Obama reiterates goal of universal preschool, but how will the nation pay for it?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • emilyrose florida, 00
    Feb. 17, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    Well! i must say you are genius Mr. President everybody is focusing on just high school. Parents surely will be happy and proud to have a President like you. Thank You for a great plan.


  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    Norman--But how do you pay for it?

    We are already borrowing huge amounts of money

    to pay the interest on our national debt.

    How do you pay for a new program? Tax the rich some more? But we haven't finished taxing the rich to pay for the debt we have already accrued. We haven't finished taxing the rich to pay down our debt. And we haven't finished taxing the rich to give to the poor.

    I would love to take my family to Hawaii. It would do us good to have that time together. We would learn more about the world we live in. We would take lots of pictures to have fond memories. We would enjoy healthier air than what we are breathing in Utah.

    But we don't have the money to go to Hawaii. So we don't go.

    Our government doesn't have the money to pay for a new program. So we don't go there.

    Its really that simple.

    Let Obama propose where the money will come from for this new program, but before he does that, let him show us how he is reducing our current debt.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    Hey, let's keep on adding new programs just because we think of them.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    One way to fund this program or reduce the yearly deficits is to adjust the income tax rates back to historical averages.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    Obama seems like he just sits down with his Wall Street Banker buddies, who make a percentage by floating the bonds on all Federal debt, and brainstorms on how they can get more spending approved.

    It's a big scam.

    A monetary system that is based on credit will have consequences.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    The Head Start program has been proven to have no lasting benefit for the kids who participated.

    So, why do we want to spend billions we don't have to do something that is ineffective? Maybe to provide free baby sitting to low information voters? Or, to more aggressively indoctrinate impressionable youth on the glories of Dear Leader and the need to vote Democrat? To ensure that all pre-school workers are unionized and thus loyal members of that reliable Democrat voting block?

    Would this program terminate or replace even a single existing federal program, or just plop another load of bureaucracy on top of the massive number of existing failed federal programs?

    No. Barry, this is NOT a good idea. It is just as bad as the rest of failed programs.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    Don't we already have the "Head Start" program?

    Hasn't that reduced poverty, and increased learning?

    Has government become our children's daddy?

  • Norman Wright Provo, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    David - It pays for itself over time both in terms of tax dollars saved an in terms of higher quality of life for individuals. If you owned a business, would you not invest in machinery or training that would decrease your costs by more than the cost of investment. It seems to me that this is one investment that decreases government size and deficit over time. While that still leaves the big issue of entitlements on the table as it has been over the past several presidents of both parties, it is a positive step.

  • CPA Howard Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    What the article fails to point out that by the 3rd grade any difference is gone. If we had a surplus and no debt and all the retirement programs were fully funded with real money and not treasury bonds that a our children will have to redeem, then I'd say let's try it.

    When your in debt it doesn't make sense to add on more debt.

    Jan. 29, 2014 2:55 a.m.

    Funny how the HEADLINE is HOW WILL THE NATION PAY FOR IT, and then it goes on to prove it's a GREAT and SOUND policy, that pays huge dividends yearly and is paid for by already-in-place entities....

    Is the headline a CON-JOB to get conservatives to read it? Liberals and progressives, and most conesravitves already KNOW the benefits of a GOOD and early education.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:41 a.m.

    Isn't kindergarten preschool? Rather than adding more years, let's focus on improving the QUALITY of the educational years we already have.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:55 p.m.

    Why would any politician propose adding additional programs to an already bloated government? Why would anyone vote or propose for additional spending when we are already adding an average of $1 Trillion to the national debt every year? And that amount will sky-rocket in coming years due to unfunded entitlement liabilities.

    Obama is not serious about leading our country and solving the big problems.