Proposition 49 is officially the Before and After Schools Programs initiative, but it ought to be the Arnold Schwartzenegger platform for Public Office initative. The proposition would set aside up to $550 million/year from the General Fund (the amount is formula-driven) for before and after school programs centered in the public schools, based on the argument that for many kids, the schools are the most stable productive environment they have.
The sad reality is that this is true.
One of the key omissions of welfare reform and the entire new job-oriented form of government social programs, is the simple question: But what about the kids? We have a nanny three afternoons a week, and Id estimate that she brings her children over (they get to play with the Littlest Guy, so its all good from my point of view) twice a week. She does it because a) she needs to work; and b) her costs for child care are close to or exceed what she can earn. So someone explain to me exactly how, absent a tolerant employer, she is supposed to participate in the labor market, even if she wants to?
I lived in Paris for a while, and one interesting feature of the French social welfare system is the neighborhood crèche, a combination day care center and kindergarten. They are local, free, open during working hours, and generally (in the better neighborhoods where I hung out) good.
Looking at the problems of poverty and broken low-income urban and rural culture in the U.S., I am more and more convinced that the schools will play an increasing role in focusing and delivering social services, not only to the children, but to their parents. (Yeah, yeah, I know
the public schools today can barely teach kids to read
)
This proposition is a first step in that direction, and based on that, Ill be voting yes.
Plus I want to see a Meathead/Terminator gubernatorial race in 06.
Check out the Leg. Analyst on this.
What a worthless idiot this guy is. The state is BILLIONS of dollars in debt and he’s coming up with new ways to spend money. What a dumb ass, he should just make movies and keep his mouth shut. Just more evidence that there aren’t 2 political parties just 2 wings of the same party, The Big Govt Party.
todd, you’re completely wrong on this.
In the short-run, programs like this pay for themselves by reducing juvenile crime.
In the intermediate- and long-run, they more than pay for themselves by racheting up the employability of the students they serve as (some) of the students manage to get engaged by the schools and actually become employable.
A.L.
I’m as small-government-mistrustful-of-nanny-state a conservative/libertarian as you’re likely to find this side of the black helicopter crowd, and I suspect this is a good idea.
I do NOT think the schools should be in the parenting business. But, in the absence of parents–an absence many children face–the Leviathan-like State must do what it can.
I suppose I could quibble about funding mechanisms, the federalism issue (state vs. local funding), incentives (will this make parents MORE irresponsible) or the probability that the bureaucracy will waste billions while putting mere thousands into helping kids, or I could talk about private charity…
But, 1)I’m not a California voter, so why should I waste my time, and 2)frankly, sometimes you just need to accept a little more government to get an important job done. Keeping kids off the street an in positive spaces is an important job, and if the private charities aren’t doing all they need to, then we have to let the gubmint try.
I’d be totally convinced if part of the program was an after-school target shooting club 🙂
Oh Goody! Another program that pays for itself, like medicare, medicaid, about a billion job training programs, police, fire, prisons, midnight basketball, school lunches, etc, etc, etc. If we have to support anything more that pays for itself I’m sure we’ll be scraping rice kernels off the floor for something to eat.
If you really want to get unskilled people in the market eliminate the minimum wage and let kids work part time jobs.
Yes!! Low-wage child labor!! That’s the answer to inner-city poverty and crime…
…why didn’t we think of that before??
You may want to reread Dickens or Sinclair or some of the 19th century reformers before you float that suggestion too seriously. We’ve been down that road, and it didn’t work all that well.
A.L.
Come on, I’m not talking 60 hour weeks at the sweat shop. I’m talking about learning responsibility and how to work. Why couldn’t a 13 year old kid sweep up at the local barber shop for 6-8 hours a week? Earning a paycheck and learning the most basic processes of the market sounds like a good deal to me.
That’s how I learned. I wasn’t on the market but I worked for my father mowing the lawn, chopping firewood, raking leaves, taking care of the trash, etc, etc.
Many economists agree that the minimum wage represents a major obstacle to entering the market. Some positions just aren’t worth 6 something an hour. Look at a job position like you would any other asset. If it’s too expensive it will not be purchased. But if the price is low, it’s more likely to be bought on the market. Drop the min. wage and immediately thousands and thousands of jobs come available.
Todd, I’m with you on the minimum wage, and on letting kids take jobs that don’t interfere with schooling.
But I don’t think that’s the entire answer–some kids are too young, an some are more likely to enter the “market” of drug dealing (we could talk about legalization, I suppose…). In any case, kids whose parents don’t work aren’t likely to see the value of a low-paying job (hello, welfare reform).
What you want to do is undertake a large-scale structural reform of society and government. I think that you have the right idea, and I’d like to move in that direction. But you can’t expect instant results for such a sweeping program, and sometimes doing some small good is all you can manage.
Yeah, but todd, here’s the problem: The kids who go get these minimum-wage jobs are the kids who already know how to work…my kids. The kids who don’t know how to think ‘well, $30/day at Mickey D’s or $300/day watching for the 5-0’ and make the rational economic decision.
I clearly think that we need to re-establish the import of work in our schools, and in addition go back to honoring vocational education in schools. All of our metrics seemed aimed at getting all the kids into Stanford, and there are only so many seats at that table.
Of course the fact that livable-wage blue-collar jobs are evaporating nationally may have something to do with it…
A.L.