OK, I'll go first. My top priority is to make sure our kids are getting the best possible education. I don't want to see K-3 class-size reduction dismantled. I don't want to watch school facilities fall into disrepair. I want to retain counselors and librarians and P.E. and art programs.

But I realize times are tough. Cuts are inevitable. So I'm willing to accept that. But I'd like a balanced approach of cuts plus new revenue sources. It is as unrealistic to say "no cuts" as it is to say "no new taxes or fees."

Schwarzenegger has proposed a budget and a revise. Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill has proposed an alternative budget and revise. The Democrats have prepared a budget. Yet the Republicans in our legislature have proposed nothing yet. What are they waiting for?

Do they have the guts to eviscerate education and other programs? Will they punt with another borrowing scheme which will only add to the problem?

Let's see it, guys.

Here is the link to the Republican Budget info put out in June. It stands for California State Senate Republican Caucus.
http://cssrc.us/news.aspx?id=4271

Here is the Republican Caucus budget from June 2008.

http://cssrc.us/news.aspx?id=4271

Marie, why did you say that Republicans haven't proposed anything? Here is the text from that address I posted. This was out June 18th.

Republican Budget Reforms Will Limit Spending, Protect Taxpayers
Plan Establishes Spending Limit, New Rainy Day Fund to End Chronic Deficits

Republican Budget Reforms Will Limit Spending, Protect Taxpayers

Senate and Assembly Republicans today unveiled a fiscally-responsible budget reform plan that establishes a spending limit and a rainy day fund. Republicans said these reforms are vital to getting state spending under control and preventing severe deficits from hurting Californians in the future.

“California has faced chronic budget problems for one simple reason – an out-of-control budget system that requires lawmakers to spend more than we take in each year,” said Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill, of Modesto. “It’s time to end the budget madness once and for all. Our spending limit will help get California back on track by prohibiting reckless overspending and creating a new rainy day fund, while protecting hard-working Californians from higher taxes.”

The budget reform proposed by Republicans establishes a spending limit that restricts how much the Legislature can increase state spending each year to the combined percentage change in the state’s population growth and inflation, which currently averages about 5 percent. It also creates a new rainy day reserve fund to be used when the state is facing a fiscal emergency or natural disaster.

Under this plan, as the economy rebounds and revenues increase, the Legislature will be forced to prioritize spending to stay within the spending limit. Any additional revenues above and beyond the spending limit will go into the rainy day fund and be used to pay off state debt. Once the reserve reaches the maximum amount or the debt is repaid, any remaining dollars will fund temporary reductions in the state sales tax.

Republicans said that California would continue to face budget uncertainty if lawmakers didn’t take action now to fix a broken system that forces the Legislature to overspend when times are lean and allows politicians to overspend instead of save when times are good. A recent poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed 68 percent of Californians supported enacting a spending limit like the measure proposed by Republicans.

Republican lawmakers said that passing budget reform was essential to making progress in ending the state’s long-term budget problems once and for all. Enacting a spending limit will also allow California to pay down budgetary debt, maintain a stable level of funding for state programs, protect the budget from revenue volatility during tough economic times and save more money for times of emergency.

“All across California, families are struggling to pay increasing prices for food and record prices for fuel, while their mortgage payments go up and their home values go down,” said Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines, of Fresno. “Republicans are ready to get the job done and solve our state’s fiscal problems not just this year, but for future years in the best interest of all Californians.”

Senate and Assembly Republicans also reaffirmed their opposition to tax increases, which they say will only hinder economic growth and cost Californians their jobs.

Today’s budget reform proposal is the latest in a series of reform proposals legislative Republicans have put forward that would reduce spending and jumpstart our economy. The reform measures would have also put more dollars in the classroom during this tough budget year and let government stretch limited budget dollars to their fullest.

Here's the Republican Caucus' stand on the education budget from a March 2008 report, also found on the same website under "budgets".

