Skip to main content

Cross-posted from Calitics: SoapBlox California.  The Progressive Community Blog for California.

Prop 82 held a huge lead in the February Field Poll. In that poll, 82 was up by a 21-point margin (55-34). In last week's poll, 82 had only a 13-point lead (52-39). Yes, that is still a sizable lead, but losing that much support that quickly can't be a positive for its supporters. But, I think there is another worrisome number hidden in the bottom of the big table of statistics in the poll. If you scroll down to the bottom of that table there is a breakdown by whether the respondent had heard of 82 before the survey. Respondents that hadn't heard of 82 (44 % of respondents) strongly supported it (55-33-12). However, respondents that had heard of it gave a support/opposition ratio that was within the margin (49 46 5).

More on the flip...

The reason that this is worrisome for the future of 82 is that there will be lots of "education" in the next 6 weeks. 82 sounds good on a ballot, but it can be spun negatively. Its costs are uncertain. Its public face (Reiner) is enduring some challenging times and can be villified by the right. In other words, what I'm saying is that Prop 82 is in a classic position of vulnerability to a media campaign.

So, yes, it appears that 82 has lost its momentum. Of course there are the numerous politicians who have removed their support. Schwarzenegger couldn't endorse it due to the radical right wing of his party.  But the SF and LA Chambers of Commerce are taking a little bit of a risk supporting 82, especially as the statewide Chamber is basically now the lead opponent.  By the by, is Rob Reiner running for governor?  No?  Really, Becuase you would sware that he is based upon the website name for the opposition to Prop 82: www.stopreiner.org.  I mean WOW!  That's some serious pandering to the right.  They always need somebody to hate...this time it's Reiner.  It's actually quite unfortunate.  Prop 82 should be judged on its merits...not some BS about Reiner.

But at least part of the progressive shift away from 82 is due to the fact that elected officials are growing tired of legislation bypassing the traditional channels. Would Perata support a preschool program if it was brought in the legislature? Probably? Would it pass? Hell no. Unless the money can be found without taxing, the supermajority rules allow the Reps to block progressive legislation like that. While Burton isn't in the legislature anymore, that must be part of his logic as well. With the current wave of initiatives, the legislators began quite supportive. They supported the mental health bill that passed a few years ago, they supported the stem cell initiative (for the most part), but now they are realizing that if this tide doesn't turn, their budget will be eaten alive by the initiatives. Of course in this case, preschool won't be taken out of the general fund, but rather this new tax on the wealthiest Californians. But, at least in the case of Angelides, this is a tax they already plan on using for other purposes.

Preschool is a worthy cause. And 82, while somewhat flawed, is the best chance of that happening anytime in the near future. Until we reform our governance system to remove these unreasonable obstacles to majority will, we are left with the second best choice. In this case, that is 82.

Originally posted to UTBriancl on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:33 PM PDT.

Poll

Prop 82?

50%12 votes
50%12 votes

| 24 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar... (4+ / 0-)

    Come on over to Calitics.  We're always talking California Politics.  Don't forget to check us every day for the California Blog Roundup, a daily summary of the best of California blogging.

  •  Seriously, I'm tired of this (0+ / 0-)

    I mean I'm sick of all these propositions.  Let the State Legislature makes the laws and the budgets.  What else do we pay them for?

    •  Passing new taxes in CA is almost impossible (0+ / 0-)

      The thing is that somebody made it so that passing new taxes in this state takes a 2/3 majority, not just a simple 50% + 1. This makes it nearly impossible to pass new taxes here; we have something like a 65% majority in the legislature but that other 35% are fanatical anti-taxers. Numerous attempts to change this via proposition have gone down in flames. There's no way to hold them accountable when even a 65% majority cannot legally get new taxes passed.

      A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

      by tmo on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:52:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I imagine (0+ / 0-)

        it would probably take an initiative to change that one.  It needs it.  The 2/3rds rule is a big reason why little ever gets done in Sacramento and their approval ratings are lower than Schwarzenegger's.

        "He was a pit bull last year, and now after the special elections, he is an old French poodle." Bob Mulholland on Aaahnold

        by juls on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:55:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  PPIC (0+ / 0-)

    is out tomorrow on education and we will have new numbers on 82.

    So far 82 has been hammered by something the First 5 commission did by the press.  They have not been airing aids or done all that effective of a job getting their message out yet.  We will see if it turns around.  They have a press conference down in LA tomorrow.

