Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Next up... Prop 75 | Main | Roger Kurachi »
October 12, 2005
Get your kicks, on Prop 76
When the idiots in Sacramento actually learn how to legislate again, and do their jobs we pay them over $100,000 a year (plus car, plus benefits etc..) to do, let's hope there is never again, a PROP 76.
Here is what I am talking about, from the official voter information guide:
Prop 74 = 6 pages
Prop 75 = 4 pages
Prop 76 = 11 Pages
So, what kind of time to our legislators think the average voters have to do their jobs for them? As Reagan said, when Congress sent him a budget resolution that when stacked, was 3 feet tall: "Don't send me something like this ever again".
Now, for the details of Prop 76:
Should Californians make major Constitutional changes to create an additional state spending limit, grant the governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending, and revise key provisions relating to Proposition 98, school and community college funding, and transportation funding authorized by Proposition 42?
A YES vote on this measure means:
State expenditures would be subject to an additional spending limit based on an average of recent revenue growth. The Governor would be granted new authority to unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations. School and community college spending would be more subject to annual budget decisions and less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee.
A NO vote on this measure means:
The state would not adopt an additional spending limit, the Governor would not be granted new powers to reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations, and existing constitutional provisions relating to schools and community college funding would not be changed.
Here is the link to the Independant Legislative Analysis
Read more here...
Proposal
This measure adds a second limit on the annual growth in state expenditures. Beginning in 2006‑07, combined expenditures from the state’s General Fund and special funds would be limited to the prior-year level of expenditures, adjusted by the average of the growth rates in combined General Fund and special fund revenues over the prior three years.
In years in which actual spending falls below the limit, the spending limit for the subsequent year would be based on the reduced level of actual expenditures. Spending could temporarily exceed the limit in the event of a natural disaster (for example, fire, floods, or earthquakes) or an attack by an enemy of the United States.
What Happens If Revenues Exceed the Limit? If revenues exceed the limit, the excess amount would be divided proportionally among the General Fund and each of the state’s special funds. The exact way in which this allocation would occur is not specified in the measure. The portion of the excess revenues that is allocated to special funds would be held in reserve for expenditure in a subsequent year. In the case of the General Fund, its share of the excess revenues would be allocated as follows:
25 percent—the state’s reserve fund.
50 percent—allocated through annual budget acts to repay any of the following: (1) the Proposition 98 maintenance factor outstanding (see below) at a rate of no more than one-fifteenth of the amount per year; (2) state-issued deficit-financing bonds; and (3) loans made from the Transportation Investment Fund in 2003‑04 through 2006‑07, with annual amounts not to exceed one-fifteenth of the amount outstanding as of June 30, 2007.
25 percent—for road, highway, and school construction projects.
Funds allocated for the above purposes would not be counted as expenditures for purposes of calculating the following year’s spending limit.
Fiscal Effect
Based on budget actions taken in 2005 and the recent strong revenue growth trend, the new spending limit is unlikely to constrain state expenditures in 2006‑07—its first year of implementation. This is because the limit would likely exceed projected revenues and expenditures under current law.
Over the longer term, however, we believe that the spending limit could have significant impacts on annual state spending. This is because of the way in which the new spending limit would interact with changes in the economy and state revenues over time. California’s revenues are highly sensitive to economic changes. That is, they tend to grow fast during the upside of business cycles when the economy is expanding, and slow—or fall—when the economy is on the downside of business cycles. As a result, the new spending limit—which is based on a rolling average of past revenue growth—would grow more slowly than actual revenues when the economy is accelerating, and grow faster than actual revenues when the economy is in recession.
School Funding
How the Measure Would Change School Spending Guarantee for K-12 and Community Colleges
How Current Guarantee Works
ü Proposition 98 Minimum Guarantee. Is based on the operation of three formulas (“tests”). The operative test depends on how the economy and General Fund revenues grow from year to year.
Test 1—Share of General Fund. Provides 39 percent of General Fund revenues. This test has not been operative since 1988‑89.
Test 2—Growth in Per Capita Personal Income. Increases prior-year funding by growth in attendance and per-capita personal income. This test is generally operative in years with normal-to-strong General Fund revenue growth.