The last paragraph summarizes as follows: Republicans are not eager to cut education spending, but we do believe that government should live within its means, just as families have to do.

Marie, do you have a problem with this? Are you against living within your means????

3/18/2008
Education Cuts – Is the Sky Really Falling?

$4.8 billion cut – truth or fiction? The Education Coalition, led by the teachers’ union, is waging a statewide public relations campaign opposing the Governor’s proposed cuts to the education budget. The Coalition accuses him of “cutting” K-12 funding by $4.8 billion, and states that his budget could require 107,000 teachers – over a third of the state’s teachers – to be laid off. Are these charges true? Let us examine the facts.

CHART

As the chart above shows, the most significant fact regarding Proposition 98 spending for K-12 education spending is that the Governor’s proposed spending for 2008-09 is $7.4 billion higher than it was five years ago, while average daily attendance during that same period has declined by 74,000 students.

The Governor proposes $50.4 billion in K-12 Proposition 98 spending in 2007-08, falling to $49.3 billion in 2008-09. His 2008-09 spending level is $4 billion less than the 2008-09 minimum guarantee, but it is only about $1.1 billion (~2.2 percent) less than his proposed spending for 2007-08.

In crafting his 2008-09 budget proposal, the Governor first built a hypothetical “workload budget” for Prop 98-funded programs – a “what would we like to fund if the Prop 98 guarantee was irrelevant and there wasn’t a $14.5 billion budget deficit” approach. This approach totaled $60.4 billion -- $800 million more than the Prop 98 minimum guarantee of $59.6 billion. In an effort to balance the budget without raising taxes, he then reduced that “workload budget” by $4.8 billion, to $55.6 billion, of which K-12 gets $49.3 billion and Community Colleges the remainder. Thus the ed coalition’s $4.8 billion “cut” number has no relationship to current-year funding. To be fair, some of the Governor’s unfunded “workload budget” adjustments could be characterized as cuts, but not all of them. For example, an unfunded COLA represents $2.7 billion of the $4.8 billion “cut”.

The Legislative Analyst has her own proposal for Prop 98 spending. She would first prevent the Prop 98 “base” from inflating unnecessarily by swapping out $1.1 billion in current-year Prop 98 spending with other fund sources and by capturing “natural savings” (over $500 million of this swap was already achieved via AB 4X in the February 2008 special session). She would then spend an additional $2.1 billion beyond the Governor’s proposal ($57.7 billion vs. his $55.6 billion). The fund source for the additional spending would be the closure of over $2.6 billion in “tax loopholes.” Thus, with a minimum guarantee $1.1 billion lower and a funding level $2.1 billion higher than the Governor’s, the LAO proposal suspends Prop 98 by only $800 million, compared w/ the Governor’s $4 billion suspension.

As Sacramento Bee political columnist Daniel Weintraub has so accurately observed:

“… the Democrats will try to frame it as a choice between cutting education and raising taxes … This strategy makes sense because the schools are the most popular program in the budget. If they were truly the top priority, Democrats could fund them first and then try to raise taxes to pay for other needs. But that would not be as effective as a political strategy.”

To summarize:

* Most ordinary people do not view the lack of an augmentation as a “cut.” The Ed Coalition’s repeated references to $4.8 billion in “cuts” are clearly meant to imply a doomsday scenario, as is its charge that the Governor’s proposed budget will require that 107,000 teachers be laid off. (Assuming an average cost of $75,000 per teacher, including benefits, 107,000 teachers are worth over $8 billion annually. How is it that the Governor’s proposed budget would require layoffs worth $8 billion? Answer: it would not.)
* Even after the Governor’s $4 billion suspension, Proposition 98 spending will still have grown by about $7.4 billion since 2003-04, while average daily attendance will have declined by about 74,000 students during that same five-year period.
* Republicans are not eager to cut education spending, but we do believe that government should live within its means, just as families have to do. The solution to the state’s fiscal crisis does not require tax hikes. Members from both parties need to come together to craft a budget that preserves essential services within available resources.

