Posted on 05/16/2005 2:24:48 PM PDT by calcowgirl
The multimillion-dollar campaign paid by starving teachers unions has finally placed our sadly neglected schools at the center of the budget debate.
Across California, children are bringing home notes warning of dire consequences if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's scorched-earth budget is approved -- a budget that slashes Proposition 98 public-school spending from $42.2 billion this year all the way down to $44.7 billion next year.
That should be proof enough that our math programs are suffering.
As a public-school parent, I have given this crisis a great deal of thought and have a modest suggestion to help weather these dark days.
Maybe -- as a temporary measure only -- we should spend our school dollars on our schools. I realize that this is a radical departure from current practice, but desperate times require desperate measures.
The governor proposed spending $10,084 per student from all sources. Devoting all of this money to the classroom would require turning tens of thousands of school bureaucrats, consultants, advisers and specialists onto the streets with no means of support or marketable job skills, something that no enlightened social democracy should allow.
So I will begin by excluding from this discussion the entire budget of the State Department of Education, as well as the pension system, debt service, special education, child care, nutrition programs and adult education. I also propose setting aside $3 billion to pay an additional 30,000 school bureaucrats $100,000 per year with the proviso that they stay away from the classroom and pay their own hotel bills at conferences.
This leaves a mere $6,937 per student, which, for the duration of the funding crisis, I propose devoting to the classroom.
To illustrate how we might scrape by at this subsistence level, let's use a hypothetical school of 180 students with only $1.2 million to get through the year.
We have all seen the pictures of filthy bathrooms, leaky roofs, peeling paint and crumbling plaster to which our children have been condemned. I propose that we rescue them from this squalor by leasing out luxury commercial office space. Our school will need 4,800 square feet for five classrooms (the sixth class is gym). At $33 per foot, an annual lease will cost $158,400.
This will provide executive washrooms, around-the-clock janitorial service, wall-to-wall carpeting, utilities and music in the elevators. We'll also need new desks to preserve the professional ambience.
Next, we'll need to hire five teachers, but not just any teachers. I propose hiring only associate professors from the California State University at their level of pay. Since university professors generally assign more reading, we'll need 12 of the latest edition, hardcover books for each student at an average $75 per book, plus an extra $5 to have the student's name engraved in gold leaf on the cover.
Since our conventional gym classes haven't stemmed the childhood obesity epidemic, I propose replacing them with an annual membership at a private health club for $39.95 per month. Finally, we'll hire an $80,000 administrator with a $40,000 secretary because, well, I don't know exactly why, but we always have.
Our bare-bones budget comes to this:
5 classrooms -- $158,400 150 desks @ $130 -- $19,500 180 annual health club memberships @ $480 -- $86,400 2,160 textbooks @ $80 -- $172,800 5 CSU associate professors @ $67,093 -- $335,465 1 administrator -- $80,000 1 secretary -- $40,000 24 percent faculty and staff benefits -- $109,312 Offices, expenses and insurance -- $30,000 TOTAL -- $1,031,877L
The school I have just described is the school we're paying for. Maybe it's time to ask why it's not the school we're getting.
Other, wiser, governors have made the prudent decision not to ask such embarrassing questions of the education-industrial complex because it makes them very angry. Apparently the unions believe that with enough of a beating, Gov. Schwarzenegger will see things the same way.
Perhaps. But there's an old saying that you can't fill a broken bucket by pouring more water into it. Maybe it's time to fix the bucket.
Tom McClintock represents the 19th District in the California state Senate. Write to him by e-mail at tom.mcclintock@sen.ca.gov.
That's pretty cowardly IMO!!!
You are right. California needs to rebuild the states voting pattern so they will again vote more conservatives into office. That will take time.
McClintock had an episode during the recall election where he lost most main stream conservatives and now has only the minority third party conservative types behind him IMO.
He burned to many bridges and moving to another state would be his best choice.
I agree with you. He is doomed in California long term.
You need to get out of the McClintock box or even the Arnold funk to see what can come next.
The goal would be to find an electable but more conservative candidate for after Arnold. Arnold was only a beginning in turning this around more toward conservatism.
He was the beginning small steps toward the conservative goal and he's good for business in CA.
The goal is to keep getting slightly more conservative candidates and to get the people to permanently vote a more conservative pattern long term.
McClintock flamed out, he has no future long term in CA IMO.
Just like Reagan did, right? (/dripping sarcasm!)
Politics in this state can turn on a dime and you know it! Just look what's happened to Arnold's negatives in the last 3 weeks of the last 3 months! A quarter can be a lifetime in CA politics!
We could change the entire political landscape of CA while you and all your capitulator buddies on here are back there in the danged dust... still doin yer little baby steps!!! (/contempt!)
People all knew and liked Arnold. He was also successful in the business community outside of acting.
Most here in CA were happy to see him run for a change against the current powers that be.
No doubt Davis was out, but without Arnold, you would have today the failed butcher Bustamante as Governor of CA.
McClintock was there being a waste of a vote, that was all.
Arnold got many of the conservative Democrats to vote for him and against Davis.
The conservative Democrats in CA did far more for conservatism than any of the extreme third party types did.
Nothing in this state turns on a dime.
You change things permanently in steps.
We need to convert about 6% of the voters to conservatism and this state will see major changes long term.
What do you expect from a SacaRottenTomatoes.
McClintock never had the numbers and he turned off all but the most right voters.
