Posted on 04/12/2006 3:36:10 PM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is opposing a June ballot initiative promoted by director Rob Reiner that would raise income taxes on the rich to pay for universal preschool, his campaign team said Wednesday.
"Put simply, the governor does not support tax increases and is opposed to Proposition 82 because it will raise taxes," said his communications director, Katie Levinson.
Until now, Schwarzenegger has avoided definitive statements on Proposition 82, an initiative that is similar to an after-school measure he spearheaded in 2002 for after-school programs. Voters approved that measure and it is set to be funded for the first time in the fiscal year that begins in July.
Last month, Schwarzenegger accepted Reiner's resignation from the California First 5 coalition, a separate body that came under fire for spending $23 million on television advertising to support preschool. That ad campaign coincided with the launch of Reiner's promotion of Proposition 82, the so-called Preschool for All Initiative.
At the time, the Republican governor called Reiner, a Democrat, a friend. Schwarzenegger said Reiner had helped California "become a national leader in providing early childhood health and education services for our youngest children and their families."
The First 5 coalition has collected nearly $4 billion in tobacco taxes to fund early childhood programs.
The Preschool for All Initiative would raise income taxes by 1.7 percent for individuals who earn at least $400,000 a year, or couples earning at least $800,000, to pay for what supporters call high-quality preschool. It would raise an estimated $2.4 billion a year.
Critics have said it will unnecessarily fund preschool for parents who can already afford to pay for it.
Schwarzenegger's opposition to the measure came the same day his potential Democratic rivals reiterated their support for it.
State Treasurer Phil Angelides and state Controller Steve Westly, who are running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in the June primary, made a rare joint appearance in Los Angeles on Wednesday to announce their support for Reiner's initiative.
GOOD Job, Arnold!!!!
"Preschool" sounds so much better than "babysitting", huh.
I didn't think he had it in him.
PING! He get's one right!
Secondarily, the early drafts of this "so-called" pre-school program would FORCE homeschooling children of preschool age to have to register, and the even earlier plans mandated PUBLIC SCHOOL attendance for pre-schoolers.
Do you have a source to support this? Nothing I have seen from HSLDA or CHN would confirm it. Indeed, quite the contrary; they have opposed various pre-school scams, but I have not seen one that they considered a direct threat to independent home education.
Did he also offer to forego the Prop 49 after schools funding when this state can least afford it?
The Dems called it "lowering the age" of schooling for children. Catch 5 extra minutes, I'll dig it up.
Ah, come on--it's only 1/2 Billion $. And it's for the children! ;-)
Oh man. What next? FRee rides to Bingo for seniors. ;-)
SB 550 Legislative Alert. SB550—5 Year-Old Compulsory Education>--snip:
CHN very much appreciates the continued efforts of Family Protection Ministries regarding legislative matters in California, and we are sharing information that they sent to us earlier today, Monday, August 9th. This FPM alert has gone out to their members, and CHN believes that it contains information that many of our members will want to know as well so that they may respond accordingly. The alert regards Bill: SB 550 and concerns dropping compulsory education from age 6 to age 5, and this is something that CHN and others have successfully fought for many years.
--end snip.
There have been other rumblings, non-ending, to lower the age of compulsory ed.
Lowering the "compulsory" age to 5 is considered "PRESCHOOL".
O happy day!
Those "First 5" ads are sickening.
This is really GOOD NEWS.
I get their email weekly, thank you, along with special alerts. I knew about SB 550, but that is kindergarten, not-preschool. It was defeated as your link notes. I had called my state senator about it, as well as a Senator in a neighboring district that shares the same zip code. I believe I also wrote a letter.
There have been other rumblings, non-ending, to lower the age of compulsory ed.
Rumblings are not bills. Both HSLDA and CHN are quite diligent, which is why we belong to both. There has been no such bill as you implied.
Lowering the "compulsory" age to 5 is considered "PRESCHOOL".
I have lived in California all my life and have never once seen kindergarten referred to as "pre-school," which, to my knowledge, has been classified as for children four and under.
It's not a big deal. You were simply mistaken, again.
Conservative reasoning.
Thank you governor.
Good point. You know that's what this will be. Calling is 'school' is deceptive. I wonder if they'll give vouchers. :)
Suit yourself, CO. As usual.
Arnold promised Roger Hedgecock he would do this a few weeks back when he explained he was handling the Meathead situation outside the public eye since their kids play together.
Have we really met Prop 49's trigger clause? There's no new tax or bonds for that anyway. Since it passed with the voters, the funding level can't change without voter approval anyway.
Yep. About $450 million was included in the Governor's January budget, triggered by a bit of manipulation with the spending numbers. Contrary to media coverage, it was triggered by big-spending appropriations, not revenue increases. Several forces have suggested delay or halting of the spending, inlcuding the LAO. Below is one article. Others can be found by searching keyword "Prop 49" since January 2006.
CA: Legislative analyst suggests halting governor's after-school program (Prop 49)Here is a snip from the Legislative Analysts Office analysis of the Governor's proposed budget source):
Bakersfield Californian ^ | 2/24/05 | Jim Wasserman - AP
Posted on 02/24/2005 6:27:09 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Recommend Legislature Repeal Proposition 49We continue to recommend the Legislature enact legislation placing before the voters a repeal of Proposition 49 because (1) it triggers an autopilot augmentation even though the state is facing a structural budget gap of billions of dollars, (2) the additional spending on after school programs is a lower budget priority than protecting districts’ base education program, and (3) existing state and federal after school funds are going unused.
In the 2005-06 Analysis, we recommended the Legislature repeal Proposition 49. We continue that position, recommending that the Legislature place the repeal of Proposition 49 before the voters on the June 2006 ballot for the following reasons: (1) it triggers badly timed autopilot spending, (2) the program is a lower priority than other K-12 needs, (3) the program may crowd out K-12 spending on higher priority programs, and (4) Proposition 49 funds are not likely to be spent in a timely manner.
Autopilot Spending Badly Timed. Proposition 49’s intent was to give after school programs the first call on additional General Fund revenues. Since its passage, the fiscal environment has changed significantly—with the state struggling through several consecutive years of budget difficulties. The state continues to face a significant budget problem with a multibillion dollar structural budget gap for the near future. Moreover, the autopilot formula that triggers Proposition 49 creates additional spending obligations without the Legislature and Governor being able to assess the merits of the augmentation compared to other budget priorities
(snip)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.