There is one cut in Gov. Gregoire’s preliminary all-cuts budget proposal that the Seattle Times opposes:
The proposed cut the governor would buy back, and that we would, too, is in levy-equalization money for public schools. This is money that keeps a minimum level of schooling in property-poor districts. This page has long believed that the first and best social program is education.
Hmm. I agree that levy-equalization is good public policy. Unfortunately, I wonder if it’s bad politics?
The problem is, many of those “property-poor” districts who benefit most from levy-equalization are also those whose voters most reliably oppose giving state government the necessary taxing authority to pay for things like, you know, levy-equalization.
Understand, this is money that comes out of the pockets of taxpayers in property-rich (?) districts like Seattle and the Eastside suburbs. And for the most part, we don’t mind, because we’re good progressives who support progressive policies like levy-equalization. But when the rest of the state won’t allow us to tax ourselves to pay for the level of education our children want and need, well, that kinda throws a kink in the whole social contract thing.
So perhaps, if the state cuts off levy-equalization, maybe folks in these property-poor districts will think twice before voting against the tax hikes necessary to pay for it? Perhaps the loss of crucial levy-equalization money might create a broader statewide consensus supporting adequate K-12 education funding? Perhaps subsidies like levy-equalization undermine support for tax structure reform the same way Medicare undermines support for health care reform amongst the elderly?
Perhaps.
Maybe we should give the wingnuts what they want. Localize all taxes and spending. Let them spend as much or little on their schools and roads as they choose. And keep King County taxes in King County. Let the folks in the jackrabbit counties pay zero property taxes and zero local sales taxes, and let them ride their mules into town on the dirt paths that will constitute their transportation network. I’m for it.
I second Roger’s proposal.
Yeah, let’s punish the children to show their parents how stupid they are.
Idiots.
“So perhaps, if the state cuts off levy-equalization, maybe folks in these property-poor districts will think twice before voting against the tax hikes necessary to pay for it?”
They’re not smart enough to come to that conclusion. They would notice that they are getting less and that would reinforce their conclusion that it is because government sucks and therefore needs to be further defunded.
You can lead a wingnut to reality, but you can’t make them accept it.
Naturally the problem is much more complex than the proposal of simple solutions including levy-equalization. Many of these property poor districts exist in the vast rural parts of the state, where the actual expense of education is greatly increased through both the capital cost outlays as well as transportation and operating expenses. What often makes these districts property poor is that there may only be a few property owners: large agricultural enterprises, American Indian reservations, commercial industrial development (all of whom are taxed at different rates), etc.
BIA in lieu funding has dropped as states across the country picked up versions of levy-equalization schemes. Depreciation of soil (top soil loss, years of mechanized farming, et al) lowers assessments on giant farms and ranches lower local funds. We also can’t underestimate the vast burgeoning of xTian and other parochial private schools, even in property-rich districts that increase the number of voters who don’t accept paying the taxes. Sadly, Chris’s point in #3 (though a touch too snarky) has already been made: We have already sold out the children of our children, educationally and economically.
I’ve mentioned this a few times, and thought about it quite a bit.
I think it is good policy to a point. The “property poor” also have a lower cost of living, Richland 19.4% less than Seattle (for example, Salary.com). Do they really need THAT much equalization?
The bigger point would be that the Reps of those districts might actually support raising taxes to increase the general funding for K-12 if they lived within THIER means.
I think it is bad policy because it hurts the base level funding. I do understand that it is good policy because children do not often get to pick their parents, Republican parents.
What’s worse is that these same school district wealfare Kings are first in line for “educational reform”.
Fuck them, they’re getting free money.
Hey Goldy, why exactly do you think the Gov said we would not qualify for Fed race to the top grant money in the first round?
Did it require Charter Schools?
That’s my guess, if I am right then I’d like to have a better excuse from the Gov on why she is passing up money.
Mr Baker,
You reminded something to Puddy when Puddy read your commentary…
“As Gov. Chris Gregoire stood in a Renton middle-school library Tuesday to talk about Washington’s bid to win a fierce national competition for billions of dollars in education grants, she recalled a recent heart-to-heart talk with the feds about charter schools.”
But Puddy is curious… If charter schools are so great to Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm and his disciples why is the NEA still against them? Isn’t that gonna create a showdown in 2010 elections? And… why hasn’t Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm and his disciples replaced the voucher program for those poor black WA children with a “charter school”? This is what Jesse Jackson said Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm isn’t doing anything in the Porkulus Bill that helps blacks. Puddy agrees.
“A Republican-controlled Congress established the Opportunity Scholarships program, for kindergarten through grade 12, in 2004. It has provided scholarships of up to $7,500 annually to cover tuition, fees and transportation expenses for each of about 1,700 poor children to attend private school. Some 90 percent of the participating students have been African-American, and an additional 9 percent Hispanic, according to the Department of Education study.”
Remember how the white Senate Democratics inserted a nasty pill in the Porkulus Bill to kill the voucher program for poor black WA DC students who went to those elite white suburban schools? It was to appease their NEA masters. “Yes NEA massas, no mo money to help po black kids get ahead in life. Yes NEA massas, we ended it.” No you don’t remember?
The rest of your rant is worthless psychobabble. You think poor peeps get to pick their parents? What a bunch of irrelevant crapola!
I agree with 1. If they don’t want to pay for the things that government provides, don’t. But they don’t get them either.
how do we create wealth?
@7: Do you recall that we don’t have charter schools in Washington because the voters turned them down, in 2004?
Blaming the NEA or WEA for that is silly.
Because their parents are fiscal conservatives and have poor school district because the parents don’t want to pay taxes, should those children be punished with a lesser education? I say yes.
Yet….
Because their parents are poor and choose to live in a poor school district because the parents cannot afford to live in a more affluent school district, should those children be punished with a lesser education? I say no.
Is it the progressive’s responsility to “save the children” and “give the kids a decent education that their parents are too cheap to pay for!”? I find strange parallels to the old policy of taking American Indian children from their parents and putting them in government schools to “civilize” them. I say no.
We should not force a better eduction on those who don’t want it, or want to sacrifice to pay for it. The poor that want it, should get access to better schools, but the simply cheap, should have to right to stunt their children, as awful as that sounds.
Ummmm Ryan,
@11
Or, the base paid from the general fund should be higher, or high enough to compensate for a portion of the redistribution of wealth.
I am arguing that the base is too low, and levy equalization hides that fact from those that are represented by people that actively work against educational funding.
We ration education in Seattle right now.
What is “basic” education?
Fund it.
Districts that want other things should be able to fund those other things. Right now the way around the situation is PTA supplimenting a given school.
My kids school last year paid half of the art teacher’s salary with PTA fundraising.
We are already going around the broken funding system, to a direct user pays systemvia the PTA.
Raise the base for $1, cut levy equalization by $2, until the “basic” education is funded, and balance the budget with the rest.