Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:31 am | Updated: 8:52 am, Tue Aug 14, 2012.
Arizona and California both were deep in debt. Arizona now has a budget surplus, and California is continuing to go deeper in debt. What’s the difference? California is run by liberals and Arizona by conservatives. Remember that lesson next November!
Gary Larson
Mesa
Posted in Opinion, Letters to the editor on Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:31 am. Updated: 8:52 am. | Tags:
Current users sign in here.
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
chatmandu002 posted at 9:02 am on Sat, Aug 11, 2012.
Gary,
Right on, right on. To bad so many of the Californians are coming to Arizona and bring their liberal/progressive losing ideology with them.
Mike McClellan posted at 10:03 am on Sat, Aug 11, 2012.
Uh, Gary, one problem with your claim -- think that we have a surplus?
Not if the conservatives had had their way, we'd have a $200 million deficit.
How so?
Remember the sales tax initiative, the one that almost every conservative opposed?
That sales tax brought in almost $1 billion in state revenue.
Take that money away -- as the conservatives wanted -- and the surplus becomes a huge deficit.
Nice try.
pnutman posted at 11:00 am on Sat, Aug 11, 2012.
Added note: California also has many of their important Cities already filing for Bankruptcy.
Detractors for that State.
The Mental Set of all the past and present leadership has submitted to the Welfare system and the population base for the Sanctuary city mentality. Old philosophy, tell you who you go to sleep with, in most cases you have to support it.
Liberal handouts will always bite you. That is the main problem with the whole country- NOW we all must PAY the PIPER
There is no answer to the problem, no matter how one attempts to fix it.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 12:47 pm on Sat, Aug 11, 2012.
Not only California....just look at the other "Democrat Politics" Cities that are becoming "Greek".
Chicago
Atlanta
New York City
Madison, Wisconsin almost had to fight another "Civil War"...to put an end to the Public Sector "Entitlement Mentality" of never-ending, ever-higher cost-of-living adjustments to the Police, the Firemen, the Teachers, the City Workers on down. After paying the Pension Fund payments = there was nothing in the City Treasury to pay for the everyday running of the City for the tax-payers. Every Public Sector worker was getting $30,000 - $40,000 - $50,000 a year Retirement Pension (after 20 years service) until the day they croaked...oh....and don't forget the "Mayo Clinic-Caviar" Health Care and Hospitalization Retirement Benefits.....a 4-star General in the Army should have it so good.
Dale Whiting posted at 1:33 pm on Sat, Aug 11, 2012.
Mike,
Please don't confuse Gary and the others with the facts! It embarrasses them needlessly!
But what do we know, anyway? Apparently the Governator was a liberal!
onerebel posted at 4:44 pm on Sat, Aug 11, 2012.
Ok Dale, enlighten us. Remind us how well California is doing compared to Arizona. Remind us how the Governator, one of the FEW Republican's in a state ran by Liberals, is the only one that caused California's problems, even though his policies were often closer to being Liberal then Conservative. Let's see all those facts on how California was ruined by Republican's, and Arizona was saved by Democrats !
Mike McClellan posted at 5:23 am on Sun, Aug 12, 2012.
California? Check out Prop. 13. That wasn't a Democratic idea
Arizona? Without the sales tax initiative -- opposed by every Republican except Brewer -- Arizona'd be $200 million in the hole.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:45 am on Sun, Aug 12, 2012.
Mr. McClellan -- there ya go again.
Please quit shoving facts under right wingers noses.
First, it gives them headaches / indigestion.
Second, they don't care about any facts that don't fit their ideological view.
Any facts that don't fit their view are obviously made up by some socialist think tank and are outright lies --- they have to be because it doesn't agree with what they want the facts to be.
onerebel posted at 5:01 pm on Sun, Aug 12, 2012.
Mike you are correct that prop 13, an idea of reducing taxes did not start from A Democrat, however it was approved by 2/3 of the voters in a Liberal state. The fact that a very Liberal state said enough with the taxes says a lot about how the California voters must have felt the spending was out of control. Sorry to burst your bubble wee little Willie but I enjoy facts, and like to learn new ones. However unlike you I don't feel everyone with a different view is automatically an idiot. I have even agreed with you a few times.[wink]
Mike McClellan posted at 5:26 pm on Sun, Aug 12, 2012.
onerebel, it did reduce taxes; however, it resulted in this: Person A bought a house in 1987-- his property tax on his house has remained unchanged since then; Person B buys the exact same house in 2010 -- he pays the existing rate. In other words, the 2/3 paid for a kind of tax control for the lucky ones who've lived in their homes for awhile. But the folks who move or move into Cali in effect pay for those who don't move.
