiative will affect only the most wealthy tax payors. So, why would those people who already can afford preschooling want to pay more taxes so that the state can provide this program for their children? In addition, the opponents of Prop 82 state that 62 percent of all the target children are in preschooling now. Proponents do not deny this. The stated objective is for 70 percent of resident 4 year olds to have free preschool available in proximity to their homes. A lot of money to reach a goal or outcome of an additional 6-8 percent of 4 year-olds in preschool.
California under-funds its K-12 Education programs already. California pays approximately $4,000 per child per year for education. This is smaller than several other states. Prop 82 bases its program on approximately $6,000 per child per year and temporarily up to $8,000 per year. Granted, that amount is still half the tuition at private elementary schools in the Bay Area. Does this mean that home schoolers will be reimbursed by the state for preschoolers taught in approved home schools? If the teacher is a parent, will that parent be paid according to the salary requirements established for public preschool programs? If you think these numbers are wild guesses, your absolutely entitled to think they are. Just reading through the law's detail I could see the administrative burden created by having the teachers, facilities and students qualified, tracked and maintained. Maybe I'm just feeling resentful because my parents paid for my preschooling. Of course, my being in preschool allowed my parents to have jobs without worrying about my whereabouts. What a relief for them!
Finally, in principle I believe that taxes should be paid by everyone based on their ability to pay or to earn income. To single out the most wealthy is a cop-out politically, in my opinion. By raising the state income taxes for this subsection of our state's wage earners, one can deduct more from gross income for federal income taxes. Our federal revenues will go down at a time when the national debt is at its historical high. It's as bad as giving this group of very wealthy people a tax cut at the federal level. Hmm. I wonder if the proponents for Prop 82's tax scheme also support President Bush's reducing income taxes for the very rich.
I just can't get to "yes" on this one either.
Post a Comment
In the first place, all public education programs should be part of the state's Education budget and future plans. If preschooling is so vital to improving our children's learning abilities, then it should be as much of the Education budget that the K-12 programs are. So, instead of spending less in the K-12 programs, Prop 82 calls for additional income taxes on a particular group of Californians. To me, this proposition has to meet the requirements of Prop 13 for success. The official literature does not state that 60 percent of the voters must approve this tax increase. Further, this initiative will affect only the most wealthy tax payors. So, why would those people who already can afford preschooling want to pay more taxes so that the state can provide this program for their children? In addition, the opponents of Prop 82 state that 62 percent of all the target children are in preschooling now. Proponents do not deny this. The stated objective is for 70 percent of resident 4 year olds to have free preschool available in proximity to their homes. A lot of money to reach a goal or outcome of an additional 6-8 percent of 4 year-olds in preschool.
California under-funds its K-12 Education programs already. California pays approximately $4,000 per child per year for education. This is smaller than several other states. Prop 82 bases its program on approximately $6,000 per child per year and temporarily up to $8,000 per year. Granted, that amount is still half the tuition at private elementary schools in the Bay Area. Does this mean that home schoolers will be reimbursed by the state for preschoolers taught in approved home schools? If the teacher is a parent, will that parent be paid according to the salary requirements established for public preschool programs? If you think these numbers are wild guesses, your absolutely entitled to think they are. Just reading through the law's detail I could see the administrative burden created by having the teachers, facilities and students qualified, tracked and maintained. Maybe I'm just feeling resentful because my parents paid for my preschooling. Of course, my being in preschool allowed my parents to have jobs without worrying about my whereabouts. What a relief for them!
Finally, in principle I believe that taxes should be paid by everyone based on their ability to pay or to earn income. To single out the most wealthy is a cop-out politically, in my opinion. By raising the state income taxes for this subsection of our state's wage earners, one can deduct more from gross income for federal income taxes. Our federal revenues will go down at a time when the national debt is at its historical high. It's as bad as giving this group of very wealthy people a tax cut at the federal level. Hmm. I wonder if the proponents for Prop 82's tax scheme also support President Bush's reducing income taxes for the very rich.
I just can't get to "yes" on this one either.
<< Home