Test 3—Growth in General Fund Revenues. Increases prior-year funding by growth in attendance and per-capita General Fund revenues. Generally, this test is operative when General Fund revenues fall or grow slowly.
ü Suspension of Proposition 98. This can occur through the enactment of legislation passed with a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, and funding can be set at any level.
ü Long-Term Target Funding Level. This would be the K-14 education funding level if it were always funded according to the provisions of Test 2. Whenever Proposition 98 funding falls below that year’s Test 2 level, either because of suspension of the guarantee or the operation of Test 3, the Test 2 level is “tracked” and serves as a target level to which K-14 education funding will be restored when revenues improve.
ü Maintenance Factor. This is created whenever actual funding falls below the Test 2 level. The maintenance factor is equal to the difference between actual funding and the long-term target amount. Currently, the
K-14 funding level is $3.8 billion less than the long-term target funding level—that is, the current outstanding maintenance factor is $3.8 billion.
ü Restoration of Maintenance Factor. This occurs when school funding rises back up toward the long-term target funding level. Restoration can occur either through a formula that requires higher K-14 education funding in years with strong General Fund revenue growth, or through legislative appropriations above the minimum guarantee.
What This Measure Does
ü Eliminates Future Operation of Test 3. In low-revenue years, the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee would no longer automatically fall below the Test 2 level.
ü Eliminates Future Creation of Maintenance Factor. If in any given year K-14 education was funded at a level less than that required by Test 2 (through suspension or Governor’s reductions), there would no longer be a future obligation to restore that funding shortfall to the long-term target. These reductions would permanently “ratchet down” the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee.
ü Converts Outstanding Maintenance Factor to One-Time Obligation. The measure converts the outstanding maintenance factor (estimated to be $3.8 billion) to a one-time obligation. Payments to fulfill this obligation would be made over the next 15 years. These payments would not raise the future Proposition 98 minimum guarantee (in contrast to existing law).
ü Counts Future Appropriations Above the Minimum Guarantee as One-Time Payments. Spending above the minimum guarantee would not raise the base from which future guarantees are calculated.
Fiscal Effect
Given the uncertainty about future economic growth and budgetary circumstances, it is not possible to predict how the measure’s changes would affect actual state spending for K-14 education and other programs. In general, the elimination of Test 3 and future maintenance factors means that year-to-year changes in the minimum guarantee would be less volatile than in the past—absent a suspension or a reduction by the Governor.
Decreases Minimum Guarantee Over Long Term. Over time, however, the net impact of the Proposition 98 changes and related changes in the measure would be to lower the minimum guarantee for K-14 education, as discussed below:
Since K-14 education accounts for almost 45 percent of the state’s General Fund budget, it is likely that policymakers would need to consider reductions in this area whenever the budget fell significantly out of balance. Whenever such spending was reduced—either through suspension or through Governor’s reductions—the state would no longer be required to restore that reduction in the minimum funding guarantee in subsequent years.
The provision making future appropriations over the minimum guarantee one-time in nature would also hold down the minimum guarantee relative to current law. For example, if this provision applied to 2005‑06, it would convert an estimated $740 million in appropriations above the guarantee in the 2005‑06 budget to one-time spending. This would lower the minimum guarantee for 2006‑07 by a similar amount compared to current law.
By converting the $3.8 billion outstanding maintenance factor to a one-time obligation, the measure eliminates the requirement for $3.8 billion to be restored into the annual base funding over time.
Combined, these changes would result in a lower minimum guarantee over time compared to current law.
Unknown Impact on K-14 Spending. A lower guarantee, however, does not mean that actual spending for schools would necessarily be lower. Policymakers would still be free to spend more than required by the minimum guarantee in any given year. Since spending above the guarantee for K-14 education would no longer permanently ratchet up the guarantee, future Legislatures and Governors might be more likely to spend above the minimum guarantee in a given year. Overall, the measure’s Proposition 98-related changes would result in the annual budgets for K-14 education being more subject to annual funding decisions by state policymakers and less affected by the minimum guarantee.
Are we ready to debate it?
Prop 76 - bring it on.
Tim Keaney
Comments
This one I have yet to wrap my mind around. I need to read the guide. At first glance, isn't this a violation of seperation of powers? The governor's traditional role has been to enforce the laws and the will of the legislature... He is already given the power to set spending levels and budget priorities through the legislature unlike the federal system where the President has to introduce legislation through a proxy usually Representative Portman on Ways and Means...