    Brian you coming to the convention?

    "He was a pit bull last year, and now after the special elections, he is an old French poodle." Bob Mulholland on Aaahnold

    by juls on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:40:44 PM PDT

  •  elected officials (0+ / 0-)

    aren't the only ones sick of initiatives.

    Preschool is a worthy cause. There are lots of worthy causes. The job of the legislature is to divide the state's revenue to fund these causes. I hate this method of committing some specific revenue to some specific task. I'm not sure whether to compare it to putting a bandaid on the dying man, or to some old fashioned treatment like bleeding, that made the patient die faster.

    Brian - I read Calitics regularly, though don't say much. Thanks for the good coverage!

    The Four Horsemen of Bushism: War, Corruption, Hypocrisy and Greed

    by esquimaux on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:03:23 PM PDT

  •  Not easy to say: 82 sucks (0+ / 0-)

    I've been a doctrinaire partisan for most of my life, and this is the first time I've been squarely on the opposite side of a major liberal CA campaign.

    In fact, before seeing his, I just mined Hitzik's threads at the LAT for future posts. Here are a few of my criticisms:

    Can we dig up Howard Jarvis, kick his corpse around the street, and undo every initiative since 1978? That would be a much better use of revenue than to lock away a pre-school version of Prop 98 (now, with a dedicated revenue stream!). Not even Jack O'Connell thinks+ this sort of thing is a good idea.

    If we can't empower the legislature to actually make these sorts of laws, we might as well put everything on autopilot, from pot holes to the dents on CHP cars. Peg everything to the bottom decile of national norms. Every time Mississippi edges ahead, we'll buy another Caltrans truck. If the homeless population dips below Tennessee's, we'll close the appropriate number of mental health clinics.

    + I don't know if, like the CTA, Jack is with Reiner on this this, but he has previously said that new set-asides for other ed programs are a terrible idea, to be paid for by such robust constituencies as foster children and people with developmental disabilities.

    I'll add more below.

    •  More serious flaws: (0+ / 0-)

      [...] Reiner should know via his work with First 5 California, that some pre-schoolers are much needier than most, and deserve a hell of a lot of intensive help. One of the First 5 proselytizers, Bruce Perry, has shown huge returns on educational therapies for environmentally deprived children, but those children need more than three hours, a day, and a staff that is much more capable than glorified day care workers.

      There was a day in California when we thought each child should have the opportunity to fulfill his or her full potential, not shut it off on rations.

      From Hiltzik's thread 2/1/06

      •  Vote for 82 = screw Prop 10 (0+ / 0-)

        The body of work Prop. 10's First 5 CA relies upon shows that success later in life has most to do with rich human interaction within the first few months and years, and very little to do with whether you force a child to exploit the resulting potential. Bruce Perry, who I cited above, calls it, "biologically disrespectful" to force a child to read if he isn't ready, especially when there is an underlying deficit in brain development.

        First 5 is all about targeting needy populations to address known environmental/social deficits. How amazing it is to learn that First 5 has been so successful that we can now run all of these children into the same cattle chute with the kids in Los Gatos.

        Like I said to an old editor friend of mine, Reiner was stoned or drunk when he came up with one of these initiatives, because they use completely contradictory logic.

  •  The Voter You Don't Want To Hear From (0+ / 0-)

    So I agree with everyone here about the need to reform the supermajority requirements and the initiative system.

    I need someone to convince me to vote for 82.  Before you wonder why the hell someone on Daily Kos needs to be convinced to vote for 82, let me explain.

    I want to be convinced.  You say the words "preschool," "universal," and "small tax on income over $400k" in the same sentence and I'm ready to sign.  I also don't have any problem with passing imperfect legislation, as that is the only kind there is.

    Last week here at Cal there was a debate on Prop 82.  The Yes On 82 campaign sent a woman who brought out a Powerpoint presentation basically consisting of pictures of small children, a slide saying "$1-->$2.50," and a list of all the organizations supporting 82.  That might be good for a 30 second commercial, but it was unconvincing in debate format.

    The Non on 82 position was taken by a paleoconservative harpie who I wouldn't trust with [enter colorful metaphor here].  The problem is she made some good points.  She pointed out that the "$1-->$2.50" study was based on kids in Chicago who got several years of attention much more intensive than 3 hours a day.  She also pointed out that some 65% of kids go to preschool now and the goal of 82 is to get that up to 70%.  She also complained about lack of school choice, but I tuned her out.

