Nude - 18 November 2009 08:15 PM

I’ll settle for either a) an admission that you don’t really have a link where anyone claims that the entire $55 Billion deficit (or even the $40 billion you claimed a few days ago) could be closed by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse or b) an actual link to someone claiming that. What you have offered isn’t either of those, can’t support your initial claim, and isn’t even addressing your contention. In fact, one could infer from all your dancing around the accusation that you can’t support that you actually prefer to continue funding WFA rather than make any attempt to eliminate it at all, and thereby preventing a reduction in government.

Coincidentally, show me any other meaningful budget solution that has been offered by anyone in the CA GOP other than WFA.

Nothing personal Nude, but you aren’t in this state listening to these Meg Whitman radio spots.  No new solutions, same old themes.

no_vaseline - 18 November 2009 09:42 PM

Nude - 18 November 2009 08:15 PM

I’ll settle for either a) an admission that you don’t really have a link where anyone claims that the entire $55 Billion deficit (or even the $40 billion you claimed a few days ago) could be closed by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse or b) an actual link to someone claiming that. What you have offered isn’t either of those, can’t support your initial claim, and isn’t even addressing your contention. In fact, one could infer from all your dancing around the accusation that you can’t support that you actually prefer to continue funding WFA rather than make any attempt to eliminate it at all, and thereby preventing a reduction in government.

Coincidentally, show me any other meaningful budget solution that has been offered by anyone in the CA GOP other than WFA.

Nothing personal Nude, but you aren’t in this state listening to these Meg Whitman radio spots.  No new solutions, same old themes.

I’m not taking it personally

But you still haven’t substantiated your claim. And California isn’t the only state with budget problems… or WFA, for that matter. However, California is particularly effed because of mandated allocations of any tax hikes and powerful unions and lobbyists that insist their ox is too important to be gored.

But regardless of State or Nation:

When one party is heavily dependent on what goods and services it can deliver back home, they aren’t inclined to be budget-minded… especially when they can claim that “they” can afford to pay more. When one party is heavily dependent on lowering costs and taxes for individuals and businesses, they aren’t inclined to agree to more spending… especially when their constituency is the “they” who are expected to cover the costs. The only solutions are to either grow the tax base which leads to increased revenue, or raising the tax rate which leads to increased revenue, or reduce the budget which leads to current needs matching revenue. Obviously, the preferred choice is to grow the base so you can both keep rates low and meet budgetary needs. In times of low revenue due to economic hardship, growing the base is not an option. That leaves raising taxes or lowering revenue requirements or both. If you are trying to stimulate an economy with government spending and running a deficit to do so, raising taxes seems counter-productive.

Maybe you have a better solution…

Nude - 18 November 2009 08:15 PM

no_vaseline - 18 November 2009 05:29 PM

Nude - 18 November 2009 05:44 AM

no_vaseline - 18 November 2009 04:27 AM

We need to kick the WFA savings up to roughly 55 billion.  Get a crackin’.

I gave you a pass last time, but you’ve stuck with it so… show me where anyone, anywhere, at anytime, has said that eliminating WFA could close the budget gap. You can’t because no one has. Not on this board, not in the California government, not anywhere in the country has anyone claimed that WFA could close California’s budget gap. So either take your strawman back to the cornfield or put up some links.

Is this what you had in mind, or did you want something else more?

I’ll settle for either a) an admission that you don’t really have a link where anyone claims that the entire $55 Billion deficit (or even the $40 billion you claimed a few days ago) could be closed by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse or b) an actual link to someone claiming that. What you have offered isn’t either of those, can’t support your initial claim, and isn’t even addressing your contention. In fact, one could infer from all your dancing around the accusation that you can’t support that you actually prefer to continue funding WFA rather than make any attempt to eliminate it at all, and thereby preventing a reduction in government.

