No on Prop 1A
By MICHAEL HALEY
October 28th, 2009
September 23rd, 2009
August 31st, 2009
August 20th, 2009
Proposition 1A is the key ballot measure being placed before the voters in May to address the state budget debacle. I am opposed to it because it does not address the problems facing the state budgets and will amount to nothing more than continuing the same dysfunctional government.
The proposition itself is becoming mired in controversy because of the way the ballot language was written. It does not even mention that it raises taxes, but in fact it not only raises taxes but it adds another year or two to the original two years of temporary tax increases that the voters were told was the budget deal. That is no where to be seen in the ballot language. This has been done purposely by the Governor and top legislative leaders in order to mislead the voters.
The taxes that will be raised include a quarter percentage point added to each income tax bracket, (i.e. the highest 10.3% bracket will become 10.55%), a one cent sales tax increase, and a near doubling of the car tax, or vehicle license fee, raising it from .65% of the value of the vehicle to 1.15%. Also, deductions for children will be decreased.
These taxes were already passed by the legislature in the 2009 budget deal. If Prop 1A passes, then those taxes will be extended, the sales tax by one year, the other two for two years.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/public-display-051909/1a-lao.pdf <http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/public-display-051909/1a-lao.pdf>
It is written to make voters think that it is about putting in place a spending cap, but the cap is so high that it will never make any difference. This was all to get the unions not to fight it, but as reform it is meaningless.
http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2009030610382253
I think most of us, myself included, realize we have to help the state get out of this mess and may be ready to swallow some tax increases, especially if they are temporary and not too onerous. The real problem with this is that it won’t get us out of this mess, and does absolutely nothing to change our long term problems.
Regardless of what one might think of the particulars of Obama’s budget plans, they do address long term problems and if it all works out there is a good chance that we will have a better future in store for us.
Not so with the state budget plans. Rather than use this crisis to take the bull by the horns and make changes that have been long needed and frankly are very obvious, they are once again trying to duck the issue and kick the can down the road. We could do this state budget and find ourselves right back in trouble in less than two years.
The real problem is that spending on compensation for state employees has skyrocketed over the last eight years, with spending on pensions for safety at the top of the excessive list. The bulk of California’s budget problems can be traced back to compensation rising faster, in many cases much faster, than the growth in the economy. There are numerous statistics that support this, many of which I have written about before.
The San Francisco Chronicle stated that state payroll has soared under Schwarzenegger, going up 37% in the last four years alone. The number of workers making over 200K was eight in Nov. 2003, just four years later it was clocked at 1000 and rising fast. The professional engineers got over a 12% increase each of the last two years. You have prison guards now making more than the Governor. The numbers like this just go on and on, regular annual raises well above the rate of inflation.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/25/MNI610S459.DTL&hw=prison+guard+salaries&sn=001&sc=1000 <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/25/MNI610S459.DTL&hw=prison+guard+salaries&sn=001&sc=1000>
The real answer is that the state ought to be putting on ballot initiatives to get out from under the $8 billion for medical in prisons, cap pensions at 70% or less, raise retirement ages to reflect current reality, freeze raises for two years for anyone making over 100k, etc, etc.
This would be far preferable to temporary layoffs and cuts in services, and would have the effect of making a permanent reduction in the budget as future raises would be starting from a lower base.
This would be an ideal time to address these compensation problems, with high taxpayer awareness and constant newspaper articles and editorials about it. But guess what, not a single word about it out of the mouths of our Governor or any of our legislators. Why?
Because that would make the employee unions unhappy. No one, even the press, is talking about their huge role in this budget agreement. What does that tell you? That they are calling all the shots, not our state government.
But what is the state government doing? Temporarily cutting SSI checks, cutting home health care for the poor, cutting social services across the board, and most of all cutting a total of about $10 billion out of the $15 billion in cuts from education.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/historical/2009-10/documents/Budget_Agreement_Full-Package-w.pdf
The reforms we need are simple and this is an opportune time to do it, and voters in this state should demand that real reforms take place now. The place to start is voting down this scam of a budget deal.
