Socialism type spending starting to implode

[rushmc 23]

Hmm, agian found on NewMax but from where?

AP

High-Spending California School System Collapsing

Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:55 PM

Article Font Size






RICHMOND, Calif. -- California's historic budget crisis threatens to devastate a public education system that was once considered a national model but now ranks near the bottom in school funding and academic achievement.


Deep budget cuts are forcing California school districts to lay off thousands of teachers, expand class sizes, close schools, eliminate bus service, cancel summer school programs, and possibly shorten the academic year.


Without a strong economic recovery, which few experts predict, the reduced school funding could last for years, shortchanging millions of students, driving away residents and businesses, and darkening California's economic future.


"California used to lead the nation in education," U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said during a recent visit to San Francisco. "Honestly, I think California has lost its way, and I think the long-term consequences of that are very troubling."


The budget cuts will be especially painful for struggling schools such as Richmond High School, where more than half of its 1,700 students are English learners and three-quarters are considered poor. The East Bay area school has failed to meet academic standards set by the federal No Child Left Behind Act for more than four years.


Now Richmond High stands to lose 10 percent of its 80 teachers. Electives such as French and woodshop will be scrapped. Some classes will expand to more than 40 students. And many special education and English-language students will be placed in mainstream classes.


"We're going to see more and more students slipping through the cracks as those class sizes increase," said Assistant Principal Jen Bender.


Richmond High students are worried about how the cuts will affect their education and ability to attend college.


"I think we won't be able to learn as much," said freshman Andrew Taylor, 15. "They should put more money into schools. If you take money away from schools, you're going to end up with more people going to jail."


Slammed by an epic housing bust and massive job losses, California faces a $24 billion budget deficit and could run out of cash by late July if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature cannot reach a budget deal.


To balance the budget, the governor has proposed closing more than 200 state parks, releasing prisoners early, selling state property, laying off state workers and cutting health care.


Under the governor's plan, K-12 schools and community colleges would lose $5.3 billion over the coming year _ on top of billions of dollars in recent reductions and payment delays.


The state would spend $7,806 per K-12 student in 2009-10, almost 10 percent less than two years ago, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.


Federal stimulus funds have prevented deeper cuts to a public school system that educates 6.3 million children, of which about a quarter do not speak English well, and nearly half are considered poor under federal guidelines.


School districts have already issued layoff notices to more than 30,000 teachers and other employees, and they could issue more pink slips this summer, according to the state Department of Education.


"All of the things that make schools vibrant and help students learn are on the chopping block, if they haven't been cut already," Robin Swanson, a spokeswoman for the Education Coalition, which advocates funding increases. "When school doors open in the fall, it's going to be a very different public school system."


Many Democrats and school advocates are calling for tax increases to lessen the impact on schools, but Republicans oppose raising taxes. They say California should live within its means and school districts should be given more flexibility to spend their funds.


"You can't spend what you don't have, and you can't spend what the taxpayers don't have," said State Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, vice chair of the Senate Education Committee.


The unprecedented budget cuts mark a new low for a once highly regarded public school system that began its decline in 1978, when voters approved Proposition 13, which undercut counties' ability to raise property taxes and generate revenue. The ballot measure shifted the responsibility of funding schools to the state and made it more difficult to increase education funding.


California schools now rank at or near the bottom nationally in academic performance, student-teacher ratios in middle and high school, access to guidance counselors and the percentage of seniors who go directly to four-year colleges, according to a February report by UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education and Access.


In its annual survey this year, Education Week magazine ranked California 47th in per-pupil spending and gave the state a D in academic achievement.


In recent decades, California developed a robust, innovative economy by importing educated workers from other states and countries. But a recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California projected that the state would face a shortage of nearly 1 million college-educated workers in 2025.


State education officials say the budget cuts threaten recent gains in raising test scores and closing a persistent achievement gap between black and Latino students and their white and Asian counterparts.


Democrats are now proposing to eliminate the high school exit exam as a graduation requirement. Jack O'Connell, the state schools chief, has says the exam is essential to helping identify students who fall behind.


