snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on May 23, 2005 0:58:18 GMT -5
It's a helluva lot worse here  but I find it encouraging to see that we're not the only ones staging our own tax revolt.  Property Taxes Questioned As Prices ZoomBy ROBERT TANNER Soaring property taxes are a top worry in state legislatures across the country, where lawmakers are trying to appease disgruntled homeowners and, in some cases, courts that are demanding change in the system so schools are more equitably funded. Some states are weighing plans to lower taxes. Others just want to keep them from rising too fast. Still others are aiming to substantially change the tax system and find another way to help pay for schools that closes the quality gap between wealthy and poor communities. "People are facing being taxed out of their homes,'' said Ted Harris, a 69-year-old retiree living on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, whose taxes climbed from $2,200 in 1990 to $12,000 last year. "Government simply swallows the money and finds lots of reasons to spend that money.'' From Texas to Illinois to Pennsylvania, lawmakers are weighing property tax caps, limits, exemptions and other ways to ease the burdens for homeowners - whose tax bills are the down slide of home values increasing. Proposals to change the system have become part of the gubernatorial campaigns in New Jersey and Virginia, the only states with governor's races this year. In most states, cities, counties and municipalities rely upon property taxes to pay for much of local government and schools. Nationally, K-12 education covers 42.8 percent of its spending with local funds, with most of the rest coming from the state and less than 10 percent, on average, from the federal government, according to 2002 federal statistics. Part of the property tax pressure stems from a trend in recent years for cash-strapped state governments to limit their help to local governments. "Property tax relief is the mantra of the day,'' said Bert Waisanen, an analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures who tracks tax policy. "States are acting to provide as much additional relief as they can afford to.'' In response to widespread complaints, Nevada - the fastest growing state in the country - signed into law last month a cap on property taxes, limiting growth to 3 percent a year on all single-family, owner-occupied primary residences, with a higher cap of 8 percent for commercial property and second homes. That didn't satisfy everyone. State Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, with supporters like Harris, want a constitutional amendment similar to California's Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that limited property tax growth to 2 percent a year. Legislatures are debating bills in many states, but so far: Texas legislators agreed to lower property taxes for schools, with the state picking up a bigger share of the education load. The House and the Senate are trying to settle on the size of the tax cut and how the state will raise the money to cover the cut, but time is running out. New Jersey legislators are moving forward with plans to ask voters to approve a constitutional convention that would take on changes in the property tax system, heeding arguments that taxes have gotten out of control. Illinois lawmakers are debating a plan to swap higher income taxes for lower property taxes, a response to years of demands that the state change the way it pays for education. Pennsylvania last year legalized slot-machine gambling with some of the money to cut local school property taxes, but many cities and towns are still considering whether to sign on. "People are saying 'Wait a minute, we need a rest,''' said Pete Sepp with the National Taxpayers Union, an Alexandria, Va.-based group that seeks limited government and low taxes. Just from 2002 to 2004, the nation's median average price of a single-family, metropolitan home rose from $158,100 to $184,100, according to the National Association of Realtors. That's a 10 percent increase. Some areas - such as Las Vegas, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., and Riverside, Calif. - saw 30 percent increases. That also means higher taxes, which homeowners don't like. Meanwhile, lawsuits and court decisions around the country are forcing leaders to try to improve education in poorer school districts. The role of property taxes is a top issue. "People hate property taxes,'' said John Augenblick, an education expert who works with states on funding issues. "What you're fighting is the majority who don't have kids in the school, who want to lower taxes because they don't have children in school.'' Augenblick said the pressure from taxpayers and the courts is combining to put more and more responsibility on states, not local communities, to pay for education. But the resources aren't necessarily available at the state level, either. "The question,'' he said, "is what gets shut down?'' On the Web: Education Commission of the States: www.ecs.org |
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on May 23, 2005 23:00:58 GMT -5
I see our plight made prime-time! ;D What's going on by you Snizz? Gee, but I thought our economy was in great shape!   Goosed along by those nifty Bush tax cuts and a fabricated, needless war. I bet it sucks when reality starts seeping into their fairytale world. Are they still saying the Great Depression can't happen again? |
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on May 23, 2005 23:53:13 GMT -5
