Bond Measure or Tax Hike?

I completely agree with you - one of the biggest problems our country faces is our own governments insistence on accumulating debt. One can hope, however, that we'll begin to address this problem with the next presidency. Once we have someone in the white house that won't veto every bill that threatens to reduce military spending (after all, we wouldn't want to fall from our place of glory of spending more than the next 10 biggest spenders combined...), maybe we can get somewhere on a national level...

 

Bond measure.

When a bond is paid off it's gone.

Taxes are forever.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 5 2007, 09:30 AM) [snapback]535008[/snapback]</div>

My current property tax bill includes $1,004.96 for voted indebtedness. Of that amount, $709.58 is for schools. It sure does not feel like a deferral to me.

 

I never borrow money. If I cannot afford something, I do without. Nowadays I can afford lots, and I spend lots, but for most of my life I could afford only the bare necessities, and I lived with that.

I much prefer a tax to a bond measure, on principle. And if asked to choose between them I'll vote for the tax. However, nobody ever asks me to choose between a bond issue and a tax. I am presented with one or the other and asked to vote yes or no. I always vote for taxes for schools and other public services, and I also vote for bond issues for the same purposes.

My house is worth a small fraction of what yours is. I bought a cheaper house than I could afford, so that my lifestyle would not be cramped by my choice of house.

 

Tax increase (with sunset provision) anytime. That means a $100 project costs...$100. Prefer bonds? A $100 project will eventually cost much more like $300 including interest. Furthermore, past generations taxed themselves so our generation could have improved education at no residual cost to us. It is not right to saddle future generations with such costs when past generations were kind enough to us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 5 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]535013[/snapback]</div>

do you ever tire of the same old same old. it is not like the democrats who are in TOTAL control of federal spending are doing anything but spending more money too. i am sorry, but from my perspective both parties are partying too much with our money - and not just the President.

the value of your home is directly related to the quality of your school system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 6 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]535614[/snapback]</div>

100% correct.
It ranks right up there between location and location.

People will choose a house based on the school system (I did). Or move away, because of a bad school system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 5 2007, 09:30 AM) [snapback]535008[/snapback]</div>

Neither. I just don't get it. You look around CA and there are a lot of really crappy looking schools. Yet it seems we are forever passing new bond measures in every election to build more schools or fix the old ones. We spend about $7700 / year per student in CA (not sure if that includes the aforementioned bond $).

In a class of 25, that's $192,300 (that's state $). On top of that, at my kid's school we have a foundation supported by parents and fundraisers out the A$$ that feed money back into the school to pay for things that the state ought to be providing using all that tax $ we give them.

The avg. teacher salay in CA is the highest in the nation at $58k. Taking away $58k from $192k, based on my public school math, leaves $134k per class. Where does all of THAT $ go?

I agree many of the schools are in poor shape, I'm just not sure we're spending the money very efficiently. I sense there are way, way too many highly paid administrators sucking at the teat.

And don't even get me started on the UC system compensation scandals ... :angry:

 

Why is it that when schools need money they have to beg the voters for a tax rise or a bond issue, but when our leaders want to spend a few thousand billion dollars to have a war, they just go ahead and do it without asking the voters anything?

I'd like to see the military funded from a dedicated tax which would have to be approved by the voters in an annual referendum.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 7 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]536233[/snapback]</div>

I agree with your entire first part. Lack of prior planning leads to piss poor results.

As for the finances, I agree too. I don't understand why government doesn't have to live the same reality as the governed... i.e., live within its means and have sound finances.

As for running for office, I think that sounds great - maybe someone like you could make a difference. But I think the term "liberal" (or "conservative") is getting obsolete. I am "conservative" but agree with pretty much everything you just wrote. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 7 2007, 02:03 AM) [snapback]536001[/snapback]</div>

Average class sizes in San Diego Unified School District. For K-2 it's 20 in a class. For middle and high school it's 37 per class.

Why are the statistics off? Well, all of the Special Education students are in much smaller classes. Like 6-10 students per teacher. Often with a teacher's aide as well. You add all of those special ed classes and the primaries to the rest and then take an average and it seems like teachers only have 25 students. It's a way to lie with statistics.

Same goes with average salaries. California has a lot of teachers in the high end of the pay scale. In fact, as soon as you get a contract you start on your masters degree so you can move up on the pay scale. Then every year you take more classes to add to your units of credit until you make the top.

Please keep in mind that California also has one of the highest costs of living. Why not throw in the average cost of a home? In San Diego it's somewhere around three quarters of a million dollars. A paycheck doesn't go far when you're also paying $3.50 for a gallon of gas. Everything else is more expensive too. But we've already had this discussion on Priuschat. You can't expect a teacher in California to live on the salary of a teacher in South Dakota.

California has 2 million more students enrolled than the next closest state, Texas. Not all of these students are residents of the U.S. and not all of their parents pay taxes to support the school system. (And I don't want to hear about how illegals contribute yadda yadda. When they get paid cash under the table they're not paying squat.) So the money allocated has to stretch farther. Example: Schools are funded by Federal Survey cards. You remember them? Well, when you're illegal, you don't fill them out and return them to school. So a school of 1500 may only get funded for 750 students because that is all of the Federal Survey cards they could get returned. As far as the Feds are concerned, that school only has 750 students. That means they are only funded for 750 but that money has to stretch for 1500 students. Get it? Schools also are funded by something called ADA. It's attendance. When a kid is truant or had an unexcused absence, the school doesn't get paid because that kid wasn't in school that day. If they were sick, the school would be paid. Any other reason, nada.