What will happen if the voters vote it down? Is it scary to contemplate? No, do not fear, the state will not go away. First of all the two years of taxes are already passed. Beyond that what will happen is that an assessment will be made of why the voters voted against it.
If the reason is that voters like myself demand more realistic long term budget changes they will be forced to address them.
We actually have an incredible opportunity here to make huge positive changes in the way that California does business. We absolutely must get structural reform, this budget assures that the annual $6 billion deficit will continue to accumulate. Voters need to send a message about what they want, and they will get action. Let’s start by voting no on Prop 1A.
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
manxkat wrote on Mar 9, 2009 5:20 PM:
Right here in Napa County a committee has met, has already received some funding and has ordered signs to protest the new taxes.
Napa County voters are famous statewide for rejecting taxes. We defeated the Measure H transportation tax in 2006 and the Napa Valley College bond in 2008. Defeating these two taxes has saved every person in Napa County ta least $250 per year for the next 30 years that those taxes were to run.
The opposition group is called Napa County Citizens Against Prop 1A. You can join us to defeat the taxes. If you want to help, to donate or to put up a sign Email us at "ok2voteno at yahoo. "
kevin wrote on Mar 9, 2009 5:31 PM:
a teacher wrote on Mar 9, 2009 5:48 PM:
napablogger wrote on Mar 10, 2009 12:56 AM:
California has gone downhill a long way in the last two decades, and I don't think low taxes were part of the problem. "
antipc wrote on Mar 10, 2009 6:31 AM:
How what would you think of the super-majority if Republicans were in the majority & cutting spending instead of raising taxes to balance the budget? "
glenroy wrote on Mar 10, 2009 8:29 AM:
The fact is mismanaged breeds temporary…..permanently. "
funnyme wrote on Mar 10, 2009 9:49 AM:
Tar and feathers are easy to obtain around here. "
antipc wrote on Mar 10, 2009 10:44 AM:
Sorry about my 6:31 AM post, hadn't finished my 2nd beer yet. "
a teacher wrote on Mar 10, 2009 10:51 AM:
According to MSN Money:
"The state in which residents pay the most in combined state, local and federal taxes, per capita, is Connecticut (38.3%), followed by New York (37.1%), New Jersey (35.6%) and Nevada (35.2%). Oklahoma residents pay the least (27.8%), followed by those in Alabama (28.0%) and Alaska (28.1%)."
I don't see California in there.
What California has is the largest tax RATE at 10.3%, but you have to earn over $1,000,000 to pay it. The Median family income in CA is around $45,000 and the tax rate for that is 8%, which from what I can see is about on par with most big states. (Information from the TAX Foundation Website).
California DOES NOT have the highest taxes in the country.
Any way, what's that have to do with a 2/3's vote rule? "
a teacher wrote on Mar 10, 2009 10:52 AM:
napablogger wrote on Mar 10, 2009 11:40 AM:
a teacher wrote on Mar 10, 2009 12:43 PM:
manxkat wrote on Mar 10, 2009 2:17 PM:
www.retirementliving.com for an easy to read narrative. And:
www.taxadmin.org for charts.
If found information that supports Mr. Haley's comments in these and other sources.
Some things that a reader will miss is how much more Californians pay in gas tax, cigarette tax and other taxes. And, the fact that many deductions that most taxing states allow such as deduction for federal tax paid is not allowed in California.
The other stand out is that 5 states have no sales tax and 9 states have no income tax. One state has neither a sales tax nor an income tax.
I'll end this by noting the Retirement living document shows California as 6th highest in total taxation at 10.5%.
It is our belief that the Prop 1A sales tax increase, income tax increase, auto registration increase and the reduction of the child tax credit with put California #1 in taxation per capita in the nation. "
antipc wrote on Mar 10, 2009 2:26 PM:
The Dems got their tax increases without a super-majority. "
a teacher wrote on Mar 10, 2009 3:14 PM:
So you want to vote against prop 1a. Your solution to our budget difficulties is...?
Oh that's right, your solution to education shortfalls is to cut school staffs in half. You think I can do a better job with 66 twelve year olds in my classrooms. Uh hum....
antiPC sez:"" Teacher, you need to get beyond prop 13."