I see our plight made prime-time! ;D What's going on by you Snizz? It's nothing personal Roland bud, I know you're a teacher and all  but it did my heart good last week to FINALLY see those friggin school budgets go DOWN big time! ;D The idiots are starting to wake up! Year after year the morons get brainwashed by the teachers union that "it's for the kids" and they fall for it hook, line and stinker. None of it's about "the kids" they don't get crap out of it. More than 80% of it goes to the teachers salaries and perks, and mighty generous salaries and perks they are!  I'm paying 100% of their medical benefits. I've got to pay a good hunk of my own and I still have to do without. I'm paying 100% of their pensions and I've got no pension or 401. I haven't even been able to put a dime into my IRA in about 5 years because every year I have to pay more and more for their pensions and I can't keep up. I haven't had a raise in over 3 years! We're about the same as that poor guy in Tahoe. When I bought my house, my taxes were about $2300. They've quadrupled since then, but my salary hasn't. My county & town taxes make up about $1000 of that together. Of course they get more by calling other things "fees" and "surcharges." But the rest is ALL school taxes! Then there's a $400 million jail we're being forced to build. Pataki expects us to fund his friggin stadium in Manhattan. The list goes on and on and my bills keep going up and up only my salary ISN'T. Enough is enough already! |
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on May 26, 2005 22:25:43 GMT -5
No offense taken, snizz.  I teach in the city of Chicago. The teachers in the suburbs average twice what I get paid, for less years put in, and they don't have to deal with nearly what I do. I live just outside city limits and my taxes pay their salaries, so think about how I feel.  Everything's completely out of control. Everybody and his brother can pass on their rising costs to us working stiffs, and we're expected to squeeze blood from a stone. It has to stop somewhere, and anywhere is better than nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by LS on May 31, 2005 22:11:39 GMT -5
Congrats snizz...and me too- ours went down too!! ;D That was the easy part though ...now comes their loophole and out comes their bag of underhanded dirty tricks- and the real trick now is making sure they STAY down!! Our district has the unmitigated gall to put the same exact one back up ...only this time they're threatening people- trying to scare them into passing it the 2nd time. Hopefully we can keep people from caving and go back in there and say 'NO MEANS NO'!! |
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Jun 3, 2005 15:32:51 GMT -5
Congrats snizz...and me too- ours went down too!! ;D That was the easy part though ...now comes their loophole and out comes their bag of underhanded dirty tricks- and the real trick now is making sure they STAY down!! Our district has the unmitigated gall to put the same exact one back up ...only this time they're threatening people- trying to scare them into passing it the 2nd time. Hopefully we can keep people from caving and go back in there and say 'NO MEANS NO'!! I'm keeping a close eye on mine for damn sure. You ever notice how the revotes are always kept hush-hush so the least amount of people are aware of when the vote is and that's how they ultimately get them through. As far as I'm concerned, they didn't go far enough when they consolidated the voting days and took away the infinite number of times they could put them back up for revotes. They either get it right the first time around or tough sh#t and the outcome of that vote stands. Enough of this happy horsesh#t already! We're getting slammed with another fuel surcharge from LIPA the 1st of next month, that brings the total surcharge to 28% over the past 3 years! Did you see this morning's paper? Now we're getting hit with an 11 1/2% increase from the water authority to offset their LIPA surcharge! WHO THE HELL'S OFFSETTING MINE?! This stadium fiasco's pushing me to the edge. I see Silver postponed the vote again, at least until Monday, but I've got a sinking feeling he and Bruno are going to cave in in the end. First Pataki highjacks and shoves the unpopular downtown redevelopment down our throats, he apparently lost interest in that and now there's this, while there's a huge hole still sitting downtown for almost 4 years now. A billion plus in taxpayer subsidies in addition to 600 million in taxpayer funds. How about taking that 600 million and putting it towards some of the kazillion unfunded mandates or towards funding this oversized jail they want built? Woody wants a stadium? Woody's a billionaire, Woody owns the team so let Woody pay for it. Bloomberg's a billionaire and he didn't have a problem kicking in a billion of his own money to get the GOP convention in NYC. Let the billionaires pay for it and leave the taxpayer money alone to fund the things that will relieve some of the burden on us already overburdened taxpayers. I tell you, I've been a lifelong Jets fan, but if this goes through, they can kiss me arse and I'll never again support that team in any way, shape or form.  I'm sick of the political bullsh#t where we continually come up as the losers. If it's not politics and the have the taxpayers interests at heart as they claim then why don't they ever put any of this up for public referendums and let the taxpayers decide? What are they afraid of? This is a democracy my ass! |
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jun 8, 2005 21:44:20 GMT -5
I'm keeping a close eye on mine for damn sure. You ever notice how the revotes are always kept hush-hush so the least amount of people are aware of when the vote is and that's how they ultimately get them through. As far as I'm concerned, they didn't go far enough when they consolidated the voting days and took away the infinite number of times they could put them back up for revotes. They either get it right the first time around or tough sh#t and the outcome of that vote stands. Enough of this happy horsesh#t already! Ah snizz...it's such a turn-on when you get going.  ;D And yeesh...didn't realize I'm running so far behind!!  Even worse than that...like when they start the manipulation games with half-truths and total misrepresentation. I myself have just returned from our board meeting and I've gotta say...I'm cautiously optimistic. They faced a small but pretty hostile audience who called them on every one of their half-truths and misrepresentations...nobody was buying the horse manure they were trying to sell and made it pretty clear they've had it and the party's over. I do believe the sleeping masses are beginning to awaken from their comas and I think from what I witnessed- we've got a very good chance we can keep the momentum going... Exactly...and that was one of the school district's other 'excuses'...in the meantime- you walk into a school in the winter and the windows are open because the heat's up so high it's stifling...and tonight's meeting was in the HS library- and the AC was up so high I was turning blue. But yep- that's pretty much the consensus...everybody's got their hands in our pockets taking our hard earned money- and there's nothing left for us to live on. Saved from going over!! ;D Hey- score one for a politician who actually stood his ground and hung tough!! He didn't cave and we've been saved!! ;D Sad to say snizzster...I think I'm done.   It's a tough spot- it's not the team per se...the players don't give a crap where they play...but I can't support the team without supporting the 'organization' and the 'organization' now disgusts me...it's far from it was when Leon was alive and owned the team. The Woody era 'organization' couldn't care less about the fans...they've turned up their noses at the alternate Queens site (which 99.9% of the FANS favor) and the offer from the Giants (who are building a new stadium) to build one stadium they can both share and split the costs which would save both teams money and increase revenues for both teams... True snizz- our so-called 'democracy's' a joke. I don't know though...I've got this feeling we're gonna see a real shakeup over the next couple of elections and government's finally gonna be put on long overdue notice... |
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Jun 13, 2005 0:09:15 GMT -5
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Aug 22, 2005 22:26:28 GMT -5
Bravo! And I'll ask again, what the hell is New York waiting for? Connecticut Sues 'No Child Behind' LawBy NOREEN GILLESPIE HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - The state of Connecticut filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging President Bush's No Child Left Behind school reform law, arguing it is illegal because it requires expensive testing and programs it doesn't pay for. The lawsuit, which officials said was the first of its kind to be brought by a state government, asks a federal judge to declare that the federal government cannot require state and local money be used to meet federal testing goals. "The goals of the No Child Left Behind Act are laudable,'' Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "Indeed, Connecticut has pursued these goals for decades, but the federal government has failed in implementing them.'' Blumenthal announced plans for the lawsuit this spring, after the state was repeatedly denied waivers to avoid some of the requirements of No Child Left Behind, which aims to have every student in public schools proficient in reading and math by 2014. Connecticut's chief complaint with the law has been testing. The state, which has been administering its own mastery test for 20 years, wants to continue testing every other year. The federal law requires annual testing, and federal education officials have repeatedly denied the state's requests for leniency. "This mindless rigidity harms our taxpayers, but most of all our children,'' Blumenthal said. Standardized testing in grades three, five and seven is scheduled to begin this school year. A recent report projects that the state will be $41.6 million short in paying for the law's requirements through 2008, but federal officials question that estimate. A state law prohibits state money from being used to pay for the law's requirements. In Utah, the state legislature passed a measure defying the federal law, and it was signed by Gov. Jon Huntsman on May 2. The law gives state educational standards priority over the requirements of No Child Left Behind. The nation's largest teacher's union, the National Education Association, joined with school districts and union chapters across the country to file a lawsuit this year challenging the law. Connecticut's union chapter is part of that lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Post by LS on Aug 29, 2005 0:41:13 GMT -5
Atta girl Red, if anybody can, it would be you. ;D ;D Well...as you long know by now I failed- by a mere couple hundred votes ...and that was because of deliberate 'non-disclosure' by the administration, blatantly mis-leading information put out by the board, and the flat out refusal to answer very specific questions by both the administration and the BOE. In an effort to get ALL the facts out to fully inform the public- back in March...fully two months prior to the budget vote...I requested specific information from the district that every public citizen is entitled- by law- to have made available to them. Of course that entailed signing and submitting a Freedom of Information Act form...which they then dragged their feet 'approving.' Once it was finally approved- I made weekly calls to inquire about when to expect the requested information- and kept being told some of the information I'd requested was 'complicated' and required a lot of research and