Yikes! Thoughts on Proposition 1D

April 30, 2009

1D Supporter Speaks Out

Someone, yikes123, who supports 1D stopped by yesterday to question my NO endorsement. First of all, I would like to thank that person for caring enough to stop by and share how they feel about this proposition. This is just a reminder that you do not have to agree with Maven to post here.

Yikes123 stated that we should support 1D because First 5 Program, part of the Children and Families fund, is supposedly wasting money on consultants and not doing a good job retaining good early childhood education. My question to Yikes would be how would diverting money away from Children and Families program solve these problems.

The League of Women Voters describe a YES vote on 1D as:

A portion of funds previously approved by the voters to support early childhood development programs through the California Children and Families Program will be temporarily redirected over the next several years to achieve state General Fund budgetary savings.

In 1998, Californians approved Proposition 10 which uses tobacco funds to fund children and families, including early childhood education. Voters did this because they believed that in tough times, these families and children were one of the first to get cut. It is these programs that needed to expect steady funding from year to year. The work the tobacco funds go toward includes early childhood education which has been documented to make a huge difference in whether kids are ready to learn.

As a mother of a soon-to-be kindergartner, I know first-hand how having quality pre-school, good nutrition, and plenty of check ups makes difference in kindergarten readiness.

Proposition 10 is here because people knew Proposition 1D was coming.

Even the Los Angeles Times, who came out reluctantly supporting Proposition 1D, recognizes that Proposition 10 has “done a lot of good work across the state, funding healthcare for children whose parents can’t afford insurance, helping families in crisis and sending kids to preschool. Such early intervention saves lives, keeps families together and improves the odds that children will do well in school and hold jobs once they graduate.”

My take is that if there are problems in management of these programs or the way they spend the money, that can be solved by changing the personnel, not using it as an excuse to siphon funds from the fund. Like IE, it claims to save family and childhood programs by taking money away from it to deal with budget problems.

In that same Los Angeles Times article they blame “ballot box budgeting” but Propositions 1A – 1F are all ballot box budgeting. Ballot box budgeting is not the fault of the voters, but a symptom of a legislature unable to pass a budget. This is why I support turning more red districts blue and overturning the 2/3 rule for taxation.

As a mother of a son entering Kindergartner, I do worry about the cuts that will happen if these propositions pass, but this is not the way to do it.

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks