There are additional state funds that go to these schools as well. Cuts will take place there. Of course, what I really would like to see cut (and nearly eliminated) is special ed.
There may be but it isn't nearly so black and white as you think it might be.
For example the inner city school where I worked (Menlo Ave.) had tremendous turn over and a large number of uncredentialed teachers.
Most schools in the valley have staff that hasn't changed for eons. This schools might have one opening every couple years whereas the inner city school turned over about 33% of its staff every year.
When you look at the payroll for those schools, they are dramatically different. The valley school might have 20 teachers making top scale (say $75,000) while the school full of teachers that are inexperienced might be paying $40,000 per teacher on average.
That is one school receiving $1.5 million while the other school is receiving only $800,000.
LAUSD was sued to insure that inner-city schools got back this cash difference because it wasn't fair that the schools lost the money due to the environment keeping away experienced and credentialed teachers.
I'm personally paying up the ass in tuition fees thanks to education budget cuts. Thanks Davis, thanks UC Regents.
The money has been mismanaged, and as always, the tax payers will foot the bill.
Oh please, what did they do? Take back your little 5% reduction that had occurred when times are good?
(Old fogy voice)
Boy you don't even know tuition hikes. Back when I was attending CSULB in 1990-1991 they were raising the tuition over 40% a YEAR. That's right they were even disregarding the law that says it can only go up 10% a year.
How is that for inspiring some political cynacism in a group of young people?
They also cut the class schedule so bad that they were sometimes only offering a class you would need to gradutate once every TWO YEARS. If you missed it the first time around, tough.
I had a lot of friend during that time suddenly need 6-7 years to graduate. Me I managed to get out alive in five.
"Americans complaining about taxes are just too funny."
Not as funny as socialists thinking they understand how to form a working government, dearie.
You don't have any socialist governments in the US, my dear boy, just a right-wing party and a very right-wing party. Numerous state governments across the U.S., run by both parties, are facing similar budget crunches. The general trend in the 90s was to cut taxes and increase spending and hope that the good times would roll on forever.
You right-wingers really know how to run things. Live with the result.
I assure you that having worked in LAUSD for 5 years, the pay schedule is the same regardless of what school you worked at. There is no "combat pay." However those schools do get more money in terms of Title 1, 7 and other programs. Although they still will because although they have changed the names, those are federal funds.
Nick
Oh, and you're wrong. Have you checked the LAUSD website lately? There is combat pay, but in different forms...
Quote:
LAUSD SITE
Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program Now Available
Credentialed teachers, principals and assistant principals committed to working in low performing schools can qualify for at least $7,500 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. Teachers can purchase homes within the City of Los Angeles and throughout Los Angeles County. Visit the Extra Credit website to obtain specific information and requirements to participate in this home purchase opportunity.[/quote]
This is just one of many programs that sneak in combat pay. I knew I was right. Both my parents have worked in the district for a combined total of over 45 years and I have worked as a TA for three.
Oh, and you're wrong. Have you checked the LAUSD website lately? There is combat pay, but in different forms...
Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program Now Available
Credentialed teachers, principals and assistant principals committed to working in low performing schools can qualify for at least $7,500 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. Teachers can purchase homes within the City of Los Angeles and throughout Los Angeles County. Visit the Extra Credit website to obtain specific information and requirements to participate in this home purchase opportunity.
This is just one of many programs that sneak in combat pay. I knew I was right. Both my parents have worked in the district for a combined total of over 45 years and I have worked as a TA for three. [/QUOTE]
Well I suppose that could be considered a form of income, but it comes from the state of California instead of LAUSD from what I read.
Eitherway it would do little to bring qualified teachers to those schools.
Well I suppose that could be considered a form of income, but it comes from the state of California instead of LAUSD from what I read.
Eitherway it would do little to bring qualified teachers to those schools.
Nick [/B]
Also consider the fact that teachers at poor schools that receive title 1 funding don't have to go out and purchase as many supplies out of their own pocket. Again, I believe that can be construed as combat pay.
Also consider the fact that teachers at poor schools that receive title 1 funding don't have to go out and purchase as many supplies out of their own pocket. Again, I believe that can be construed as combat pay.
Again Title I is federal so California really cannot do much about that.
And it gets worse... this little bit of text comes from the email newsletter I get from my local state assemblymen. He is Republican so if you are not, take it with a grain of salt. However I think the point is well taken regardless of party affiliation.