I don't believe I mentioned prop 13, perhaps you're hearing things? "
Bill wrote on Mar 10, 2009 3:26 PM:
You promised to do a series and never came through. Teacher is right he went and got some stats. I saw the same ones eve3n ones that showed Nevada with higher state taxes.
All stats can be jinned so long as we all realize that whats the harm in letting us know where you are drawing your conclusions from.
You are trying to convince someone after all or are you just playing happy with yourself? "
manxkat wrote on Mar 10, 2009 3:33 PM:
As far as you're having 66 twelve year olds in your classroom - I have no idea why you would do that. Perhaps it's related to issues like the schools throwing away perfectly good desks or spending $150 million on a highschool when Cordelia High cost $60 million. "
a teacher wrote on Mar 10, 2009 4:57 PM:
" The NVUSD could easily operate and educate our children and eliminate 50% of its budget, teachers, schools and administrators without affecting the education process.
I have seen the waste of taxpayer dollars and it is rampant. "
There are two 7th grade teachers where I teach. If 50% of us go, either her or I have to teach our 320+ students. That would mean either I have to teach 10 classes a day or have 66 students in a class.
Which is it to be? "
napablogger wrote on Mar 11, 2009 12:01 AM:
Here are some sources for you:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/02/12/cost-of-living-i-state-taxes/
he puts people making 60K at the third highest state, 100k at the highest
how about a chart from a non partisan IBM computer study group:
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/state-tax-rankings
they put California as the third highest overall
or how about the fact that the numbers can be misleading depending on how the survey is done:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html
or you can check the number for yourself if you have the time:
http://www.census.gov/govs/www/statetax.html
Let me put it this way. I think we can all agree that California has high taxes and in any accounting is in the top five in states. If you look at the other states that are at the top, like say New York and New Jersey, they are all having big pension deficit problems and are in financial trouble. Their high taxes are not helping them.
The Money.com survey teacher referenced
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/#more
is not only old but uses a weird standard that could be skewed by the fact that a lot of Californians don't pay any income taxes at all, don't own homes, thus weighting the scale by average much lower. But if you do pay taxes, you pay the most, perhaps.
The point is, taxes are very high in California any way you want to slice it, yet services are fair at best. "
napablogger wrote on Mar 11, 2009 12:03 AM:
napablogger wrote on Mar 11, 2009 12:25 AM:
My brother is a high school teacher and he told me he has four asst principles at his school and all they seem to do is pull kids out of his class for 20 minutes at a time for reasons unknown while he is trying to teach them something. He thinks it is a total waste of time.
We could save all the money we need to save without touching education anyway. Two thirds of the cuts are coming from education, while others are retiring with 150K plus salaries at age 52 with 90% of that, plus medical, for life??? I don't think so.
We have to force the government to make fair priorities or they never will. No on 1A. "
napablogger wrote on Mar 11, 2009 12:34 AM:
Our state government has a spending problem, they refuse to reign anyone in. It is more politically expedient to just give anyone anything they want, and that is what they are doing anyway. If we made it easier for them I shudder to think of the consequences.
Do you realize that the taxes that they are passing, half way there and with 1A all the way, will completely obviate the stimulus from the Federal govt? CA is getting $29 billion in stimulus money, and if 1A passes Ca will raise taxes by $30 billion, thus totally neutralizing the stimulus.
That is the last thing our economy needs right now.
If they cut all the people making 200K 10% (by freezing raises for two years, it would actually be more than that), cut pensions down such that the annual payments to Cal Pers went down by billions, cut the prisons by consitutional amendment, raised ages of retirement by five years---these things would not hurt the economy and would not undermine the stimulus. Yet those things are not even on the table.
The voters need to force them to be on the table by voting no on 1A. "
a teacher wrote on Mar 11, 2009 8:46 AM:
Your 2/3's argument flies in the face of your argument that California has the highest taxes (which I'm not conceding to you - I grew up in NYC). California is one of 5 or 6 states that require a super majority for tax increases. I believe that we've had that situation since Prop 13, 30 some odd years ago.
If that 2/3's majority is supposed to keep taxes down, how is it that we have the highest taxes in the country? "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Mar 11, 2009 9:41 AM:
Current right-wing ideology seems based on forcing groups of people that are not in their favor to live on less and less, so the people they do favor can live on more and more.
There's no discussion by Republicans ever of raising taxes on EVERYBODY making over whatever amount they use as an example at any given time, just talk about cutting the numbers, salaries and benefits of groups Republicans don't favor today.
Lower standards of living means lower purchases.
Lower purchases means a smaller economy.
A smaller shrinking economy means more layoffs and more shrinkage until the working class is reduced to serfdom.
Ever notice how decades of 'downsizing' has only made CEOs rich while the rest of America has landed in the Second Great Republican Depression?
No wonder Republican control of government works out so badly for most Californians and Americans!
It's also notable that 'somebody else' has to figure out how to live in the constricted environment imposed by Republican ideology.
I'm still looking for those starving folks making over $250,000 a year and are just being 'crushed' by taxes into living in refrigerator boxes and tents... seen any?
Me neither.
~Ruff "
manxkat wrote on Mar 11, 2009 10:33 AM:
This is what happens when the libs place people on the dole. We have become a nation of people looking for a handout and willing to do or say anything to protect it.
Sad commentary for teachers and firemen - but true. "
a teacher wrote on Mar 11, 2009 11:44 AM:
I'm still waiting to hear Manxkat's plan on how schools can run better with only half their staff. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Mar 11, 2009 12:00 PM:
They don't want unemployment, they want work! Unemployment is going to be accepted if they can't find work, otherwise they'd starve.
But some Republicans don't even want them to get unemployment and have refused StimBill money from the federal government.
The existence and growth of 'Bushvilles' in cities all over California and America makes the idea of saying that our fellow Americans want 'the dole' seem a little detached from the real situation.
None of the horribly oppressed folks making $250,000 a year are living in the Sacramento 'Bushville', but I am sure the unemployed would be happy to trade places with the car in their garage.
~Ruff "
manxkat wrote on Mar 11, 2009 12:16 PM:
First and foremost - get rid of the dead wood in the teacher ranks.
2nd - Hire new people who really want to work and teach.
3rd - outsource. There are brilliant people in India who can teach through the internet.
4th - Go to the New Tech group learning process in every grade.
5th - Streamline schools funding and funnel all funds through one point at county level.
6th - Eliminate the multiplicity of districts and have one school district per county.
7th - Eliminate the County office of Education.
Shall I go on? "
Rob C wrote on Mar 11, 2009 2:06 PM:
Yawn. "
napablogger wrote on Mar 11, 2009 3:58 PM:
teacher, we have high taxes despite the 2/3rds requirement because California is ruled by Democrats who are constantly finding yet another entitled group to give taxpayer money too.
Like the poor firefighters who live on ranches in Utah and fly in on their private plans for their two days a week duty, then fly back. Til they are 50, then they don't have to fly in at all.
We can't just keep giving that largess to so many workers, and Ruff these are not poor people.
There are a lot of government employees making over 300K a year, a lot of them. Salaries have gotten out of hand and just because CEO salaries have gotten out of hand too does not diminish the problem. "
Rob C wrote on Mar 11, 2009 4:58 PM:
The only change is that the descent to bickering, dogma and class warfare occurs much quicker of late now that the usual suspects know their parts oh-so-well.
1A became immaterial to what respondents really want to say, oh, about 1/3 of the way down the responses.
But by all means folks...carry on then. "
a teacher wrote on Mar 11, 2009 4:58 PM:
As the last session showed, the republicans are more than willing and ready to dig in and prevent tax increases. They've had that 1/3 minority for as long as I can remember. Why would they allow tax increases?
"Like the poor firefighters who live on ranches in Utah and fly in on their private plans for their two days a week duty, then fly back. Til they are 50, then they don't have to fly in at all."
I'm not going to call you an exaggerator, but how many firefighters are actually in this position? I'm sure you can cite one example, maybe two, but I find this difficult to believe. "
a teacher wrote on Mar 11, 2009 5:19 PM:
First and foremost - get rid of the dead wood in the teacher ranks."