they were still working on it. The first vote came and went- and despite still not having the information I requested- enough other people weren't fooled by them either and the budget overwhelmingly failed. The lies and the threats by the district then commenced...on top of having the unmitigated gall to put up the same exact budget for a re-vote. Because of their relentless spinning of the actual truth and blatant refusal to answer any questions...while on the re-vote the 'no' vote was slightly higher than on the first vote...unfortunately a few more people were flim-flammed by the arrogance of the threats and feared their childrens' scholarships would be in serious jeopardy- and voted 'yes'...which has now put the entire community as a whole in jeopardy- since most of us have reached the unfortunate point of now struggling to survive paycheck to paycheck... Needless to say- I never received the requested information until school was out for the year and the re-vote had already taken place. The one piece of information I'd requested- and was the one that put them in a dither- was a simple question...what was the approximate percentage of the budget that was comprised of 'mandates' (as this is what they were attributing much of the sky-high price tag to). When I asked the question- I was told it was a very complex matter that had to be fully researched. I wasn't asking for an exact number- simply a ballpark estimate...that no one was able to give me off the top of their heads!! I find it rather hard to believe that not one these people who draw up the budget every year- not even the Superintendent of Finance!!- couldn't give me a ballpark estimate...was it 10%, 20%, 50%, more?? This difficult and 'complex' question took them 4 months to sort out...so therefore since it was that complex a thing- I was expecting for receive a thick envelope with pages and pages of figures and information. Imagine my surprise when I received a very thin envelope from the district that contained ONE sheet of paper and FOUR lines ...the total cost of mandates is barely 1.2 million dollars...out of a nearly 159 MILLION dollar budget!! $159 for ONE school district...which is $30 million shy of the entire county's budget!! With the exception of implementing mandates...BOE's answer to no one...and the resulting mistake of that fact is coming to light. It started with Roslyn and as Hevesi's making his way down the list- the improprieties have spread well beyond that...and isn't it amazing how those who haven't been audited yet are suddenly 'finding' millions of dollars they didn't 'know' were there?? I seriously can't figure out when people are finally gonna have enough of being used as political pawns in games of deceit and start standing up to it... |
|
|
|
Post by LS on Aug 29, 2005 0:43:14 GMT -5
This one's just for good measure. I agree with most of his points...except the part about taxpayers being more involved in the budget process. That one's a load of BS since these dictatorhips that are disguised as 'school districts' take care of 'budget' planning and contract negotiations behind closed doors in 'executive' sessions where the public is not allowed to even be in attendance- let alone have any input. Make Cuts Without Punishing StudentsBY MARK J. GROSSMAN June 23, 2005 It's become a shattering precedent. Long Island voters have delivered "one-two" knockout punches to school district budgets at a record pace, voting down "round two" school tax proposals more than ever before. With an aging population that has no ties to public school systems, disillusionment with dishonest government officials, and jarring corruption scandals in several local districts, we could easily find reasons why voters seem ready to rebuff school budget proposals. But, for the sake of the children of Long Island, it is more important now for us to focus on the educational impact of these "round two" budget rejections, and to draw attention to a simple step citizens can take to help reverse this disturbing trend. Under state law, a double rejection mandates district spending at a lowered level, formerly known as an austerity budget, now officially called a contingency budget. Call them what you want, contingency budgets mean big cuts. Districts calculate their specific contingency spending levels through a strict, state-determined formula that considers existing contractual obligations, cost-of-living allowances and other factors. Pushed by voters into contingency, school boards too often choose punishing cuts aimed at inflicting obvious pain to the community. For instance, huge amounts can be saved by going from full- to half-day kindergarten, cutting popular sports and music programs, and eliminating after-school programs and enrichment classes. The goal of these tough-love cuts is strictly political - to teach the public a lesson. "Just look what you voters made us do to the children!" Board members hope that the pain of contingency results in regret and guilt among the electorate - that voters will never again wish to force such pain on kids and that taxpayers will protect tomorrow's children by passing future budgets.The logic there is that, if people don't feel the pain of contingency, why would they support future budgets? While I understand that rationale, as a parent, as a taxpayer and as a school board member, I support a more structural, sustainable method to spending reductions. I back a system where school boards take a longer, harder look at their budgets with the goal of retaining as much normalcy for students and to register as little pain as possible. For example, after a budget failed for the second time in my school district this spring, we considered cuts in new textbook purchases, staff and board development, building supplies, field trips and