Ballots arrived this week for the March 6 Davis Schools Parcel Tax all-mail special election. As they did, there were a few more letters to the editor in the local paper in opposition to the parcel tax.
While each of four letters that we evaluate makes their own points, none of them come to reconcile how the district will manage next year with $10 million less in its operating budget, which would represent a cut of about 14% from this year’s budget. The district is already having to make do with $3.5 million less due to ongoing structural issues, but if you add the $6.5 million that Measures Q and W currently fund, that number jumps to $10 million.
No one mentions that number or attempts to reconcile it.
Raymond Venner argues that school district funding is ample: “The Davis school budget is $63 million without Measure C funding ($69 million with C), which is ample if they put student academic achievement first.”
He argues: “Acting like a typical government monopoly that it is, the public school bureaucracy always sacrifices students first (fewer days, fewer hours per day, curtailed Wednesdays), always leaving untouched lucrative pension and health care benefits and other perquisites [sic] and leaving untouched the many ancillary programs and the numerous administrators siphoning resources from the classroom.”
Unexplored, of course, is how much money these “lucrative” pension and health care benefits are. One of the points we have made over the years is that teacher’s health care is actually quite a bit less than for city employees.
Moreover, you run into the fundamental problem that you have to negotiate benefits. Teachers may take concessions this year, but if they do not, you have no choice but to do things like cut the number of days in the school year or layoff teachers. Is it ideal? No.
The writer does not acknowledge that the cuts to administrators came back in 2007 and 2008. This is five straight years where the school district has had less money coming in than the previous year.
He adds, “Rather than searching for improved student learning at less cost, the school members instead search for clever ways to extract ever more taxes from local citizens. Its latest scheme to exempt Davis senior citizens from this tax hike is a disingenuous effort to impose the tax on younger adults who, being busy with work and children, tend not to vote.”
Actually, this extracts the exact same amount of money from local citizens, it simply is a tax extension. I am all for ways to search for improved student learning at less cost, but I don’t see any ideas proffered by Mr. Venner.
Frederick Becker argues that he is going to vote against Measure C, though he claims he is not “not hostile toward the public schools or children, and I don’t believe the fiction that the system wastes taxpayer dollars!”
In fact, he argues, “I have proudly supported public education as a foundation of our democracy throughout my adult life, regardless of whether my own children were beneficiaries. Our schools have long been asked to do more with less, and starving them financially will not miraculously make our students better educated.”
His problem is that he thinks that parcel taxes are “fundamentally unfair.” He writes, “They add to the financial burden of those who already bear the heaviest share or who are least able to pay.”
He goes on to argue: “Prop. 13 is the direct cause of the fiscal crisis that is strangling our schools and other essential public services. It is the reason I pay more in property taxes than many neighbors who have lived here much longer. It is why Davis resorts to Band-Aid funding schemes that trade on guilt while deluding us into thinking we can correct a persistent budget deficit.”
He adds, “We are part of a nationwide movement that demands that the rich and privileged contribute their fair share to the country’s well-being. Before I vote to put any more of my tax dollars into the education kitty, I want to see our elected officials and civic leaders join with other communities to put real heat on Sacramento to scrap or radically alter Prop. 13.”
“In the interest of fairness, fiscal integrity and our children’s future, they can do no less,” he adds.
Rick Entrikin argues that “Measure C is flawed from start to finish” citing that he is “torn between trusting the school board or the Measure C opponents.”
He argues: “Having read all of the ballot arguments, it appears that the No on Measure C folks are being totally honest, by raising legitimate concerns over the actual rates we will be charged. On the other hand, the school board and ballot signatories supporting the tax claim that if we vote ‘Yes,’ we will simply continue to pay an existing tax.”
He is obviously ignoring the part where the Measure C opponents have conjured up some faulty flaw in the vote-by-mail process that they keep repeating, no matter how many times it has been discredited.
He argues, “The voter information packet, however, gives the school board the leeway to increase our taxes as much as they want, whenever they wish – a blank check!”
I am not following him here. The tax authorizes the levy of the same amount of taxes per parcel as the previous two parcel taxes combined. It also authorizes them to account for inflation with an adjustment.
Mr. Entrikin writes: “However, the school board, either through arrogance, deception or a mere oversight, has placed Measure C on the ballot that caps our rates at the current level for the next five years, without any ‘inflator’ of any kind.”
This is untrue. If you read the full ballot text it makes this point clear: “To account for the impact of inflation on the cost of delivering the classroom programs and student services supported by the education parcel tax, the Base Annual Tax as set forth above shall be adjusted annually, commencing as of the 2013-14 tax year, for inflation by the change in the ‘Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers California (1982-84=100)’ published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
The text continues: “In the event this index is no longer published, the Board of Education shall adopt a comparable index of general price levels as it shall reasonably determine. The Board of Education shall cause the Base Annual Tax to be levied at the adjusted amount, or at such reduced adjusted amount in any year in which the Board deems such reduced adjusted amount sufficient and appropriate to meet the District’s budgetary needs, or believes such reduced adjusted amount is appropriate in reaction to State budget changes.”
The language here is very specific and is clearly contained in the full text of the ballot initiative.
