So, we wan na go regional right here to Philadelphia for a moment. Mayor Kenney just recently introduced a plan to provide universal preschool to all four-year-olds in Philadelphia. We think that'' s an excellent suggestion,'it ' s a wonderful concept, is it not? We want our children to start school previously, obtain the education and learning that they require however to spend for this he desires to put a tax on soda that would overmuch influence low-income as well as middle-class Philedelphians. What are your thoughts on this and does this seem like a moral issue to you? Well right here'' s what it sounds like. I definitely concur with the mayor that we need a revolution as I stated earlier in child care and also preschool. Way too many kids are in poor child care centers where the instructors don'' t have the training or the history to provide the high quality care those youngsters need. No argument, I would certainly go even more than the mayor, I think this is a right not just of 4 years of age, however, for every one of our kids. However I do have a major disagreement with how you fund this. When you have huge revenue and wealth inequality, when 58 percent of all new income generated today is going to the leading 1 percent, you don'' t need to fund child care on the backs of the poorest individuals in this city.That '
s a regressive way to elevate funds. Currently I also understand and also I'' m not gon na say with any person, we have an excessive weight problem in this country. I put on'' t desire kids obtaining hooked up on sugar, I concur with that. So allow us handle that problem. Allow'' s obtain youngsters off of sugar. Let'' s see to it that we have the very best child care system worldwide in America and also I will certainly defend that as president however you don'' t do it via regressive taxes. I believe he was discussing, you know you obtain a 12 ounce bottle of soft drink, that'' s like 30 or 40 cent tax on that container of soda.That '
s five containers, you recognize, a bottle a day, that'' s 2 dollars a week. For a low-income family that'' s a great deal of money. It ' s a great deal of money. Once more, the goal is the right goal but the method as well as the approach as well as the increasing funds is the incorrect method to do it, in my sight. Thank you Legislator Sanders.
We assume that'' s a fantastic suggestion,'it ' s a fantastic idea, is it not? Let'' s get kids off of sugar. For a low-income household that'' s a great deal of money. It ' s a great deal of money.