Texas Education Funds

[PineappleMama]

OH THANK YOU!

I was getting REALLY confused (and mad) because some were saying there WAS a just Texas bit, while others were saying "No everyone's got the same rules"... thanks for pointing out the exact info so we can read it ourselves!!

Okay, so IF I read that right (quite likely I didn't as I'm not fluent in gobbledegook) YES Texas was specifically targeted while all other states were left alone.

The WHY they were targeted can be debated but if articles are right (ha!) then the reason Texas Dems wanted this provision ONLY for Texas was because they didn't care for the current ELECTED powers within the state overruling their ideas last year and using X funds to do Y and Z. In-State Budget arguments. Every other state also has In-State fighting over budget, if they didn't then there'd be only one party right? But, only the Texas Dems were so cranky about not being the ELECTED controlling majority within the state that they went to DC and got them to FORCE Texans to go with their ideas even though they are not the majority ELECTED in the state. That's the kicker for me. If Texans wanted more Dems in office they'd have voted them in. If they wanted a more Dem-ish budget they'd have voted more in. The fact that so few Dems serve in Texas means that the MAJORITY of Texans do NOT want a Dem-ish budget. But, rather than listening to the voters, rather than going to the podium, talking to citizens, etc... the NORMAL route to get power within a state (or a country)... instead they threw a hissy fit and are using the Washington power base to force MINORITY opinions on the MAJORITY. That's just not supposed to be the way it works... not in the US anyways. If the minority could control everything then there's no way this bill, or the Health bill, or ... would EVER have been passed. MAJORITY rules... please keep it that way.

Also... I was wrong... it isn't double or nothing, it's TRIPLE or nothing... and again I may have read this wrong... that is ONLY applied to Texas. Texas must match these funds 2011, 2012, and 2013... after DC covers 2010. Every other state (I think?) gets their 2010 funds, but only has to match for 2011. You give one you get one. Texas buy three get one free.

States might be able to say "Yeah we can probably do that" for the next year... have SOME kind of projections and whatnot. But to try and predict FOUR YEARS ahead... with THIS economy... I think that is asking too much of ANY state.

If DC wanted these funds to get to state teachers, students, etc. they simply had to add the note "These funds must be used on Education"... that's it. Plain ol' English. And the states all agree "Yup we can do that" and we all move forward.

If they wanted to add in the SUGGESTION that if POSSIBLE it'd be great if states could match this next year... fine. But, if the state's budget can't support that kind of blow out without taking from public safety funds then they should have the right to do what is needed in their state to make sure that the citizens that depend on them are SAFE. As I said before, only have 19 kids in your classroom on Monday isn't going to do squat if you're killed by some criminal over the weekend.

 

[poltroon]

Quote:
I read it differently than you do. The text is:

(B) The Secretary shall not allocate funds to the State of Texas under paragraph (1) unless the Governor of the State provides an assurance to the Secretary that the State will for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 maintain State support for elementary and secondary education at a percentage of the total revenues available to the State that is equal to or greater than the percentage provided for such purpose for fiscal year 2011 prior to the enactment of this Act.

It does not have to match the funds that DC is providing. What it does have to agree to - in a rather nonbinding fashion - is that if education is say 25% of the 2010-2011 state budget, that education should still be at least 25% of the state budget in 2012 and 2013 as well. So if the state budget goes down, education can go down in tandem. But, the budget cannot be cut more for education than for other budget areas. In other words, the feds want their money to be icing, not cake... just as you'd be upset if you gave someone money for a specific toy for their child and they instead spent it on a new purse.

The reason that Texas was singled out was because with the last set of ARRA (stimulus) dollars for schools, Texas did basically withhold an equivalent amount in state funds; no other state did. The money is meant to be used to keep teachers in classrooms.​

 

[PineappleMama]

Ahhh... gotcha on the percentage... knew I'd miss something in the gobblydegook, but... I thought these were bonus funds?
If it's just what the state was already planning to spend... how is that bonus?

I think I missed a step here... let me see if I've got it yet... if all went according to Congress' plan...

Texas was already planning to spend $800m on this? (X percent that is between 800-830m not known exactly yet?)

Now (if they go with the rules) DC will send down $800m? That can ONLY be used to pay Teachers.

Does the $800m that Texas was already planning to spend on this have to also be spent on this for a total of 1600m ONLY for Teachers.
OR
Can Texas' $800m be used on whatever it's needed on (Books, Police Cars, whatever)?

BUT... IF Texas can spend their $800m however they want (in year one anyways)... well... How can you tell the difference between a Texas dollar and a Federal dollar? If there's already $800m in the Teacher Pay kitty, so when this Fed check comes in they then spend it on anything else... is that a violation? Or is the point just that $800 from somewhere ends up in the fund that year?

I think I missed a step somewhere... seriously... if they just wanted to guaranteed the funds were spent on this one particular thing then why didn't they just put THAT in the bill? Why 10 paragraphs of blathering... blathering that confuses the crap out of some (many?) and thus can be interpreted and spread according to their interpretation... no matter how totally wrong it is... and cause a big uproar? Why not just put in plain English...