transportation, among others. In short, less dramatic cuts that meet the contingency mandate but retain, as much as possible, the quality of our school system. That's because I view the "round two" budget rejection as a message from voters to reduce spending, not to inflict pain on children. Compare it to a family responding to a tighter, new household budget. A family's first reaction is not to reduce doctor visits or to defer the replacement of bald tires on the car. Rather, the family dines out less frequently, switches off unused lights, and generally finds new ways to cope. And like a family that learns new and better ways to spend each dollar, dealing with the constraints of contingency can ultimately be a learning process for school boards and administrators who might find new efficiencies as they sharpen their pencils and take yet another look at their budgets. The problem with this option, however, is that school districts will eventually reach a tipping point. If districts face a year or two on contingency, school boards may run out of the less painful type of reductions until all that's left are stinging cuts. Still, boards shouldn't rush to impose those harsher cuts without first exhausting all of those gentler, structural measures first. Also, the public can help shape smarter budgets well before the annual day of reckoning at the polls. Long Island would suffer fewer "round two" defeats - and fewer austerity budgets - if taxpayers were to get more involved in budget development on days other than election day. |
|
|
|
Post by LS on Aug 29, 2005 0:49:02 GMT -5
Bravo! And I'll ask again, what the hell is New York waiting for? Connecticut Sues 'No Child Behind' LawAnother very good question snizzster...and another one that I raised after researching mandates myself and finding information such as this (which is btw from a conservative right-wing publication ) and curiously I never got an answer to... Is this 'No Child Left Behind' thing in reality a law, a mandate or is it merely an 'Act' that states can indeed opt in and out of on a voluntary basis?? And if it is indeed the latter- why aren't states- especially those that have their own programs in place (NY is one that does)- opting out?? And if it turns out it is indeed a federal 'law' or a 'mandate'...it's being grossly underfunded and under the 1995 UFMA it can rightfully be challenged by the states...so why hasn't it been?? www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1663.cfmWhat Unfunded Mandates?
CBO Study Reveals Washington Not at Fault for State Budget Crisesby Brian M. Riedl June 18, 2003 States have successfully secured a $20 billion bailout from Washington to close their expanding budget deficits. Never mind that state overspending created this crisis. General fund revenues have climbed 46 percent since 1990, but spending has climbed 50 percent--nearly twice the rate of federal spending. Total state government spending topped $1 trillion per year for the first time ever in 2000 and has continued to rise. Many state officials have claimed to be entitled to a federal bailout as reimbursement for a flurry of new unfunded mandates imposed on them by Washington. These claims are supported by sympathetic media reports detailing state difficulties in paying for expensive education and homeland security mandates. Many of these analyses seem to define an unfunded mandate as "any program that states wish Washington would pay for." In reality, unfunded mandates must be, as the name indicates, both unfunded and mandated. Nearly all recent federal education and homeland security laws have been either voluntary or fully funded by Washington. In fact, only two significant unfunded mandates have been imposed on state and local governments since 1996, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (see Tables 1 and 2). These two unfunded mandates cost the average state only $9 million per year, or 0.09 percent of the typical state's $10 billion general fund budget. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report shows that the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) has reduced the number of new unfunded mandates placed on state and local governments. Consequently, states cannot legitimately blame Washington for their spending crises. VOLUNTARY PROGRAMSWhy is the number of unfunded mandates so much fewer than is commonly reported? The answer lies in the definition of an unfunded mandate, which UMRA generally classifies as a federal program that meets both of the following criteria. Mandate. "Any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty on state, local, or tribal governments...or that would reduce or eliminate the amount of funding authorized to cover the costs of existing mandates. Duties that arise as a condition of federal assistance or from participating in a voluntary federal program are not mandates." Unfunded. "Direct federal funding is less than the amount state, local, and tribal governments would be required to spend to comply with the mandate. Such costs are limited to spending that results directly from the enforceable duty imposed by the legislation rather than from the legislation's broad effects on the economy. "5 An unfunded mandate does not violate UMRA unless the combined annual cost to state, local, and tribal governments exceeds $58 million (inflation-adjusted from $50 million in 1996), which is approximately $1.2 million per state. The distinction between voluntary and mandated programs is important. Its central principle is that states should be free to spend their own tax revenues as they see fit, rather than be forced to fund unwanted programs imposed by Washington. Voluntary programs, by definition, are not imposed on states. They are proposals by the federal government of how states could perform a