Here are the proposed legislative changes to fix the budget from July 8, 2008, from the same website. The last paragraph here has a link to the Republican's Budge Website. Hope this kills the false rumors that the GOP isn't doing anything:

"Senate Republicans have also launched a website dedicated to the 2008-2009 budget crisis. It can be found at: www.SenateRepublicanBudget.com. "

7/8/2008
Senate Budget Committee Vice Chair Senator Bob Dutton Issues Statement Regarding Budget

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, July 8, 2008
CONTACT: Larry Venus @ (916) 651-4031

Senator Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga), vice chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, today issued the following statement after the Budget Conference Committee concluded its work:

“When the Budget Conference Committee began their meetings I expressed optimism about the opportunities we had to find real solutions to bring our spending in line with revenue.

“As the Conference Committee concluded tonight I have to say that I am disappointed. With the California economy struggling, now is not the time to raise taxes. With California families paying more than $4.50 a gallon for gasoline, significantly more at the grocery store and have seen the value of their homes plummet, the last thing we should do is further burden taxpayers but that’s exactly what Democrats have proposed to do by raising taxes!

“Senate Republicans have put forth several ideas to rein in the state’s out-of-control spending, without raising taxes on hard-working California families. It’s time for our Democrat colleagues to take these proposals seriously.”

In recent weeks, Republicans have outlined a number of ideas related to solving our state budget, without raising taxes. Those plans include:

* Fueling the state economy and easing the burdens on workers by creating workweek flexibility and lessening bureaucratic red tape.
(http://cssrc.us/web/14/news.aspx?id=4099)

* Streamlining government to maximize limited tax dollars.
(http://cssrc.us/news.aspx?id=4121)

* Ensuring more money goes to our classrooms and upholding voters’ commitment to give 40 cents of every tax dollar to schools.
(http://cssrc.us/web/14/news.aspx?id=4090)

* Establishing a spending limit and new rainy day fund to end chronic deficits. (http://cssrc.us/news.aspx?id=4271)

Senate Republicans have also launched a website dedicated to the 2008-2009 budget crisis. It can be found at: www.SenateRepublicanBudget.com.

Wow, that 's a lot of cutting and pasting there from outside sources. You can't speak for yourself, EP?

In reference to your first post, that is one piece of a budget reform proposal, not an actual budget. Real numbers, please, show us what you would actually cut.

Secondly, the governor's first proposal would have meant disaster for our schools. I'll bring it home for you. Here's what some of the local school districts were looking at trimming from their budgets:

Ventura $4 million
Conejo Valley $8 million
Las Virgenes $6.8 million
Moorpark $3.5 million
Oak Park $2 million
Simi Valley $7.2 million

You are comparing us to 2003? That was the year I helped form Save Our Schools and the state budget deficit was estimated to be well over $30 billion. Ventura Unified was looking at a $6 million hit to their budget that year. We lost our School Resource Officers, our elementary counselors, our Reading Safety Net program, AVID, etc. etc.

I will also speak to the declining enrollment issue: What generally happens to school districts with declining enrollment is that their facilities, teaching and other costs remain fixed since it is usually only a few children per grade. But they receive less from the state per student because of the declining enrollment. The enrollment declines don't come in neat little packages of 30 students per grade. So you couldn't lay off one teacher to offset.

So while they have to maintain the status quo, they are losing money per pupil which comes out of costs which aren't fixed such as librarians, technology specialists, and counselors.

While declining enrollment helps ease the burden to expand facilities and add portable classrooms, that money can and should go to facilities upgrades. So many of our schools in this state are in bad shape.

When districts try to close schools because of declining enrollment, parents go ballistic. Witness the uproar in the Conejo.

I am not really interested in playing politics. I just want to make sure our kids get what they need.

Oh and by the way, thanks for providing Elizabeth Hill's first alternative proposal up there. I actually like that one best. It would only suspend Prop. 98 by $800 million.