How do you determine who the "dead weight" teachers are? That's a question that vexes many a principal. It's one thing to "know it". It's another thing to document it.
"2nd - Hire new people who really want to work and teach."
That's a great idea. Let us know where you can find them. I've been to several job fairs and there aren't a lot of enthusiastic youngsters looking for low paying jobs. It would be nice though.
"3rd - outsource. There are brilliant people in India who can teach through the internet."
We're going to fire teachers and hire foreigners to teach our children. That will go down well with the American people. They LOVE outsourcing.
"4th - Go to the New Tech group learning process in every grade."
Not a bad idea, but not appropriate for all grades. Also It's also hell on teachers. I hear they have a high turnover (but I could be wrong).
"5th - Streamline schools funding and funnel all funds through one point at county level.
6th - Eliminate the multiplicity of districts and have one school district per county.
7th - Eliminate the County office of Education."
I agree. I'd even go further, I think we should have a Department of Education like they do in most other countries. One that sets standards and curriculum. It's a big reason that other countries do better.
"Shall I go on? "
Please do. "
kevin wrote on Mar 11, 2009 7:33 PM:
vouchers... "
manxkat wrote on Mar 11, 2009 9:26 PM:
Lets go to the 2nd tier: Hiring people who want to work and teach. There are colleges full of brilliant students who would love to be teachers but hate the thought of submitting to the down trodding of unions and to the negativism of the present school system. Hire thousands of them to replace the tired teachers who should have gone onto something else eons ago.
Now to the 3rd point, outsourcing. Outsourcing has become necessary because of the gross demands of unions in America to bankrupt business by their wanton and egregious wage demands. Outsourcing is working whether you like it or not. You teachers don't hesitate to show a boring movie when you can't motivate yourselves to really teach, so why not turn it over to the really brilliant people in 3rd world countries who can and will teach? "
a teacher wrote on Mar 11, 2009 10:10 PM:
First off, tenure isn't what you think it is. All tenure does is guarantees that I can't be fired without due process, my boss has to say why. Having been laid off because the superintendent wanted his niece to have my job, for being Catholic AND a Yankee and to move in someone who is of a different race, I appreciate tenure.
I have heard of programs that use teachers to "police the ranks" (I think they do it in Cincinnati). It sounds promising.
Your statement about beginning teachers is completely wrong. As I indicated, I've sat in job fairs, interviewing new teachers. New teachers are worried about stress and pay. Most don't even know about the union. Half of new teachers quit within 5 years, most of those the first year.
I know it's fashionable with you guys to bash the union, but I have to tell you, I've worked in a non-union state, Georgia. There is not much of a difference.
"You teachers don't hesitate to show a boring movie when you can't motivate yourselves to really teach"
I'll try to ignore your insult. I only show movies on the last day of the semester, when grades are in and half my students are absent. I have much too much to teach, as do all the people I work with. BTW, if the union is bankrupting the country with wanton wage demands, we teachers would like to know where our share is. I haven't had a raise in few years. "
Raven wrote on Mar 11, 2009 10:31 PM:
As for new teachers, I think the negativism they fear the most is the constant harping from people who are convinced the teachers can do no right. I know I wouldn't be all the excited to face that everyday. "
napablogger wrote on Mar 12, 2009 12:42 AM:
But I do think the last thing the legislature should cut is education---and what do they do, 10 billion out of a total of 15 is cuts to education. That is no accident.
The Utah ranchers is a story told to me by a former city manager, not in Napa but actually in a much larger city south of here. Everyone who works in this area know the compensation is out of control.
Over 100 firefighters in Vallejo were making over 150K a year when it went bankrupt, and other cities are not all that far behind.
I could go on but my point now is that with the state the same thing is happening as in the private industry, the ones at the top are getting more and more while the bottom gets cut, and teachers are part of the bottom.
Those who want to blame corporations and CEO's have to realize that there is just a big of problem in public employment. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Mar 12, 2009 8:57 AM:
Many Californians with left-over good feelings from the CA Blue Cross of yesteryear would not recognize the CA Blue Cross today since it has been turned into a corporation run 'for-profit'.