The state's budget crisis is taking a heavy toll on school districts such as West Contra Costa Unified, whose financial troubles made it the first school district to be taken over by the state in 1991. Officials say the district, which has large numbers of poor students and English language learners, could face another state takeover if it cannot overcome a $16 million budget shortfall.


"The system is broken," said school board member Antonio Medrano. "We are being forced to cut all kinds of programs."


The cuts are expected to lead to sharp reductions or complete elimination of after-school programs, summer school, adult education, guidance counselors, and electives such as art and music. Class sizes are set to expand from 20 to more than 30 students for kindergarten through third grade.


The teachers union is threatening to strike to protest layoffs of 125 teachers, larger class sizes and proposed cuts to their health care benefits.


"We can't cut our way out of this. We really can't. There will be nothing left of education," said Pixie Hayward-Schickele, who heads the teachers union.


Richmond High School students are bracing for crowded classrooms, fewer course offerings and fewer teachers.


"This school is already overcrowded," said junior Jessica Ledesma, 17. "If there are more students, it's going to be harder to pay attention because it will be loud and crowded and stuffy in there."





© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,998]

>Without a strong economic recovery, which few experts predict, the
>reduced school funding could last for years, shortchanging millions of
>students, driving away residents and businesses, and darkening
>California's economic future.

So if the "socialism" model fails, the state will suffer serious economic consequences. I guess all those businesses will move to areas with better socialistic policies, eh?

You're sorta defeating your own argument, there.

[rhaig 0]

well considering that the scope of this article was about CA specifically, it's certainly likely that those businesses will move out of state.

you seem to be applying a different scope to this article.

--
Rob

[carmenc 0]

Proposition 13 was Socialist?
Jarvis and Gann were Socialists?
You are seriously misinformed.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Without a strong economic recovery, which few experts predict, the
>reduced school funding could last for years, shortchanging millions of
>students, driving away residents and businesses, and darkening
>California's economic future.

So if the "socialism" model fails, the state will suffer serious economic consequences. I guess all those businesses will move to areas with better socialistic policies, eh?

You're sorta defeating your own argument, there.

Quote

I think what is meant is that CA is an example of a failed socialist program and a preview of what will happen if the country continues to follow the road that it is on. most new jobs are being created in the states with the least in taxes and leaving the larger more taxed states and the people that live there to suffer until they figure out that you can't over tax the ones that provide the jobs and you can't pay for illegal imigration and dead beats off the back of the people that work hard and pay their own way through life.

[billvon 2,998]

>well considering that the scope of this article was about CA specifically,
>it's certainly likely that those businesses will move out of state.

Agreed. However, they will not move to a state that has no "socialized education" since every state in the US has such a system. They will move to a state where the socialized aspects of state government simply work better.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

They will move to a state where the socialized aspects of state government simply work better.

Or are smaller. Which is most likely, given that California has the largest state government.

Although, perhaps surprisingly, it seems that the smaller they are, the better they work, in most cases.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

What is the association between deficit spending and socialism?

Answer: none. Or was Reagan a Socialist, while he was fighting the Communists?

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

They will move to a state where the socialized aspects of state government simply work better.

Or are smaller. Which is most likely, given that California has the largest state government.

.

It also has the largest state population. A per-capita comparison would be more useful.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

What is the association between deficit spending and socialism?

Answer: none. Or was Reagan a Socialist, while he was fighting the Communists?

That doesn't mean there's no relation.

Reagan pretty much did invent deficit spending. But it's a stunningly popular political tool--you get to reap the political benefits of dispensing the patronage, and then leave the tab to your successor(s) to pay, making it a favored tactic of many politicians (of all stripes).

The obvious relation is that more spending means more deficit spending, because in modern American politics, the will to actually raise taxes to levels adequate to fund spending is non-existent, and the will to cut spending to reach the level of tax funding available is also non-existent.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[carmenc 0]

Quote

What is the association between deficit spending and socialism?

Answer: none. Or was Reagan a Socialist, while he was fighting the Communists?

Keynseans would recommend deficit spending in a recession or for urgent national defense needs. Trouble is, we've been deficit spending like there's no tomorrow in the good times too, when we should have been saving.

