“Stressfulness” ? I assume you meant something like scores ? The images that come to mind about a campaign to enhance “stressfulness” in schools are amusing though.
EDIT : There you are
Along with that the money went to the state to be redistributed to the districts, according to a formula that made sense back then but makes no sense today. But LA makes out very well, so it will never change.
The real problem with Prop 13 is that it replaced a stable source of taxes with one that fluctuates wildly with the economy. Thus, the recession caused this tremendous decrease in revenues just when we need it. Plus. Prop 13 also applies to business property. I can maybe see the point that little old ladies get a break, but little old businesses?
Prop 13 also means that neighbors pay wildly different levels of property tax. My friend two doors down pays almost nothing, having lived in his house for a long time. The value of my house, and my income, has doubled since I moved in (even now) but my taxes have gone up maybe 15%, max. My neighbor’s daughter moved in between us, and I suspect she pays more than me for a smaller house. It’s stupid and unfair, and I say that getting the benefit of it.
California is 46th in school funding per capita. (Cite). Back before I moved here, California had some of the best schools, and best colleges, in the country. After Prop 13, not so much. When I moved here from NJ 13 years ago, my oldest was 1/2 to 1 year ahead of kids in her grade. It came from having an extra period a day. Sure, my property taxes were lower on a more expensive house, but was it worth it?
Not to mention even my good district has all sorts of issues with kids not knowing English well - and these kids are not illegal immigrants, they are legal immigrants from Afghanistan, China, Southeast Asia, etc. Dealing with this takes money.
California made its bed with stupid-ass taxing and spending policies: new taxes need a 2/3 majority, but new spending needs a majority. Oh, and everything is a constitutional amendment that can be approved by a one-time majority vote by the people. This really seemed like a good idea? New constitution, please.
What your link doesn’t show is that spending from the state legislature was actually below inflation. What killed the budget (and the revenue problem is the root cause of the issue today) was propositions. Three strikes in particular led to a gigantic expansion of prisons, which are very expensive. Actually prisons are a far bigger reason for the problem today than education.
The other culprit is the stupid 2/3 requirement for new taxes - and Republicans who are dead set against getting new revenue, but won’t propose a reasonable set of cuts.
One column I read yesterday suggests that Arnie is playing chicken with the legislature. Maybe if the constituents of the Republican members finally see what their anti-tax stance is going to lead to, there might be some pressure on them to see reason. I hope all the prisoners who are going to be released get released into Republican districts.
Agreed. That’s the only way out of this mess. Let’s get rid of term limits while we’re at it - makes it easier for legislators to kick the problem down the road.
No, that cite shows that California was 46th in per capita school funding as a percentage of per capita income. And it was calculcated in the early 1990’s, when California was wealthy so income was high.
These more recent figures from 2004 show California to be 9th in per capita elementary and secondary education spending.
Actually, the problem has been big surpluses in good years, thanks to Prop 13 and reliance on sales and income taxes, which fluctuate more rapidly than property taxes. When Davis was governor he added money to schools, but there was very, very strong support for this. And it was a problem, since the income is less stable than expenses.
If this helps establish a Silicon Valley for biotech in California, the investment will pay for itself many times over. Only time will tell if we’ve gotten enough of a jumpstart on this.
On the other hand, no term limits often means they stay in for life no matter how awful they are. Yes, in theory they can always be voted out; but in practice that seldom happens and you end up with a legislature filled with the senile and just plain backwards.
Per capita income makes a lot more sense. You can’t directly compare us to states where the cost of living is so much lower. Teachers have to live someplace too.
I’ve done enough stuff in the schools here to know the money isn’t being thrown away in waste. Like I said we moved from New Jersey, and the difference in available resources is striking. We’re lucky that we have good teachers despite this.
Heh, we’ve got about 1/3 backward and equivalent to senile even now with term limits.
They’re called Republicans. 
So what you are saying is that putting more criminals away for longer (what the 3 strikes prop did) is a bad thing since it was expensive, AND that letting prisoners go do to budget cuts is also a bad thing? (Unless they get released into the districts where there are people you don’t like.) 
Anyways, I do agree that California’s propositions do end up with insane results. Like that $10 billion dollar train line that was voted in last year, which California can’t really afford right now. And that is just to start, the total cost is estimated to be $40 billion.
How do I put this… assuming you can produce that, in such a manner as to reasonably pay back such vast grants, which cannot be easily moved elsewhere (and Cali is not a center of biotech in the way is is in electronics) is a highly dubious proposition. Moreover, beggars shouldn’t spend on adorments.
No, that if you are both for putting away 3 timers and against raising taxes to pay for this, you’re an idiot. (Not you, the people of California in general.) Politicians, despite their flaws, have to deal with this kind of tradeoff. A lot of propositions for big spending bills (like the train line) comes with the assurance that it won’t raise taxes.
I chose the prisons because they are a big part of the problem, and because they are something the anti-taxers like. At least liberals are willing to pay for the stuff we like. And I’m not necessarily against the three strike law.
I live and work in Silicon Valley, and people have tried to start up their own all over the world. I have a very nice Silicon Bayou poster with a metal crawfish. It isn’t easy. Once you get a critical mass in one place, it is very hard to dislodge. Nearly everyone I work with has worked in 2 or 3 other high tech companies around here also. When I worked for Bell Labs in NJ, I was pretty much stuck there. After I moved here, when I wanted to change jobs it was simple - no overhead, no move, and my commute decreased.
If stem cell companies take off, venture capitalists will be putting in a lot more than the state did, and the investment will be paid off in no time - just in increased taxes. A car dealer thread covered the impact to the community of a big car dealer shutting down. A big biotech company opening has the opposite (positive) impact in more business for local merchants and more tax revenue.
None of that even addresses remotely what I said. I said the people that use the most government services don’t pay for them. That’s not limited to the poor, but pretty much everybody that doesn’t earn generational wealth in a year.
It’s pretty easy to see, really. Look at the state’s budget. Do you think rich fat cats and corporations are making much use of welfare, healthcare, and schooling. Those make up the vast majority of spending.
As long as there is this disconnect, you’ll never get meaningful spending cuts because the people on the dole will always outnumber those paying for it.
While I agree that the proposition system has serious faults, that doesn’t prove revenue is the issue: as my cite indicates, revenue went up 167% in 18 years.
If you’re going to say that every penny – or even the majority – of the $90 billion more they’re spending is proposition-driven, I’m gonna have to ask for a cite.
Why is this a stupid requirement? I think it’s a great thing. Yes, it handcuffs the legislature somewhat … that’s the point.
If the propositions force you to cut spending on other stuff … then cut the fucking spending on other fucking stuff! Close down parks, cut trash collection to once a week, make the lines at the DMV longer, and above all stop giving state employees sweetheart pension deals. If the voters don’t like it, they can change it back. But don’t spend yourself into oblivion and then expect the responsible states to save your ass.
Wishing ill on one’s politcal adversaries. Lovely.
You are aware that there are waay more Dems than Pubs in Cali? And that those propositions and amendments were approved by the majority of ALL Californians?
Furt, from the article you quoted:
Using his CPI increase average of 4.38 over 18 years that is a net inflation of 233%. If that is correct, the state actually spends less in terms of real money per person by a significant amount now as compared to 18 years ago.
No, the 4.38% is the product of population growth and CPI growth. In comparing per capita spending, population growth is already backed out.