The cross over votes would NEVER come for a McClintock, so your theory of a McClintock victory is an absurdity.
Steps get you nowhere, when all you are doing is circling aimlessly. We already did the Arnold-style republican, and it got us nowhere but further in the hole. Remember Pete Wilson? Michael Huffington? Quackenbush?
What's your plan for the "next step", when Arnie decides he wants to be a Congress critter? Governor Riordan?
McClintock is ruined in this state regarding a higher office like Governor. He did not follow the plan of winning the state in steps and instead tried to promote his own political career well after it was time to get out.
Let me run that through the BS to English translator: Tom didn't suck up to the CRP powerbrokers, who would sell their grandmothers to maintain their control of the Party. Because, even with McClintock, Issa, and Simon already in the race from the Right of the political spectrum, somehow we needed a savior who would Follow the Plan. You know, that mysterious Plan that is kept secret from us rank and file types, yet will somehow deliver California back into conservatism? The one that only the sainted CRP seems to know and jealously guard, lest someone find out what they actually think?
And since he didn't toe the line that the powerbrokers thought he should, they have declared him Damaged Goods, and sent forth their minons to repeat it, ad infinitum, in the hopes of creating a self-fufilling prophesy. Thus will any others not Keepers of the Secret Plan be taught a lesson by example, and so properly worship at the altar of the omniscient CRP.
I checked because his lack of knowledge of recent California political history and his unreasoned support of the Republican Party in California had me curious.
Steps is the only thing that wins.
How do you think liberalism got so entrenched in society eventually? They got it in in smaller increments, not all at once. They got people tolerating one thing and made the next step a little worse until it what it is today.
Conservatives need to in STEPS also bring back conservatism in increments until they are the vast majority view.
Conservatism is more logical than liberalism anytime, so eventually conservatism can win back what liberalism has eroded away.
It's done in steps though. You don't go at it with a NOW attitude like a young child because that is a big turn-off to the voters.
Hey, at least he's normal in backing the Republican party, at least he's not some red-eyed crazy third party extremist type that throws their vote away.
September 30, 2003
Either McClintock or Schwarzenegger Likely Winner in California if Other Dropped Out
Most of vote for one candidate would go to other
by David W. MooreWith Arnold Schwarzenegger the Republican front-runner in the California gubernatorial contest, many GOP officials have pressured California State Sen. Tom McClintock to drop out of the race, fearing he will divide the Republican vote and allow Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante to win. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted over the past weekend, shows that McClintock does indeed draw support away from Schwarzenegger, though not enough to deprive the actor of the lead among probable voters. But the poll also shows that if Schwarzenegger were not in the race, McClintock would likely be in first place by a substantial margin, rather than behind Bustamante.
From USA Today:
|
|
Bustamante |
Schwarzenegger |
Neither (vol.) |
Other (vol.) |
No opinion |
|
Registered Voters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 Sep 25-27 |
39 |
52 |
6 |
* |
3 |
|
Probable Voters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 Sep 25-27 |
36 |
58 |
4 |
* |
2 |
6. If the choice were between Cruz Bustamante, the Democrat and Tom McClintock, the Republican,
who would you be more likely to vote for: Cruz Bustamante or Tom McClintock?
|
|
Bustamante |
McClintock |
Neither |
Other |
No opinion |
|
Registered Voters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 Sep 25-27 |
42 |
49 |
6 |
* |
3 |
|
Probable Voters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 Sep 25-27 |
37 |
56 |
5 |
* |
2 |
Name some names that you, in your infinite wisdom, find to be more conservative than Arnold, yet squishy enough for your assumed swing voters. And explain why a centrist swing democrat would prefer them to the similarly squishy Dem candidate that would oppose him/her.
Personally, I would have liked to see Condi give elected office a try in CA. She would certainly have been an improvement over Boxer as a Senator. But then, so would my cat.
>>but you sticking your nose into my business is beyond immature and rude. You certainly have no right to lecture me about courtesy.
So much for "rational debate". Your personal insults are unbecoming.
Based on his recall performance, maybe the Republican party earlier had a clue to how unhinged he was.
I would have given him a change up until his recall fiasco, but it could be the Republican party knew what a problem he was for a much longer time.
They may have already known what we have come to know more recently about him.
I think the answer lies with new blood after Arnold and for all these open seats now.
I do hope the Republican party on the grass roots level are able to find electable, likable and capable people.
OK, did McClintock beat you up in grade school? Or cut you off on the freeway? Or do you work for Issa or Simon?
I can see nothing but an irrational dislike and hostility towards him from you. Your hoping for his career to go nowhere, which would be a detriment to everyone in California, goes beyond that of any other McClintock detractor I've encountered. Even those who don't support him think he'd be great in office.
Except you.
>>Although I'm sure you could find isolated incidents of D's voting Yes on the recall and for Bustamove, you have 0 evidence to show that it had any significant impact.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/archives/000553.html
California Insider
A Weblog by Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub
September 09, 2003
'Yes on Bustamante/Yes on Bustamante'
The Associated Press has a story on the wire saying that the Bustamante campaign is “officially abandoning” its no-on-recall strategy and is focusing exclusively on electing Cruz governor. While that’s been evident in practice for many days now, this would be the first time Bustamante or his campaign team acknowledged as much in public. Cruz of course still officially opposes the recall. He's just admitting now that his opposition is no longer part of his campaign strategy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.