certain function. If a state likes the federal model, Washington offers to help pay the costs of implementing it. If a state dislikes the model, it can opt out and remain independent of federal meddling. The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act is as an example of a voluntary program. States have the authority to decide how to educate their disadvantaged children. The federal government has created its own model program, the No Child Behind Act, and offered to subsidize the program's cost for any state volunteering to adopt it. The states that have criticized the federal model or found the federal funding insufficient are free to opt out and run their own programs instead.DE FACTO MANDATES?Some call these programs "de facto mandates" because no rational state would opt out of the federal programs--the federal money more than justifies the federal strings attached. In other words, states unanimously enrolled in these programs because the deals were too good to pass up, not because Washington required it. States have grown resentful of the federal government--despite receiving $400 billion per year in federal funding--because they now consider themselves entitled to this money with no strings attached. States expect federal money to subsidize their own education and homeland security visions. When Washington instead requires that federal dollars be used only for federally approved purposes, states feel cheated. For example, states have received federal funding for educating disadvantaged children since 1965. Flexibility in the original federal law allowed states significant control over how those federal education dollars were spent. Over time, states came to feel entitled to federal money subsidizing their own education programs. When the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act placed different restrictions on how states spend this federal money (which was substantially increased), they could no longer allocate as much federal money to their own preferred education programs. Somehow, this reassertion of authority by Washington over how federal money is spent became known as an "unfunded mandate," despite the program being neither unfunded nor mandated. States still consider this federal funding worth more than the new restrictions, as no state has yet opted out of the program. There are arguments for and against open-ended, unregulated grants to states. States, however, are not entitled to have their own programs funded by Washington. A comparison can be made with welfare reform: Governments have the right to require welfare recipients to work in return for receiving public assistance. No one is entitled to taxpayer dollars, and anyone who considers the conditions overly burdensome may opt out of the system. The same principle applies to state governments receiving federal money. State officials are being hypocritical. They demand total control over the spending of their own tax revenues, without federal meddling. However, their claims of "entitlement" to federal dollars with no strings attached challenges Washington's right to control how federal tax revenues are spent. In effect, states are attempting to impose an unfunded mandate on Washington. UNFUNDED MANDATES BEFORE 1996UMRA does not affect the unfunded mandates enacted before 1996. For example, Washington requires that states provide an adequate level of special education funding, but furnishes only a portion of the cost. The Environmental Protection Agency mandates that state and local government enforce federal environmental regulations without sufficiently funding their cost. Washington needs to reform these unfair and burdensome unfunded mandates. States, however, cannot legitimately blame decades-old unfunded mandates for budget crises that began only three years ago. Medicaid, the largest unfunded mandate, requires deeper analysis. Federal law mandates that states run Medicaid programs and sets minimum eligibility and benefit standards, but states have the option to expand eligibility and benefits beyond the federal minimum. The federal government then reimburses states for approximately half of the program's $200 billion total annual cost. Washington deserves much of the blame for designing an expensive and inefficient program and then imposing it on states without providing full funding. Yet, states have made the program even more expensive. Approximately 60 percent of the average state's Medicaid budget is for optional services and populations beyond the federal minimum. These optional services--such as covering weight-loss help and substance-abuse treatment--have played a large role in the program's 165 percent increase since 1990. If states are now feeling the pinch of rising Medicaid costs, they have the authority to reduce the non-mandated eligibility and benefits. They could also support President Bush's proposal to grant states increased flexibility to modernize their Medicaid programs. Current high Medicaid costs are not all Washington's fault. CONCLUSIONClearly, the federal government is obligated to reimburse states for costs it imposes on them. However, Washington is not obligated to pay all the costs for federal-state partnerships that states freely choose to enter. Although state budget struggles are real, they were not imposed by Washington. No state has been required to implement the No Child Left Behind Act. States are spending more on homeland security because they wisely made it a priority, not because of excessive Washington mandates to do so. There is a simple solution to the fractured relationship between Washington and the states: States should have complete control over how their tax dollars are spent. The federal government should reimburse states for costs imposed on them. Washington should have complete control over how tax dollars it receives are spent. If states willingly accept federal dollars, they should also accept the federal strings attached. |