Seriously, No_vas, did you catch the sleight of hand in Skelton’s column?  I’ve corresponded with Skelton on past columns of his, and he is a very bright guy who will return e-mails and engage in debate.  He will admit that he believes that we aren’t taxed enough in CA, and that the only way to fix CA is to raise taxes even higher.  He is clearly an advocate for higher taxes, and a very talented columnist.  Here, he very cleverly stated that GENERAL FUND spending only went up 27%, when Whitman made no such distinction - she included all spending.

IN FACT, Meg whitman is absolutely correct - she even understated the growth in spending!

The 1998-1999 CA State Expenditure Totals, Including Federal Funds, was $109.6 BILLION.

The 2008-2009 CA State Expenditure Totals, Including Federal Funds, was $208.9 BILLION.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/CHART-B.pdf

What is your deal here?  Do you sincerely think CA is run efficiently, and that we aren’t overtaxed?

CM_Dude - 19 November 2009 12:51 AM

What is your deal here?  Do you sincerely think CA is run efficiently,

No.  I applaud the efforts to get WFA under control.

and that we aren’t overtaxed?

Yes, I believe we aren’t overtaxed - particularly if you are a property owner.  IMO Proposition 13 helps fuel CA’s boom/bust RE cycle, caused wave after wave of “fees” and other weird taxes to offset it, and caused CA schools to go from first to worst in the course of a decade.

no_vaseline - 19 November 2009 01:30 AM

CM_Dude - 19 November 2009 12:51 AM

What is your deal here?  Do you sincerely think CA is run efficiently,

No.  I applaud the efforts to get WFA under control.

and that we aren’t overtaxed?

Yes, I believe we aren’t overtaxed - particularly if you are a property owner.  IMO Proposition 13 helps fuel CA’s boom/bust RE cycle, caused wave after wave of “fees” and other weird taxes to offset it, and caused CA schools to go from first to worst in the course of a decade.

I can respect your opinion regarding Prop. 13, but that doesn’t address the rest of CA state spending.  Our schools get nearly $50 BILLION a year in general fund monies alone, yet constantly operate in a state of crisis where there is little to no accountability.  I’m not spewing talking points here, but reality - you have some districts doing a fantastic job, and some that are terribly run fiscal black holes - like LAUSD or SAUSD.  The answer is not increasing the money, but increasing accountability.  Not no child left behind or standardized testing, but fiscal accountability.  You are right about the way funding is allocated - perhaps it should be a strictly dollar per pupil calcualtion, regardless of geography or demographics. 

But bottom line is the CA state government simply spends way too much trying to do too much for too many people.  Just look at the increase in spending in the last ten years.  That level of spending means that massive, unprecedented cuts will be necessary, and Democrats will scream about dying babies and laid-off teachers, when in reality, just ten years ago, the state made do with and spent just over HALF what it spent last year.

CM_Dude - 19 November 2009 02:00 AM

no_vaseline - 19 November 2009 01:30 AM

CM_Dude - 19 November 2009 12:51 AM

What is your deal here?  Do you sincerely think CA is run efficiently,

No.  I applaud the efforts to get WFA under control.

and that we aren’t overtaxed?

Yes, I believe we aren’t overtaxed - particularly if you are a property owner.  IMO Proposition 13 helps fuel CA’s boom/bust RE cycle, caused wave after wave of “fees” and other weird taxes to offset it, and caused CA schools to go from first to worst in the course of a decade.

I can respect your opinion regarding Prop. 13, but that doesn’t address the rest of CA state spending.  Our schools get nearly $50 BILLION a year in general fund monies alone, yet constantly operate in a state of crisis where there is little to no accountability.  I’m not spewing talking points here, but reality - you have some districts doing a fantastic job, and some that are terribly run fiscal black holes - like LAUSD or SAUSD.  The answer is not increasing the money, but increasing accountability.  Not no child left behind or standardized testing, but fiscal accountability.  You are right about the way funding is allocated - perhaps it should be a strictly dollar per pupil calcualtion, regardless of geography or demographics. 

