Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 9, 2008

Click here to view bill details.

NO MORE TAXES

More people losing their jobs, taking pay cuts etc. and she wants to add more property taxes. Look at the number of homes on the tax auction sales block, and she wants to add more! Get help Jacobs. You've got good taxpayer medical insurance. I don't know if it covers mental health problems, but for the taxpayers sake, I hope it does.

http://minneapolisfed.org/research/studies/earlychild/ If the Federal Reserve Bank thinks preschool is a smart, economic investment for our future, then we should be listening. Moreover, if the most intelligent economists and businessmen in America (those who will invest in jobs for Americans) also think preschool is the best long-term strategy to raise our chances of global economic growth & competitiveness, then this idea may be our only hope. Read, read, read the research....please get educated on this issue: http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/rolnick.htm http://web.mit.edu/workplacecenter/docs/Full%20Report.pdf http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_preschool.pdf

Kids are being pressured to grow up too fast! We do not need mandatory preschool (and you know that this legislation is pushing in that direction)--we need to let our kids relax and enjoy being kids. They'll learn what they need to learn when they're good and ready to learn it. If this appears on my ballot anytime in my lifetime, I will vote a resounding NO!

You said "We do not need mandatory preschool (and you know that this legislation is pushing in that direction" I totally agree. The libs/socialists want to get hold of your kids before you can start poisoning their little minds with stuff like right and wrong, personal responsibility, freedom, and the fact that the individual is the most important. The libs /communists/dems want to teach your kids that there is no right or wrong, that the village or commune or whatever they are pushing today is more important than the individual. This is why homeschool parents scare the dems even more than gun owners. Anytime you hear a dem talking about health care, global warming, "the children" look out. The couldn't give a rats patoot about you your kids or the environment. It's all a scam that they are using to take more of your money and more control over your lives. They are pandering to the usefull idiots. "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." --Norman Thomas, former U.S. Socialist Party Presidential Candidate As Karl Marx, author of the Manifesto of the Communist Party made clear, religion, individual freedom, child-parent relationships and family unity and loyalty, must all be destroyed in order to rebuild a society to create the socialist utopia that is communism. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Hillary Clinton, 6-29-04. "[W]e can't . . . just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." -- Hillary Clinton, 6-4-07. "We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground." -- Hillary Clinton, 6-4-07. "I certainly think the free market has failed." -- Hillary Clinton, 6-4-07. "When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything." Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference “We just can’t trust the American people to make these types of decisions. …Government has to make these choices for people.” —Hillary Clinton circa 1993, speaking to Rep. Dennis Hastert on the issue of who should control the allocation of money in her health care reform plan “We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.” —First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1993, regarding health care reform

You are the one missing the big picture. I hate to burst your bubble but the liberal indoctrination that you seem to see everywhere in the public schools just isn't happening. Now to the issue at hand. For many (not all) children, preschool is essential. I can't tell you how many kids enter kindergarten with zero exposure to literacy. They may never have seen a book or been read to. They do not know how to count. Their oral language skills are limited because no one has ever bothered to engage them in age appropriate conversation. A good, quality early childhood program can address all these issues and prepare the children for school. I don't think we need universal preschool because all children do not need preschool. My own children did not because we worked with them at home to make sure they were ready for school. Many parents do the same but, unfortunately, many parents do not for whatever reason. I'm not sure that a new tax is the right way to go in terms of funding. I'd rather see a reallocation of funds so that we invest more of our budget in prevention. We could certainly eliminate some of the testing that we are currently forced to do (i.e. MEAP). That alone eats up a lot of money that could be better invested. I'd like to see districts go back to their kindergarten screenings. Children used to be screened prior to entering kindergarten. Those who were ready went to kindergarten. Those who were not went to a developmental kindergarten to fill in the gaps of their knowledge/experiences. After their DK experience, those who were ready went on to 1st grade. Those who were not went to kindergarten. It was very successful for the children.