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Sept 8, 2005 21:29:23 GMT -5
LS, I've been trying for the past few days to respond to this thread, but all I kept getting were "too many connection" errors and couldn't access the forum. I'm not surprised at the runaround and stonewalling you've received. It's par for the course all over, and as a teacher, I can tell you we're left as much in the dark about a great number of things by school boards and administrators as anyone else. If it's at all helpful, I can tell you that the NCLB Act (and I do mean "act" in the most literal sense ) is a federal law that took the place of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). All states are required to implement and comply, contrary to the incorrect information about it being "voluntary" that was written by the uninformed and ignorant spinmeister above. He is correct in his statement that says "states have the authority to decide how to educate their disadvantaged children," however that's one of the myriad problems with NCLB. NCLB acknowledges that each state has the authority to decide how to best educate their children, including those who are not disadvantaged, yet at the same time, it overrides this by mandating additional testing, which further eats up precious instructional time. The results are also so micro-dissected by race that they skewer statistics that paint pictures that are different from reality, which in turn, unjustly effects funding. Along with a sundry of other requirements, is a provision that any student can request a transfer to another school if the school they are attending fails to meet these questionable federal standards for two consecutive years. However, they failed to address how this is supposed to be implemented. Urban schools are already long out of space and overflowing, so where are transferees supposed to be put? What about rural areas where the next closest school might be 30 miles away? How are these students supposed to get there?  States have their own means of assessing their students, mainly through their own testing. The federal testing is an unnecessary duplication, a waste of time and resources. Funding for the NCLB is often much less than half of what it's actually costing states to implement and comply with, so that would place it in the "unfunded mandate" category and in direct conflict and violation of UMFA, something which gives every state the undeniable right to challenge it's legality. Speaking from the viewpoint of a teacher, I have come to two conclusions about this "act." First, with the way the results are presented, it unfairly puts more schools in the non-compliance category and so gives the federal government a reason to provide less funding for schools. Schools that do not meet standards have their federal funding slashed. If the real reason was that these schools were not meeting these federal standards, then isn't slashing funds to schools obviously in need of help directly counterproductive to the supposed goal behind this law in the first place? The second is, that it's handed a huge no-bid reward on a silver platter to yet another major corporation, namely McGraw-Hill, who already handles 80% of the testing for various states across the country, and provides most of the textbooks used in classrooms across the country. I will be among the first to argue the fact that our educational system is in serious trouble and has been apallingly dumbed down over the past 30 years. I will be the first to argue the case that standards need to be raised back to the levels they once were. However, that involves getting back to teaching the basics, all of them, in a more thorough, slower paced manner that gives students the time and ability to grasp subject matter, instead of racing through a fragmented and abstract curriculum that does little to spark interest and inspire students to learn. The NCLB is an expense that offers nothing to change or correct any of that. |
|
|
|
Post by LS on Sept 19, 2005 0:21:32 GMT -5
Hey- thanks Roland...you've been very informative- (and I couldn't agree with you more). Considering the stonewalling and non-answers I've gotten at this end...and I should've known better than to consider government propaganda to be at all truthful ...But this definitely gives me something concrete and a direction to go in. Hopefully I can get what I need to get something going- fight fire with a little fire - in time for the upcoming round. |
|
|
|
but I find it encouraging to see that we're not the only ones staging our own tax revolt. 
Goosed along by those nifty Bush tax cuts and a fabricated, needless war. 
but it did my heart good last week to FINALLY see those friggin school budgets go DOWN big time! ;D 
I'm paying 100% of their medical benefits. I've got to pay a good hunk of my own and I still have to do without. I'm paying 100% of their pensions and I've got no pension or 401. I haven't even been able to put a dime into my IRA in about 5 years because every year I have to pay more and more for their pensions and I can't keep up. 
I teach in the city of Chicago. The teachers in the suburbs average twice what I get paid, for less years put in, and they don't have to deal with nearly what I do. I live just outside city limits and my taxes pay their salaries, so think about how I feel. 
;D And yeesh...didn't realize I'm running so far behind!! 
It's a tough spot- it's not the team per se...the players don't give a crap where they play...but I can't support the team without supporting the 'organization' and the 'organization' now disgusts me...it's far from it was when Leon was alive and owned the team. 
