Slog Comments
How Rob McKenna Plans to Spend $1.7 Billion More on K-12 Education, Without Spending a Penny More on K-12 Education
2
It's driven me crazy for months that he talks about increasing the percent of the budget being spent on schools - but if you listen it's not more spending on education - it's done by cutting the rest of the budget back. It's disgustingly slick, and no one seems to be calling him on it!
3
So basically, McKenna's fucking "brilliant ideas" boil down to lying to voters and hoping that they don't find out in time. Kinda reminds me of Bernie Madoff scheme. When it all comes falling apart, we the poor schmucks are the ones left holding the bag and paying the bill. Tea Party Republicans Rob McKenna, Reagan Dunn, Kim Wyman, and James Watkins need to go back to school and learn the basics before trying to run for state office. Clearly, they are lacking brains and experience to do right by our state. It's just pathetic that NO OTHER fucking newspaper is reporting McKenna's Bernie Madoff scheme. Did they check their brains at the door along with their morals? Shameful!
4
It's also becoming increasingly clear that a) increasing the state share of the property tax would require a supermajority vote and b) the state doesn't have the authority to tell local school district to lower their levies in return, which makes the whole "swap" thing a load of hooey.
5
@4 The Legislature can certainly lower the cap on local levies. Raising the state levy will require a suspension of I-747 and for the moment, a 2/3 vote.
6
I agree that they can lower the cap, but what about those districts that don't run a max levy? My understanding of the swap is that it's every district that runs a levy lowering that by 2%, and if you're in a district like mine that only runs 10% by what legal authority would McKenna say that we have to lower that to 8%?
And what of those districts that don't run a levy at all?
And what of those districts that don't run a levy at all?
7
This isn't a scheme. No money is lost and no money is gained. What happens is it routes the money in a different way. It's a good idea because school funding is provided at the local level. levies are higher in wealthier areas so those schools get more money, while schools in less funded areas struggle. When the school in less wealthy areas can't afford necessities, children in those areas don't have access to the same education. Instead of the money coming from local levies it is routed through the state level, giving the same funding to all schools. Thus, every child has the same education.
I'm willing to bet that Rob Mckenna is counting the additional money given to the (now) less funded schools.
Read some unbiased research on issues you're voting on, and make sure you have an open mind. Rooting for your sports team is not the same thing as voting for candidates and propositions that effect everyone.
Or vote for charter schools. More schools=smaller class size=smarter Washington
I'm willing to bet that Rob Mckenna is counting the additional money given to the (now) less funded schools.
Read some unbiased research on issues you're voting on, and make sure you have an open mind. Rooting for your sports team is not the same thing as voting for candidates and propositions that effect everyone.
Or vote for charter schools. More schools=smaller class size=smarter Washington
8
@6 It's a lowering of the cap, generally from 28 percent to 14 percent, but the whole formula is complicated due to levy equalization dollars. No district gets less money, thanks to a "hold harmless" clause, and a few districts get more... mostly the handful that don't have any local levy. But the total new spending statewide is negligible.
So while you'd think this would result in a big shift of dollars to poorer districts, it doesn't, because it replaces levy equalization that is already providing much of this shift. What it does do is shift the tax burden, particularly to wealthier districts, but also to poor districts that currently raise little or no local levy.
So while you'd think this would result in a big shift of dollars to poorer districts, it doesn't, because it replaces levy equalization that is already providing much of this shift. What it does do is shift the tax burden, particularly to wealthier districts, but also to poor districts that currently raise little or no local levy.
9
We need better education. We can start with remedial math for republicans. I'm sure we could all use that but seriously: I'm not so sure the cynical theory is right any more. I'm beginning to think that sometime, starting in the Reagan years maybe, they've been losing more and more math knowledge.
It would explain so much!
It would explain so much!
Comments (9) RSS