Today’s news roundup is on the flip. Teasers: voting registration screw-up, projected housing slowdown and economic effect, immigration, immigration, immigration, immigration… [It’s not just bloggers who are like 5-year olds chasing a soccer ball, it’s journalists and politicians too.] …immigration, immigration…

• California’s Elections Division under Bruce McPherson is not really Helping America Vote. A new database has erroneously rejected a substantial percentage of newly registered (or re-registered) voters. I know voting is not a right under the Constitution, but couldn’t we at least pretend to take it seriously?
• A slowing housing market bodes ill for workers, state revenue and our economy generally. More from the Union-Tribune. Prepare for the Governor to tell us that more sprawl and fewer environmental regulations are what we need to head this problem off.
• Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Republican Party has introduced no fewer than 25 anti-immigrant bills into the legislature this session. Tasty wedgey nativist politics for the election year!
• The Chron gives us a thumbnail of recent immigration statements by Angelides, Westly, and Schwarzenegger.
• Navarette on nativism. Ditto, Robert Scheer. Oh, for the halcyon days of yore, when the immigrant threat was the Eastern Europeans, the Italians, the Germans, the Irish, with their funny languages, quaint folkways and threats to American cultural purity.
• A poll by New American Media suggest that most legal immigrants don’t resent those who came here illegally, and simply want the system reformed to make more sense.
• The SacBee has the story of Dianne Feinstein’s journey to her current immigration position.
• This LA Times article about Antonio Villaraigosa is interesting primarily for the teaser: “As protests energize his Latino base, Villaraigosa strives to show he is not captive to ethnic politics.” Sounds like that editor has absorbed the nativist subtext to the anti-immigrant position.

If you’ve been a regular here at Calitics, perhaps you’ve seen me show a bit of my fiscal conservatism.  Those words are probably a poor description of it.  Truth be told, I am simply a budget hawk.  I see paying your bills, or at least maintaining the ability to repay them without massive hardship, crucial to the stable management of a government.  (Are you listening Mr. President?) What I really want to avoid is another Orange County disaster.  Thus, I am far more comfortable with a government that can pay its bills, whether that’s through revenue increases or spending decreases.

But I have also complained about the Prop 13 (and its ilk) restrictions which have hampered the revenue flow of this state.  It has made the addition of any major programs essentially impossible.  If we can’t increase revenues in the legislature, then we can’t provide services for the state of California and its citizens.  This has led to governance via the ballot box in the form of propostions.

And all this brings me to Prop 82, the Preschool for All Initiative.  I was fortunate enough to have the chance to speak to Rob Reiner, a leading proponent of Prop 82.  Being that I am initially skeptical of all propositions, especially multi-billion dollar propositions, I was looking for a reason why I should be in favor of this.

Check out the flip…

Both before and after speaking to Mr. Reiner and Catherine Atkin, President of Preschool California, I knew that preschool was very beneficial to the development of children.  However, I was somewhat unaware of just how significant the benefits of preschool are.  Crime rates are significantly lower.  Dropout rates decrease substantially and you earn a decent return on the money spent ($2.62 for each dollar, according to RAND).  You can get all of that information all over the web, but Preschool California’s Benefits Page does a pretty good job of consolidating the data.  I think there is little doubt that preschool for 4-year olds is beneficial.

And yes, there are some parts of Prop 82 which make me uncomfortable (such as Michael Milken’s involvement and the for-profit preschools).  However, the big controversy, of course, comes when we start talking about how we pay for it.  It’s even split those that you would ordinarily call progressive.  Perata has withdrawn his support as have other Dem legislators.  It’s understandable: It’s a lot of money.  I was, and remain, wary of spending such sums through the ballot box. 

However, Preschool for All can kick open the door to Progressive Causes that have been neglected for so long.  When was the last time we had a major social initiative?  The Great Society?  Reiner has been suggesting that a reason why the opponents have been so critical is precisely because they fear major new social programs.  And because California propositions are known to be contagious, this is something that is extremely scary.

Listen, I really, really would like to break the gridlock in Sacramento which made passage of this legislation impossible.  Government by proposition rather disgusts me.  However, until we can change the super-majority rules, we will need to accomplish some of our goals through the ballot box.  We kick in the door to these new social programs, and we set a precedent for the state and the nation.  California gets to be a progressive leader, and we get education for our 4-year olds in the process.