Yep, the CEO I speak of is the guy who made $1,780 millon dollars in one year, and a LOT of that money came from CA Blue Cross.
But those state and city employees are the real bad guys in Califonia, if we uncritically read your columns.
~Ruff "
freeport56 wrote on Mar 12, 2009 12:49 PM:
The super majority prevents the dominant party from total control of the purse strings. As with the recent budget vote, pressure was only put on the Republicans to cave into new tax increases. Given California's bloated bureauracracy, duplication of services, and departments, further cuts and consolidations could have been made to balance the budget.
None of those actions were taken by the Democrats. They just wanted more money to waste on pork, yes I said it pork. With the Democrats in charge of Sacramento and all our finances with just a simple majority California would become and over taxed bedroom community. Once more for the deaf, when you tax a business that businesses customers are the ones that pick up thee cost of the tax. Raising taxes while our economy is in freefall is a mindless act of tunnel vision. It is done without any regard for the citizens of California.
So a teacher, when the majority, currently Democrats, gains complete control of the purse, will you be as will to fill it? After all it will be going up year after, year, after year.
Final thought, these are the same people who were not going to tell you that prop 1A was going to raise taxes! "
a teacher wrote on Mar 12, 2009 2:55 PM:
Personally I would rather see simple majorities for things like the budget. I would also like to see districts that weren't gerrymandered so that we could get a better sense of what Californians want and not the simplistic solutions that you are putting forth. "
John Richards wrote on Mar 12, 2009 7:31 PM:
That will never happen because voters associate the 2/3 vote with Prop 13 property tax relief, and a barrier against higher taxes in general. "
Raven wrote on Mar 13, 2009 12:06 AM:
altered ego wrote on Mar 13, 2009 9:44 AM:
That will be the first item on the agenda. You can't have a Constitutional Convention and only discuss certain laws and regulations.
It's an all or nothing proposition. "
freeport56 wrote on Mar 13, 2009 12:39 PM:
Those homer owners on fixed incomes will loose their homes. Those middle class folks who will be struggeling with a new $1 trillion in new federal taxes and a new $15 billion in CA taxes will be broken by the weight of these new taxes alone. pushing my property tax to even 5% of assessed value will crush us.
I do hope you all have the money to pay for the increase. After having all your savings done in by the new administration there is not much left. "
altered ego wrote on Mar 13, 2009 1:52 PM:
Budget analyst sees new $8 billion deficit
The Legislature's budget analyst, Mac Taylor, declared today that the immense package of spending cuts, new taxes and loans aimed at closing the state's $40 billion budget deficit will fall short by $8 billion because the state's economy is continuing to falter.
"Unfortunately, the state's economic and revenue outlook continues to deteriorate," the Legislative Analyst's Office said in a review of the package, which covered the remainder of this fiscal year and all of the next.
"Even in the few weeks since the budget was signed, there have been a series of negative developments. Our updated revenue forecast projects that revenues will fall short of the assumptions in the budget package by $8 billion. Consequently, the Legislature and governor will need to adopt billions of dollars in additional solutions in the coming months to bring the 2009-10 budget back into balance."
Taylor had some more bad news for the state's political leaders. Because so many of the "solutions" adopted last month are temporary, "without corrective actions, the state's huge operating deficits will reappear in future years - growing from $12.6 billion in 2010-11 to $26 billion in 2013-14."
Taylor said that to close the newly discovered $8 billion gap, the state should maximize its use of federal "stimulus" funds and "continue developing programmatic solutions, especially those his office has been recommending in recent months but the Legislature and the governor shunned in adopting their package last month.
The LAO report will renew the Capitol's partisan and ideological squabbling over spending cuts and new taxes and fuel calls on the left for even more tax increases and those on the right for deeper spending cuts." "
alucawanza wrote on Mar 13, 2009 7:55 PM:
" To a teacher: Thank you for asking for my plan to run schools on a 50% reduction. Here it is:
First and foremost - get rid of the dead wood in the teacher ranks.
Response: There is a system for this in place. Get the principals to do their job.
2nd - Hire new people who really want to work and teach.