The Secretary (of Education) will give the state funds, based on the state's budget for that area in 2011, and these funds must be used only for this purpose."

Easy peasy... think most adults (voters) would be able to understand that.

I still do NOT agree with trying to get ANY state to guarantee a specific number though... you just do NOT know what's going to happen next year... you might have the funds... you might not... and if the state can't come up with the funds due to other problems then they get made out to be liars... as if it's their fault that sales tax revenues all dropped and so that cash wasn't available... this is why states make a budget every year... not every 2, 5, 10... because things fluctuate every single year and they need to be able to adjust the budget to take care of the areas that need the most help... this year maybe that's Teachers... although I've read articles talking about this and that city having to lay off police thanks to budget cuts... what if THAT continues next year... and these states are forced to ignore it... keep a Teacher's job while yet another officer is laid off...

Again, if I have to choose between a slightly more crowded classroom and police/fire/emt workers... I'ma choose LIFE.

And that doesn't even take into account the Texas specific position that Perry is now in. The folks who bulldozed this through KNEW ABOUT THAT TIDBIT and set us up anyways. No matter what Perry does he's going to lose... if he obeys the law then plenty will hate him for costing Teacher jobs... if he breaks the law by giving control of the Texas budget for three years over to others, but gets the money, then Teachers like him but Law Respecting People Don't. If he lies, with no intention of sticking to his word, gets the funds... Teachers happy... until they're reminded he's a liar who didn't come through for the other three years... Really, I don't see how Perry can do ANYTHING right in this situation... someone is going to hate him no matter what choice he makes.

Pretty clever of the Democrats no? I mean, I heard the threats about Blue Texas... but this is ridiculous. What you can't take through honest elections you'll take by force? Not cool.

Quote:

I get that... but given the totally unstable economy I think using an unexpected boon (think lotto) to pay off debts, and keeping your nest egg (small weekly deposit) tucked away for an emergency, was the prudent thing to do. It's the same advice that couples are given when they want a balanced, yet building, budget for home.

The fact that while writing the fine print, the writers got so lost in the gibberish that even they didn't realize they left a gaping loophole... well, maybe try writing SHORTER bills... that you actually have time to read before voting?

Circumventing the entire election process so that the minority controls the majority is just beyond wrong. That's what's being done here. They screwed up, and were legally outmaneuvered, they didn't much care for that so they are altering our system. This sets a precedent of 12 Representatives' views taking full control of an entire state... their budget and their Constitution... and that scares the snot out of me because what will they decide needs tweaking next?

 

[poltroon]

In plain language, the intent of the bill is that states should not be considering this money at all when funding schools - they should set it at the level they were already intending.

The Feds understand that amount will be less than it once was. Thus, the Feds would like to write checks directly to schools with this additional money to restore laid-off positions.

So, if Texas planned to spend $37 billion for education for 2010-2011, it should still do so to qualify for the funds. The feds would then send a check for its $800 million to help out.

No fair trying to game the system by changing the budget from the state to be $37 billion - $800 million for either 2010 or 2011, just because the state knows the feds sent money.

Again, imagine you're an aunt and you send $25 in birthday money to your nephew. You'd be pretty upset if the parents said, "Gee, since auntie sent $25, we'll deduct that from your allowance."

 

[PineappleMama]

Good analogy... I've got a Dec B-day so I know all about that 1 for 2 stuff.

So everyone has to pay what they were going to pay anyways, but this one area gets their funds doubled?
Great for teachers... not so great for the police that'll be laid off this year.
And if next follows this year, the ones that'll be laid off next year too.
Guess it's good for teachers I'm not in charge, I'd put life saving jobs over life improving... if that makes sense?

But you said the money goes right to schools.. so... the states never even see it? It's a direct deal between DC and individual schools? So... why are you trying to get a third party to commit to a string when they don't see the funds, don't have any say on where they go, etc? That's a little loopy. Holding the middle man accountable for a deal he had nothing to do with, made nothing off of... sneaky.

Locking the state's budget up for the next year/s just hits me wrong. Feds should have no control over In State Funds. These funds they're giving, okay, that's their money if they say "only for this" so be it. If the Fed wants to send little bonus checks to schools, then fine, but then leave things alone. They got their money, jobs saved, now go focus on Border Security, Enforcing Immigration Law, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Economy, NOT punishing citizens because they don't want to buy a product from a shady company you endorse (Health Ins.)... I think there is PLENTY for these guys to be doing (at the National Level, you know the position they were elected to?) without sticking their nose into state business (where they were NOT elected into control)... how about maybe balancing the budget you are responsible for? That'd be a nice start. Their job, the one they were elected to, is to form national law... not to purposely crush state laws... they're job is to budget for national programs... not to order states to pay for state programs at X amount... no matter their actual revenues.