Marie-
You are so disengenuous it really is disgusting. First, I have heard from many Republicans that numerous other cuts should be made first before moving to education. Not even getting into the VAST savings that could be made by streamlining education, Brian the lib himself has brought up 3 great points alone to help ease our budget - illegal criminals in our prisons, boards and commission salaries and "use it or lose it" budgeting.

Yet you dont even address those issues! Why? BECAUSE YOU DAMN WELL KNOW THAT HANNAH BETH WONT VOTE AGAINST THOSE SIMPLE ITEMS ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER DEMOCRATICS IN THE LEGISLATURE!

You are nothing more than a spokeshole who will do anything to divert attention away from common sense ways to fix the budget. Democratics, no matter how "independent minded" won't break their party's mantra of not cutting a single program and insisting on holding the education budget hostage in this whole mess.

And don't you dare deny that it is the Democratics who are the ones threatening cuts to education unless taxes are raised. I havent heard one Republican state that cuts to education need to take place. And don't include the Schwarz, a very large majority of Republicans don't really think of him as a Republican. It's not that hard to check the "R" next to your name when registering to vote.

A small (and getting smaller) minority think Arnold is not Republican. A majority of Republicans (myself included) think he is a realist.

The budget won't be fixed unless incumbent protection stops. Both Reps and Dems milk this to the max. I'm also beginning to think the supermajority vote is part of the problem - there are a bunch of Rep. wankers that use the budget to whine and cry. There are a bunch of Dems that don't make the cuts that needs to be made.

I think the only idea put foward by Brian that might result in some savings is cleaning out the prison system of illegal immigrants. The rest is chump change.

It was 4:50 a.m. when you posted, Ventura Freedom, so I am guessing you didn't read my original post very carefully.

My point was that I would like to see education spared as much as possible but that I was willing to accept some cuts. That's a reasonable enough statement.

I am no politician's "spokeshole." I am co-president of a non-profit organization which raised in excess of $130,000 last year and gave it away in a granting program to teachers and staff in the Ventura Unified School District to pay for things that our teachers and students need, but that current budgets won't allow.

I am all for reforms that would give our local school districts more control and free up categorical spending. But that won't add up to enough to make up the shortfall.

The governor's own bipartisan Committee on Education Excellence has suggested some good reforms, but they are also calling for more money to be spent on English language learners and those who come from poverty. The ELL students can be brought up to speed fairly quickly, but living in poverty presents real problems to learning which need extra time and funding.

What I want to see from the Republicans is a practical budget with a list of real cuts they would make across the board to make up for this budget shortfall without raising any revenue. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I will reserve all judgment until I see that. The latest public opinion polls show most of us would prefer a combination of cuts and revenue-enhancing measures.

Despite what you may think, I was not stumping for Hannah-Beth in my original post. I have my own life and priorities and have spent many years working on these issues.

But I'll stump for her now: I support Hannah-Beth because she has made education and public safety a priority, she is an extremely effective legislator who gets things done, she really listens to her constituents and she conducts her life with the utmost honor and integrity. I couldn't ask for more.

Katie, so who are you voting for - Strickland or Jackson?

Ventura Freedom,

I have heard Tony Strickland outline many ways to reform the budget process. I gave him credit for an idea that I know many have mentioned but he recently mentioned about the "use it or lose it" mentality.

The same day Tony Strickland said he didn't believe in raising taxes. Not a shocker, eh? I think he has been pretty clear on that issue.

As far as budget cuts go he mentioned many places that would need to be impacted. He did mention that to balance the budget education would need to be cut. He said his priority would be to leave it up to local districts to choose what to cut and what to keep instead of the state mandating what areas would need to be cut.

If you see any mistake in trying to report back to you what he believes in someone let me know. But as far as I can tell that is his basic stump speech about what he would do.

I think Republicans have been clear that they are against raising taxes to fix this problem and that most programs, including education would need to be cut to balance the budget.

