Decision Time
It is time again for more voting. I hesitate to admit this, but I was not a registered voter anywhere until I was about 30 years of age. I have never been politically minded, and even now when politics come up in discussion, I'm not very comfortable talking about the issues. It's not because I have to be right, but it's because I really don't want to look stupid, which might happen if I start spouting about things I know nothing about. Ever since I can remember, I've been more socially minded - I have very strong opinions about various issues related to the treatment of people (especially children) in our society. When people discuss politics, especially having to do with economy and political officials, my eyes start to glaze over. Having said that, I pay more attention now to voting issues, even though it's still not comfortable for me, because I realize it does me no good to bury my head in the sand. Also, if I value education so much, why have I been so resistant to educating myself in this area? There is no logical explanation.
So, in the mail, I have received my voter's pamphlet and absentee ballot and have set it aside until I'm ready to focus on it. Here are some of the issues in this election on June 6, 2006:
Prop 81: California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act
Information from Pamphlet: This would give about $600 million dollars to build and revamp public libraries to expand access to reading and literacy programs in the California Public schools, and to provide more comprehensive services to residents of California. Supposedly, to come up with the funds, the state would sell bonds to provide grants, and local agencies would contribute about $320 million towards these projects. Arguments against this prop are that we already pay $9 billion a year on welfare for illegal aliens (actual wording in pamphlet), and borrowing more money for libraries would make things worse.
My take: I did a little searching around on the internet and found a site called "The Field Poll", which measures reactions to various props and issues in California. The idea behind doing such a search is because some questions related to this prop - are Californians happy with the library system the way it is? How efficient is the library system currently? What percentage of the people actually use the libraries now, and how will the new renovations improve library use? Unfortunately, I cannot find any information to help answer these questions. This website is obviously pro-prop 81, and explains that this measure would help improve public programs for students, seniors, and people with disabilities. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle dated May 18, 2006, libraries have not seen a bond measure passed since 2000, with $350 million allotted towards library projects. On the flip side, this site is against prop 81, mainly because the state is already in debt and no matter how much the bond is for, it will never be enough. That is not altogether invalid, even according to the Pro library resources. Part of the reason why a new measure is needed is because there was not enough money from the last bond in 2000 to cover all the needed projects.
It's not that I would argue that libraries are not in need of renovation and revamped services. Also, they have services now that they didn't have when I was in school - mainly free internet access. I just get discouraged at how high taxes are here in this state, and I wonder "where is all the money going?". I am truly undecided on this issue, but would tend to vote against it due to the overwhelming costs of this measure.
Prop 82: Preschool Education. Tax on Incomes Over $400,000 for Individuals; $800,000 for couples. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Information from Pamphlet: This measure would establish voluntary preschool education for all four year olds, which would be funded by a 1.7% tax on the wealthy. The obvious benefit of this measure is that more children would be able to benefit from preschool education, which would better prepare them for entering kindergarten.
My take: I was listening to NPR the other day on my way to somewhere (I can't even keep track anymore), and they were talking about how the current preschool administrators are wary of this measure for a couple of reasons. First of all, it would make some preschools part of the public school system (do I need to explain why that's a problem?), would force preschool programs to be more academic in nature as opposed to keeping their focus on social development, and would "edge out" the remaining privately run preschools. Even though I am pro-education (not necessarily pro public education), and I see the benefits of when children attend preschool, I think it's one more solution for parents facing the "daycare decision". I have to agree with at least one point made on the NPR program - that having preschools become part of the "sinking ship of public education" is not necessarily the best thing. However, everything I know about childhood development says that the "critical years" are birth-to-five. By the time a child is 5, he or she is entering kindergarten, or close to it. From a strictly financial standpoint (which I previously would not have worried about because I had no finances to speak of), this measure also takes an average of $6800 in taxes per year for a single person making $400K. This is on top of the $160K they already pay in income tax. I'm not trying to protect the wealth of the few people "at the top", but that's not a small chunk of change. If they are going to tax the wealthy, why can't they put those dollars into the current K-12 system, which is screaming for resources? On the other hand, having more children attend preschools where special services are provided (like speech, occupational therapy, etc), might make it so that less children are in need of special services once they hit K-12 grades, which would leave more resources available for school districts. This is because children who are identified early as having possible delays receive services sooner, rather than waiting until problems are more "cemented".