Now, let's go back to teacher/student ratios.

California has 298,106 teachers and 6,322,190 students.
Texas has 294,546 teachers but only 4,383,871 students.

California has roughly the same number of teachers as Texas but teaches 2 MILLION more students. (And it costs more to live in California than it does in Texas.)

Now California ranks #1 with the most teachers and #1 with the most students. Yet it ranks at #29 at expenditures per pupil. Which is better than the #48 we used to be at. So that "California spends more on education that any other state at $50,211,439." is the absolute truth. What they don't tell you is that per student there are 28 states that spend more, and that California is BELOW the U.S. average of $8,661 spent per child.

Revenues for Education from the State of California for public schools is $37,191,256 and from local governments is $19,442,200. Total expenditures for schools is $63,449,824. Seems to be a bit of a gap there. Probably the reason for the deferred maintenance. I believe our district fired all of the gardeners. The grounds on school sites aren't being kept up anymore. Although after the fires they did seem to find the money to hire workers to clear all of the leaves and brush from the roofs. I guess they were grateful an ember didn't fly over and set it all on fire.

Now here's my most favorite statistic. Research has proved over and over that student literacy is effectede by whether there is a credentialed Teacher librarian in a library at a school. Just having a Library Media Teacher can raise test scores.

99% of schools have an area designated as a library.
23% actually have credential Library Media Teachers.
"Although the average national ratio of library media teachers to students in the fall of 2002 was 1:889, California ranks fifty-first in the nation with a ratio of 1:5,965"

That's right. Nationwide there is one school librarian for every 889 students. In the state of California there is one school librarian for every 5,965 students. You can imagine what an outlier like that is doing to the national average. Take California out and imagine what you get as a real national average. (1:785. Makes us look even more pathetic doesn't it?)

National average is 22 books per child.
California average is 17.5 books per child. The average copyright date is 1993.

California should be ashamed. And every politician that dares to criticize literacy or test scores should be taken to task for that atrocity.

There isn't any money for library books either. There used to be $28.00 per student from the Library Act. But that was combined with the School Improvement money and by the time it gets to the school site there's nothing. Our Board of Education allocates $4.65 per student for library books. At my site that money is embezzled to pay for something else and it never gets to the library. I've been weeding the collection of books dating from the 70s and 80s. I'm embarassed to have them on the shelves.

Statistics about California Libraries.

The problems of the school system are as complicated as the Global Warming issue we're so fond of discussing here. Teachers are like climatologists. No one listens or respects us to know our business.

And where does the money go?

The average textbook is about $70.00. Each middle school student at my school has four. Let's take your average class of 25 and multiply that by a $70.00 textbook. There's another $1,750. (That doesn't include tax and shipping. And that book has to be stamped and barcoded and entered in the library computer by a librarian or a library technician. Then there's water, sewer, heat, electricity, toilet paper, copy paper (lots of paper), notebook paper, notepads, pens, journals and other supplies. Pencils, scissors, staplers, staples, file cabinets, file folders, construction paper, glue, tape, tables, chairs, bookcases, paperclips. There's the TV/VCR and the computer. You start to add up everything in a classroom and it starts to add up fast.)

And your statistics don't cover costs you don't see. The salaries of the custodial staff that picks up the food your child fails to deposit in the trash cans every day at lunch. The gum that has to be scraped off of the walkways despite the rules that gum is not allowed on campus at any time. Graffiti removal or repainting. Trashbags, rubber gloves, cleaning solvent. Then there's the secretaries. Principal's secretary, each counselor has a secretary, attendance secretary, site technician, network technician, all of those teacher's aides for the special education students.

And all of the staff do have a healthcare plan (for which we pay out of our paychecks) and a retirement plan( to which we contribute out of our paychecks.)

Are teachers overpaid?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 8 2007, 07:40 PM) [snapback]537073[/snapback]</div>

You totally miss my point. There is too much $ being spent at the top. Wouldn't you agree?

 

My answer to the original question is: it depends.

Bonds are appropriate when the benefit is spread out among many years, such as for roads, school buildings, airport improvements, etc., when the community cannot afford to 'pay as you go'. (The first choice would always be to 'pay cash'.)

Direct taxes are more appropriate when the benefit is to the current taxpayers, such as the various forms of welfare, public employee salaries, etc.

Not doing either is the best choice, but if you must tax, save the "future indebtedness" for projects that will actually benefit those paying for it in the future.

As to teachers being "underpaid": Is there any other profession of highly skilled, highly educated professionals who weren't smart enough to figure out that teaching is not a highly paid profession? Few people go into teaching thinking that they will earn a lot of money; I prefer to think that most go into teaching for altruistic reasons, similar to the type of sacrifice someone would make to serve the poor or be a country preacher. Teachers who complain about their wages obviously were not smart enough to look up what the profession pays, and I can't really feel sorry for them, any more than I feel sorry for those with a Master's in Social Work: you can earn more answering phones in an office than doing social work.

If you spend YEARS getting the degree only to find out it has historically, for ever and ever, paid in the lower 10% of professions, is that OUR fault? Gimme a break.