"My own children did not because we worked with them at home to make sure they were ready for school. Many parents do the same but, unfortunately, many parents do not for whatever reason." So it's okay for the state to remove other folks 3 year olds from their home but not yours? Typical socialist. "I can't tell you how many kids enter kindergarten with zero exposure to literacy. They may never have seen a book or been read to. They do not know how to count. Their oral language skills are limited because no one has ever bothered to engage them in age appropriate conversation." Why not take them at 18 months then? After all, it's for the "good of the children" " hate to burst your bubble but the liberal indoctrination that you seem to see everywhere in the public schools just isn't happening." You are either blind or part of the indoctrinating crew. "I'm not sure that a new tax is the right way to go in terms of funding" Maybe you can just get it from the money tree. Maybe you need to go back to teachers school.... "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state." -- Adolph Hitler "[State-run] education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." --Joseph Stalin

If the Federal Reserve Bank thinks its a good idea? Good lord, think for yourself. The Federal Reserve is not God and there are just as many statist morons there as anywhere else.

indoctrinating the kids at birth? This looks to me like a Big Brother program from a Third World country. Of course, it would reduce teacher unemployment and enlarge the teachers unions. From The Fed. Reserve person: "if done right, high-quality, parent focused, ECD programs that began at birth can make an extraordinary difference in outcomes both for the child and society". Extrordinary difference alright. But in what way? "We found excellent longitudinal studies on ECD programs, as well as related studies, that strongly suggest there's a very high public return, but you must invest at birth and you must do it right". Suggest-why won't you guarantee? What does "do it right" entail? Invest at birth? They are not your children-they belong to "the state". Ve know vat eese best forrr you!

What a bunch of paranoids you are! This bill has nothing to do with stealing your children and forcing them into preschool. This has to do with being able to offer preschool to those who want to make use of it and who qualify for the program. This has nothing to do with making preschool mandatory. I think you can relax on that one seeing that the state of Michigan hasn't even made kindergarten mandatory. This bill has everything to do with what end of your child's education you want to invest in. Look at the research of G. Reid Lyon, among others, to answer that question. Many studies have found that upwards of 70% of learning problems can be prevented with high-quality, scientific, research based early intervention programs. Look at it this way. You have a 4 year old who unfortunately has never been read to. The kid's parents have never drawn his/her attention to environmental print (example -- the McDonald sign has an M), etc. This child who has no exposure to literacy will start kindergarten behind the other kids and, without good interventions, that gap will continue to grow. Quality preschool is one way to close that gap while it is still small.

' "My own children did not because we worked with them at home to make sure they were ready for school. Many parents do the same but, unfortunately, many parents do not for whatever reason." So it's okay for the state to remove other folks 3 year olds from their home but not yours? Typical socialist.' Apparently, you did not actually read my post. Nowhere in my post did I call for requiring all preschool aged children to attend preschool. Nowhere in my post did I call for mandating any children to be forced into preschool. Certainly, high-quality preschool programs that use research-based, scientifically proven programs/methedologies should be available and parents should be educated about the importance of early literacy skills but I did not call for mandatory preschool attendance. ' "I can't tell you how many kids enter kindergarten with zero exposure to literacy. They may never have seen a book or been read to. They do not know how to count. Their oral language skills are limited because no one has ever bothered to engage them in age appropriate conversation." Why not take them at 18 months then? After all, it's for the "good of the children" ' Again, read my post more carefully. ' " hate to burst your bubble but the liberal indoctrination that you seem to see everywhere in the public schools just isn't happening." You are either blind or part of the indoctrinating crew.' You apparently have not spent any significant amount of time in the schools. The "indoctrinating crew" that you see hiding around every corner just doesn't exist. Try spending time in the school on a regular basis and then you'll be able to see what is really going on. ' "I'm not sure that a new tax is the right way to go in terms of funding" Maybe you can just get it from the money tree. Maybe you need to go back to teachers school....' Maybe you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I suggested the reallocation of funds to place more emphasis on early literacy skills as a preventative step. Asking for additional tax revenue just isn't realistic given the current state of Michigan's economy.

Centers For Disease Control and Prevention U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Fact Sheet Secondhand Smoke (updated September 2006) Definition of Secondhand Smoke: * Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke.1 * Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.1 Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure: * Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2 * Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.2 * Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2 * Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2 * Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2 * There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2 Current Estimates of Secondhand Smoke Exposure: * Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker.2 * From 1988–91 to 2001–02, the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable levels cotinine was halved (from 88% to 43%).3 * Over that same time period, cotinine levels in those who were exposed to secondhand smoke fell by 70%.3 * More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places.2 * Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces.2 * Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3–11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.2 * About 25% of children aged 3–11 years live with at least one smoker, compared to only about 7% of nonsmoking adults.2 * The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.4 * Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations, annually.5 References 1. National Toxicology Program. 11th Report on Carcinogens, 2005. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Sciences, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2000 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. 2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. 3. Pirkle JL, Bernert JT, Caudill SP, Sosnoff CS, Pechacek TF. Trends in the Exposure of Nonsmokers in the U.S. Population to Secondhand Smoke: 1988–2002. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006;114(6):853–858 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. 4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Final report, September 29, 2005, approved by Scientific Review Panel on June 24, 2005 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. 5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.* Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/6-90/006F, Washington, D.C., December 1992 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. (Also published as: National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders: The Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph Number 4. NIH Publication No. 93-3605, Washington, D.C., August 1993.)