Response: No basis in truth here. Current teachers are hard working and dedicated. Go visit a school and pay attention to what's going on in the classrooms. It would be an eye-opener for you. You're not coming from a positon of experience or knowledge.
3rd - outsource. There are brilliant people in India who can teach through the internet.
Response: Cost for computers? Who will organize and supervise the students? Cost? According to the law, only credentialed teachers may supervise students.
4th - Go to the New Tech group learning process in every grade.
Response: group learning processes must be learned. Isn't it wonderful that elementary and middle school teachers have taught this?
5th - Streamline schools funding and funnel all funds through one point at county level.
Response: This is already in place. Visit a school and ask for the school plan. It is outlined there.
6th - Eliminate the multiplicity of districts and have one school district per county.
7th - Eliminate the County office of Education.
Response: Number 6 and 7 are in conflict. Which one do you want?
Shall I go on? "
Response: No. I have pointed out the weaknesses in your proposals. "
alucawanza wrote on Mar 13, 2009 8:02 PM:
Vouchers is an interesting idea. When you get one and take it to a private school, they don't have to take your child. They're private. Public schools must enroll everyone.
Vouchers will not pay the entire tuition for a private school. Have you checked the monthly tuition lately at the private schools around Napa and compared that to what a voucher would be?
Vouchers to go to a public school outside of your neighborhood will work if there's room in the school. Class sizes are limited. Usually neighborhood schools serve their clients before accepting out of neighborhood students.
Napa already has open enrollment. Your child can go to any public school in the district if there is room.
If you happen to get into a private school with a voucher I hope your child behaves. They won't keep him/her if behavior is not acceptable. They don't have to.
Vouchers won't change much. There are still just so many classrooms in the city. What magic will vouchers perform?? "
a teacher wrote on Mar 14, 2009 9:38 AM:
The worse that can happen is that the State may remove a schools accreditation, but that might happen in the middle of the year, or years after your child has left. You MIGHT be able to get your money back, but your child can't get the time get in school back. "
sickothis wrote on Mar 14, 2009 7:57 PM:
What's it gonna be boys? "
sickothis wrote on Mar 14, 2009 8:01 PM:
Free market capitalism at its finest.
The funny thing is that that kind of excess will kill what the Republican machine was trying to solidify. As usual, when given an inch, they took miles, and the American people will now react with twice as much regulation and "social-ism" than if they had moderated themselves. "
napablogger wrote on Mar 15, 2009 1:06 AM:
here http://www.hjta.org/propositions/proposition-13/analysis-government-revenues-california-enactment-proposition-13
is a study done by the Jarvis tax group which shows that money for schools has doubled adjusted for inflation and population growth since Prop 13 passed. They just raised all the other taxes to cover it. "
kevin wrote on Mar 15, 2009 9:33 AM:
Selectivity.
Discrimination.
Students have to behave or they are expelled.
Imagine that.
(here is where ateacher jumps in and says that public schools do the same thing. unfortunately, the school district is closing several of the "alternate" schools for troubled students and where do you think those kids will end up?)
I had my fight with the school district years ago when they came up with the brilliant idea to do away with teaching phonics.
We ended up with a whole generation of kids who couldn't read.
Every teacher I badgered, harrassed and lobbied agreed (to some extent or other) that it was a bad idea 'but their hands were tied' and they had to do what they were told.
No, you're not going to get any sympathy from me for the fate of our school system.
Fortunately, they may finally get what they deserve... "
sickothis wrote on Mar 15, 2009 12:59 PM:
And, your link is to a 2005 document that only looks up to 2003. They even had to make guesses about education because the data wasn't even available, and does not make mention of NCLB.
Is YOUR budget, structurally, the same as it was in 1978? "
freeport56 wrote on Mar 16, 2009 8:23 AM:
go back to the model used in the 1960's that made California schools great, local control. Give the Principal hire\fire capabilities. In Napa the school Board could be the Principals. think of the dollar savings. That way when a school board member using the heart string line "It's for the Children, but I will not take a pay cut", we can believe it.