But bottom line is the CA state government simply spends way too much trying to do too much for too many people.  Just look at the increase in spending in the last ten years.  That level of spending means that massive, unprecedented cuts will be necessary, and Democrats will scream about dying babies and laid-off teachers, when in reality, just ten years ago, the state made do with and spent just over HALF what it spent last year.

Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district’s operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.

CM_Dude - 19 November 2009 02:00 AM

I can respect your opinion regarding Prop. 13, but that doesn’t address the rest of CA state spending.  Our schools get nearly $50 BILLION a year in general fund monies alone, yet constantly operate in a state of crisis where there is little to no accountability.  I’m not spewing talking points here, but reality - you have some districts doing a fantastic job, and some that are terribly run fiscal black holes - like LAUSD or SAUSD.  The answer is not increasing the money, but increasing accountability.  Not no child left behind or standardized testing, but fiscal accountability.  You are right about the way funding is allocated - perhaps it should be a strictly dollar per pupil calcualtion, regardless of geography or demographics.

The schools back home (there is a rural CA) are as bad as LAUSD and SAUSD and spend half as much.  We have a whole class of public educated students who don’t have a snowballs chance in hell because they don’t speak english as a primary language when they hit the door as kindergardeners.  Call me a rasist, but that’s the problem. 

But bottom line is the CA state government simply spends way too much trying to do too much for too many people.

Relative to the taxes it collects?  I agree.  Too bad the voters never saw a tax cut they didn’t love or a spending program they didn’t also love.  Kind of paints the legislature into a corner.

Just look at the increase in spending in the last ten years.  That level of spending means that massive, unprecedented cuts will be necessary, and Democrats will scream about dying babies and laid-off teachers, when in reality, just ten years ago, the state made do with and spent just over HALF what it spent last year.

Price of a gallon of gas 1999: $1.20
Price of a gallon of gas 2009: $3.00

What is the conclusion you are trying to draw?

tmare - 19 November 2009 02:33 AM

Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district’s operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.

So, tell me how you feel about BTSA?

Nude - 19 November 2009 03:10 AM

tmare - 19 November 2009 02:33 AM

Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district’s operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.

So, tell me how you feel about BTSA?

BTSA is a ridiculous waste of money and time. The poor teachers stuck in that program spend more time spinning their wheels and jumping through hoops when they would rather spend their time becoming involved in their schools. I spent five years as a Mentor Teacher doing things that actually mattered to new teachers, I gave it up when the BTSA program was initiated, I refused to be a part of it. Now I just listen to new teachers complain about how they can’t run a club for students or coach an academic team because they have to attend meetings and do assignments for this program while they are still trying to do the jobs they were hired to do. The worst part about the program is that for the last two years, the teachers in the program (without Math or Special Ed credentials) have had to deal with being RIF’d and not even knowing if they were going to have a job the following year. How’s that?

tmare - 19 November 2009 03:19 AM

Nude - 19 November 2009 03:10 AM

tmare - 19 November 2009 02:33 AM

Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district’s operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.

So, tell me how you feel about BTSA?

BTSA is a ridiculous waste of money and time. The poor teachers stuck in that program spend more time spinning their wheels and jumping through hoops when they would rather spend their time becoming involved in their schools. I spent five years as a Mentor Teacher doing things that actually mattered to new teachers, I gave it up when the BTSA program was initiated, I refused to be a part of it. Now I just listen to new teachers complain about how they can’t run a club for students or coach an academic team because they have to attend meetings and do assignments for this program while they are still trying to do the jobs they were hired to do. The worst part about the program is that for the last two years, the teachers in the program (without Math or Special Ed credentials) have had to deal with being RIF’d and not even knowing if they were going to have a job the following year. How’s that?

Don’t hold back now… the more you rant the more I learn

tmare - 19 November 2009 03:19 AM

Nude - 19 November 2009 03:10 AM

tmare - 19 November 2009 02:33 AM

Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district’s operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.

So, tell me how you feel about BTSA?