    Funds going to religious schools was also mentioned, but not really addressed since the Yes woman wasn't doing substance and the No woman sees that as a plus.

    The pro-82 woman didn't address any of these concerns, but went back into listing people who support 82.  I need someone I trust (pretty much anyone on Daily Kos will do) to explain to me why I should vote for 82.  I want to be convinced.

    •  Right - the parochial/private thing says a lot... (0+ / 0-)

      ...about how unserious some of the backers are.

      It's a half-serious approach to professional standards, and to the wall between church and state. It's important enough for they benefits k-12 teachers might like, but not important enough to staff with credentialed union members, and not important enough to care if fundies take the kids to see The Passion* instead of providing an appropriate learning environment.

      • - a local fundy foster care agency actually gave tickets to mentally

      ill elementary school-aged children.

    •  BTW: for a dKos poll... (0+ / 0-)

      ...this is bad news for the Yes people.

  •  If it sucks, what's the alternative (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pacific John, catfish, Far left coast

    for those of us who desperately need affordable or even subsidized preschool for our children?  I mean I hadn't heard about this and the idea of preschool for all children who need it sounds pretty good to me considering that I have a preschooler and I desperately need it.  I've been on the wait list for about a year before my 3 year old was born.  All the individual centers tell me that their wait lists are equally or even longer than the centralized list.  I've also put us on the wait list for my college child center.  We've been on that list since Fall 2004 semester.  When I tell people this, they are stunned.  My professors are stunned.  I was stunned when I ran in to all the brick walls to childcare/preschool.  My college center says "we don't have any money to open up more classrooms and hire teachers".  According to the preschool's newsletter, they will no longer feed the children, except for snack, because they say they don't have money, not getting the funding.  So what's the alternative?  I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to understand what the problem is with this. What is the problem with funding childcare? Some of us actually, really need it to go to school, to go to work. Especially if you don't have anyone else to care for your child.  Tell me..I'm listening.
    If someone can explain it in plain language, not "politician speak" (makes my eyes glaze over) I'd appreciate it.  
    Thanks

    Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved. ----Aristotle

    by esco liberal mom on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:30:04 PM PDT

    •  I don't know if this is plain enough... (0+ / 0-)

      ...but 82 wastes tons of cash, while ignoring the full needs of many children.

      It boils down to this, 82 is so expensive, it will freeze out, like, $3 billion of revenue from other more desperate programs. As you may know, our budget process is locked by a set of ballot-box-dictated auto-pilots. Revenues are basically frozen (again at the ballot box: we require a 2/3 supermajority to raise nearly all taxes). Around 90% of spending is fixed. When everything is said and done, the only discretionary programs left are those for the disabled, poor children, etc. The proposition raises the top tax bracket back to the 1995 Pete Wilson level of 11%, and that is the last fat source of potential revenue. It would be locked into the preschool program. We just can't afford it.

      The other torpedo is that the research behind 82 is not being used soundly, and is in direct conflict with Rob Reiner's other big initiative, Prop. 10, that gave new cigarette tax revenue to the counties for targeted early childhood development programs. You'll hear a lot of studies selectively used, but the bottom line is, preschool is not a high-return investment for healthy children. Now, intensive preschool is very useful for environmentally deprived children, but not the moderate ration Reiner would pass out at the cattle chute. It won't make a difference to most children, but for those who really need it, it's a drop in the bucket.

      Reiner's earlier initiative (now known as First 5 California) says targeting is necessary, that some pre-schoolers are much needier than most, and deserve a hell of a lot of intensive help. One of the First 5 proselytizers, Bruce Perry, has shown huge returns on educational therapies for environmentally deprived children, but those children need special interventions, far more than a cookie cutter preschool approach.

      The body of work First 5 CA relies upon shows that success later in life has most to do with rich human interaction within the first few months and years, and very little to do with whether you force a child to exploit the resulting potential. Bruce Perry calls it, "biologically disrespectful" to force a child to read if he isn't ready, especially when there is an underlying deficit in brain development.

      Universal preschool would be just great if we didn't have to make critical compromises to pay for it, and if we didn't care that it's less effective than reasonable alternatives.

