Voters across California have approved the governor's proposition that would increase taxes on the wealthy and would add a quarter-cent sales tax to everyone. Was this the right solution for public education?
It is my opinion that we got the lottery all over again. It will give the public and many laid-off educators a sense that everything will be OK very soon. This is not the case! Will local school districts be hiring laid-off teachers, reopening school libraries and purchasing new computers or iPads for all students anytime soon? No!
There is a false sense that all of this money generated by Prop. 30 will go for education. Even though the governor has indicated it will go toward paying down the deficit and support lost funds for education, there will not be nearly enough money coming from this proposition to make up for the billions of dollars lost over the last five years.
The recovery in education will be slow and school districts will still be making cuts in their budgets this next year. A few laid-off teachers may be rehired, but this will be a slow process.
I personally was not a supporter of Prop. 30 because it is not a big-picture solution for education in California. We were 46th in funding for education and with Prop. 30 we will remain at the bottom of the list.
— Bill Habermehl was the superintendent of the Orange County Department of Education until his retirement earlier this year.
What would happen if the state raised taxes and got barely more new net tax revenue, after the millionaires left town. Who would be left to pay taxes?
Yeparoo, Mr. Habermehl's statement is accurate. The money that Prop 30 will generate this year alone has already been spent for education by the State. That is why the tax increase will be retroactive to Jan 1. Again, he is absolutely spot on when he says the recovery will be slow and more local trimming education may be required. California has relied too long on unsteady forms of revenue and major changes in the tax base are still required before any major spending can take place.
Yep is a long-time commentator from OC, so I'm pretty sure it's safe to say he was being facetious. But it is the beginning of an interesting discussion. Gov. Brown's budget this year was 5 percent bigger than the 2011-12 budget, so it's not that we didn't have the money. It's just that it was allocated differently, and he plaintively asked the public to make up the difference for schools.
To me the biggest issue, which California Dept of Education refuses to admit and address, is that we have a proverbial army of non-performing teachers out there who are soaking up salary and benefits and going through the motions of their work. They are tired, have no energy for the job anymore and simply want "what's coming" to them. Fine. Yes, more funding is needed for K-12 education. We need to offer competitive salaries and benefits. But with that money, we need to to be able fire the deadweight and bring in younger, better and more effective K-12 teachers. Otherwise California K-12 education will continue to circle the drain at 48th in the union in academic performance, right next to Louisiana and Mississippi. If you think tax increases are going to shore up CA's funding problem, perhaps it will in the short run. Over the long-run, CA education is hosed unless there are reforms. If you think tax increases are going to improve CA's performance in K-12 education, that's just wishful, delusional thinking.
mf - No local control of tax dollars for education means money grows legs and walks away. We can raise taxes all we want, and very little will actually go to education. It's sorta like UN aid to sent to Uganda to feed the poor and solve hunger. This is a broken record of fiscal fraud.
In sum, our long term decision that we don't want to pay for government services except when the economy is doing well--an implicit part of our revenue choices--has consequences. We don't get what we don't pay for.
Do you have any basis of fact to back up this opinion? An army?
We have a Prop. related mandate to spend 40% (?) of the general fund on education. Imagine if someone got a ballot initiative that made it mandatory for 70% of the budget to be spent on education. And/Or at least 25% to be spent on law enforcement. It may pass during a period when we have record revenues and one horrific crime, and then we are stuck with it. The main focus is on Prop 30. The real scare is that the legislature has the necessary power to finally get past the silly 2/3rd majority to increase taxes rule. Not a thing Brown or anyone can do about it. It is the silliness of the ballot initiative and this obstructionist/polarizing ideology, ironically, that ushered this mess in. You never want to force the ideological battle which has now resulted in a truly scary mandate for the 2/3rds. Way too easy to raise taxes is what we have chosen, by making it way too difficult to raise them even when needed. I guess the next ballot initiative will be a silly equalizer like we need 75% majority to raise taxes. We have already tied education and money in a deadly embrace. Largely, the only arguments one hears are: 1 more money will definitely help, or 2 more money will definitely not help.
Now it might be a good time for the legislature to create a law baring changes to California's constitution by the initiative process. California is only one of two states that allows those type of initiatives. Nevada is the other, except Nevada requires initiatives changing it's constitution to be voted on twice, in consecutive elections.
I haven't seen a "big-picture solution" come out of Sacramento or Washington D.C. in my lifetime. Did someone really expect to see anything different in this election?
I don't get why we spend more than what is in our pockets with no way of really ever paying back the debt on what we borrow. Why does the state get away with it year after year? If I did the same thing, I'd be in jail, or sleeping on the street.
Are we talking about the same state that has passed more and more laws to put and keep people in jail and prison, increasing the number of prisons, paying to fight lawsuits over the unconstitutional treatment of those people they put into prisons, while spending a ridiculously less amount of money on educating children? Is that the state you are talking about? If so, then yes, it is really quite simple, isn't it...
http://sanjuancapistrano.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-fundraising-pays-for-cusd-core-programs-013ce790