BTSA is a ridiculous waste of money and time. The poor teachers stuck in that program spend more time spinning their wheels and jumping through hoops when they would rather spend their time becoming involved in their schools. I spent five years as a Mentor Teacher doing things that actually mattered to new teachers, I gave it up when the BTSA program was initiated, I refused to be a part of it. Now I just listen to new teachers complain about how they can’t run a club for students or coach an academic team because they have to attend meetings and do assignments for this program while they are still trying to do the jobs they were hired to do. The worst part about the program is that for the last two years, the teachers in the program (without Math or Special Ed credentials) have had to deal with being RIF’d and not even knowing if they were going to have a job the following year. How’s that?

This is consistent with what I’ve heard from my friends who had to go through the program.

Get math credentials.  Problem solved.  Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.

no_vaseline - 19 November 2009 02:52 AM

Price of a gallon of gas 1999: $1.20
Price of a gallon of gas 2009: $3.00

What is the conclusion you are trying to draw?

How much did that 42 inch Plasma TV cost in 1997?  $14,995.

Today?  $797.95 courtesy of Amazon.  Free shipping.

Your point was?

No_Such_Reality - 19 November 2009 04:34 AM

no_vaseline - 19 November 2009 02:52 AM

Price of a gallon of gas 1999: $1.20
Price of a gallon of gas 2009: $3.00

What is the conclusion you are trying to draw?

How much did that 42 inch Plasma TV cost in 1997?  $14,995.

Today?  $797.95 courtesy of Amazon.  Free shipping.

Your point was?

Wow!  What has been the technological innovation in the classroom that has radically reduced the cost of producing students the same way as producing TV’s?

Spill it yo!

Arnold pointed out a tv that was inapporpriately found via WFA.  It was $500.  Hundred thousand of those or so, we’re home free!

no_vaseline - 19 November 2009 02:52 AM

Price of a gallon of gas 1999: $1.20
Price of a gallon of gas 2009: $3.00

What is the conclusion you are trying to draw?

How much of that increase was a rise in Federal taxes? How much was a rise in State taxes? How much was minimum wage 10 years ago? How much was a gallon of milk?

As NSR pointed out, many goods cost fractions less. How much was 320GB of drive space in 1999? How much was a Compaq Presario? How much were pair of Levi jeans or a hair cut?

What was the conclusion you were trying to imply?

Nude - 19 November 2009 04:49 AM

What was the conclusion you were trying to imply?

Other than pointing out that he was falsely inferring that the schools were spending double with nothing to show for it and it was ridiculous to state it as evidence they were failing to deliver?

If somebody wants to point out the schools are wasting that double, great, post that.  But don’t waste my time.

Res ipsa loquitur

The State has a 1 in 4 drop out rate.

Places like Los Angeles are 1 in 3.

I love it when people try to use electronics as a basis of a pricing index.

All of my life there has always been this constant with electronics or computers.
Moores Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore’s_law

Or as I was taught back in the late 70`s. 
Every 18 months you can buy twice the computing power for half the price.
And almost 40 years later. This law still exists.

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DropoutReporting/DropoutsByGrade.aspx?cDistrictName=State&cCountyCode=00&cDistrictCode=0000000&cSchoolCode=0000000&Level=State&TheReport=GradeOnly&ProgramName=All&cYear=2006-07&cAggSum=StTotGrade&cGender=B

There’s the chart for all the CA counties.

State Total:  6,008 7,417 12,426 12,862 15,864 43,209 242 84,603 1,997,181 16.8%  4.2%  13,017 37,425 109,011 21.1%  5.5%

Oh yippie, their self reported tool shows only 21.1%.  Slightly over 1 in 5, somewhat under 1 in 4.

Res ispa ...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/high-school-dropout-rate-climbs-to-349.html

“The high school dropout rate improved slightly in California last year but rose in Los Angeles, where more than one-third of students are officially classified as dropouts, state officials said Tuesday.”