I just get concerned when things the legislature is responsible are now being completed by one individual in the governor's office. That's too much power...
I think giving too much power to the governor to set spending priorities is a little dangerous in any party's hands.
I feel Sacramento is a broken place, but centralizing spending power in the governor's office seems a little extreme. Sure partisans in favor of Arnold now will say yes this is great for us, but then if there is a democrat in office this law could be the worse thing these same people have ever seen.
Partisan driven laws based on whose in office now very rarely work in the long to benefit the common good.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 13, 2005 09:13 AMVOTE NO ON PROP 76! Prop 76 will cut 12 million dollars a year from Simi Valley schools and keep California in the cellar in terms of per-pupil funding. A recent poll found that 76% of California Democrats, 69% of Independents and 59% of Califronia Republicans want more money going to public education. Prop 76 is currently polling at 26% yes, and 69% no. In terms of spending in Sacramento no budget has been passed without Republican support and without the governors signature. This basically will eliminate the legislature and give all power to the governor. Last time I checked we live in a democracy, 76 is anti-democratic and is a power grab, perhaps Arnold wants to be crowned emperor. He has made comments in the past about wanting to be a dictator and how he respected dictators of the past. Hail Arnold!
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at October 13, 2005 10:40 AMWow...
$12 million is a LOT of money. I didn't realize it would have that kind of impact.
How is the $12 million figure calculated? Does it assume a drop in state revenues? It's my understanding from the measure, that if state revenues stay the same, or increase, that the funding formula in effect isn't really affected. Are you talking about the $3 billion paid off over 15 years?
Is this $12 million SVUSD is guaranteed for this year that it will lose next year? What are the figures from other local districts, and where is that information so I can post a link to it?
I'd like to post the link, in order to give our readers all of the information they need.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 13, 2005 02:21 PMHere's an important analysis from the Sac Bee on this measure, in plain English:
Proposition 76: Curb on spending - or a 'power grab'?
By Alexa H. Bluth -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Story appeared on Page A1 of The Bee
The jury is out on whether Proposition 76 would actually deliver what its backers promise: an end to California's chronic budget troubles.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says the spending control measure will smooth out the effects of the volatile budget cycles that have left California swimming in surpluses in certain years and drowning in debt in others.
Conservatives who had hoped to place a strict spending cap before voters call it a watered-down attempt to rein in spending that won't hurt but probably won't help much either.
Opponents, including elected Democrats and teachers unions, say it will give the governor unprecedented and unchecked budget-cutting power and will gut California's voter-approved school-funding guarantee, Proposition 98.
And academics and analysts who have studied Proposition 76 say many of its true effects are impossible to predict because of its sweeping nature and the fact that it will interact with and affect other voter-approved budget measures.
"I don't think it simplifies budgeting in California," said Kim Rueben, public finance economist for the Tax Policy Center and an adjunct fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California.
"I think that there are parts of this (measure) that could help California ... but in aggregate there is too much going on."
Proposition 76 is supported by the Republican governor and business interests who are supporting his initiative agenda. It has won lukewarm support from anti-tax groups who say it does not go far enough, including Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association President Jon Coupal, who described it in a recent opinion piece as "a modest proposal designed to put gentle brakes on state spending."
The measure, which backers have nicknamed the "Live Within Our Means Act," would create a second limit on state spending.
The first, the 1979 Gann limit, ties state spending growth to population increases and inflation. But changes made over the years have limited its practical effect.
The new proposal would limit the rise in state government spending to the average rate revenue grew in the three previous years.
Effectively, that would prevent the deep budget fluctuations that occur when revenues rise and fall - driven largely by the volatile flow of personal income and stock options that caused the revenue spike late last decade and the precipitous drop that followed and led to the current budget crisis.
Schwarzenegger, at an appearance in Orange County last month, compared the annual budget process to "an auction amongst interest groups" driven by spending formulas that promise more money than the state takes in.
"In some things the budget throttle is wide open, and in other things it is closed shut," he said.
"It makes no sense. It is unfair, and this cannot go on."
Democrats have called for a variety of tax increases to bring the state's books back into balance and criticized Schwarzenegger for imposing his own $4 billion hit on state revenues when he reduced the state's vehicle license fee shortly after taking office.
