TV Ads Put Focus on Reiner [Meathead uses taxpayer funds to push "free preschool" ballot initiative]

Los Angeles Times ^ | Feb 20, 2006 | Dan Morain

[SheLion]

Here is one you might want for your collection.  Sort of "Bu Bye!!!" hehe!

And one more:

[Watershed]

I can't stand him either....after watching "Stand By Me" on the DVD, I watched the interview with Reiner. He took 100% credit for getting the kids to act. If it weren't for him, he insinuated, they wouldn't have known anything about acting.

[calcowgirl]

To finance his vision, Reiner sponsored Proposition 10, which created First 5. The proposition gives counties 80% of the tobacco tax proceeds. Reiner's panel gets the other 20% — $800 million since the commission's creation in 1999.

Written to his specifications, the law dictates that 6% of the tax revenue be allotted to communications efforts.

The law does not specify that any ads focus on preschool. It says the money should be used to "encourage proper childhood development"; good parenting; information about child care, health and social services; the prevention of tobacco and drug use by pregnant women; and information about the "detrimental effects of secondhand smoke on early childhood development."

Once again, people at the ballot box were schnookered by a feel-good Proposition, without seeing where the fine-print will lead. Any parent should have rejected this leftist measure to control their children and to define what constitutes "good parenting."

[calcowgirl]

It definitely has the Pew Charitable Trust (Trust for Early Education)
and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Not sure who else.

[calcowgirl]

EXCELLENT!!!!

[calcowgirl]

I'd be interested in the details of their argument. It's a little different than this discussion from the Legislative Analysts Office evaluation of the 2003-04 Budget Bill, but seems related. I can't figure out what how an increase could effect the original settlement with the tobacco industry:

Will a Cigarette Tax Increase Hurt Tobacco Securitization?

The significant cigarette tax increases that have been recently proposed in California and other states have undoubtedly had an adverse impact on the interest rates and other terms of tobacco securitization bond sales across the nation. Investor expectations about future tax increases are important because (1) tobacco settlement receipts are the sole security for the tobacco bonds; (2) under the terms of the 1998 agreement between the states and cigarette companies, settlement payments are tied to national cigarette consumption levels; and (3) consumption levels can be reduced by tax increases imposed by states.

The expectation of future cigarette tax increases in California and other states were incorporated within the terms of California's first securitization bond sale, which was completed in January 2003, and these expectations will also affect the terms of the state's second sale, currently planned for later this spring. Once the bonds are sold, enactment of a tax increase would have no further impact on the state's ability to raise the planned $4.5 billion in cash. However, higher taxes and reduced consumption levels may affect (1) the amount of time it takes the state to retire the debt and (2) the amount of interest the state will have to pay in the future to retire the bonds.

[Scotswife]

Just when liberal think they've latched onto a good idea, common sense and the latest studies prove them wrong.

New studies show that too many hours spent in preschool are harmful to the social development of young children.

As it turns out - spending time with family is better for the kid - who knew?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051101/news_1n1earlyed.html

[SheLion]

I'd be interested in the details of their argument. It's a little different than this discussion from the Legislative Analysts Office evaluation of the 2003-04 Budget Bill, but seems related. I can't figure out what how an increase could effect the original settlement with the tobacco industry:

Well, whether it effects the MSA or not, it DOES impact smokers............again!  California smokers are paying the Tobacco Settlement Money 110%.  NOT Big Tobacco and NOT the state of California.  But the smokers!

I think it's time the state go after someone else for a change.

[calcowgirl]

I think it's time the state go after someone else for a change.

I think it's time the state quit their nanny-state socialism, cut government and quit spending!
But I agree, going after smokers (again) makes no sense.

[jokar]

PM BTTT