There is a reason there are 50 states, that we aren't just one big blob... because each state has different needs. And the states (and the officials elected to serve the positions) need to be able to adjust things so they can meet the needs of their state's citizens... not meet/match what's going on over there... or there... or up there... but what is happening right here... where the funds were collected, and where they should be spent.

I wonder if this same focus on Education will still be here after November. Or if after the elections they'll decide that something else In State needs to be locked into how they decide all states should operate.... while they continue to ignore (previously listed) National Problems.

 

[Marshmallow Man]

Teachers are pretty important. Agreed they aren't all perfect and the system sure isn't perfect. The days are gone when you can get a decent paying job without an education. Sure you can be an entrepreneur and run your own business. Yes a lot of people are very successful at that. Those people represent a very small percentage of our population. So teachers are the future of our country. Not every family can have Mom stay home and teach the kids.

I would rather see more teachers than more cops. It's been proven that people with a higher education are less likely to commit violent crimes. The teen pregnancy and just unwanted pregnancies in general are less with educated people. That means less abortions and less children and mothers on welfare. More teachers is a win win.

 

[PineappleMama]

^If the kids stay in school...

That's something that has to be taught at home, not just at school. And our media/entertainment doesn't help... I've yet to see a rapper make a Platinum album by singing the praises of 13... or for Bach 17... years of school. Have you?

You can have all the teachers in the world but unless the kids want to be there, feel it is worth it to be there... then the teaching won't stick. But, that's a societal thing... whole world's gone nutso, I got mine, You Owe Me... etc... it's downright scary.

I have no problem if the Fed has leftover funds after paying for Medicaid, SS (saw that those folks didn't get cost of living but the politicians got a raise right?), all their bills... if they have leftover funds after that then they can spend them however they think it will help our country... pay off debt... keep teacher jobs... whatever... depends who you ask. Wait... these ARE Extra funds that are just laying around? We aren't yet again buying on credit and digging our grave a little deeper? But that's a separate issue from my primary gripe so I'll leave it alone.

IF the funds are there and they want to give them away... by all means. But using a FAA Jobs Bill to order states to keep their education budget at X amount for year/s to come... without them knowing where they'll stand at that point... what might happen... what revenues... what bad stuff... 1 they've got the nat'l budget to keep them busy, let states handle theirs... but 2 I just don't see how everyone can possible say "Yes we can do that" when they just don't really know. It seems like a setup to failure. Either they'll pull resources from other areas... or they'll say to heck with it... or whatever... but things would have to go Just Right for all the states to be able to meet this. And anytime that's risky, but in this economy it seems downright suicidal.

Why set people (the ones in power when this string pops up) up to be failures/liars to their voters?

 

[Marshmallow Man]

It's up to the parents to teach their kids the importance of staying in school. The groups with the highest drop outs unfortunately tend to not have a real good family structure in a lot of cases. I never knew anyone who didn't graduate high school. Of course I grew up in a typical white middle class neighborhood. I can only speak for the environment I was raised in. I hated school but I got my diploma. I have always wished I would have gone farther though. Now I'm in my 50's and I have still done quite well for myself and my family. I think I could have done better if I had been more motivated as a young adult. I thought my son was going to do the same as me. However a teacher took him under his wing and did what I couldn't do for him. He brought out his full potential and now he is 2 years in to an engineering degree. He is paying his own way with scholarships and hard work.

Unfortunately that same teacher just got killed on a lonely country road with no apparent motive involved. A great loss for the kids at that school. My son was heartbroken.

 

[PineappleMama]

Hindsight is a booger isn't it? And talking about 'in my day' or "I wish I had" just does NOT seem to compute all that well... I donno, with mine, rather than harping on the "Do as I say not as I did" thing (I hated that as a kid) instead I go with the "YOU are the one that's gotta live with your choices" and "If you're truly sorry you won't make the same choice/mistake again"... of course mine are only 8 (tomorrow) and 12 so donno how well it's sticking yet ... ask me again in 15-20 years... but maybe it might possibly (aren't I so convinced) tamp down some of the "don't tell me what to do" "you aren't the boss of my grown up -in their heads- self" "I'ma do it JUST to annoy you"... those kinds of things... eh... it's a theory.

Your teacher... just one more that makes me think "What the bleepity is wrong with people?!" I mean, if you just have to kill something go find a pedophile, murderer, gangbanger, etc. Do NOT hurt the decent, hardworking, productive members of society.

My sympathies to your community and their family. Any time there's a death it's a loss, but so sudden and for NO reason just increases the hurt so much. Hopefully her lessons will live on for generations to come.

 

[PineappleMama]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_budget_deficit

This year... $1,300,000,000,000.00 purposely planned, no cutting back to balance... this year's national budget...

And folks wonder why Texans don't want them getting control over our state budget?

Why we LIKE (obviously since we keep voting conservative spenders in) having it to where our elected politicians can't spend what we don't have.

I'm very very thankful that my state is NOT in this situation... and won't be if we keep to our laws.