But the Legislature has not garnered the two-thirds vote needed to raise taxes, and state budgets have been balanced largely by borrowing, funding shifts and some spending cuts in recent years.
"The strongest reason is the record of the last seven years, every one of which we've spent more than we've taken in," said Schwarzenegger's former finance director, Tom Campbell, who helped write the measure and is campaigning for Proposition 76.
"We are borrowed out. We've borrowed from every special fund that we can, and our state cannot continue this way."
If state revenues in any one year rise sharply and more money is available than the limit allows the government to spend, the measure would require that the surplus be placed into a reserve fund and be used to pay off debt and for highway and school construction projects.
The measure would also expand the governor's powers to cut state spending in certain circumstances.
Specifically, it would give the governor authority to declare a fiscal emergency when his or her own Department of Finance determines that state revenues have fallen at least 1.5 percent below the administration's forecasts.
Once the governor declares an emergency, the Legislature has 45 days to address the shortfall - something critics call unrealistic with the current two-thirds vote threshold for budget cuts or tax hikes.
If the Legislature cannot come to an agreement, the governor then has the authority to cut spending unilaterally, including reducing funding to schools, health and welfare programs that now are protected from such cuts.
The midyear cutting authority in the measure is one of its most controversial provisions.
"This initiative really eliminates checks and balances," said Assembly budget Chairman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz. "There is a reason that the constitution has different roles for the different branches, and it's not for somebody to make unilateral budget decisions."
But Campbell said the measure still leaves the option for the Legislature to come to agreement to avoid unilateral cuts by the governor.
"Even then, if the Legislature wants to pass an alternative budget and they have the votes to do so, then they may," Campbell said.
Schwarzenegger dismisses the "power grab" argument, noting that two-thirds of the states have some method for governors to deal with budget crises.
"Shouldn't the governor of the most ... populous and the most diverse state, with the biggest budget of any state in the union, have the same ability to respond to crisis as other governors?" Schwarzenegger asked at the Orange County forum.
Perhaps equally unpalatable to critics, however, is the measure's effect on Proposition 98, the 1988 voter-approved constitutional amendment that requires the state to supply a minimum level of funding for K-14 schools.
First, it would subject schools to unilateral cuts in tough budget times, whereas now two-thirds of the Legislature must agree to suspend Proposition 98 to cut schools below the guarantee.
"If the governor ever calls a fiscal crisis, which really isn't a fiscal crisis, he can unilaterally cut funding for schools," said John Mockler, an education consultant who helped craft Proposition 98 and who opposes Proposition 76.
But it also would shortchange schools money they are owed from past years' budget cuts.
The state is required to repay its obligations to schools from past budget cuts, which currently stand at $3.8 billion.
Under current law, once the state makes up for the past losses, it is built into the minimum amount of funding schools get each year.
If Proposition 76 passes, the state would repay the $3.8 billion over 15 years, on a one-time basis, and it would not increase the floor for school spending.
"For better or for worse, it changes how education will be funded in the state in that it takes away the guarantee and it takes away the growth if excess money is put into education spending," Rueben said.
Schwarzenegger said he is not the only one frustrated with automatic spending formulas, such as the one in Proposition 98.
"Many in the Legislature, of both parties, have told me privately, over and over, that we need change," he said.
"They have told me that they're tired of the automatic spending formulas, formulas that tie their hands, formulas that eat up the budget and that force us into cuts in health care, environment, for the disabled and so many other areas."
Can someone tell me what a structural defecit is compared to a regular defecit?
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 14, 2005 08:32 AMExcuse my mis-spelling. Deficit...
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 14, 2005 08:52 AMScott,
A regular deficit would be this example: You have a monthly budget for your home, but you take a vacation or spend too much at Costco one month. You are going to overspend one or two months to pay off those debts, and then your budget is back to normal, with money going to savings etc...
A structural deficit is more like this: You have a budget for your home and family, but then you decide to buy a bigger house, which is a long term payment, without any increase in your income. So your budget now includes significantly more outflow than inflow of cash.
There is no way to fix a structural deficit without doing one or a few options:
Increase income
Cut expenses
Or as they do in California, BORROW money to pay off the deficit, which increases your long-term debt, which increases your expenses as you are paying off the debt plus interest.
