Vote Yes on state question 744

[Ed W]

You'd think the Republicans would be in favor of this question in light of Grover Norquist's quip about making government small enough to drown in a bathtub.  If this passes and it strangles every agency except education, their dream may be realized.  

[custosnox]

Good grief RM, I have been accused of beating the dead horse on wanting stricter access to abortion laws, which in my opinion is far more contentious of an issue that this school funding bill could ever hope to be.

Who besides RM is in favor of 744 in this forum?

Personally I am still undecided.  I have mixed thoughts on it.

[RecycleMichael]

You'd think the Republicans would be in favor of this question in light of Grover Norquist's quip about making government small enough to drown in a bathtub.  If this passes and it strangles every agency except education, their dream may be realized.  

Excellent point, Ed.

[guido911]

You'd think the Republicans would be in favor of this question in light of Grover Norquist's quip about making government small enough to drown in a bathtub.  If this passes and it strangles every agency except education, their dream may be realized.  

Because Grover Norquist speaks for all republicans. Jeez, channel Janeane Garofalo much?

[RecycleMichael]

Good grief RM, I have been accused of beating the dead horse on wanting stricter access to abortion laws, which in my opinion is far more contentious of an issue that this school funding bill could ever hope to be.

Who besides RM is in favor of 744 in this forum?

You are not in charge of discussions. Stop trying to control them.

Many people also read this forum without commenting. I hope to reach some of them.

[guido911]

Excellent point, Ed.

Well, we get your slap at repubs on the issue (color me surprised), what's your position on 744?

[RecycleMichael]

Is your method just to dismiss everybody else on this thread?

[guido911]

Is your method just to dismiss everybody else on this thread?

I gave you your props on your passion, and proceeded to point out you essentially started a brand new thread regarding a previously (and by the way laboriously) discussed issue without making a single damned new point. In my opinion, that's beating a dead horse. As for my "dismissive" approach, grow a pair will you? Man you can be thinned skin sometimes. Interesting how you gave Ed a pass, and indeed, praised him on his slap though.

And by the way, if you would bother to follow Garafolo in the slightest, you will know that she consistently tries to attach Norquist's views on tax policy, as if he is the end all voice, to all republicans.

[RecycleMichael]

I respectfully disagree. I have discussed funding for other departments and have individually discussed funding for roads, prisons, and higher ed. On this thread I pointed out the pay for legislators and how it compares to the region.

I have many points that have led me to support passage of state question 744. Ed's point that passing this measure might also help reign in other state spending is also valid.

In particular, passage of this measure will force every department to look for waste. This bill might single-handedly make all other areas of state government more efficient. You would support that, correct?   

[guido911]

I respectfully disagree. I have discussed funding for other departments and have individually discussed funding for roads, prisons, and higher ed. On this thread I pointed out the pay for legislators and how it compares to the region.

I have many points that have led me to support passage of state question 744. Ed's point that passing this measure might also help reign in other state spending is also valid.

In particular, passage of this measure will force every department to look for waste. This bill might single-handedly make all other areas of state government more efficient. You would support that, correct?   

I would look favorably on your and Ed's position if that intended consequence actually occurred (and for what it's worth it is a good argument in support 744); but where has such ever occurred. As for the bill, I have detailed the reasons for my opposition in the earlier thread.

RM, you and I have fought on several occasions over numerous issues, but I have always given you yours because you get off your a$$ and actually do something in support of what you believe--which is damned sure more than bomb throwers on both sides do. I would ask you please remember that next time.

[okcpulse]

I respectfully disagree. I have discussed funding for other departments and have individually discussed funding for roads, prisons, and higher ed. On this thread I pointed out the pay for legislators and how it compares to the region.

I have many points that have led me to support passage of state question 744. Ed's point that passing this measure might also help reign in other state spending is also valid.

In particular, passage of this measure will force every department to look for waste. This bill might single-handedly make all other areas of state government more efficient. You would support that, correct?   

I definitely support SQ 744.  Something has to force this legislature into accountability.  Let's kick up some dirt.  I will have to say, based on my experience living in Texas, that schools in Texas may have a higher per pupil expenditure, but it is drastically distributed unequally.  I have seen some very run-down ragged schools in some Texas cities, while others have a campus that resembles a high-tech research institute.

I am hoping if SQ 744 passes, that funding is on a more equitable level across all school districts.

[Red Arrow]

I am hoping if SQ 744 passes,

Hope is not a strategy.  (Seen on the instrument panel of a competition sailplane.)

[Conan71]

The flip side of strangling every agency is that in lieu of being able to cut other budgets, it could create the need to boost taxes by 40% according to one article I was reading yesterday from last spring.  Legislators don't seem to be very adept at cuts.