On the other hand Democrats have been clear they will raise taxes and cut spending. Although, the mix between the two varies with different proposals.

Now, if education spending goes up X but total costs for the same amount of teachers, supplies, facilities goes up X + 1 is that a cut? I will leave that debate to others. I remember the classic debates on the topic between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton during the 1990's on that same subject.

Brian,

Thanks for adding a little objectivity and perspective to the discussion, regarding what Tony has proposed with regard to State budget reductions. Right now would be a horrible time to raise taxes, with everyone struggling with a down economy and the high prices of gas, food, and other products.

What's needed is some common sense decisions on education reductions and his idea about relegating those decisions to the local school districts makes good sense.

Flamo,

So you disagree with Ventura Freedom? VF said Republicans were not talking about cuts to education.

The decision as to what to cut is already relegated to the local school districts with the exception of categoricals. They lose their funding; they figure out what to cut. Bus service is one thing that is going in some districts.

C'mon, Dennert, you're just trying to start a squabble between Ventura Freedom and I, and I'm not going for it. You said yourself that Strickland would be in favor of some reductions to education funding, so you know the facts as well as I do.

Get back to the topic at hand, which is what is Jackson going to do to help solve the budget crisis. Oh, yeah, I forgot. Marie already told us. She's going to raise taxes.

BTW, maybe Marie can enlighten us on this. Where does Jackson stand on the new prison in Camarillo?

Flamo,

VF went out of his way to say Democrats were making something up. That's why I showed the distance in your thoughts.

I know Marie is taking a few days off from blogging so if she doesn't answer your question about the prison that is why. But I will email the Hannah-Beth Jackson campaign for a statement for you.

I live in Camarillo and my thoughts on the prison is too little too late. It is a very convenient political rallying cry right now but it should have been dealt with legislatively years ago.

It doesn't matter where Jackson stands on it or Strickland and to pretend otherwise is politics.

Marie, of course I can speak for myself. But, it is better to go directly to the sources. You claimed that the GOP has done nothing. I'm waiting for your apology. I'm posting the Republican proposals, and the links so that people can research this. Apparently you haven't bothered to click on ANY of this info. Are you afraid of getting cooties from a GOP website???

Here is what the Reps proposed on Education back in April. This is from www.SenateRepublicanBudget.com and then click on Education Reform on the left side.

4/24/2008
Republican Education Budget Will Protect Classrooms, Prevent Teacher Layoffs
Republican Proposal Gives More To Education Without Tax Increases

Senate and Assembly Republicans today unveiled an education budget proposal, which would give $57.7 billion to California’s schools next year, provide year-over-year stable funding and maintain the voters’ commitment to Proposition 98 without tax increases. It also incorporates many of the budget savings recommended by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst and enacts several common-sense reforms that will give schools more flexibility.

“Republicans are committed to protecting classroom dollars and helping local districts get through our severe budget challenges,” said Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines, of Fresno. “Our plan will give schools the funding and flexibility they need to plan for the upcoming year and prevent teacher layoffs, without imposing billions in higher taxes on hard-working Californians.”

The Republican education budget proposal would fund education next year at $57.7 billion, which is the level recommended by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, and gives schools $2.1 billion more than the Governor’s proposed January budget. It maintains the will of the voters to fund the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee to schools and provides year-over-year stable school funding.

In addition, the Republican education budget proposal incorporates several important education reforms that would free school districts from costly mandates imposed by Sacramento and give local schools more freedom and flexibility to meet their students’ needs. Republicans said doing so would allow districts to devote more dollars to the classroom.

“Providing stable funding to our schools, as voters wanted when they approved Proposition 98, must go hand-in-hand with enacting common-sense reforms. This will allow local districts to put more dollars to the classroom – without increasing spending or raising taxes,” said Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill, of Modesto. “One thing is clear – we cannot put off passing an education budget without causing serious pain for our schools. We urge Democrats to work with us now on our education proposal and give schools the stability they need to prepare our kids for the future.”