It's sort of like buying that big house you can't afford, and then taking a home equity line to pay the mortgage you can't afford.
Tim Keaney
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 14, 2005 09:57 AMSo essentially most are upset with the state government for doing what most voters do personally?
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 14, 2005 11:23 AMWell, yes and no. As individuals, we are spending our own money, making our own mistakes and living with the consequences.
In the State's case, they are using OUR money, violating our trust and breaching their fiduciary responsibility to both the tax payer, and future generations.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 14, 2005 12:01 PMTim:
Good point. I'm more playing devil's advocate here and having a little fun, but is it really OUR money?
The US government prints it and controls the supply and large scale currency transactions take place that effect us all. How can we claim its our's when an appointed Federal Reserve really controls it and the amount of it?
Some might say that the actual paper money the government prints, we do not own, but the goods, property, and what not, we do own. Is paper money property, or is it just government paper that we assign value to in the economy? Is it a means or an end or both?
Remember, a few days after September 11th when the dollar essentailly was dumped for gold because that piece of paper is only as good as the stability of the US government....
Here is another strange argument. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court argued that cash donations are considered "free speech". Since cash is free speech, could it be argued that the Supreme Court is limiting the ability to participate in politics at a meaningful level when they levey income taxes? If money is speech isn't it a violation for the US government and and anyone else to levy taxes on income?
Scott
YES!
Except, we empower the Feds to do exactly that, because remember, we ARE the feds. SO in other words, We limit Free speech by taking our own cash from ourselves, and then not allowing ourselves to spend it on things the FEDS (us) don't want us to spend it on.
With me?
T
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 14, 2005 01:07 PMSo, the money really is not our's than as you said before?
It cannot be ours and not be ours unless this is a collective that I'm not aware of...
Hmm, maybe we are a collective... Pretty scary.
Not in my America!
Not in my America!
Oh, I guess this IS my America...
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 14, 2005 01:23 PMLOL!!!
Not to change the subject, but today's Consumer Price Index said we have the highest inflation in 25 years. Didn't that occur under the Carter administration?
Maybe, the feds should control spending a bit...
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 14, 2005 01:30 PMWell, the 12% increase in energy costs doesn't help.
And it's weird, the car I am about to buy is the same care I bought 12 years ago, except now it's twice the price.
Wow, now we're sounding like Dennert's blog!
Scott, what impact do you think the "lobbying/industrial complex" has on spending/influencing policy/spending restraint?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 14, 2005 02:04 PMFirst, I want to say there is nothing wrong with lobbyists and lobbying so long as it follows the laws of the governing body. Often, we hear over and over the term "special interests" from politicians as a catch phrase to appeal to independent/swing voters.
The problem is, it's not the special interests that should be blamed, its the politicians fault for listening to them and not taking in all sides into account. Its their own obtuse analysis of congressional leadership that's the problem.
Its like when you watch a sporting event. The game is played, but when you see the ref make a bad call and a team loses, its on the front page. you get mad like a lot of voters right now. Bad referee's are the single cause of lost faith in the system. Sure, we shouldn't care if the shrimping industry wins a pork barrel project out of katrina, we should be mad at the people who approved it.
The failure lies in the votes on the floor, not the hallways of congress where lobbyists gather.
Personal restraint is the real problem in congress and the White House these days. Maybe, those that continue to get elected by evoking personal accountability and personal responsibility to the rest of us should look in the mirror for once and realize that the fault of our current deficits rests first with the person who submitted an aye vote.
If I hear one more person yelp during a campaign about special interests, I'm going to throw-up.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 14, 2005 04:42 PMTim,
The Ford Administration decided the best way to deal with inflation was to have buttons made with the acronym WIN on them. They walked around the White House wearing their button proud of their button. It represented their commitment to whip inflation now.
During the 70's these buttons were worth 25 cents, now they are 7 dollars each. I think we need to purchase a button or two to show our real commitment to whipping inflation.
I think this is a serious and prudent step in the right direction and I hope all the Ford staffers who are now cabinet members in our current administration decide to follow our lead.
Purchase your WIN buttons now... Get'em before their ten bucks in a few more months.
What do you think?