Quote:
? It is hard to imagine California not making a business-related best-ever list. In another sign of this state?s economic decline, Forbes.com, the website for Forbes magazine, has released its annual ?Best Places For Business and Careers? and California does not have a single city listed among the top 25. San Diego was the highest ranked Californian city at 27th. The cities were ranked on their potential for job growth, educational attainment rank, and cost of doing business, including such factors as the price of labor, taxes, energy and office space.
So which cities beat out Los Angeles and San Francisco? Austin, Texas topped the list, followed by Boise, Idaho; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; and Madison, Wisconsin. The second five were: Provo, Utah; Omaha, Nebraska; Des Moines, Iowa; Dallas, Texas; and Washington D.C.-Northern Virginia. (Point your browser to www.forbes.com/2003/05/07/bestland.html for the complete list.)
It is easy to argue that May in California is more desirable than May in Iowa or Nebraska, which just set a record for the number of tornadoes to touch down in a 10 day period. However, our sunshine bonus has finite worth. Ending this state?s anti-business prejudice must be the No. 1 goal for Sacramento.
If you check the previous years California not only had cities among the top 25, but typically had 1 or 2 cities among the top 5. To not even have one city among the top 25 is indeed a change for the worse.
If you check the previous years California not only had cities among the top 25, but typically had 1 or 2 cities among the top 5. To not even have one city among the top 25 is indeed a change for the worse.
Well if you take out the Enron induced oil crisis things might not be so shitty.
I'm sure this will all boil down to being Clinton's fault, but in reality it's just a 'free market' that causes ups and downs. And when the 'free' is reduced to 'government supported monopolies' then the economy goes to shit.
I don't believe it is Clinton's fault. I place my blame a little closer to home. I blame Davis.
Heck I blame just about everyone here. I remember being so ticked off last election because it seemed there wasn't a single bond issue that didn't pass. We passed something like 150 BILLION+ in bonds which added something like 2-3 billion a year to our yearly spending requirement.
The growth of government workers here along with various councils involving mostly people who gave Davis money is pretty disgusting too.
I'll gladly yell at some Republicans as well because they want to borrow 10 billion dollars and pay it back over 30 years to help us get out of this mess. I don't want borrowing. I want some business friendly policies reinstated. I don't want a single tax increase (now) because when I read about them and the justifications, they NEVER go away.
I can remember when te sales tax in this state was 6%, can you? I remember it was raised to help pay for the Northridge earthquake, and amazingly, it has never gone back down.
They are going to add another .5% to the sales tax putting it at 8.75% in some counties. That is just ridiculous. It is also profoundly regressive.
Why should Davis be giving donors $125k a year jobs on committees that meet 12 times a year while the poor pay the most regressive tax ever?
Why should Davis be giving donors $125k a year jobs on committees that meet 12 times a year while the poor pay the most regressive tax ever?
Because politics are always nasty and criminal.
Seriously though, from what I understand the oil crisis/International Tech boom has had a disproportionate effect on Cali. I'm sure Davis is doing plenty more wrong than just giving out a few million for useless jobs, but I think the roots of the problem stretch back before he was around.
That doesn't mean he's the right man to clean it up though.
Seriously though, from what I understand the oil crisis/International Tech boom has had a disproportionate effect on Cali. I'm sure Davis is doing plenty more wrong than just giving out a few million for useless jobs, but I think the roots of the problem stretch back before he was around.
That doesn't mean he's the right man to clean it up though.
You could be correct that some of the revenue problems, with regard to coming in, aren't complete his doing, but the spending is entirely his doing.
Spending here has been so out of control that if we simply found a way to spend what the state spent in 1999. (Not exactly the stone age mind you) the entire deficit would go away.
You could be correct that some of the revenue problems, with regard to coming in, aren't complete his doing, but the spending is entirely his doing.
Spending here has been so out of control that if we simply found a way to spend what the state spent in 1999. (Not exactly the stone age mind you) the entire deficit would go away.
Without looking at the links I'd have to say California is in better shape than I thought. Sure, getting to 1999 levels will take some effort, but if that's all it's going to take it'll happen.
And although the spending is his fault, I imagine some of it's going to be anti-terror funds, unemployment, and other things that Bush & the Feds are withholding or are out of his control.
Again, that's not to say he's blameless. I just think that if you were to erase his mistakes, there'd still be a big economic problem in Cali. It just wouldn't be as big.
