Pat Powers responded to my previous post on the pre-K legislation and the Nanny State. Excerpt:
When I look at things and quantify them as being part of the nanny state, one of the key things I look at are whether it is a ban or a mandate, or otherwise involves strong governmental regulatory action to otherwise compel what has been heretofore legal behavior. It’s government saying that you shouldn’t or you can’t, just because those who have been elected to office think it’s in your best interest. Does it infringe on our life, liberty, and the pursuit of our happiness?
That would fit what I would call a "Police State". I would think a "Nanny State" would have to fit the definition of a nanny:
A nanny is employed by a family in either a live-in or live-out basis. The function of a nanny is to essentially be responsible for all care of the children in the home in a largely unsupervised setting. Duties are typically focused on childcare and any household chores or tasks related to the children. A nanny may or may not have any formal training; however, many have significant actual experience. A nanny typically works full-time of at least 40 hours a week.
I don’t know what would come closer to the definition of a "Nanny" than a government school taking care of three and four year old children.
And Mr. Powers also said this:
I know Steve is hot on this topic, as he went and testified on it. I was listening to the testimony while I was working on other projects at one of my several desks. The measure in this instance is titled "An act to allow public schools to maintain pre-kindergarten programs, to provide the Board of Education with rule making authority for pre-kindergarten programs, and to provide funding through the state aid to education formula for students in accredited pre-kindergarten programs."
I’d ask the question right off - where’s the component of being mandatory?
First off, I testified on SB 26, which did not have the requirement that the standards be funded through the state aid formula. SB 154 does what the proponents of SB 26 (and last year's SB115) refused to admit...require taxpayers to fund the legislation. So to answer Pat’s question, the mandatory part is where the taxpayers are required to pay a school approximately $4,500 to be a Nanny to three and four year old children. Thereby, SB154 is about expanding the "Nanny State". And we should ask, how can the taxpayer be expected to take on more responsibility, when we are being sued for not providing enough money to the current K-12 system?
I do appreciate Pat taking an interest in this legislation. I would ask him to take a close look at the standards that are already approved by the Department of Education. "Indoctrination" comes a lot closer to defining the agenda than the word "education". And may I add, "secular humanist indoctrination" to the agenda that the taxpayers of South Dakota are being asked to "Pony Up" to. Perhaps that is why the proponents were so illusive with their approach to last year's SB115 and this year's SB26. Not what I call transparent, straight forward, or honest.
