[DWCAP]

duplicate

[DWCAP]

duplicate

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=afx114]Krugman:

The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.

The result was a tax system that is both inequitable and unstable. It’s inequitable because older homeowners often pay far less property tax than their younger neighbors. It’s unstable because limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions.

Even more important, however, Proposition 13 made it extremely hard to raise taxes, even in emergencies: no state tax rate may be increased without a two-thirds majority in both houses of the State Legislature. And this provision has interacted disastrously with state political trends.

[/quote]

That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

I also have noticed a very strong revulsion to the 2/3rds requirment to raise taxes in the media lately. I tend to this is because Democrats control about 60% of the state government and dont like the fact that they actually have to listen to the Republicans on things like raising taxes to fund pet projects. (Republicans wouldnt be any better based on the last 8 years than the democrats, it is just the democrats control this state.)
My favorite is when they complain about how a tiny minority can holdout on passing legeslation. You know, the one third of people in the legeslater that doesnt have the same letter behind their name as the majority. It sounds so much better than saying that they may actually have to negotiate with the minority party.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=afx114]Krugman:

The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.

The result was a tax system that is both inequitable and unstable. It’s inequitable because older homeowners often pay far less property tax than their younger neighbors. It’s unstable because limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions.

Even more important, however, Proposition 13 made it extremely hard to raise taxes, even in emergencies: no state tax rate may be increased without a two-thirds majority in both houses of the State Legislature. And this provision has interacted disastrously with state political trends.

[/quote]

That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

I also have noticed a very strong revulsion to the 2/3rds requirment to raise taxes in the media lately. I tend to this is because Democrats control about 60% of the state government and dont like the fact that they actually have to listen to the Republicans on things like raising taxes to fund pet projects. (Republicans wouldnt be any better based on the last 8 years than the democrats, it is just the democrats control this state.)
My favorite is when they complain about how a tiny minority can holdout on passing legeslation. You know, the one third of people in the legeslater that doesnt have the same letter behind their name as the majority. It sounds so much better than saying that they may actually have to negotiate with the minority party.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=afx114]Krugman:

The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.

The result was a tax system that is both inequitable and unstable. It’s inequitable because older homeowners often pay far less property tax than their younger neighbors. It’s unstable because limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions.

Even more important, however, Proposition 13 made it extremely hard to raise taxes, even in emergencies: no state tax rate may be increased without a two-thirds majority in both houses of the State Legislature. And this provision has interacted disastrously with state political trends.

[/quote]

That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

I also have noticed a very strong revulsion to the 2/3rds requirment to raise taxes in the media lately. I tend to this is because Democrats control about 60% of the state government and dont like the fact that they actually have to listen to the Republicans on things like raising taxes to fund pet projects. (Republicans wouldnt be any better based on the last 8 years than the democrats, it is just the democrats control this state.)
My favorite is when they complain about how a tiny minority can holdout on passing legeslation. You know, the one third of people in the legeslater that doesnt have the same letter behind their name as the majority. It sounds so much better than saying that they may actually have to negotiate with the minority party.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=afx114]Krugman:

The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.

The result was a tax system that is both inequitable and unstable. It’s inequitable because older homeowners often pay far less property tax than their younger neighbors. It’s unstable because limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions.

Even more important, however, Proposition 13 made it extremely hard to raise taxes, even in emergencies: no state tax rate may be increased without a two-thirds majority in both houses of the State Legislature. And this provision has interacted disastrously with state political trends.

[/quote]

That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

I also have noticed a very strong revulsion to the 2/3rds requirment to raise taxes in the media lately. I tend to this is because Democrats control about 60% of the state government and dont like the fact that they actually have to listen to the Republicans on things like raising taxes to fund pet projects. (Republicans wouldnt be any better based on the last 8 years than the democrats, it is just the democrats control this state.)
My favorite is when they complain about how a tiny minority can holdout on passing legeslation. You know, the one third of people in the legeslater that doesnt have the same letter behind their name as the majority. It sounds so much better than saying that they may actually have to negotiate with the minority party.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=afx114]Krugman:

The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.

The result was a tax system that is both inequitable and unstable. It’s inequitable because older homeowners often pay far less property tax than their younger neighbors. It’s unstable because limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions.

Even more important, however, Proposition 13 made it extremely hard to raise taxes, even in emergencies: no state tax rate may be increased without a two-thirds majority in both houses of the State Legislature. And this provision has interacted disastrously with state political trends.

[/quote]

That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

I also have noticed a very strong revulsion to the 2/3rds requirment to raise taxes in the media lately. I tend to this is because Democrats control about 60% of the state government and dont like the fact that they actually have to listen to the Republicans on things like raising taxes to fund pet projects. (Republicans wouldnt be any better based on the last 8 years than the democrats, it is just the democrats control this state.)
My favorite is when they complain about how a tiny minority can holdout on passing legeslation. You know, the one third of people in the legeslater that doesnt have the same letter behind their name as the majority. It sounds so much better than saying that they may actually have to negotiate with the minority party.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene]Teachers are not extremely well paid here – worse than in the Northeast (NY, CT), for example.
[/quote]

Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene]Teachers are not extremely well paid here – worse than in the Northeast (NY, CT), for example.
[/quote]

Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene]Teachers are not extremely well paid here – worse than in the Northeast (NY, CT), for example.
[/quote]

Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[Author]

Posts