Henry Raymond
Fairfax News => Political Issues/Comments => Topic started by: Chris Santee on May 05, 2014, 06:14:38 AM
-
http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=20b588b87d4bc8441af83305f&id=85f0d4e299&e=794b3a1c56 (http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=20b588b87d4bc8441af83305f&id=85f0d4e299&e=794b3a1c56)
-
Purpose: To continue the expansion of the state’s role in pre-kindergarten. Specifically, this bill mandates that publicly funded prekindergarten for 10 hours per week/35 weeks annually be made available at taxpayer expense to any “prekindergarten child” whom the parent or guardian wishes to enroll in an available, prequalified program.
Analysis: Those voting YES on H.270 voted for an estimated $10 million increase in education costs over the next five years, which will be reflected in increased property taxes, and to override local control regarding the decision of whether or not to offer publicly funded pre-kindergarten in the first place.
-
For Immediate Release
May 5, 2014
Gov. Peter Shumlin issued the following statement on final passage of Universal Pre-K legislation:
“My thanks to lawmakers for their hard work on this thoughtful plan to give all Vermont’s 3- and 4-year-olds access to high quality pre-kindergarten education. Investing in our youngest Vermonters is both the right thing to do and the smart thing to do. When children and families thrive, Vermont thrives. The vast majority of Vermont communities, 87 percent, already offer early learning. Now access to strong programs for young children will no longer depend on where you live. I am proud to live in a state that will provide every child an opportunity to arrive at kindergarten ready to learn.”
-
Why not just go with free school from 2 to 22. Sound like we only have 5 more years to figure out.
-
I'll bet there was a similar situation when kindergarten was rolled into the public school system (? 1970s). Can you access any of that info Chris--for the sake of comparison? Taxes not a new issue. I've lived here my whole life and have heard the same thing over and over. I think we need a cost analysis from other states to see how they do it and why we can't instead of blaming each successive administration for choices made, while forgetting all that is good here.
It is much cheaper to rent/buy home in the south. Some states don't have a sales tax and grass is always greener over the septic tank--but no one knows for sure why things appear to be better elsewhere. Why do we have so many more taxes on gas (cigarettes & alcohol) than southern states? That's what drives up the cost. Why are property taxes so high? It's not all education tax. While we complain a lot about the fees etc, no one ever gives a reason for why we in Vt pay more for a license or car registration than others in the country. I've never seen the question posed. Is it the overall lack of tourist attractions/big industry that would generate more tax revenue?? If that's the case, I am ok with that. I don't want to live in a sate filled with amusement parks, go-karts, and theme restaurants on every other corner or a wasteland of factories spewing toxic waste/smoke everywhere. They can stay well south of here. I will gladly go visit, if I desire.
Again, while we're complaining about all that we believe is wrong(myself included), I suggest asking why these things are the way the are--and not go for the obvious answer, then ask what you prefer.
-
sometimes I thing the homeless has it right all along
-
Population also factors in. Vermont wants all these initiatives but has one of the smallest populations to fund from. Things do get cheaper to run at scale and Vermont doesn't scale.