|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Supporters of an Alameda County measure that would have raised funds to expand access to childcare and preschool for low- and middle-income families said today that it fell just short of the two-thirds majority it needed to pass.
Measure A would have imposed a half-cent increase in local sales taxes for the next 30 years to generate about $140 million annually to provide childcare for such families.
But supporters said that although more than 214,000 people voted in favor of the measure, its final tally of 66.19 percent was just shy of the required 66.67 percent that was necessary.
Supporters said Measure A would have helped homeless and at-risk children, helped prevent child abuse and neglect, attracted and retained quality childcare workers by boosting their pay and added thousands of spaces for childcare at locations throughout the county.
They said the tax hike is needed because the county faces a childcare crisis and more than half of kindergartners in the county arrive unprepared to succeed in school.
But Measure A opponent Marcus Crawley said in his ballot argument, “The listed benefits of this childcare measure are so vague that the new sales tax could be spent on practically anything, making accountability impossible.”
Crawley also alleged that the county has done a poor job of monitoring an existing sales tax measure that funds transportation projects, saying it has “developed an elaborate system of fake sales tax accountability” for that tax.
Alameda County Board of Supervisors President Wilma Chan said in a statement that Measure A “failed at the ballot box due to onerous state laws that require a supermajority to pass local tax measures.”
Chan said, “We are disappointed that we did not prevail on Election Day. But we came very close and we know that our work is not done. It’s clear that the overwhelming majority of voters support Measure A and we need to keep moving forward.”
By
By
Should read, “Politicians fail low and middle income families even with state high county taxes”
This is a great idea, access to early development education is important – go find a way to pay for it without taxing people more…..I’ll give you a hint, stop paying out first year bonuses and retro-active raises…..stop blowing bond money for new schools on not new school stuff…..stop trying to raise funds for BART expansion when its not sustained now….then maybe you can pay for this with existing funds….probably multiple times over.
I have a novel idea. Maybe parents should be responsible for early childhood education.
How about cutting Supervisors pay in half along with top management types and take that money and blow it. County Dupes have gone from $95,000 to over $200,000 per year and the County Manager makes close to $700,000. These guys/gals are great at spending other people’s money. Term limits and throw these folks out.
How about this logic — you have the kids you pay for them? I am tired of paying for all of your kids via property taxes, special assessments and repairs to damages done by your undisciplined kids when they are bored during the time off from school. You can get free education, free medical care, subsidised housing and income tax credits — enough already. You want em you pay for em.
Enough with the taxes, it is the responsibility of the parents to provide child care
for their children, not the taxpayers. This is the land of opportunity we are not a socialist state yet!
On the subject of separating the children from their parents, it is very sad but don’t the children of other people who go to jail for breaking the law also get separated from their children. I am the son of immigrants, legal immigrants who obeyed the law of our land, breaking the law has consequences, why don’t those folks get it. Now the left is pulling at everybody’s heart strings and only shows children crying because they miss their Mommies, it is the parents who are cuel, not the law.
I feel sad for the kids, not for the parents who came here illegally.
Kathleen,
I tend to appreciate your factual and quite informative posts, but this time you’ve let emotion seep in. While the process is onerous, it is a process that most of our families followed to gain entrance. Those that entered “at the expense of the natives who did not have walls or laws to keep us out” actually were invaders and conquerors, right? So perhaps it’s a good thing to have walls and laws.
Walls and laws impose a standardized process for immigration. There are still ports of entry, where immigrants can enter the country after obtaining a visa. Additionally, there are other countries that also provide immigration opportunities if immigrants find the US process too difficult or time consuming. Finally, there is also a hope that instead of fleeing their home country, they might consider trying to change the condition of their own country.
The US is not meant as a welfare provider for the world’s poor. We have plenty of people that already need assistance without bringing in more. We need to set manageable quotas and prevent chaos from entering the immigration system. We also need to provide time for immigrants to assimilate and become US citizens, and give time for current US citizens to stop thinking of new immigrants as “others”.
If we needed large numbers of unskilled workers, then let the quotas reflect that. We can bring in as many immigrants as we need, while still having walls and enforcing immigration laws.
Kathleen says:
“It seems simple to say do it legally.”
From Kathleen’ link:
The usual green card process involves three steps:
1. Successful completion of the permanent labor certification on behalf of the foreign worker (referred to as the PERM process). This can take anywhere from six months to several years to complete.
2. Obtaining approval of the I-140 visa petition on behalf of the foreign worker. This step takes an average of approximately four months to complete, but an expediting procedure is available that reduces this to 15 business days.