As long as school systems set having weight rooms for middle schoolers, indoor baseball practice arenas (for a 2A size school, no less), activity buses which look like Prevost motor coaches, football stadiums which look like a Div. 2 college field, multiple layers of administration, and more sprawl while clamoring for fewer students per teacher, the OEA can go piss up a short rope.  When I have time I'm going to go back about two or three years and take a look at other construction projects which seem ridiculous in our school systems.

RM, your passion on the issue has caused me to better educate myself on the issue and frankly, while I suspected there's a fair amount of waste in school systems, I'm truly shocked at the nature of some of these programs and building projects.  We need to be consolidating school districts and quit taking union-recommended student to teacher ratios at face value without some sort of scientific basis to prove the educational experience is vastly improved with fewer students per teacher.  In the absence of such evidence, all I see is the creation of more union dues paying jobs.

Yesterday corrections workers plead their case at the Capitol.  They are complaining of being understaffed and are having to take furlough days.  How well do you think budget cuts will play at the DOC?

Interesting read, this letter says we already spend over $5bln a year on secondary education.  This measure would require $1.7 bln over three years, so do you shut down DHS, cut even further on prisons, cut health care, cut colleges?

"According to the website Datamasher.org, Oklahoma has an average SAT score of 1149 with an average spending of $6,610 per student. Of the five states surrounding Oklahoma only Missouri and Kansas have higher average scores and they spend $1,200 to $1,300 per student more and only get a 24 or 39 point increase for their money. The State of Oklahoma beats Texas by 150 points and Texas spends $636 per student more. Just spending more per student does not insure the students will do better. The State of Utah (lowest per student spending in country) spends $1,394 per student less than Oklahoma and their average score is only 35 points less than ours. The District of Columbia has the highest spending per student ($13,348) and their average score is 209 points lower than Oklahoma.

Since the people behind State Question 744 do not try to show a source of the increased money, one has to assume one of two things: a tax increase or shift money from another program to education. Using data from the Oklahoma Policy Institute, the average student population for Oklahoma this physical is expected to be 658,242 with an average of $7,638 per student being spent. With the $1,600 per student increase, we would need an additional $1,053,187,200.

Oklahoma's budget for FY 2011 for a few of the departments are:

Secondary Education: $5,057,273,286

Higher Education: $1,003,000,000

Health Care Authority: $963,000,000

Dept. of Corrections: $462,000,000

DHS: $43,000,000"

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A32527

/ Edit to add: I'm not sure where this reader came up with his budget numbers, in fact, I keep finding numbers all over the board from any number of sources, it's pretty maddening.  I've found a site where I can compare, peer-to-peer budget items from surrounding states.  When I've got time I'll post some conclusions.  Suffice to say that $$ spent per student is an awkward yardstick to use when a neighboring state like Texas might have a total state budget which is double that of Oklahoma's.  At least from what I've pieced together so far, 40% of our state budget is directed at "common education".

[RecycleMichael]

Yes. the letter to the editor in an alternative weekly that you quoted had some messed up budget numbers.

Here is where you find the actual state budget...      http://www.ok.gov/osf

The Education budget for 2010/2011 is $3,697,137,460. That is broken in out these areas...

Arts Council                   $       4,621,068
Career Tech                   $    145,503,952
Common Ed                   $ 2,493,678,678
OETA                            $       4,344,414
Higher Ed                      $ 1,033,964,088
Libraries                       $        6,545,040
School Science and math $       6,771,282
Teacher Prep                  $       1,718,937  

Common Ed gets 67% of the budget and Higher Ed get 27% of the budget and everybody else splits the remaining 6%.

[Ed W]

Just two points: Sports are sacred in Oklahoma schools.  There's a wonderful line in "Mr. Holland's Opus" when a coach says, "Gosh, I hope they don't shut down the football program."  Holland replies, "Don't worry, they'll close the school first."  Owasso has over 30 coaches for all their programs, and I really have to wonder how much of it is necessary.  But this isn't the time for a diatribe about sports.

Here's the other point - even if this question passes, it's extremely unlikely that it will lead to a tax increase since the legislature requires a super majority to enact any increase.  Given that the Republican majority would prefer to slice off their own fingers rather than raise taxes, an increase is highly unlikely.

The rest of the state budget would be squeezed, and in all honesty, I don't know how that would play out.  I'm a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences, but I'm beginning to think that 744 would be mildly positive rather than the debacle its opponents try to portray.

So for Guido's benefit, I'm in favor of this question.  If it doesn't work - just as Colorado's TABOR law didn't work out - then it's our responsibility as voters and citizens to see that the law is changed.  Simply doing nothing is not a responsible option.