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 14, 2005 04:55 PMScott,
I am 100% supportive of your initiative to bring back the halcyon days of the Ford & Carter presidencies.
But only if we change what the acronym stands for. Instead of "Whip inflation now" I would be more supportive of"
"whip idiocy now"
or
Based on the article in the Star this morning about the County wanting to assess a fee to businesses that expand and employ workers, in order to PAY for those worker's housing, how about this acronym: "WIP - Why invest profits?"
Or: WIN - Washington is North (This might help with our classroom geography lessons...
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 15, 2005 09:07 AMTim:
I read that article yesterday as well. It's a total job killer and will do very little to deal with the affordable housing crisis.
County Supervisor Bennett is out to lunch on his plan to kill jobs by creating a big bank account at the county.
Scott
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 16, 2005 08:14 AMNice use of the "Big Bank Account"! Nice touch!
This is an important read...
California Voters Get “F” in Education
What Really Gets Californians’ Knickers in a Twist
(June 10, 2005)
~ By Jill Stewart
A recent Public Policy Institute of California poll shows that while Californians have strong opinions on what to do about public education, they have no idea what's going on. I give the public an “F” in Education.
As a wonderfully sneaky test of awareness, PPIC asked Californians in a recent survey how much of the state budget is spent on public schools. They were clueless. Only one in three knew that public education is by far the biggest item, sucking up half the budget--very roughly, $50 billion of $100 billion.
Ignorant voters insist more money pour into the schools, not knowing California spends more on schools than the entire operating budgets of each of the 49 other states, including New York.
Here’s reality: The National Education Association (NEA) and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) rank California in the middle on per-pupil-spending. We’re at the comfy median. We do not “under-fund” our schools despite our many troubles.
Why doesn’t everybody know this?
The PPIC poll shows how misconceptions are driven by partisanship in California. Democrats tend to believe (ridiculously) that California’s prisons get the most state money. Republicans tend to believe (absurdly) that social welfare gets the most state money.
People are ignorant in part because our crisis-driven media often lazily push the myth that California is near “the bottom” in school funding. That myth is a product of the education lobby, led by the California Teachers Association, which makes sure California teachers earn the highest salaries in the nation, yet constantly whines that schools are under-funded.
The myth was furthered in January when Rand Corp. released a just-plain-wrong study showing California wallowing near the bottom.
Rand had not returned my call by press time, but state Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer notes that Rand included “all children who had excused absences” in California but didn’t attend school. The 49 other states did not inflate attendance in this way. Rand has acknowledged that by dividing spending by an inflated student count, it probably affected California’s outcome. (The Rand folks later called me to complain that their study does make clear that California is in the middle in some measures of funding, and insisted that the California media broadly misunderstood their study. Oh, please. Plainly, the Rand study tries to trumpet that we are near the bottom. It clearly attempts to downplay rankings showing us in the middle. Sadly, it succeeded.)
Eric Hanushek, at the Hoover Institution, notes of the broad misconceptions about California school financing: "We’re not even close to eighth from the bottom---nowhere near that. We are at or near the middle in the nation.” Frank Johnson, a respected statistician for NCES, adds, “California per pupil funding is near the middle. Some people are presenting data in a way that supports their (political) views.”
According to the NCES, California spent $7,552 per student in 2002-03. The national median was $7,574. So we’re $22 short. God how awful! No wonder our kids are near the bottom in math and reading! Fresh NEA data mirrors the NCES data. Its "Rankings & Estimates" report shows that California in 2003-04 was in the middle nationally, spending $7,692 per pupil.
Yet California voters imagine themselves to be well-informed. The PPIC poll says, “72 percent believe voters should make decisions about the budget and governmental reforms rather than abdicate that responsibility to the governor and legislature … But when it comes to the budget, how much knowledge do residents bring to the table? Only 29 percent of Californians can identify the top category for state spending (K-12 education).”
Palmer, of the Department of Finance, explains: “People just do not get that when California adds billions each year to the schools---which we do---adding another $1 billion means you multiply $1 million by one thousand.”
The education lobby loves to cite a 2002-03 national average per-pupil spending of $8,041, in order to make California seem $489 behind other states. Rand uses a similar ploy in its biased and misbegotten study of school financing in California. The “average” cited by naysayers is badly distorted by three states and Washington D.C., who spent $11,057 to $12,568 per pupil---far more than the other 47 states.