[kelpdiver 2]

Prop 13, which is a contributor to the situation, is certainly not socialist. It effectively transferred the bulk of the property tax revenue from the commercial side to the residential, since businesses don't move, and property doesn't change owner nearly so much as people do.

And California's problem with growing the budget during booms with no thought of how to handle to troughs also has nothing to do with socialism.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They will move to a state where the socialized aspects of state government simply work better.

Or are smaller. Which is most likely, given that California has the largest state government.

.

It also has the largest state population. A per-capita comparison would be more useful.

There is many per student dollars spent numbers out there. If I remember correctly CA is at the upper end

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They will move to a state where the socialized aspects of state government simply work better.

Or are smaller. Which is most likely, given that California has the largest state government.

.

It also has the largest state population. A per-capita comparison would be more useful.

California is ranked 12th in per capita spending. Source.

I don't have any numbers (I'd love to see them if someone else does), but anecdotally, the majority of flight from California appears to be headed toward the Southwest and the Mountain West, where most states have much lower per capita spending (Idaho 38th, Utah 34th, Nevada , Colorado 45th, Arizona 41st, Oregon 24th, Washington 19th but New Mexico 7th and Wyoming 2nd)

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Prop 13, which is a contributor to the situation, is certainly not socialist. It effectively transferred the bulk of the property tax revenue from the commercial side to the residential, since businesses don't move, and property doesn't change owner nearly so much as people do.

I was unaware of the difference between business and residential ownership change rates. Can you point me at a source for that?


Prop 13 is a generally anti-tax bit of law. The two halves that create deficit spending are spending more than you earn, and earning less than you spend. In general, a reluctance to raise taxes combined with a desire to dish out patronage results in deficit spending. Unfortunately, low taxes are almost (but not quite, I think) as politically popular as patronage spending.

Fiscal irresponsibility doesn't really have a party. Although the Republicans tend to give it more lip service, the truth is that you're as likely to see fiscal responsibility on either side. Reagan, a Republican icon, was the virtual creator of deficit spending. McCain, the latest Republican standard bearer, is a deficit hawk, going so far as to vote against tax cuts (which he knew would be massively unpopular) that weren't balanced by spending cuts. Obama appears bent on deficit spending us into oblivion, while Clinton, the guy the right loves to hate (and who the left appears intent on forgetting as fast as they can) was the most fiscally responsible president of the modern era. And while we're talking about California, let's not forget that the most fiscally prudent state executive in modern history was Governor Moonbeam, practically a poster child for the "loony left" because of other issues.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Trouble is, we've been deficit spending like there's no tomorrow in the good times too, when we should have been saving.

Yes...yes we have.

Quote

What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'

"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome." -Robert Heinlein

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'

"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome." -Robert Heinlein

I'm a huge Heinlein fan, so don't get me wrong here, but I think that Heinlein is wrong about restricting the franchise.

A far better solution is to create a universal franchise, but absolutely limit the powers that are exercised by the government.

I once read a Heinlein essay where he called this concept "Constitutional Tyranny," meaning that the majority will was an absolute tyrant, but it was strictly limited in it's area of influence by the underlying social contract (he also theorized placing the limited power of government in one person, then having elections for that one person).

The real key to avoiding the "death of bread and circuses" is to restrict the powers of government (with no way to broaden them)--not to restrict the franchise. I think this lesson was taken to heart by the drafters of the US Constitution--it's unfortunate that we've managed to undo their wisdom by creating giant loopholes to enlarge government power into areas that are clearly forbidden to it.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,998]

>Or are smaller.

Or are larger in ways they prefer. Many states offer incentives to large companies - free infrastructure, cheap loans, breaks in regulatory laws etc - to entice companies to move there. Wal-Mart is famously good at getting such concessions out of local governments.

Any company looking at a place to build is going to evaluate a lot of variables:

-Is the workforce that I need there? If a company needs VHDL designers and wafer-fab techs, Libby MT might not be such a good place to build, even if taxes are low. San Jose might be better even if the real estate costs are astronomical.

-How expensive will it be to operate there? Factors like real estate costs, taxes, cost of living (affects labor costs) infrastructure they may have to build (roads, sewers etc,)

-What can I get from the local government? If the government is handing out cheap loans to spur development, or offering freebies like infrastructure, that may make a difference.