A teacher- my sister in law teaches elementary school in pleasanton and makes around $95,000 w\ benefits. Maybe you should just find a new school district. "
alucawanza wrote on Mar 16, 2009 11:49 AM:
Every teacher I badgered, harrassed and lobbied agreed (to some extent or other) that it was a bad idea 'but their hands were tied' and they had to do what they were told.
What a way to have a conversation with a teacher. What do you expect if you badger, harrass, and lobby? Go to college for five years, do student teaching for a year, teach five years, become a principal, go to leadership training.....then you can harrass, badger, and lobby a teacher. But be careful. Good manners does a lot more. You might want to try it some time. Do you really think the teacher that you badgered, harrassed, and lobbied paid any attention to you? She could hardly wait to get you out the door. She would have said anything you wanted to hear to get you gone. We are much to busy to be badgered, harrassed, and lobbied. Conversations and conferences are always welcome. We both want the same thing for your child: success.
Whole reading replaced phonics just as "new math" replaced "old" math. Education is constantly changing, exploring new methods. What is needed is a combination of all good methods. When you teach just phonics students don't learn reading comprehension. They can read anything but can't remember what they just read. It's more complicated than you think. We want students to learn to read and then.....read to learn. Both must be taught. Phonics is just part of a good reading program. "
alucawanza wrote on Mar 16, 2009 11:57 AM:
Here's something else to think about when discussing vouchers. What kind of bureaucracy would be created to handle a voucher program? Who would handle the millions of applications, issue them, process their return, keep records of their use, do the accounting of the monies, and do the payroll of this bureaucracy? What would just the management of the program cost? Who would pay for it?
Also there is a conflict of Constitutional law here. Why should state money for education go to a school that has a religious program? What about the separation of church and state? I don't want my tax money to go to a school that makes kids pray or teaches them that their religion is the only right one. A voucher system probably wouldn't make it through the courts. Our taxes can't pay for religious education. It's not constitutional. "
kevin wrote on Mar 17, 2009 12:15 PM:
The Constitution does NOT include "separation of church and state".
The framers wrote volumes about the government not endorsing one particular religion, but it is not in the Constitution.
As long as there is no discrimination, as long as all kids were allowed the same opportunity, vouchers are legal.
I understand why teachers are terrified of the concept: parents taking back control.
I really do.
And they SHOULD be scared.... "
alucawanza wrote on Mar 17, 2009 7:04 PM:
That's where you're wrong about teachers. Nothing scares us. How else could we deal with parents who harrass, badger, and lobby. We work with almost all parents as partners in their child's education. Those that badger, harrass, and lobby usually reflect their child's lack of manners too.
You've probably been the focus of many a teachers' room conversation. There's always one. But are you scary? No...
You didn't explain how this voucher program would be run and who would pay for it. It would be a huge bureaucracy. Look at the big picture rather than that one teacher that you would like to harrass, badger, and lobby. (She's not afraid of you)
*Where do the vouchers get printed?
*Where do you apply for one?
*Where is the voucher accounting office? How many employees does it have?
*Who is in charge of the voucher system? How many assistants does he/she have?
*How do schools get reimbursed for the vouchers? Who pays this person for handling the book work at the school?
*How much money does the voucher system cost to operate? Is this money deducted from education's budget? Does that mean less money for materials for kids?
Lousy idea.... "
kevin wrote on Mar 17, 2009 7:53 PM:
What's so difficult about one more child tax credit?
acluwanza said: "...its more complicated than you think".
No, its just that some people WANT you to believe its too complicated. "
alucawanza wrote on Mar 18, 2009 2:21 PM:
The IRS just stopped using private collectors to pursue tax cheats: From the Huffington Post:
The agency had been turning over to private debt collectors some delinquency cases, often in the $5,000 to $10,000 range, that the IRS lacked the manpower to pursue. The program cost about $7.6 million a year to administer, and private contractors were allowed to keep about a quarter of the taxes they collected."
So the IRS lacks the manpower to pursue tax cheats. How are they going to have the manpower to run the voucher program? BTW this business of turning over debt collection to private agencies, which didn't work out, was a Bush program. Imagine...25% reward and they couldn't make it work... "
freeport56 wrote on Mar 26, 2009 5:52 PM: