Clues Are Strewn All Over State
Prop. 82 is another of the Democratic Party’s trademark Robin Hood schemes, taxing the reasonably well-to-do so that the poor can live as well as the wealthy do. The plan is to tax every Californian earning $400,000 a year an additional 1.7 percent to underwrite an essentially forced preschool. The tax would generate a fresh $2.4 billion every year. The San Diego Union-Tribune outlines the high points of 82: “This money would pay for a phased state takeover of existing preschools that would offer free half-day preschool to every 4-year-old by 2010. Classes could be no larger than twenty children. Teachers must have credentials and four-year degrees. Each would have one assistant.”
By having a third party pay — presumably against his will — for your child’s preschool, you no longer will have an excuse for keeping your child home. You say, what if you want to keep your child home? Nope. Sorry, the crusading motion picture director Mr. Reiner says that every child should be in preschool. So there.
Leading the Boob Patrol Is…
Less than a week before Election Day, the most recent pollfinds Prop. 82 ahead by a comfortable eleven points. Look at the list of persons and groups supporting Prop. 82. It shapes up as the Boob Patrol. Mayor Wrong of Los Angeles, Dolores Huerta, who recently more or less succeeded her late husband as head of the County Federation of Labor, the hottest union in the County, SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, the California Federation of Teachers, the California Young Democrats, the L.A. Weekly and the Oakland Tribune. Those old softies at the SEIU and their fellow fuzzy-wuzzies in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union put down their old granny knitting needles the other day and pulled out their loaded pistols. Charming chaps that they are — even if they lead dreary, union-dictated lives — they threatened national consumer boycotts of three chains, Banana Republic, Gap and Old Navy, if those companies are found to have contributed to No on 82. Golly, I would love to have dinner with these old wuzzy-fuzzies. I will wager they are full of laughs, knee-slapping good times and that oldtime religion. Yes, sir.
Batting Leadoff for the Good Guys…
By contrast, the usual journalistic suspects appear to be lining up for the good guys for a change. The Los Angeles Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle (which used to think Far Left was too conservative), the Sacramento Bee and the San Diego Union-Tribune all are against 82. Showing that not all newspapers in Northern California smoke funny cigarettes, the Mercury News cites four objections (a) Lack of Flexibility: If 82 passes, “the provisions of the universal preschool act would be locked into the state Constitution, meaning a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and the governor’s signature would be required to make alterations.” Rarely does two-thirds of Sacramento agree on anything. (b) State’s Educational Track Record: “Critics have a valid point when they ask whether voters essentially should make preschool the responsibility of a state educational system that has been unable to solve many of its existing problems.” (c) Soaking the Rich: “Its authors have dictated that only the wealthy will pay for it, which is philosophically objectionable in that all state taxpayers should share the burden.” (d) Limited Scope: “It only funds a three-hour program. Many poorer, working Californians need all day programs for their children, and would not be able to take advantage of the benefit.”
Postscript
Before voting, forget the rhetoric. Closely review the reasoning on each side. That should bring you to a comfortable decision.