      Parenthetically speaking, I think one of the reasons the CTA is has gone for this is national testing - trapped in the moment, they think teachers will have an easier time meeting targets if the general student body is better prepared for reading when they enter kindergarten. This logic is as flawed, but it's easy to see why this would seem attractive.

      •  Force a child to exploit the resulting potential? (0+ / 0-)

        "The body of work First 5 CA relies upon shows that success later in life has most to do with rich human interaction within the first few months and years, and very little to do with whether you force a child to exploit the resulting potential."

        First of all I thought 82 gave all parents the option of sending their kids to pre-school, but forced nobody to attend pre-school who didn't want to go.

        And what is with your cryptic talking points? Like this:
        "It won't make a difference to most children, but for those who really need it, it's a drop in the bucket."

        But you yourself said (or maybe someone else said) that all legislation is imperfect. If it makes a difference, why not?

      •  Thank You (0+ / 0-)

        I read it. Since I am unfamiliar with CA's process, I don't really understand.  I do agree that preschool should be longer to really be effective as elfling pointed out . Question:  Is the CTA the CA Teachers Association?  Catfish: What is ROI? (new to all the jargon online as well :))

        preschool is not a high-return investment for healthy children

        Why is that? My kid is healthy, yet I think it's a great investment.  The socialization is wonderful for her.  

        Reiner's earlier initiative (now known as First 5 California) says targeting is necessary, that some pre-schoolers are much needier than most, and deserve a hell of a lot of intensive help. One of the First 5 proselytizers, Bruce Perry, has shown huge returns on educational therapies for environmentally deprived children, but those children need special interventions, far more than a cookie cutter preschool approach.

        I see your point about the cookie cutter approach, if that is what's happening. Do you know if the children with special needs are getting those needs met? I honestly don't know that's why I ask.  

        Hmmm...Let me re-read your post, read other posts on this issue, do some research on the measure, think about it and I'll be back, probably with more questions.  I've got to do my homework.  Got to brief old cases for Contract Law class.

        I'd be happy to explain/expand.

        Please do Pacific John and anyone else with info.
        Sorry if I seem a bit obtuse about this. When you spend most of your time thinking about how to survive and make it, you don't really have time to read about all this stuff.  

        Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved. ----Aristotle

        by esco liberal mom on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 01:47:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  current programs (0+ / 0-)
          Low income kids are covered by the CA state preschool system currently on a space-available basis. Kids who are the most needy are getting free preschool now.

          Middle income kids are not. Parents are paying the cost, less for religious schools, more for secular private schools.

          The research is that preschool is most important for kids who come from deprived homes - kids that don't get enough interactions, in families without books, etc etc. (I cannot even imagine how a kid could get to be 5 years old without knowing colors.) Kids with relatively 'normal' socialization and parents with enough time and resources to give them the basics seem to do well in later schooling whether they have preschool or not.

    •  I agree but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pacific John, catfish
      I sure could've used a free preschool when my daughter was that age. We couldn't find a slot in a non-religious school.

      But, it's only a 3-hour (half day) program. And it's really expensive. Is it really the best use of our dollars? How much health care could we buy with that money - say free vaccinations and well child visits for everyone to age 5?

      My second issue is with the credentialed aspect, and that I've heard that many Montessori programs won't be included. Preschool especially is not a good one-size-fits-all arrangement.

      I am undecided, but as you see, troubled.

      •  Yes apparenty there are lots of space (0+ / 0-)

        in religious schools, but not being religious I'm not comfortable with that.  I imagine parents of students have to adhere to the tenets of the school.  
        Why is it soo darn expensive?  Not saying that I want to be cheap for my daughters education and care, but jeez it's crazy to pay the same amount as rent for preschool.  There's no way I could anyway, since we barely scrape together rent every month. I also agree that money should be available for health care.  I guess in my happy utopian world, these things would be the first issues addressed for the populus, not war and war making.  

        My second issue is with the credentialed aspect, and that I've heard that many Montessori programs won't be included. Preschool especially is not a good one-size-fits-all arrangement.

        I didn't know that.   Why would they not include Montessori schools?  They seem like really good schools to me.  I've wanted to put my daughter in one here in Escondido, but 1)super expensive 2)no room really long wait list.  

        Totally understand the indecision.  

        Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved. ----Aristotle

        by esco liberal mom on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 02:07:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site