Again, I am undecided on this measure, but would tend to vote for this proposition because of the overall importance of early education and intervention. Too many families are not rich and not poor (those are the families with either their own money for preschool, or those who qualify for government-funded preschool). It's time that the middle-income families and their children stop falling through the cracks.
Democratic Candidate - Steve Westly versus Phil Angelides
First of all, each candidate is the lesser of evils when compared to Governor Schwartzenegger. What I like best about Steve Westly is that he supports a woman's right to choose and that he is in favor of cutting irresponsible spending in order to fund (or at least partially fund) social programs instead of automatically raising taxes. I like the fact that he is a product of the public school system and has children who attend public schools - this tells me that he has a vested interest in what happens to our public school system. He talks about Closing the Achievement Gap for minority groups, and happens to be married to a woman who immigrated here. Unfortunately, he supports the California State Exit Exam, which I do not. I think it has abandoned the spirit of "No Child Left Behind" by leaving children behind, especially those kids who are low-income, African American, and Latino. At least he is honest about the expense of having programs to better prepare our students for passing the exit exam, like providing tutoring and after-school programs. One thing lacking in Westly's stance on education reform is special education and what to do about high caseloads, higher needs students, and even higher-needs parents and the amount of time it takes to address each. I am hopeful about the fact that Westly is for cleaning up the environment and finding a way to reduce our dependence on oil, but there wasn't much information on his website that led me to believe he knows how to accomplish these things.
Phil Angelides' ads also claim that he supports education and public health care. However, I was turned off when I visited his website and the first thing that pops up is an ad that says, "Help Phil Raise $100K" followed by a "contribute now" button. I get grumpy when I get hit up for $10 pledge for foot races, so imagine my distaste at this attempt to get in my pocketbook. As far as education, Angelides called for legislation to approve a $25 billion dollar bond to alieve overcrowding and provide for other school improvements. Both Angelides and Westly promote health insurance coverage for ALL children, which is very helpful, since my kids who are currently on Medi-Cal are denied coverage for services that are deemed "not necessary" by the state. I do like Angelides' "Green Wave" plan to invest more into technologies that will clean up the environment and investing in companies that have "biologically friendly" practices. I also like his stance on building "livable communities", which his history of supporting fair and affordable housing backs up. There is no mention made of Angelides' educational history or where his kids attended school, which leads me to believe that they probably went through the private schools. That and the fact that his plan on education was not as detailed as Westly's tells me that educational issues are not at the top of his priority list.
Let's just say that both candidates have their strengths, but with how important educational issues are to me and how they impact society, in general, I'm leaning towards voting for Westly. Of course, we'll see what happens when either candidate does battle with the Governator.
So, in the mail, I have received my voter's pamphlet and absentee ballot and have set it aside until I'm ready to focus on it. Here are some of the issues in this election on June 6, 2006:
Prop 81: California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act
Information from Pamphlet: This would give about $600 million dollars to build and revamp public libraries to expand access to reading and literacy programs in the California Public schools, and to provide more comprehensive services to residents of California. Supposedly, to come up with the funds, the state would sell bonds to provide grants, and local agencies would contribute about $320 million towards these projects. Arguments against this prop are that we already pay $9 billion a year on welfare for illegal aliens (actual wording in pamphlet), and borrowing more money for libraries would make things worse.
My take: I did a little searching around on the internet and found a site called "The Field Poll", which measures reactions to various props and issues in California. The idea behind doing such a search is because some questions related to this prop - are Californians happy with the library system the way it is? How efficient is the library system currently? What percentage of the people actually use the libraries now, and how will the new renovations improve library use? Unfortunately, I cannot find any information to help answer these questions. This website is obviously pro-prop 81, and explains that this measure would help improve public programs for students, seniors, and people with disabilities. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle dated May 18, 2006, libraries have not seen a bond measure passed since 2000, with $350 million allotted towards library projects. On the flip side, this site is against prop 81, mainly because the state is already in debt and no matter how much the bond is for, it will never be enough. That is not altogether invalid, even according to the Pro library resources. Part of the reason why a new measure is needed is because there was not enough money from the last bond in 2000 to cover all the needed projects.
