Reply #33: Thanks for your thoughts, GBD4...

[RedStateDem]

A lot of initiatives for additional funding for Head Start and similar programs are coming at the state level. Current eligibility is poverty level or below. Howard Dean suggested a threshhold at 3 x poverty level, and I've seen some as high as 4 x poverty level.

So, under these proposals, a family of four (2 kids) making $56,000 would be eligible for free Head Start enrollment under Dean's suggestion. I think there are similar initiatvies in NY, TX and MI, and probably a lot of others.

These proposals are much better at providing state funding for lower-income families than a universal pre-school option would be. The median income in the US is in the mid-$40,000s or higher, so we're talking about free pre-school for probably more than half of all pre-k kids in the country if these initiatives are followed through on.

Contrariwise, a universal pre-k program would not only provide free preschool to the lowest income families, but would also provide it for the richess. That's right--it would be yet another tax break for the rich so they end up keeping even more of their money than they do now, which is hardly fair to the rest of us.

Even if the public voted to support 100% universal preschool, I think we can all see why we should be careful not to make a policy out of every thing the public votes on. (Like when the public in Colorado voted on that homosexual rights issue, and when the public in California voted on the gay marriage issue). Even if this is a democracy and the people should normally get a vote, some things are too important to risk by putting it before the people. (That's why it's so important, for example, not to put the Marriage Amendment on the ballot in this election cycle--too many people would vote for the Amendment, and that would be bad for our cause. We have to wait until no so many people would be voting--like in an offyear election, or special election).

Anyway, I don't know exactly what Jeb Bush was thinking when he vetoed universal pre-K. But you can see why it would not serve progressive purposes to give free pre-school to the children of the rich. They should have to pay for it themselves. But it should be mandatory--the sooner we get kids into a communal social environment, the sooner they'll be prepared for life in a collectivist progressive environment.

RedStateDem