Yeah it would be real easy to get back to 1999 levels...IF (and you would see this in the links) they could simply control spending.
Here are some more select quotes from the articles...
Quote:
Nearly half of California's projected multibillion-dollar budget deficit will disappear if the governor and Legislature simply keep spending at current levels.
Quote:
Yet revenue is actually up 28 percent while spending skyrocketed 36 percent during Davis' first term. Indeed, had the state merely held the increase in spending during that time to the population growth and inflation, we'd have a $5 billion surplus today - and no need for new taxes.
Quote:
Next year, Davis wants to spend $89.3 billion. That's an increase of $12.6 billion ---- or 16.4 percent ----- over this year's budgeted spending.
Note that this is with the "painful cuts"
Quote:
California's Gov. Gray Davis will tell us this week how he expects to deal with his state government's projected shortfall, which could reach $35 billion over the next 18 months. That's right, $35 billion-about as much as the sum of the currently projected shortfalls of the other 49 states combined.
Quote:
State government spending was up 39 percent from 1996 to 2001. In the four years Davis has been governor, California's annual budget has soared from $74 billion to $99 billion, a 34 percent increase. For a time, that spending increase was fueled by the Silicon Valley boom: Capital gains yielded $17 billion to California in fiscal year 2000. But did California's politicians and budget analysts really think tech stocks would soar forever? From fiscal year 2000 to 2001, state spending rose 14 percent even as the high-tech sector plunged downward. One of the lessons of California's woes is that progressive taxes, which may be desirable for public-policy reasons, produce dangerously volatile revenue streams-huge amounts in good years, next to nothing when the stock market is falling.
Quote:
Any independent analysis of the state's deficit points to what happened during the stock market bubble year of 2000 as the root cause of the current mess.
Infused with a rush of capital gains tax revenue from stockholders cashing out of the market, the governor and Legislature went on a spending spree in 2000 and 2001. Instead of returning the state's budget to pre-bubble levels of 1999, the governor's proposal maintains many of those clearly unsustainable spending increases.
Spending is still going up 14% a year with a deficit and no sky stock market likely to return to fund it now, or just about ever.
Comments
Not as funny as socialists thinking they understand how to form a working government, dearie.
Originally posted by BR
There are additional state funds that go to these schools as well. Cuts will take place there. Of course, what I really would like to see cut (and nearly eliminated) is special ed.
There may be but it isn't nearly so black and white as you think it might be.
For example the inner city school where I worked (Menlo Ave.) had tremendous turn over and a large number of uncredentialed teachers.
Most schools in the valley have staff that hasn't changed for eons. This schools might have one opening every couple years whereas the inner city school turned over about 33% of its staff every year.
When you look at the payroll for those schools, they are dramatically different. The valley school might have 20 teachers making top scale (say $75,000) while the school full of teachers that are inexperienced might be paying $40,000 per teacher on average.
That is one school receiving $1.5 million while the other school is receiving only $800,000.
LAUSD was sued to insure that inner-city schools got back this cash difference because it wasn't fair that the schools lost the money due to the environment keeping away experienced and credentialed teachers.
Nick
Originally posted by serrano
I'm personally paying up the ass in tuition fees thanks to education budget cuts. Thanks Davis, thanks UC Regents.
The money has been mismanaged, and as always, the tax payers will foot the bill.
Oh please, what did they do? Take back your little 5% reduction that had occurred when times are good?
(Old fogy voice)
Boy you don't even know tuition hikes. Back when I was attending CSULB in 1990-1991 they were raising the tuition over 40% a YEAR. That's right they were even disregarding the law that says it can only go up 10% a year.
How is that for inspiring some political cynacism in a group of young people?
They also cut the class schedule so bad that they were sometimes only offering a class you would need to gradutate once every TWO YEARS. If you missed it the first time around, tough.
I had a lot of friend during that time suddenly need 6-7 years to graduate. Me I managed to get out alive in five.
Nick
Originally posted by mrmister
"Americans complaining about taxes are just too funny."
Not as funny as socialists thinking they understand how to form a working government, dearie.
You don't have any socialist governments in the US, my dear boy, just a right-wing party and a very right-wing party. Numerous state governments across the U.S., run by both parties, are facing similar budget crunches. The general trend in the 90s was to cut taxes and increase spending and hope that the good times would roll on forever.
You right-wingers really know how to run things. Live with the result.
