Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Sphar who wrote (9740)	3/5/1998 1:03:00 AM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Mike, I'm so very glad you posted this reasoned statement re Prop 13. All I can say is bravo, agreed, you took the words . . . , etc., etc., etc. Remember how Governor Moonbeam vehemently opposed Prop 13, but yet it passed? Three months later, thanks to media coverage, a goodly percentage of California's voting citizenry was firmly convinced that not only had Governor Moonbeam endorsed Prop 13 but had authored it, and cheerfully reelected him? What a boondoggle that was! It should go without saying that I agree also with your statement regarding parents taking a direct interest and an active part in their children's school curriculum. Debra Saunders' columns in the SF Chronicle harps frequently and constructively on this very issue. Holly

To: Michael Sphar who wrote (9740)	3/5/1998 2:44:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Michael, I believe we have all had this discussion before about Proposition 13, on another thread. I would argue that property taxes should be spread out fairly, and that it is weird that people living next door to each other in houses with the same evaluations end up paying widely different amounts. However, there are certainly reasonable arguments to be made on each side, and I definitely don't feel like arguing tonight. My main point in bringing up Proposition 13, however, is that loss of tax revenues started a rapid decline in the quality of California's schools. Certainly all the upper middle class parents can volunteer in their children's classrooms and raise money for "extras" that used to be provided, and they are happy to do so. But what I am saying is that the state has an interest in providing quality public educations for all children, and that is not happening because children who are not fortunate enough to have these kinds of parents have really crummy, substandard schools as the result. I believe the society will pay now, or later. It is much simpler and easier, and less expensive, to provide programs to ensure that children are nurtured prenatally, have regular medical care and learn in school, and go on to become productive citizens. Certainly there is a waste of human potential, and incredible psychic pain, inherent in skimping on optimal early childhood development, as well. I think children are innocent, and deserve some reasonable chance even if their parents are inadequate, and that a large, stable middle class is vital for the future of our society. But I am sure you have read enough of my posts to already know I think that way, and I don't want to bore you, Michael. ;^)