It's not that I would argue that libraries are not in need of renovation and revamped services. Also, they have services now that they didn't have when I was in school - mainly free internet access. I just get discouraged at how high taxes are here in this state, and I wonder "where is all the money going?". I am truly undecided on this issue, but would tend to vote against it due to the overwhelming costs of this measure.
Prop 82: Preschool Education. Tax on Incomes Over $400,000 for Individuals; $800,000 for couples. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Information from Pamphlet: This measure would establish voluntary preschool education for all four year olds, which would be funded by a 1.7% tax on the wealthy. The obvious benefit of this measure is that more children would be able to benefit from preschool education, which would better prepare them for entering kindergarten.
My take: I was listening to NPR the other day on my way to somewhere (I can't even keep track anymore), and they were talking about how the current preschool administrators are wary of this measure for a couple of reasons. First of all, it would make some preschools part of the public school system (do I need to explain why that's a problem?), would force preschool programs to be more academic in nature as opposed to keeping their focus on social development, and would "edge out" the remaining privately run preschools. Even though I am pro-education (not necessarily pro public education), and I see the benefits of when children attend preschool, I think it's one more solution for parents facing the "daycare decision". I have to agree with at least one point made on the NPR program - that having preschools become part of the "sinking ship of public education" is not necessarily the best thing. However, everything I know about childhood development says that the "critical years" are birth-to-five. By the time a child is 5, he or she is entering kindergarten, or close to it. From a strictly financial standpoint (which I previously would not have worried about because I had no finances to speak of), this measure also takes an average of $6800 in taxes per year for a single person making $400K. This is on top of the $160K they already pay in income tax. I'm not trying to protect the wealth of the few people "at the top", but that's not a small chunk of change. If they are going to tax the wealthy, why can't they put those dollars into the current K-12 system, which is screaming for resources? On the other hand, having more children attend preschools where special services are provided (like speech, occupational therapy, etc), might make it so that less children are in need of special services once they hit K-12 grades, which would leave more resources available for school districts. This is because children who are identified early as having possible delays receive services sooner, rather than waiting until problems are more "cemented".
Again, I am undecided on this measure, but would tend to vote for this proposition because of the overall importance of early education and intervention. Too many families are not rich and not poor (those are the families with either their own money for preschool, or those who qualify for government-funded preschool). It's time that the middle-income families and their children stop falling through the cracks.
Democratic Candidate - Steve Westly versus Phil Angelides
First of all, each candidate is the lesser of evils when compared to Governor Schwartzenegger. What I like best about Steve Westly is that he supports a woman's right to choose and that he is in favor of cutting irresponsible spending in order to fund (or at least partially fund) social programs instead of automatically raising taxes. I like the fact that he is a product of the public school system and has children who attend public schools - this tells me that he has a vested interest in what happens to our public school system. He talks about Closing the Achievement Gap for minority groups, and happens to be married to a woman who immigrated here. Unfortunately, he supports the California State Exit Exam, which I do not. I think it has abandoned the spirit of "No Child Left Behind" by leaving children behind, especially those kids who are low-income, African American, and Latino. At least he is honest about the expense of having programs to better prepare our students for passing the exit exam, like providing tutoring and after-school programs. One thing lacking in Westly's stance on education reform is special education and what to do about high caseloads, higher needs students, and even higher-needs parents and the amount of time it takes to address each. I am hopeful about the fact that Westly is for cleaning up the environment and finding a way to reduce our dependence on oil, but there wasn't much information on his website that led me to believe he knows how to accomplish these things.