3. Obtaining the foreign worker’s green card through approval of the I-485 application (assuming the worker is already in the U.S. on a temporary visa; if not, he or she would be applying through a U.S. consulate, using different forms). This step takes an average of approximately six months as well, and unfortunately there is no expediting process available.
There it is, 3 steps to obtain a green card.
Why yes, Kathleen, it does seem simple because IT IS simple.
Huh? Illegal immigrants? Who hijacked this thread?
Kathleen,
You’re clearly confusing duration with difficulty.
“Alameda County Board of Supervisors President Wilma Chan said in a statement that Measure A “failed at the ballot box due to onerous state laws that require a super majority to pass local tax measures.”
Nothing “onerous” about it. Taxes are already high in this state – and they would be raised every year for just about any and every “funding for the less fortunate” ballot measure without the two-thirds majority requirement.
Apparently Ms. Chan would have no problem with Pleasanton residents paying almost a 10% sales tax rate if this had passed. So where is the upper limit as to what the rate should be? 15%? 20%?
And where is it written that the taxpayers must be underwriting child care expenses for everyone else? Isn’t that what parents of the children should be doing? Please. Keep “moving forward” and put this on the ballot again – so I can vote “no” on it again.
It seems simple to say do it legally. Here is the process for a green card: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/timeline-sponsoring-immigrant-worker-green-card.html
Compounded by this: “Each year, USCIS welcomes approximately 700,000 to 750,000 citizens during naturalization ceremonies across the United States and around the world.” If there are only 13 million Mexican citizens here illegally, you can see it is nearly impossible to get a green card, takes at least five years to be considered for citizenship, and at three quarters of a million naturalized per year, a much longer process than it might seem. I think I’d be trying to get my children to the land of opportunity as well.
I don’t have the perfect solution, but I think all of us would not have wanted “walls” and bureaucracy to have kept our families out. Let me repeat, all of us our here by the grace of someone else’s journey.
And I should add it was at the expense of the natives who did not have walls or laws to keep us out.
It’s an emotional topic; I happen to have a few emotions. ;o) Invaders and conquerors, and crooks and pirates, and those escaping for freedom on a variety of issues—each wave persecuted at some point (Irish, Chinese), and each wave absorbed and productive and largely successful given the chance. And we called out to the poor not so long ago.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
What other countries might you suggest? How would they get there? I take your point about fixing their own countries, but it is likely more difficult than here, and even here we have trouble creating change.
Seems like it is time again to determine what we want for those already here let alone those still trying to get here every day. I like the conversation considering allowing some method for undocumented immigrants to come here to work—eventual Citizenship optional? I wonder if they prosper here if they can return home with enough power to create change.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/undocumented-illegal-immigrants.html Good NY Times article (March 2017).
There are desperate people fleeing war and famine and those who want work and to provide for their families. I don’t have the answer, but there must be something better than terrorizing children and in how we are handling this all around the world.
Steve,
You’re hitting on something we don’t talk about enough – our ability to culturally “accept” newcomers into our communities. Today, in my neighborhood, we have people coming in and instead of having to integrate into the existing neighborhood community, separate communities (and even sub-communities within) are available for them to relate/communicate/integrate into that are more similar to those they came from. While historically this is natural for people to co-locate where others like themselves have – this problem of assimilation, acceptance, and sense of us vs them hasn’t gotten any better in time with the same approach. A smoothing approach based on a neighborhood or communities or cultures rate of acceptance (for lack of a politically better term) is an important factor in determining the impact of a opening the floodgates vs completely restrictive approach.
Separately – I agree with the quotation Kathleen referenced relative to your statement about taking on the poor/weak/etc.
It’s really a little thing, but we host, with another neighbor, an annual pizza party. Our neighborhood has changed in 21 years like many other areas. It is just 23 homes, but it has been a great way to get to know our newcomers and their children. My hope is the newest neighbors feel welcome when we actually are welcoming.
Dan, Consider where many undocumented immigrants work. I’m going to guess step one isn’t happening at farms or restaurants or small motels/hotels or yard care or construction companies. And notice it says six months to several years for step one. So, no it isn’t simple.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/undocumented-illegal-immigrants.html
@Doug,
“Son of Immigrants” hijacked the thread. Some old people just like to complain about everything.
Dan, if you are starving or your family is in danger or you have no hope of a job or a clear and good future, duration is the difficulty.
BobB and Doug, one thing leads to another; not the first or last time I’m sure. But I’ll step out now.