Wednesday, February 13, 2013

The State of the Union

Such a tricky project of making the country sound like it's doing almost miraculously well and, at the same time, making it sound like it's about to fall off some cliff of climate change and joblessness if children aren't guaranteed the right to preschool:

Why would that be a partisan issue, helping folks refinance? Right now, overlapping regulations keep responsible young families from buying their first home. What's holding us back? Let's streamline the process and help our economy grow. Now, these initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, housing, all these things will help entrepreneurs and small-business owners expand and create new jobs. But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill those jobs.
(APPLAUSE)
And that has to start at the earliest possible age. You know, study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road.
But today, fewer than three in ten 4-year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can't afford a few hundred bucks a week for private preschool. And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. So, tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every single child in America.

Where are the other seven in ten 4-year-olds?  In a low-quality preschool program? With babysitters? Sure--learning is great. I don't know if learning at the earliest possible age is universally great. I don't know that kids who are staying at home with their mothers aren't learning. I just don't know about this: it seems to me that there are other ways to encourage learning in 4-year-olds than shipping them off to preschool. (Also: preschool is important because it will "equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill those jobs." I think work is pretty important and education is pretty important, but all education, and especially preschool education, isn't vocational education.)

This seems wise:

So here's an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year: Let's tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.
I remember asking my dad about this when I was little--it just doesn't seem to me that minimum wage works as a federal decision, since cost of living varies so much from city to city. 

Some of the transitions were unclear to me: talking about Newtown and gun violence smack in the middle of voting reform to avoid long lines? I have to say, I don't see the connection. Congress needs to vote (yes) on gun control measures and individuals need to vote in presidential elections? Tenuous.

Also: I thought he was going to talk more about the environment and gay marriage. Or was that just what people were hoping he would talk about?

1 comment:

Francisco said...

By linking to cost of living, I think they mean more that it would automatically rise with the consumer price index -- not necessarily localization. Some localities already have higher minimum wages. San Francisco, for example, is $10.55.

Also gun bans and voting rights were probably together because they both appeal to his lefty base -- and he wanted to rev them up at the end.