That's fair? Really?
onerebel posted at 7:29 pm on Sun, Aug 12, 2012.
Mike, I agree our tax system is anything but fair. We have people scamming the system, both rich and those that are not. Then those of us in the middle are left holding the bill.
VofReason posted at 1:19 pm on Mon, Aug 13, 2012.
Always better to increase taxes then reduce expense- right? Or is the expense side of the equation always run so tight that taxes are the only possible remedy? The answer to that question will illuminate whether you believe you are a (responsible) conservative or not.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:22 pm on Tue, Aug 14, 2012.
Of course, in this case , we aren't increasing taxes at all; we're just making the current sales tax remain.
And the legislature's cut what, $1.4 billion from K -12 funding over the last 3 years? Take a look at the funding for K-12 in fiscal '08 and compare it to now, then tell us that this is somehow a spending increase if we make the sales tax permanent.
VofReason posted at 1:38 pm on Tue, Aug 14, 2012.
Hmmm. I will bite. So what is the right amount of money to fund Education per student and why? Not it is this and now it is less- what if we were overspending 1.4 billion and the cuts now brought it in line? Maybe it is underfunded? Problem is everyone talks about it is this and it needs to be more, not it needs to be this amount and this why.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:56 pm on Tue, Aug 14, 2012.
VofReason ... I doubt any of us here are qualified to name a number for what the correct expenditure for education -- say on a per child basis -- should be.
But, we all know that Arizona has done nothing the last few years but cut cut cut the education funding and that Arizona's education results are swirling around the drain, very close to the lowest in the country.
I believe even Mississippi spends more per child than Arizona --- now THAT is embarrassing when you are beaten by Mississippi. And they have better test results.
I know there are areas where money is spent that it shouldn't be. All school sports teams should be dropped. Why are taxpayers paying for football and baseball and soccer fields with education taxes? Sports are nothing but a distraction from learning.
A kid has a better chance of being hit by lightening twice than becoming a pro athlete.
Why should taxpayers be promoting those unrealistic dreams?
Especially when every dollar spent watering a football field could be spent hiring great teachers or on better computers etc. etc. etc.
If parents want their kids to play sports, they should put them in an after school program ran by retired pro-athletes on their own dime ... not the taxpayers.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:18 pm on Tue, Aug 14, 2012.
VofReason, great idea you have. Now, let's apply it to an even bigger chunk of our taxes, the defense budget.
Let's see, our defense budget is larger than the next 14 largest defense-spending countries . . . combined.
It has grown faster than any other part of the overall budget in the last 12 years.
If we have President Romney, the budget will grow even faster.
This despite the wind down of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ready to apply the "right amount of money" to defense?
But to address your question:
No study has shown a definitive link between small class sizes and achievement. However, there is a tipping point the other direction; that is, when class sizes get too large.
At the high school level, that's about at 35 in English and math. At that point, teachers do not have the physical ability to get to all kids in a period, and also results, in English anyhow, with teachers either A. assigning less writing; B. evaluating them less carefully; or C. leaving the profession.
C. is not only an achievement killer -- high turnover in teachers -- all studies show -- result in students lagging behind in math and English, but also is a budget killer in that districts have costs associated with new teachers.
And when one half of all new teachers leave the profession within 5 years, you have a problem. That turnover is dramatically different from when I began teaching almost 40 years ago.
There are many reasons for that turnover, but ask a new teacher facing 36 kids in a 4th grade class or a high school English teacher with 185 kids during the day what effect that number has on their teaching.
And we can cut waste -- it's happened already -- but there are also fixed costs that invariably rise -- health insurance, utilities, food costs.
So yeah, more money is not the answer. But is dramatically less money?
So, Voice, what is the tipping point for you in terms of class size? That is, when does class size become unmanageable?
Bluepoet posted at 10:50 am on Thu, Aug 16, 2012.
Yeah, Arizona may have a budget surplus, which I doubt, but, for the sake of argument, let's say it's true. Will that surplus still be there, when the bill comes due for the leased buildings that used to be owned by we, the people? You know, the state goverment buildings, that were sold, to keep the government running?
There are other examples of borrowing from one income stream, to pay for another, or pad the books, but yeah, we're in really great shape, because we're so conservative, here...(and the blooming private prison business is the poster child of the conservative mentality.)
Conservative used to mean just that conserve/preserve...nowadays, it means regressive reactionary, and myopic vision.
Even William F. Buckley is turning over, in his grave!