this time, he/she/it posted in the wrong thread. "Definition of Secondhand Smoke: * Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke.1 [now that THAT has been defined, where does it say at what dose the stuff will cause death? the fact is, it doesn't. where is THAT fact in the fact sheet? it ain't there.] * Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, [okay, toxic at what level of exposure? how much of it does it take to kill you? as opposed to how much of it are you 'environmentally exposed' to? that fact ain't here either. not a very factual fact sheet, is it?] including more than 50 that can cause cancer.1 [okay, notice it doesn't say DO CAUSE CANCER. so everyone who is exposed to second hand smoke won't die of cancer? i don't think so. the fact sheet isn't clear on that fact.] Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure: [it's amazing... we are discussing the HEALTH EFFECTS of what our poster has assured us is totally toxic. why worry about the health effects of something that will kill us at the first whiff? it's DEADLY, isn't it??? the fact sheet doesn't say.] * Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2 [how does it do this? the fact sheet just doesn't say. does it do this to EVERYONE exposed to second hand smoke? in each and every case? with no exceptions? the fact sheet doesn't say because it doesn't happen.] * Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.2 [the previous line said that second hand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer in non-smoking adults, now this one says it only increases their risk. ONE OF THESE FACTS IS A LIE. which one is it? the fact sheet doesn't say.] * Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2 [another lie. the first line says that second hand smoke CAUSES heart attacks and lung cancer. now you are talking about immediate harmful effects? which effects are these? do they cause immediate harmful effects that cause heart attacks and lung cancer in each and every person exposed to them? the fact sheet doesn't say.] * Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2 [so, every child exposed to second hand smoke has respiratory symptoms? do they all have slow lung growth? are there NO children who DON'T have respiratory symptoms? the study doesn't say, it just says it causes them. it doesn't say how.] * Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2 [so, how many children who died of SIDS did so because someone was smoking around them when it happened? do NO children die of SIDS in non-smoking homes? the fact sheet doesn't say.] * There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2 [how dangerous? as dangerous as driving with a cell phone? the fact sheet doesn't say.] Current Estimates of Secondhand Smoke Exposure: * Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker.2 [okay, where are the estimate figures? the fact sheet doesn't say.] * From 1988–91 to 2001–02, the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable levels cotinine was halved (from 88% to 43%).3 [okay, the level was detectable, now, you said it was DEADLY. at what level to people die from it? your precious fact sheet doesn't say. so where do you get the idea that it's DEADLY???] * Over that same time period, cotinine levels in those who were exposed to secondhand smoke fell by 70%.3 [but you said they were DYING of second hand smoke. they LIVED for years and only had BARELY DETECTABLE LEVELS OF COTININE. did anyone check their LEAD levels??? the fact sheet doesn't say.] * More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places.2 [again, at what level? toxic, or barely detectable? the fact sheet doesn't say. it's amazing what this supposed FACT SHEET doesn't say.] * Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces.2 [so, why are you trying to ban smoking in bars? you don't say, neither does your fact sheet.] * Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3–11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.2 [amazing. how many of them die from it? you said it was deadly. prove it.] * About 25% of children aged 3–11 years live with at least one smoker, compared to only about 7% of nonsmoking adults.2 [boy, for a group who is falling over dead, they sure are having lots of children. just HOW deadly is this stuff anyway?] * The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.4 [so, there are only 3,400 lung cancer deaths in the united states, and each and every one of them was caused by cigarette second hand smoke? the asbestos people will be so pleased. as for that 22,700-69,600 figure, they can't figure out WHAT caused them or they would have a SOLID figure, not an estimate. go back and study that one some more, somebody missed an important fact on the fact sheet.] * Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations, annually.5 [again, i'll bet that second hand smoke is not the ONLY factor involved in all those things. but the CDC would like us to think it is. why? the fact sheed doesn't say.] now, libby. go ahead and post this fact sheet again. i can go on like this all day and all night. i don't smoke, and i can see right through this pack of lies.

onklhym ldxejyi mrtypxfkz tfhcawgdx elahfwd oykmngexq vpjw