Seems they reneged on lots of overcharged electric bills, including BCHydro.
Originally posted by trumptman
I assure you that having worked in LAUSD for 5 years, the pay schedule is the same regardless of what school you worked at. There is no "combat pay." However those schools do get more money in terms of Title 1, 7 and other programs. Although they still will because although they have changed the names, those are federal funds.
Nick
Oh, and you're wrong. Have you checked the LAUSD website lately? There is combat pay, but in different forms...
LAUSD SITE
Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program Now Available
Credentialed teachers, principals and assistant principals committed to working in low performing schools can qualify for at least $7,500 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. Teachers can purchase homes within the City of Los Angeles and throughout Los Angeles County. Visit the Extra Credit website to obtain specific information and requirements to participate in this home purchase opportunity.[/quote]
Linkage: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/ext...xtracredit.htm
This is just one of many programs that sneak in combat pay. I knew I was right. Both my parents have worked in the district for a combined total of over 45 years and I have worked as a TA for three.
Originally posted by BR
Oh, and you're wrong. Have you checked the LAUSD website lately? There is combat pay, but in different forms...
Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program Now Available
Credentialed teachers, principals and assistant principals committed to working in low performing schools can qualify for at least $7,500 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. Teachers can purchase homes within the City of Los Angeles and throughout Los Angeles County. Visit the Extra Credit website to obtain specific information and requirements to participate in this home purchase opportunity.
Linkage: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/ext...xtracredit.htm
This is just one of many programs that sneak in combat pay. I knew I was right. Both my parents have worked in the district for a combined total of over 45 years and I have worked as a TA for three. [/QUOTE]
Well I suppose that could be considered a form of income, but it comes from the state of California instead of LAUSD from what I read.
Eitherway it would do little to bring qualified teachers to those schools.
Nick
Well I suppose that could be considered a form of income, but it comes from the state of California instead of LAUSD from what I read.
Eitherway it would do little to bring qualified teachers to those schools.
Nick [/B]
Also consider the fact that teachers at poor schools that receive title 1 funding don't have to go out and purchase as many supplies out of their own pocket. Again, I believe that can be construed as combat pay.
Originally posted by BR
Also consider the fact that teachers at poor schools that receive title 1 funding don't have to go out and purchase as many supplies out of their own pocket. Again, I believe that can be construed as combat pay.
Again Title I is federal so California really cannot do much about that.
I a bit of an update we have this...
Ka-ching
I wonder what sort of credit score you would need to borrow 11 BILLION!
Nick
? It is hard to imagine California not making a business-related best-ever list. In another sign of this state?s economic decline, Forbes.com, the website for Forbes magazine, has released its annual ?Best Places For Business and Careers? and California does not have a single city listed among the top 25. San Diego was the highest ranked Californian city at 27th. The cities were ranked on their potential for job growth, educational attainment rank, and cost of doing business, including such factors as the price of labor, taxes, energy and office space.
So which cities beat out Los Angeles and San Francisco? Austin, Texas topped the list, followed by Boise, Idaho; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; and Madison, Wisconsin. The second five were: Provo, Utah; Omaha, Nebraska; Des Moines, Iowa; Dallas, Texas; and Washington D.C.-Northern Virginia. (Point your browser to www.forbes.com/2003/05/07/bestland.html for the complete list.)
It is easy to argue that May in California is more desirable than May in Iowa or Nebraska, which just set a record for the number of tornadoes to touch down in a 10 day period. However, our sunshine bonus has finite worth. Ending this state?s anti-business prejudice must be the No. 1 goal for Sacramento.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
And it gets worse...
Well of course Boise Idaho has more growth potential.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
If you check the previous years California not only had cities among the top 25, but typically had 1 or 2 cities among the top 5. To not even have one city among the top 25 is indeed a change for the worse.
Well if you take out the Enron induced oil crisis things might not be so shitty.
I'm sure this will all boil down to being Clinton's fault, but in reality it's just a 'free market' that causes ups and downs. And when the 'free' is reduced to 'government supported monopolies' then the economy goes to shit.
Heck I blame just about everyone here. I remember being so ticked off last election because it seemed there wasn't a single bond issue that didn't pass. We passed something like 150 BILLION+ in bonds which added something like 2-3 billion a year to our yearly spending requirement.
The growth of government workers here along with various councils involving mostly people who gave Davis money is pretty disgusting too.
