Slog Comments

 

Comments (8) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
bedipped 1
Why does Rob McKenna hate children?
Posted by bedipped on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM · Report this
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!
Posted by retrogrouch on October 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM · Report this
Occupy Seattle 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!
Posted by Occupy Seattle on October 26, 2012 at 8:39 PM · Report this
TheRain 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.
Posted by TheRain on October 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM · Report this
Goldy 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.
Posted by Goldy on October 27, 2012 at 9:42 PM · Report this
TheRain 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?
Posted by TheRain on October 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
Goldy 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.
Posted by Goldy on November 2, 2012 at 12:50 PM · Report this
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!

Posted by david on November 10, 2012 at 11:35 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.