Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Preschool For All?

Earlier this week Rob Reiner unleashed a new statewide initiative to provide free voluntary preschool for every 4 year old in the state.

Joined by republican Sheriff Lee Baca and Nancy Daly Riordan, Reiner will impose a tax on couples that makeover $800,000 a year to generate the revenue to provide every child with preschool.

Today's Daily News and Sacramento Bee make reference of it today.

Is this an issue that can unite Sister City? To either support or oppose?


Anonymous Anonymous said:

When is enough enough?

I won't vote for it.

April 21, 2005 1:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Anon 1:00 pm-why wouldn't you vote for it? Evn if yuo are one of the small percentage whomakes that much money, don't you think it is important?

April 21, 2005 1:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Private ("Catholic") pre-school for my offspring. PLEASE!


April 21, 2005 1:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I think this is an idea whose time has come.

Every dollar we invest pays off huge dividends -- society saves $7 for every $1 invested.

Less remdial education costs -- less welfare dependancy, more kids reading by the 3rd grade.

This initiative has got my vote!

April 21, 2005 1:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is the start-up of Rob Reiner's campaign for governor. Gov. Arnold did this with an "After School" program so the "AntiArnold" will go for a preschool plan costing Californians Billions of dollars! All to further his political ambitions. What happened to the billion dollars collected from the 50 cents-a-pack cigarrette tax? Wasn't that supposed to go to preschools?
Still Endorsing Jim Hahn for Mayor of Los Angeles. Miguel Mena

April 21, 2005 1:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I won't vote for it because I have a problem with every time some guy has a pet project, he goes out and puts it on the ballot.

Hey, it's not going to affect you so vote for it. You don't make $800K so what's the big deal, it for the children right.

Yeah, and next year it couples making $700K

Then $600K, then $500K, then $400K.

When in hell does it stop. Meantime the roads suck, a freeway hasn't been built in 20 years, it takes me a hour to go to work in the morning, I got the Hahn's parking Nazis giving me a ticket for not having a front plate on my car, you have to pull a building permit to change a sink, the whole thing is out of control.

I am not voting for any new anything, I don't care how good and nobel the intent is.

If meathead wants kids to go to pre-school, he can propose a 50 cent a ticket tax on going to the movies. You think he will do it? Hell no.

April 21, 2005 1:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

SO, if "corrupt" Hahn's .005 sales tax in the city of L.A. was going to dry up local business and send people fleeing to Alhambra and Glendale to buy their DVD players (to save $1.50)...

Then I guess "corrupt" Meathead's "rich people" tax is going to make the people paying the largest block of state taxes in the state already want to move OUT of CA (or maybe never move in). Meanwhile, it entices more POOR people to move in to get the added perk.

Big bucks people can live anywhere -- and already they would pay less taxes than they do in CA. If you want to drive them out of the state so the remaining poor people (me) have to keep getting increases in our taxes to pay for their absence -- and the new mouths to feed, go ahead. But the numbers jsut won't add up in the end.

If you're going to add taxes to support a fixed -- or GROWING program cost, first you need to make sure you have an inexhaustible, growing -- or at the VERY worst - stable supply of payers.

April 21, 2005 1:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I support all programs that can enhance the educational life of a child or person, so this is one that I will definitely vote for. What is wrong with taxing the 800k or above. That tax is one day out on the town at SOHO or the IVY. What is the problem. Kids should have access to preschool at no cost no matter where they live or what their parents make! For once, people should put the children first on their agenda, not after TRAFFIC.

April 21, 2005 2:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Anything for the children right?

Never mind if too much.

Never mind if it's the right thing to do.

Never mind if we are already over taxed.

Never mind, it's for the children!

Hey, let's bankrupt the city and state, after all it's for the children.

Better yet, let stop spending money on anything that doesn't have anything to do with kids.

April 21, 2005 2:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Sure, kep taxing the rich untgil they move out of the state. Then, who'll be left to pay for all the programs Meathead dreams up?

Not him. He has tax planners that help him avoid that problem.

April 21, 2005 3:30 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

LAUSD is a giant sink hole. What makes anyone think they can do a better job with pre-schoolers. The so called saving we get from providing this benefit will be overwhelmed by the waste and greed of the education industry.

April 26, 2005 10:12 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Please, this initiative is ridiculous. Basically what it amounts to is a tax on the rich to pay for the poor's child care.

Kids already get a k-12 education, how much real learning is accomplished when you are 4 years old? Like I said this is subsidized child care. If you can't afford daycare/babysitter etc. don't have children.

April 26, 2005 6:31 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home