I'll gladly yell at some Republicans as well because they want to borrow 10 billion dollars and pay it back over 30 years to help us get out of this mess. I don't want borrowing. I want some business friendly policies reinstated. I don't want a single tax increase (now) because when I read about them and the justifications, they NEVER go away.
I can remember when te sales tax in this state was 6%, can you? I remember it was raised to help pay for the Northridge earthquake, and amazingly, it has never gone back down.
They are going to add another .5% to the sales tax putting it at 8.75% in some counties. That is just ridiculous. It is also profoundly regressive.
Why should Davis be giving donors $125k a year jobs on committees that meet 12 times a year while the poor pay the most regressive tax ever?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Why should Davis be giving donors $125k a year jobs on committees that meet 12 times a year while the poor pay the most regressive tax ever?
Because politics are always nasty and criminal.
Seriously though, from what I understand the oil crisis/International Tech boom has had a disproportionate effect on Cali. I'm sure Davis is doing plenty more wrong than just giving out a few million for useless jobs, but I think the roots of the problem stretch back before he was around.
That doesn't mean he's the right man to clean it up though.
Originally posted by bunge
Because politics are always nasty and criminal.
Seriously though, from what I understand the oil crisis/International Tech boom has had a disproportionate effect on Cali. I'm sure Davis is doing plenty more wrong than just giving out a few million for useless jobs, but I think the roots of the problem stretch back before he was around.
That doesn't mean he's the right man to clean it up though.
You could be correct that some of the revenue problems, with regard to coming in, aren't complete his doing, but the spending is entirely his doing.
Spending here has been so out of control that if we simply found a way to spend what the state spent in 1999. (Not exactly the stone age mind you) the entire deficit would go away.
Spending, spending, spending
more spending
even MORE spending
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You could be correct that some of the revenue problems, with regard to coming in, aren't complete his doing, but the spending is entirely his doing.
Spending here has been so out of control that if we simply found a way to spend what the state spent in 1999. (Not exactly the stone age mind you) the entire deficit would go away.
Without looking at the links I'd have to say California is in better shape than I thought. Sure, getting to 1999 levels will take some effort, but if that's all it's going to take it'll happen.
And although the spending is his fault, I imagine some of it's going to be anti-terror funds, unemployment, and other things that Bush & the Feds are withholding or are out of his control.
Again, that's not to say he's blameless. I just think that if you were to erase his mistakes, there'd still be a big economic problem in Cali. It just wouldn't be as big.
Here are some more select quotes from the articles...
Nearly half of California's projected multibillion-dollar budget deficit will disappear if the governor and Legislature simply keep spending at current levels.
Yet revenue is actually up 28 percent while spending skyrocketed 36 percent during Davis' first term. Indeed, had the state merely held the increase in spending during that time to the population growth and inflation, we'd have a $5 billion surplus today - and no need for new taxes.
Next year, Davis wants to spend $89.3 billion. That's an increase of $12.6 billion ---- or 16.4 percent ----- over this year's budgeted spending.
Note that this is with the "painful cuts"
California's Gov. Gray Davis will tell us this week how he expects to deal with his state government's projected shortfall, which could reach $35 billion over the next 18 months. That's right, $35 billion-about as much as the sum of the currently projected shortfalls of the other 49 states combined.
State government spending was up 39 percent from 1996 to 2001. In the four years Davis has been governor, California's annual budget has soared from $74 billion to $99 billion, a 34 percent increase. For a time, that spending increase was fueled by the Silicon Valley boom: Capital gains yielded $17 billion to California in fiscal year 2000. But did California's politicians and budget analysts really think tech stocks would soar forever? From fiscal year 2000 to 2001, state spending rose 14 percent even as the high-tech sector plunged downward. One of the lessons of California's woes is that progressive taxes, which may be desirable for public-policy reasons, produce dangerously volatile revenue streams-huge amounts in good years, next to nothing when the stock market is falling.
Any independent analysis of the state's deficit points to what happened during the stock market bubble year of 2000 as the root cause of the current mess.
Infused with a rush of capital gains tax revenue from stockholders cashing out of the market, the governor and Legislature went on a spending spree in 2000 and 2001. Instead of returning the state's budget to pre-bubble levels of 1999, the governor's proposal maintains many of those clearly unsustainable spending increases.
Spending is still going up 14% a year with a deficit and no sky stock market likely to return to fund it now, or just about ever.
Nick