GOP lawmakers said their plan must be enacted immediately because it would provide funding stability to schools across California at a time when they were planning their budgets for the upcoming year. Providing stable funding, they said, would let districts rescind layoff notices that have gone out to thousands of teachers across the state, and allow them to continue to invest in the classroom despite our budget problems.

It doesn't matter how Katie stands on it either, although what she says is a complete cop-out. These are untested waters we're in right now with regard to this facility.

Political pressure on the State Legislature can only help the situation. We know Tony Strickland is against it if the wife is and Hannah-Beth hasn't said anything yet, for whatever it's worth.

As I said earlier, this should have been taken care of years ago - instead the State Leglislator ignored all the court orders. Perhaps instead of worrying about relection, they should have taken care of the business of the citizens.

The milk has been spilled and now it is all about political posturing and little about getting anything done.

Steve Frank is trying to make political hay out of prison medical center for the Stricklands. Pretty transparent.

Yeah, right. Tell the residents near the proposed facility and the parents that send their kids to nearby schools that they're crying over spilled milk. This is a huge local issue that ain't going away anytime soon.

There is a community meeting on July 24th, at 6:30 pm, at the Sterling Hills Golf Club in Camarillo, where the public will be allowed to express their concerns about the prison to local leaders and public officials in attendance.

Unlike you, Katie, I guess I still have faith in the power of the people's voices. Maybe you should attend the meeting and see what all the fuss is about instead of throwing up your hands and allowing outside forces to walk all over us.

My point was it should have been taken care of years ago. There is a bigger picture here. Unfortunately, the prison hospital situation is a painful reminder.

I don't like the medical center going in at all but I really don't like the fact it is even an issue.

Not interested in being one of the bleating sheep for election effect or being manipulated by outside forces and I'm not talking about Kelso.

Right, we know exactly what you're talking about, Katie. Just another chapter in the ongoing saga of "Katie Vs. the VCRCC and the Stricklands." Ho-hum...

I don't blame Audra or Tony as individuals but we are where we are at because state legislators from both parties didn't fund prison healthcare enough to satisfy federal requirements.

Maybe the federal requirements are unfair and should have been fought more in court.

What would happen if Audra Strickland introduced a bill to build and fund a new prison hospital in a community that would accept it? Would Kelso back off?

You should ask her to look into it. Either way the money looks like it will be spent, yes?

Stricklands should be supporting the new prison medical facility. One day soon they just might find themselve in need of a good prison medical facility.

There's a good possibility Hannah-Beth Jackson will be supporting this prison facility too in order to provide future housing opportunities for her if she keeps breaking the law with regard to using public resources (firefighters) to campaign for her and accepting laundered tobacco money funneled through other political campaigns.

News flash - you're going to have a great big prison hospital built right in your backyard, because you have been electing ineffective legislators like McClintock, Strickland and Strickland. They have ZERO power in the legislature and they're part of a party that is hopelessly in the minority, and the cause of budget deadlock.

So when it came time to parcel out these prison facilities, guess whose backyard gets stuck with them? That's right - US. Short end - meet stick. Audra and Tom can posture all they like, but it won't make a bit of difference. In fact it looks like McClintock hasn't said a word about it. Already having written off Ventura County, he's busy campaigning for Congress 400 miles away.

Let's not forget about Hannah-Beth Jackson's role in all of this. What was she doing during her terms in the 35th Assembly District to resolve underfunding of prison health care and the State budget crisis. Pretty much, nothing, as far as I can tell...

Once again - you said it beautifully - zero power and part of a party that is in the minority and likes it that way. Why didn't McClintock and the Stricklands do something about it when they had a chance? Now, there is lots of noise but then it is election time.

"What About Jackson" makes an even more germaine point - Jackson, who was part of the party in power when she was in the Assembly, actually had the ability to do something about it, but still did not.