Washington, D.C. schools spend princely sums to no effect in schools so infamously bad that National Assessment of Educational Progress tests for 2003 showed L.A. kids beating D.C. kids in English. That’s remarkable, since 43.2 percent of L.A.’s kids were struggling to learn English as a second language; only 12.5 percent of D.C. kids were struggling to learn English as their second language. Money seems to hurt, rather than help.
Meanwhile, New York City’s kids beat L.A. kids in English by a modest margin (yet only 17 percent of NYC kids are struggling to learn English), but the NYC “victory” in 2003 was fake since sly New York officials painted over their own achievement disaster by preventing huge numbers of low-achieving and immigrant kids from taking the test. California, to its credit, did not do that sleight of hand. Again, money seems to hurt New York rather than help.
So much for the power of money to change the schools. The more typical states in 2002-03 spent 6,000 to $8,000 per child---including median California. The lowest-spending state, Utah, spent less than $5,000 per pupil to no apparent ill effect. Lack of money didn't hurt Utah.
Recently, California’s fair-minded and non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office questioned the constant whining. “The analytic basis for pursuing the national average as a spending goal is unclear,” it said. California “should be concerned more with how its students perform.”
Quite a concept. But instead we hear again and again from the overwrought adult lobbying groups, including the intellectually corrupt CTA (an awful, “me-first” trade union that previously brought us “whole language” and “bilingual” education). Now the same bunch is insisting that “smaller class size” is the extremely costly way to fix the schools. Lower class size is yet another red herring promoted by the same people who have caused schools to fail for 30 years.
Studies do not show that kids achieve better when they’re around 20 instead of 30 students. Teachers enjoy smaller classes---but they don't teach any better. Yet California is foolishly pouring billions into the class-size fantasy because it “sounds right.” Today, Proposition 98 guarantees that huge sums are diverted to schools each year---with no guarantee we spend it any better than do the terrible public schools in Washington, D.C. and NYC.
Even though Prop. 98 sucks up so much money that our freeways cannot be maintained and our health programs must be curtailed, California voters say education is a top-most worry---with many voters wrongly convinced that funding is the issue.
Let's say a prayer together, that one day California voters will put less energy into mere fretting about education, and more energy into actually becoming educated.
---end article by Jill Stewart---
So this is really a case of, "My numbers support more educational funding" and "your numbers support keeping educational funding pretty close to where we are."
I think I've said this a few times. What if we need more funding and controlling the costs more. These are not mutually exclusive objectives.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at October 17, 2005 12:45 PMI think what it says, is we need someone to tell us, with actual numbers, what it takes to run a school district, a school etc..
But, no one will.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at October 17, 2005 01:45 PMwhere is the graph on yes prop 76, and if voted yes than how does this help the state or the schools?
please get back to me asap. i have a paper to write due on monday.. November 11, 2005 i really need your help..
where is the graph on yes prop 76, and if voted yes than how does this help the state or the schools?
please get back to me asap. i have a paper to write due on monday.. November 11, 2005 i really need your help..
thank you for your efforts
Hi,
What type of graph are you looking for? What school do you go to, and what is your paper on? We'll try and help you get the information you need.
Tim
Posted by: t at November 2, 2005 01:42 PM
I really hate enacting spending limits by a proposition. This method does not provide for proper legislative analysis. It is now clear to us that Prop 98 suffered from structural flaws, especially the “guarantee” of future funding regardless of state revenues. But because the legislators have not been able to fix these flaws, the citizens again have to resort to another proposition. And while 76 is probably not perfect, it at least repairs the visible flaws of 98.
Our legislators were not able to manage the one-time surplus of some $12 BILLION. They did not put the surplus away for a rainy day. They spent it as fast as they could. If the spending had been limited to one-time expenditures, it would have been OK. But they chose to use this windfall to fund recurring items. This is a big piece of what ultimately led to the “structural” deficit that we have experienced over the last several years.
So given that we do have a structural deficit, and given that the legislators have not been able to fix it, we have no choice other than to give one elected official, accountable to the voters, the authority to say “no” to deficit spending. If the governor does not use his powers wisely, we will elect a different governor.
I support Prop 76.
Posted by: Jerre Reimers at October 13, 2005 08:51 AM