http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/community/tag_rss/cuts The Field Poll is out with a new look at Californians' attitudes on the state budget crisis. The results are being reported as "Californians prefer spending cuts, not taxes" as a way to solve the budget deficit. And even though that headline misstates what is in the poll, the bigger issue is the general and vague nature of the poll itself. Here's what Field asked : California lawmakers face a deep budget deficit again next year, with a gap that may reach $20 billion between projected revenues and current spending levels. How would you prefer to have this deficit closed – only through tax increases, mostly through tax increases but with some spending cuts, through an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts, mostly through spending cuts but with some tax increases, or only through spending cuts? The responses, of statewide registered voters: Cuts only: 31% Mostly cuts: 19% Equal mix of cuts and taxes: 29% Mostly taxes: 9% Taxes only: 4% No opinion: 8% So the way this is being reported in the media strikes me as being pretty flawed. The way I read this says 61% of voters want taxes to be some element of the solution to the budget mess, and only 31% want cuts-only. Sure, those numbers could and should be better. But even in spite of progressives' inability to deliver those messages to Californians, 61% don't want an all-cuts budget. It should be noted that such a budget is exactly what Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman propose for California. What the poll didn't ask is about specific programs. In January PPIC found that 2/3rds of Californians would pay higher taxes if it went to education. That suggests that the rather vague and unspecific nature of this Field Poll means its utility for driving policy is very, very limited. Field Poll also examined attitudes on the upcoming initiative to change the 2/3rds rule to a simple majority on budget (but not on taxes) that may make the November ballot. They found it was close: 43% support, 47% oppose. The initiative likely to go forward would include financial penalties to legislators if a budget isn't passed on time, which as I understand it boosts the poll numbers for this proposal significantly. But what we also see is that just as Democrats in Washington, DC have failed to drive home the message that Republican obstruction is responsible for a large part of the political problems the country faces, Democrats in Sacramento have had similar problems. When Field asked about whether we could solve California's problems "if lawmakers are willing to compromise and work together" or if we needed constitutional changes, they found 20% said "constitutional change" and 75% said "politicians should work together." While the construction of that question is iffy (of course voters will say they want their politicians to work together), it does indicate that Sacramento Democrats have not done an effective job of explaining that Republican obstruction is the reason why nothing gets done. Ultimately this poll gives a roadmap to Speaker Pérez: insist that taxes be part of the budget solution, link them to specific programs that people want (particularly education), and make sure Californians know that it is Republicans who are standing in the way of that happening. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2X4 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2X4/commentary#comments Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:31:56 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2X4 Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/C2X4/ Meg Whitman is a master of slick campaigning. Her feelgood radio and TV ads are designed to make her seem like a moderate, pragmatic person who will help cure what ails California. Just today she launched her second TV ad , one in which the word "Republican" is *never mentioned*. When it comes to the #1 task our next governor will face - solving the budget crisis - she is offering a continuation of Arnold Schwarzenegger's slash-and-burn cuts. But you wouldn't know that from Whitman's ads. She doesn't make reference to her refusal to embrace new revenues to save popular and vital services, even though the public supports doing so . Instead she offers vague pleasantries that mask her true intentions to destroy what remains of the California Dream. That needs to change. The Courage Campaign is taking the initiative by launching a new TV ad showing what will happen if Whitman's proposed cuts become reality. We're calling it " Meg's California " and we're going to air it on TV screens across the state - with your help. If you pitch in and donate to air the ad , we can finally get some progressive narratives out there challenging Whitman's emphasis on cuts. Here's the background. California currently faces a $20 billion budget deficit for both the remainder of the 2009-10 budget year (about $6 billion) and the 2010-11 budget year (about $14 billion). The Legislative Analyst's Office projects an annual $20 billion deficit for years to come, including most if not all of the first term of our next governor. So let's say that the next governor has to deal with an annual $20 billion shortfall, largely owing to the structural revenue shortfall - the fact that we have artificially low tax levels designed to make it impossible to fund our ongoing core services. How will Whitman deal with it? She has not yet offered a comprehensive budget package, and may not do so at all during the entire campaign. She's likely to try and keep skating by with vague promises of "fixing California" and "solving problems" - but as we've seen, California's budget crisis needs genuine solutions. Whitman's website emphasizes "spending" as her budget category, showing that she continues the right-wing framing of our budget problem being a spending problem. Whitman has also called for widespread tax cuts that, although undefined in nature and amount, will widen further the existing budget gap. So it's clear that Whitman rejects tax increases as a solution (otherwise the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association wouldn't have endorsed her ). That leaves her with budget cuts and cuts alone as the solution to the state's crisis. Whitman's proposed cuts are also generally vague and unspecific. But there is no way she can offer a cuts-only budget without hammering hard schools, parks, libraries, health care services, and