Phil Angelides' ads also claim that he supports education and public health care. However, I was turned off when I visited his website and the first thing that pops up is an ad that says, "Help Phil Raise $100K" followed by a "contribute now" button. I get grumpy when I get hit up for $10 pledge for foot races, so imagine my distaste at this attempt to get in my pocketbook. As far as education, Angelides called for legislation to approve a $25 billion dollar bond to alieve overcrowding and provide for other school improvements. Both Angelides and Westly promote health insurance coverage for ALL children, which is very helpful, since my kids who are currently on Medi-Cal are denied coverage for services that are deemed "not necessary" by the state. I do like Angelides' "Green Wave" plan to invest more into technologies that will clean up the environment and investing in companies that have "biologically friendly" practices. I also like his stance on building "livable communities", which his history of supporting fair and affordable housing backs up. There is no mention made of Angelides' educational history or where his kids attended school, which leads me to believe that they probably went through the private schools. That and the fact that his plan on education was not as detailed as Westly's tells me that educational issues are not at the top of his priority list.
Let's just say that both candidates have their strengths, but with how important educational issues are to me and how they impact society, in general, I'm leaning towards voting for Westly. Of course, we'll see what happens when either candidate does battle with the Governator.
posted by Notta Wallflower at 5:22 PM
8 Comments:
( oooh! Got a little bit on your mind today, huh? )
~d - I've been putting off looking at the issues, and I decided it was time to sit down and do some reading. :-P
good for you. There is a mayorial race in New Orleans tomorrow. No doubt it will dictate New Orleans' future.
have a good weekend.
Our decison was made. Ray Nagin: Mr. Chocolate City himself has been re-elected. I was so torn. I wanted Ray to have the job since he did pull us thru Katrina: along with the politics involed, however Louisiana can be a connected ( corrupt? ) state and the other dude has MANY connections.
Peas.
~d - This may be pessimistic, but I assume that, if people are in government, there is some corruption there. I hate that it's like that, but what is the public supposed to think?
Nice to hear your takes on these. I have yet to decide how I'm voting on anything. Been putting it off.
The whole thing about that $800,000 tax is silly. Rich people don't make big money. They make very little amounts of money. People look at me and think "are you on crack?" No, let me explain.
The real rich, not upper-middle class doctors and lawyers or Hollywood types, but the real rich know how to get around the system. They have corporations and trusts which own everything, and when they need cash, they take a little bit out of the trust. Their corporation(s) own their houses, their cars, their private jets, their boats, their vacation homes, everything. They own nothing. The real rich have a net worth of like $100,000.
It's the middle-class who's obsessed with how much someone makes, what kind of car someone drives, etc.
I'll tell you something funny. Right now, I'm renting a room in an upper class community, living amongst the real rich (no, I'm not rich, I'm just renting). You know what kind of cars they drive? Toyota Corollas, Honda Accords, Saturns, and other boring cars.
I work in an upper-middle class town. Do you know what kind of cars they drive there? Hummers, BMWs, Mercedes, Porsches, etc. They have to prove they're rich. Rich people don't have to prove anything. They don't make anything either.
ZS - You know what's funny is that I never paid attention (well, not never, but not as much) until I moved to this area. I think that when homes are so astronomically priced, one pays a little more attention to their annual salary. I've always been middle class, but I don't feel like I need to prove anything. I just want to live comfortably. I'm sure these props are an area where yours and my views differ. :-P
Notta - It's all good. Everyone has their interests and yours are right for you, and mine are right for me. I'll never say your interests are wrong, they're just wrong for me. For instance, a nurse might want hospitals to get more gov't funding whereas a teacher may say "no, hospitals are already overfunded and I'm overtaxed and schools need more funding." Are either of them wrong? No. So it's totally cool we have different views on these measures.
As for class stereotypes, yeah, I know I throw them out like they're truth, but there are exceptions to them, and yes, there are plenty of middle-class folks with nothing to prove who are completely happy with what they have. More power to them. Then for some strange reason I can't figure out, I've met really rich people who think they don't have enough. I think once you're in the tens of millions, wanting more money is just silly.
Post a Comment
<< Home