The ideal environment for some companies is going to be lots of corporate "socialism" (i.e. lots of free stuff) but not a lot of spending on things like schools or public health. Other companies may decide that having good schools etc will attract better workers, and that may sway them.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'

"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome." -Robert Heinlein

I'm a huge Heinlein fan, so don't get me wrong here, but I think that Heinlein is wrong about restricting the franchise.

That quote wasn't about restricting the franchise, as I recall - I'll look the passage up when I get back to quarters after work and make sure, though.

But, a quick comment to go with that theme - I think the REASONING given for restricting the franchise in 'Starship Troopers' is valid only IF "each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest".

Quote

A far better solution is to create a universal franchise, but absolutely limit the powers that are exercised by the government.

I once read a Heinlein essay where he called this concept "Constitutional Tyranny," meaning that the majority will was an absolute tyrant, but it was strictly limited in it's area of influence by the underlying social contract (he also theorized placing the limited power of government in one person, then having elections for that one person).

The real key to avoiding the "death of bread and circuses" is to restrict the powers of government (with no way to broaden them)--not to restrict the franchise. I think this lesson was taken to heart by the drafters of the US Constitution--it's unfortunate that we've managed to undo their wisdom by creating giant loopholes to enlarge government power into areas that are clearly forbidden to it.

Agreed. I like this idea as well:

Quote

A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education - e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups. Better luck next election! No lower age limit in this system - smart 12-yr-old girls vote every election while some of their mothers - and fathers - decline to be humiliated twice.

Edit to add:

Since we're talking about a money crunch, maybe this solution would raise some much-needed revenue?

Quote

It costs you 1/4 oz. troy of gold in local currency to enter the booth. Solve your quadratic and vote, and you get your money back. Flunk - and the state keeps it. With this one I guarantee that no one would vote who was not interested and would be most unlikely to vote if unsure of his ability to get that hundred bucks back.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Prop 13, which is a contributor to the situation, is certainly not socialist. It effectively transferred the bulk of the property tax revenue from the commercial side to the residential, since businesses don't move, and property doesn't change owner nearly so much as people do.

I was unaware of the difference between business and residential ownership change rates. Can you point me at a source for that?

It's a moving target, and the residential share is going to dip over the next 5 years with all of the foreclosures. But the effect of rewarding longevity will clearly favor businesses.

That's not to say I disapprove of Prop 13. I think it's quite fair to give people the ability to project their tax costs for owning a home.

But the claim being promoted is that socialism is the cause of problems in Sacramento, and that's not remotely true. Immigration policy might be cited - LA County has a much harder time educating people speaking dozens of languages (and not English) than New Mexico would, even with many Mexicans coming over the border. Nevermind the northern states which are still pretty white and established Americans.

[billvon 2,998]

"A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education - e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups."

Right. And once, say, the Green party gets into power, the question could become something like "which anthropogenic emissions cause global warming?" And if you answer "none" then a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups.

How would you be with that?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education - e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups."

Right. And once, say, the Green party gets into power, the question could become something like "which anthropogenic emissions cause global warming?" And if you answer "none" then a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups.

How would you be with that?

Once it's proven...I'm fine with that. There's still that pesky problem with CO2 *lagging* temperature in the historical record - I guess Obama's "Green Czar" will have to fix that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,998]

>Once it's proven...I'm fine with that.

OK. The Green Party will pass an Executive Order that says it's proven, and we're good to go.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Once it's proven...I'm fine with that.

OK. The Green Party will pass an Executive Order that says it's proven, and we're good to go.

"So Obamases has spoken - so mote it be"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

"A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education - e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups."

Right. And once, say, the Green party gets into power, the question could become something like "which anthropogenic emissions cause global warming?" And if you answer "none" then a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups.

How would you be with that?

Once it's proven...I'm fine with that. There's still that pesky problem with CO2 *lagging* temperature in the historical record - I guess Obama's "Green Czar" will have to fix that.

Just because you say it's not proven doesn't mean it's not proven.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.