the other services the Courage Campaign ad defends. Specifically, Whitman wants to fire 40,000 state workers, apparently out of the belief that higher unemployment is good for the state . The average base pay for California state employees in 2008 was $63,815 . Multiply that by 40,000 and you get $2,552,600,000. Just $2.5 billion, which would leave Whitman with another whopping $17.5 billion left to cut out of the budget. That's about the total amount the state spends on higher education and on prisons. Medi-Cal, IHSS, Cal-WORKS, and other important human services take up billions themselves. If Whitman wants to close the budget deficit with no new taxes - and even wants new tax cuts - she's going to have to make massive cuts to the kinds of services we featured in our ad. In short, she's going to hang "closed" signs on public services and buildings and parks across California. We expect Whitman to respond to this ad by saying she's not actually proposing to cut schools, parks, libraries, health services, etc. As I just demonstrated above, such a response is simply not credible given the size of the deficits she'll face as governor, and given her own refusal to countenance new revenues. This is just the start of the Courage Campaign's efforts to hold Meg Whitman accountable. Her bad math and flawed budgeting stands completely opposed to the priorities of the people of California. With your help, we're going to show that to the people of this state. Click here to get "Meg's California" on the air. Below is the email we sent to our members today: http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2Xd http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2Xd/commentary#comments Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:59:38 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2Xd Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/C2Xd/ Steve Wiegand of the Sacramento Bee telegraphed his intention yesterday to spread the right-wing myth that California has a spending problem. And sure enough, that's what we got from Wiegand today in an article with the stunning title of "State officials spread loot like Santa." That quote comes from Dave Doerr, head of the right-wing California Tax Association, and furthers the myth that California "overspends" and is, unfortunately, *not* a reference to the "two Santa Claus" theory . Wiegand's article repeats many of the right-wing frames about state spending - yet at the same time it actually examines the structural revenue shortfall . The two are related, of course - Wiegand's study of the structural deficit is vague and lacking much detail, and is used to buttress the argument that California overspends. In short, Wiegand is taking as gospel the right-wing claim that our state budget mess is a product of overspending, when in fact it is a problem of undertaxing. Take this section of the article, for example: Doerr's observation is borne out by a Bee analysis of California's spending and debt patterns compared to other states', which found California spends more per capita than the national average in every government program except highways and public welfare - but consistently runs budget deficits and takes on more and more debt. Why would that necessarily be a bad thing? Most other states are penurious with their public spending, and have economic and social problems that reflect such miserly policies. Doerr appears again: Doerr's reference is to a penchant of lawmakers and governors over the past three decades to spend whatever money they have on hand - and promise even more - then let succeeding budget drafters fend for themselves. This is in fact a core conservative frame. They believe that when it comes to budgets, you can spend whatever you take in, and nothing more. If you have $100 billion in revenues one year and $80 billion the next, then you just have to cut $20 billion in spending, no matter the effect. A progressive budget frame is that it is government's job to see to it that certain tasks get done because they are inherently valuable or necessary. This might include keeping open 220 state parks, or ensuring children under age 10 learn in classrooms of no more than 20 students, or that our state's children and poor families have access to health care no matter the state of the economy. Under that frame, the "overspending" claims are rendered even more absurd than the Wiegand article shows them to be, given its lack of explanation in most places for what actually caused the spending spikes. California needs to find the revenue to maintain core services, and to maintain and even expand government employment as a counter-cyclical recovery measure. The UCLA Anderson Forecast showed that budget cuts have worsened CA's recession - but none of that seems to have made it into Wiegand's article. Given the dearth of media coverage of California politics, it's especially unfortunate that when a major paper chooses to devote so much time and space to examining the budget crisis, they have not only gotten it so deeply wrong, but have wound up reinforcing right-wing dogma in the process. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2vd http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2vd/commentary#comments Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:22:11 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2vd Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/C2vd/ I don't know about you, but I can't find anything in the outcome of the May 19 election that justifies, say, ending welfare entirely, or denying AIDS patients life-saving medicines, or throwing a million kids off of health care, or closing the state park system, or eliminating affordable access to higher education. Can you? In fact, even though polls show voters emphatically *reject* that kind of budgeting Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone ahead and proposed it anyway. In his best effort to play the role of a modern-day Herbert Hoover he has decided to interpret the election as a mandate to push through the radical attack on government he has always wanted to lead. In recent hearings in the Legislature - which in themselves prove the value of an open budget process - the scope of the cuts has become clear, and even legislators who were just last week speaking of the need for cuts are starting to have second thoughts, as Anthony Wright reported : Some members, like Senator Denise Ducheny, asked whether some of these cuts would not create more costs, as people end up in emergency rooms or elsewhere, even within the budget year. "What makes you think this doesn't create a cost shift?... Will people just die and we won't have to take care of them?" she asked. Senator Mark Leno talked about how the AIDS Drug Assistance Program "literally keeps people alive," and asked for information about the increased cost of ermegency room visits as a result of the cut. Senator Alan Lowenthal asked if there was a "longitudinal" analysis, and asked for the "long-range implications" of these cuts. Assemblywoman Noreen Evans was alarmed when she noted that dialysis would be cut for some patients, exclaiming that her father was going through such treatment, and was not optional. She also noted that some cuts, like the elimination of HIV Testing, would have public health impacts. Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon pointed out the cuts to community clinics, arguing that for many Californians, "this is the only safety-net they have." As the Sac Bee reports, even some Republicans acknowledge that there is such a thing as a successful government program : Assemblyman Danny Gilmore, R-Hanford, wrote an opinion piece this month for the Bakersfield Californian telling constituents how to apply to Healthy Families and touting it as a program that works "especially well." Of course, the Zombie Death Cult still has its adherents, like Chuck DeVore: But Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, said the state must scale back because it cannot afford the benefits it provides. DeVore asserted that overregulation and high taxes have stifled businesses and led to layoffs, while California has compounded the problem with too much public aid. "When you have an unemployment rate as high as it is in this state, it should be a signal to people to look for jobs in other states with more jobs and a lower cost of living," DeVore said. "We have had policies subsidizing poverty in this state for years, and we can't keep doing that." And this guy wants to be in the US Senate! The irony is that even his own constituents disagree with him. Orange County residents don't want their parents to lose dialysis treatment. They don't want their kids to lose Cal Grants. They don't want to be barred from going to the nearby beach. As we have been explaining for months now, these kinds of cuts are suicidal. They will make the budget picture worse by costing more money than the cuts would save. They will certainly make the economic crisis FAR worse by forcing consumers to pull back even further on spending in order to replace the lost state aid. Arnold Schwarzenegger is demanding a Depression. Unfortunately the legislative leadership has woefully unprepared themselves to respond. Instead of spending the months leading up to the May 19 election talking about protecting Californians against horrific cuts, the Democratic leadership instead went along with Arnold's scare tactics and made a cuts-only budget sound inevitable - and then doubled down the day after the election. It's time for legislators to "just say no" to these cuts. And not say it in order to accept lesser but similarly damaging cuts, but say "no" in order to walk through the wide open door that leads out of the Jarvis nightmare scenario. We have a golden opportunity to bury 30 years of anti-tax nonsense - Californians understand that taxes are necessary to prevent people from dying and to provide economic recovery. There is widespread support for raising taxes on the wealthy, closing the loopholes , and ending a failed prisons policy that costs us billions. It's time for legislators to move beyond outrage and to start showing real leadership against this madness. If they want to restore their reputations with voters, the best way to do so is to show that the Legislature still understands common sense and can give the people what they want - a fair tax system that will stop these cuts in their entirety. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2cR http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2cR/commentary#comments Thu, 28 May 2009 07:43:05 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2cR Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/C2cR/ As Arnold Schwarzenegger starts the campaign for the May 19 special election ballot measures, the Legislative Analyst's Office points out that the budget deal will come up short by $8 billion and that it hasn't solved our structural revenue shortfall problems: "Unfortunately, the state's economic and revenue outlook continues to deteriorate," the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) said in a review of the package, which covered the remainder of this fiscal year and all of the next. "Even in the few weeks since the budget was signed, there have been a series of negative developments. Our updated revenue forecast projects that revenues will fall short of the assumptions in the budget package by $8 billion. Consequently, the Legislature and governor will need to adopt billions of dollars in additional solutions in the coming months to bring the 2009-10 budget back into balance." Taylor had some more bad news for the state's political leaders. Because so many of the "solutions" adopted last month are temporary, "without corrective actions, the state's huge operating deficits will reappear in future years - growing from $12.6 billion in 2010-11 to $26 billion in 2013-14." The full LAO report in fact makes some assumptions I would consider rosy, such as a recovery in employment and personal income in 2009, when many economists do not expect this to occur until the second half of 2010 at best. What this means is that the budget situation is still a total mess, and that improvement is far away. The May 19 election will have little meaningful impact on the state's financial health, although a spending cap would ensure that services will continue to be gutted. Republicans and Arnold Schwarzenegger are likely to use the deficit projections as an argument for Prop 1A, when all that will accomplish is an even worse destruction of core services, such as schools which could face larger cuts than what we're seeing now, a truly frightening thing to consider. This also means political leaders who deny the need to find tax solutions, like Jerry Brown , are not being realistic. Fundamental change is necessary, and perhaps a constitutional convention alongside the elimination of the 2/3 rule conservative veto can help get us there. One thing is certain - if anyone thinks California can remain a competitive place to do business and attract jobs and employees with the worst school system in the nation and no ability to address our water, transportation, or health care crises, they are deeply deluded. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2JB http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2JB/commentary#comments Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:14:14 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2JB Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 1 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/C2JB/ Yesterday I wrote about the insanity of firing teachers as a "budget solution." Thousands of Californians seem to agree, judging by the growing outrage around our state over these cuts. The Courage Campaign is asking our members to take action to ensure this never happens again. We need to create a progressive media narrative that calls for more investment in our schools, not less. Writing a letter to the editor of your local paper is still one of the most effective ways to accomplish this. We have an easy online tool that includes talking points, writing tips, and automatically sends your letter to whichever newspapers you want to include. In addition, the California Teachers Association is holding a series of protest rallies around the state tomorrow on what they are calling Pink Friday . A progressive movement is coming together around protecting our core services. Without education our state will never have an economic recovery - and we will lose an entire generation. Below is the email we sent to our members today. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2n7 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2n7/commentary#comments Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:40:16 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/C2n7 Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 1 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/C2n7/ Today's LA Times has an interesting series of op-eds by historians and authors examining how past governors dealt with budget crises . It's an interesting look not only at how those governors all helped build the prosperous state that we're living off of today, but also how the real problem with the budget isn't a lack of pragmatism or deal-making, but ideology. And since the articles were commissioned by California Forward they are particularly important in shaping how we will respond to this crisis. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/CLXk http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/CLXk/commentary#comments Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:17:46 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/CLXk Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/CLXk/ The AP has gotten a hold of the governor's May Revise speech and therefore the major budget proposals that are to be unveiled later today. The key elements are described below and over the flip I provide some analysis of each proposal. Arnold will float bonds using the state lottery as security. $15 billion over 3 years will be raised but $10 billion goes into "rainy day fund" If that fails, 1% sales tax hike to last no more than 3 years Prop 98 suspension abandoned; instead COLA will not be paid State parks closures abandoned; instead fees to rise $1 to $2 $6 billion still left to cut or balance out somehow." Overall thoughts: Here we go again. Arnold Schwarzenegger came to office in the recall of Gray Davis in 2003 promising to solve our state's budget problems once and for all. Instead he immediately blew a $6 billion hole in the budget with the Vehicle License Fee cut and then borrowed to close the rest of the gap - costing the state around $3 billion in annual debt service. Now that Arnold's solution has predictably failed, he is predictably offering more of the same. Borrowing against the lottery is a problematic concept for many reasons, the main one being it avoids the core issues of our budget. It's yet another one-time fix that does nothing to solve the structural revenue shortfall that has plagued our state for 30 years. It is significant that Arnold seems to be backing away from his most significant cuts - especially the K-12 cuts. Obviously the details released tomorrow will be key, and we should fully expect higher ed to take another crippling blow. But this does indicate that the activism many of us have launched against the primary schools cuts has had an impact. And of course, there's still $6 billion left over - $6 billion that the Yacht Party will insist come in the form of destructive cuts that damage the economy, $6 billion that Democrats will - we hope - insist come in the form of wise, long-term revenue solutions. Finally, Arnold seems to be gambling that the economy will make a quick recovery and that the current woes are just a dip and not the opening stages of a deeper recession. That, I think, is a major and probably reckless gamble to make. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/CLZ3 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/CLZ3/commentary#comments Wed, 14 May 2008 08:37:06 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/CLZ3 Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/CLZ3/ Over 2,000 students from UC, CSU, and community colleges gathered yesterday for a protest march from Raley Field in West Sac to the State Capitol to denounce Arnold's planned higher ed cuts, and 200 more gathered at Arnold's LA office. The protest is getting big coverage - it's the featured article at SFGate this evening : "Kick us out, we will vote you out," the crowd in Sacramento chanted as they walked along a bridge crossing Highway 99, through downtown and onto the Capital steps. The line of students, which included hundreds from the Bay Area, stretched six blocks, and dozens of motorists honked in support as they drove by. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Btx http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Btx/commentary#comments Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:29:19 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Btx Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/Btx/ California higher education has not been having a good decade. When Arnold first took office a series of major cuts were made to the UC, CSU, and community college budgets. In 2004 a compact was agreed to between the UC and CSU leaders and Arnold, guaranteeing a stable, if low, level of funding. That agreement has been heavily criticized for having accepted a lower standard of state support - and that criticism looks to be merited, as Arnold now proposes to violate that agreement with his 10% cut of higher ed funding. As a new study by the Campaign for College Opportunity shows, the proposed cuts would have the effect of severely curtailing enrollment by as much as 27,000 over the next two years, which is the size of an average UC or CSU undergraduate campus enrollment. And a study by the UC Academic Senate found that "to maintain educational quality" student fees would have to rise from $7,500 to $10,500 - a staggering increase from an already high level. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/BtF http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/BtF/commentary#comments Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:30:38 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/BtF Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BtF/ What began in Alameda last month is now beginning to spread around the state. As their future is taken from them by a Yacht Party determined to protect wealth and aristocracy through crippling education cuts, California students are beginning to fight back. In rallies that are unfolding across the state, they are speaking out for opportunity, for education, for democracy. And on April 18 and April 21, they are poised to make the loudest statement yet against the destruction of education in California. More on that below. But first, how is Arnold responding to the crisis in public education? The governor, whose own children attend private schools, made a fundraising visit to St. Margaret's Episcopal School in San Juan Capistrano yesterday at the request of Mimi Walters , GOP assemblywoman and parent of two St. Margaret's students. He was met by over 200 protestors who denounced Arnold's education cuts : Chanting "Save our schools" and "Shame on you," about 200 teachers, students and parents from across South County lined the narrow sidewalks in front of a Mexican restaurant Thursday afternoon, protesting Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed education cuts as the governor rolled up for a fundraiser. Sheriff's deputies on foot and motorcycle ordered protesters to stay off the private driveway of El Adobe de Capistrano restaurant in the moments leading up to the governor's 6:15 p.m. arrival. Schwarzenegger entered the downtown San Juan Capistrano eatery through a side entrance and did not address the protesters. Schwarzenegger's communications director, Matt David, told reporters the governor "wishes he could be outside with these protesters" and that he applauded their efforts. "This is the last thing he wants to do," said David, explaining that the governor hoped to work with lawmakers to find a different solution to the state's budget crisis. "He understands how important it is to fund education." Of course, nobody forced Arnold to propose a $4 billion cut to K-12 funding. And he can reverse those cuts in his May revise. But he will get his chance to join these protestors over the next week, as California students are about to unleash an unprecedented wave of activism to stop Arnold and his attacks on public education. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Btq http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Btq/commentary#comments Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:48:27 PDT http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/Btq Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/Btq/ Today's LA Times shows how the proposed budget cuts are sending school districts scrambling to get layoff notices out by the March 15 deadline. Although these notices may not always lead to an actual firing, they do have a destructive effect on teacher morale. Already several of my family and friends who teach K-12 in Orange County have begun dusting off their resumes in anticipation of losing their jobs. In my post at Calitics on Sunday I argued that the cuts, if allowed to happen, would have a reckless and destructive impact on California's economy. The LA Times article points out that there is another potential catastrophe that these cuts might cause. If teachers are fired and class sizes increase, it is going to be more difficult than ever to meet the unreasonable mandates of the odious No Child Left Behind law. Rialto Unified has made some recent academic gains, and its superintendent worries that deep cuts could stall progress. The district scored a 661 on California's latest Academic Performance Index, below the state's target of 800; the API measures schools and districts on student scores in math, English and other subjects. While the state API is a different metric than NCLB, if a district is having trouble meeting the API target, it is likely to have trouble meeting the much more onerous NCLB targets. As most educators - and anyone who has been a student - knows, the larger the classes, the more difficult it becomes to learn and achieve. Among the penalties for missing NCLB targets include "replacing staff" or a takeover by "a private education firm." Either outcome involves less schools, less local control, less parental involvement, and an even deeper economic hit to thousands of working Californians. Arnold's proposed budget cuts could therefore touch off a cascade of events that delivers a crippling blow to our public education system. The always excellent California Budget Project has put together a detailed list of the impact of those cuts, including a district-by-district list of cuts . Most district will lose at minimum $500 per student, with some rural districts going well above $1,000 per student. Those are staggering numbers. This was supposed to be the year of education . Perhaps it still can be - it can either be the year we saved education, or the year we destroyed it. Sometimes our choices really are that stark. http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/BWB http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/BWB/commentary#comments Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:56:04 PST http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/roberticruickshank/BWB Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/profile_picture/8e501f6005c216fc9b_j8m6b99j3.jpg Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign 0 http://couragecampaign.org/page/community/comment_rss/BWB/