Read the column here.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Read the column here.
In retrospect, I missed an opportunity with this column. Instead of going into much detail about the various “someone-else-will-pay” schemes noted, by which I had hoped to stimulate a discussion about the nature of our tax system and how so much of it is predicated on the assumption that we are all getting things that are/will be paid for by someone else – and what an ultimately self-defeating proposition this really is – I should have just enumerated them and proceeded to pose a series of related rhetorical questions.
Such questions would have concerned such things as the morality of expecting others to pay for the things that we (or at least many of us) want government to provide rather than pay for them ourselves and why is it moral to catapult over the “fiscal cliff” on the basis of not screwing high income earners even more that is currently the case (and who, by all objective measures of which I am aware, are already paying a disproportionate share of their incomes in taxes). You know, what is the philosophical justification of taking someone else’s wealth just because they have it and we (or at least many of us) want it?
I have been saying for a long, long time that government at all levels does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. And until the spending side of the equation is addressed, there will never be enough revenue. Government at all levels is going to be so desperate for money that it is going after whatever dollars come to its attention – and if that means trafficking in class discord and the politics of envy, so be it. And it is only because so many people are economically illiterate that government can get away with what it does.
A related series of questions for another time would deal with the way we “budget” on the basis of continuing resolutions rather than pass real budgets, the overtly fictitious nature of economic growth projections, the overtly fictitious nature of budget deficit projections, the overtly fictitious nature of unemployment rate calculations, the overtly fictitious nature of inflation rate calculations, etc.
Oh well, perhaps next time.
Be that as it may, I tried, unsuccessfully, to find the web sites of the advocacy groups pushing for the most recent Unified Government’s SPLOST and CCSD’s E-SPLOST for the purpose of showing their claims that half, if not more, of the levies will be paid by those who do not live here; I suppose that those sites no longer exist.
Regarding the Stamp Act, see this:
For some details of the Falcons’ stadium proposal, see this:
For the agenda of the Commission’s December voting session, see this:
For the Economic Development Strategic Plan Review Committee Recommendations, see this:
Finally, the Review Committee’s recommendations were approved by a 9-1 vote, with no discussion whatsoever (see beginning at about 23:40 of the video):
Posted by James at 4:25 PM
Monday, December 10, 2012
Read the column here.
As usual, the percentage and percentile calculations are my own. I had finished the column and was just checking my numbers one last time when I discovered that the Georgia Department of Education had revised its listing of school system expenditures, thereby forcing me to redo my calculations because some of the state averages changed. Oh well, such is life; the numbers are based on the information available as of about noon on Wednesday, 05 December. Those readers so inclined can view for themselves the Expenditure Reports for FY 2012, either aggregately as one document or by individual school system:http://app3.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-bin/owa/fin_pack_revenue.entry_form
See the CCSD’s FY 2013 Board of Education Tentative Budget Presentation delivered at that meeting, which I consider to be something of an exercise in sophistry: http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/14/fy2012-2013%20boe%20tentative%20budget%20presentation%20revised%2004-19-2012.pdf
Note how it lauds an “overall reduction” of $1.97 million because “projected” state and local revenue did not meet expectations. At no point is it made clear that this reflects any real reduction in revenue, as opposed to a mere lowering of expected increases. This is the same baseline budgeting argument going on up in Washington writ small.
Also note the claim that “austerity cuts” exceed “$33 million in the last six years,” meaning 2007-2012. Does this mean that the state has actually reduced QBE contribution to the CCSD by this amount? Hardly. I’ve looked into this argument before, finding that even during years in which austerity reductions have occurred, which has been under both Democrat and Republican administrations, they are frequently measured merely as reductions in projected increases. In a couple of years at the height of the recent housing market collapse, state funding did decrease. The far more usual situation is that state QBE contributions to local school system actually go up in years with austerity reductions, sometimes substantially, just not as much as the incredibly arcane funding formula would dictate (which similarly, since its introduction back in the 1980s, has never been “fully funded” by either Democrat or Republican governors or legislatures – for the simple fact that it would blow the state’s budget all to hell). And in those years when the increases have been substantial, the local school systems invariably term them as “cuts.”
See the audit of the CCSD’s finances from the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts; click on the Advanced Search button and use these Project ID numbers for each respective year. The germane parts are the concluding sections at the end of the documents:
FY 2006 7028
FY 2007 6291-2007
FY 2008 6291-2008
FY 2009 6291-2009
FY 2010 6291-2010
FY 2011 6921-2011
Remember these dollar amounts and rankings the next time you hear the CCSD lamenting tens of millions of dollars in phantom revenue reductions, the next time it is in court explaining that the “not more than” revenue figures indicated on its E-SPLOST ballot resolutions are not binding, and the next time state audits of the CCSD’s finances call their management into question.
The truth is that the CCSD’s per pupil expenditures should have dropped years ago concurrent with the collapse of the housing market, just as did those of other school systems across the state. Instead, the CCSD continued to jack up spending and then complain that the state wasn’t providing it with “adequate” funding. Of course, as regards education funding, “adequate” is invariably synonymous with “more,” regardless of what is already being spent.
My complaint is not with teachers or teacher pay (and at no point did I indicate that it was), rather my complaint is with policy and the fact that the education establishment hides behind claims of budget cuts, even as local education spending has skyrocketed in recent years.
Why do we spend so much more per pupil for transportation in this, the smallest county in the state?
Why do we spend so much more per pupil for maintenance and operations, when essentially all of our physical plant has been newly constructed or refurbished to the turn of hundreds of millions of E-SPLOST dollars in recent years?
Why does the CCSD outspend pretty much everyone in the state, year after year, and still chronically underachieve? I know that a large part of the answer has to do with the student population that the CCSD serves, but then the question becomes one of how does increasing funding address that problem. The evidence, again year and year, is that it doesn't. So why do we keep doing the same thing?
Those are the kinds of questions that I would like to see addressed. Sphere: Related Content
Posted by James at 9:58 AM