In these tough times, many are happy to keep their jobs. Charities struggle to deal with declining contributions. Businesses struggle to cut costs to hopefully save jobs and, ultimately, to save the business for better times.
Yet, those who feed at the government trough complain about a 10% increase in funding!
Is it arrogance or stupidity?
Wednesday, at Emmaus High School the Government Propaganda machine rolled through and blasted a Republican budget proposal that recognizes reality. Of course, the trough feeders paraded themselves and even children to decry the massive "cuts" to education in these tough economic times.
Of course, pro Big Government types have language deficencies. See, what they call a "cut" is actually an increase.
Matt Brouillette, of the Commonwealth Foundation, has been right behind the Big Government Propaganda tour bus and has been pointing a few facts. Here is a link to a statement.
See, East Penn is getting a 10% increase in state funding. This is after a 4% hike in taxes last year and another planned tax hike this year. Remember, enrollment in the district has stabilized in the last few years and inflation is virtually non-existent. But, the Big Government Spenders can't control themselves. They have no spending controls in place. Non-education spending has been exploding. No one is advocating the teachers and textbooks get tossed out the door.
But a 10% increase is not enough to satisfy these irresponsible spenders of hard earned taxpayer dollars.
Arrogance or stupidity? It's probably a lot of both.
Fact-Checking Al Gore
6 hours ago
2 comments:
Joe,
Using terms like "arrogance" and "stupidity" is not usually a great way to have a meaningful dialog with others. I don't know if you are uninformed on school district budget issues or are trying to deliberately mislead people, but, in my opinion, you are, once again, playing fast and loose with the facts.
Fact: As of today, no school district in Pennsylvania has been given an increase in state funding. Why? The budget has not yet been adopted by the legislature and signed by the governor. There have been two proposals: one from the governor and one from the Senate Republicans. At this point, the only thing we can be sure of is that neither proposal will be the exact budget adopted by the state in the end. The Pennsylvania Constitution requires a state budget to be adopted by June 30. It seems likely that the legislature will once again flout the Constitution, and school districts will have to make their best guess as to what the final funding formula will be. If we guess wrong, we'll either raise taxes more than necessary to balance the budget or we'll have a budget deficit. I'd prefer to avoid both.
Fact: The "10% increase" is entirely dependent on federal stimulus funds. There is some question whether the Senate Republicans' proposal is a legal use of those funds. If it is, the stimulus funds may still have significant strings attached--there have not yet been any decisions about rules for using those funds. Past proposals have required more than half of stimulus funds to be spent on new positions or construction, not simply replacing the funding for existing positions or performing maintenance on existing facilities (e.g. a new roof). I am not interested in adding positions, especially ones that will only be funded by the federal government for two years. Why? Pennsylvania does not allow teachers to be laid off for economic reasons. In two years, local taxpayers may end up holding the bag to pay for those new positions, and I do not wish to incur that future liability. I suspect you would also be opposed to this.
Fact: Central office administrative positions have been consolidated and eliminated to save $280,000 annually. A new transportation contract will save $250,000 next year. Greater employee cost sharing of medical insurance premiums will reduce the district's benefits expense next year. A kindergarten teacher position will be eliminated through attrition as a result of lower enrollments. Training, technology, and building budgets have all been reduced for further savings, and the administration is continuing to look for places to reduce spending. We do have spending controls in place, and we are asking our employees to do more with less.
Fact: Enrollment has stabilized, but before it did, our schools were already overcrowded. Students are in portable classrooms, corners and hallways are being used for small group instruction, and we are using an old, inefficient building for a Kindergarten Center (which also has higher transportation costs, since students are bused from all over the district to that building). We started on the new Willow Lane Elementary School project to allow us to rebalance the student population, eliminate portable classrooms (which are very expensive to operate), close the Kindergarten Center, and move all instruction into appropriate rooms. It will also provide room for future growth. (I don't know exactly when growth will resume, but it is a near certainty that it will.) The financing costs for the new construction were phased in over two years, and the additional debt service costs are a major factor in both the new budget and the proposed tax increase (which will be smaller in the final budget--I guarantee it). Since we are not considering any new building projects, we will not incur additional debt service costs, so the 2010-11 budget should be much easier to balance.
Allen,
School board members, like Terry Richwine, who publicly declare that those who complain about taxes "can move north" is not a method of establishing meaningful dialogue either. Nor is telling a fellow school board member that they have to supply questions beforehand to the administration for proper vetting.
But let's move on...
The Senate version, the "worse" version, provides 10% more money to East Penn.
You have rarely avoided a tax increase.
You have added new positions in the past few years.
You brag about spending controls, yet taxes increase EVERY year and are planned to increase for the next five years.
I took health and a few other classes in portable classrooms in 1982-83. I remember having to put on a winter coat to walk to health and driver ed classes. I did not suffer.
You excepted a building contract with 20% higher costs even after members of the public urged you to put it out on rebid due to the pending economic situation. You were all full speed ahead. Public contracts are coming in at 50% BELOW costs today.
Lastly, you CANNOT borrow any more money because you have maxed out the legal "credit card" limit for the school district. I believe you have about $3 million of borrowing capacity left.
The point is, you REFUSE to take taxpayer considerations into account. Few spending initiatives are rejected. You approve generous contracts without realizing that few people get 5% raises, even in good times. There are MANY opportunities to control NON-EDUCATION costs and you automatically reject any ideas from the public.
Your attititude is typical of any government entity. The more dollars spent is good. (Regardless of the results.) Taxpayers are "complainers" and should move. Every expenditure if for education and worthwhile.
We will keep bringing the facts to the public. It might take a couple of election cycles, but much like in other school districts, taxpayers are tired of the attitudes and lack of concern expressed by many in government.
Post a Comment