Mr. Entrikin may also want to read the impartial analysis by County Counsel Robyn Drivon, which states: “If the measure is successful, the District’s Board of Trustees would be authorized to levy a parcel tax for a period of five (5) years, from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2017, at an annual rate of up to $150 per dwelling unit for all multi-dwelling unit parcels within the District and $320 per parcel for all other parcels within the District. Commencing in the 2013-2014 tax year, the rates as set forth above shall be adjusted annually for inflation by the change in the ‘Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers California (1982-84=100)’ published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics.”
Mr. Entrikin only cites from the abbreviated language on the ballot, not the full ballot language, when he argues, “Therefore, by their own ballot language, the school board has been banned from increasing the Measure C school tax in any way for the next five years. This is not a technicality; it is a fact.”
He argues: “If the school district tries to collect more than the $150 or $320 per year, on anyone’s property taxes, the parcel owner should refuse to pay, and sue the district immediately.”
They can do that, but they will lose.
Finally, we have Thomas Randall, one of the authors of the argument against the measure, arguing, “A special election to hold a single-subject election should never be called by any governmental entity unless there are legitimate circumstances that exist to justify its timing.”
He goes on to write: “This is because special irregularly scheduled single-subject elections generally do not attract as many voters as regularly scheduled elections do. They are an unnecessary waste of additional public resources, time and funding.”
“Unfortunately, the Davis school board has set the election date for Measure C as a special stand-alone election date of Tuesday, March 6, as opposed to the statewide presidential primary election date of Tuesday, June 5, when many other races of additional local interest, including the Davis City Council, will be decided,” he argues.
Of all of the arguments that they come up with, this one is actually valid.
But then he dips right back into the discredited arguments: “I applaud the content of Jose Granda’s recently published letter that describes the heightened potential for fraud and other mishaps involving stand-alone single-subject elections (especially the all-mail-ballot type).”
As we have noted a number of times – there is no there, there. The elections office has the same protections in place for mailed-in ballots as they do ballot box ballots. That has been pointed out to Mr. Randall numerous times, but he keeps repeating the same lie.
He also argues, “I also call attention to the recent local court case to strike down certain parts of the sample ballot argument against Measure C; it was an unusual act of politically motivated censorship by the court.”
Apparently Mr. Randall does not realize that there is no right to make false arguments on the ballot.
I would like to see some of the opponents figure out how the district is going to survive with $10 million less in money. I know that is too much to ask for, but it would make for an honest debate.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Finding reasons to oppose an expense is the essence of simplicity and ease. Opposition to an additional public expense is also guaranteed a certain measure of support.
Addressing the consequences is for “those guys” to take care of. That’s “their job.” When those guys do their job, these same opponents will complaint again, also guaranteed.
One letter writer is a long time resident and perennial opponent of parcel taxes even though he is paying a much lower property tax rate under prop 13 than another letter writer who complains about how much more in taxes he pays under prop 13 than his neighbor. Oh the irony that it will take 4 yes votes to cancel the impact of these juxtaposed perspectives.
Of course strangling the schools, and, as a result, the kids education to pressure some greater societal problem with the tax system or distribution of wealth is like the embargo of Cuba to get rid of Castro, it only hurts the ones you love and probably will never solve your problem.
The stand alone mail in ballot is a problem because all the anti tax and anti school zealots are sure to vote while the casual person who might vote yes while also voting for City Council in June is less likely to bother to mail in their vote. The school district has been walking a fine line trying to save money by having an all mail ballot but not butting up against other votes on taxes that were either on the June ballot or anticipated to be there. As we saw last time the parcel tax almost didn’t make it to the 2/3 threshold needed for passage. If going to all mail ballots makes it harder to pass because of the dynamics and demographics of such an election it is even more imperative that those who value the education of our kids not fail to get their votes in on time.
[quote]it is even more imperative that those who value the education of our kids not fail to get their votes in on time. [/quote]VERY true statement… in fact, whether a voter is supportive or opposed to the continuation of the levy/tax, voters need to be very aware that POSTMARKS DO NOT COUNT! Properly executed ballot MUST BE IN THE POSSESSION of the county (delivered by mail, or dropped off at the Library or at County Elections) by the close of election day. Fail to do that, and you lose your whining privileges…
Hpierce
Thank you, thank you for the reminder ! I am a master procrastinator and will act today to send in my “yes”vote.
medwoman… I may not vote the same way, but I believe that we should do as much as possible to make sure that everyone who is entitled to vote, does so… that is a precious right (I actually think it’s a semi-obligation… if you don’t vote, you are not entitled to whine about the results…). One way or the other, I suspect the vote will be at a margin like last year… it will be close…
[quote]medwoman… I may not vote the same way, but I believe that we should do as much as possible to make sure that everyone who is entitled to vote, does so… that is a precious right (I actually think it’s a semi-obligation… if you don’t vote, you are not entitled to whine about the results…). One way or the other, I suspect the vote will be at a margin like last year… it will be close…[/quote]
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict (which I rarely do) the renewal of the parcel tax will pass by a wider margin than the increase… my prediction – somewhere around 70%…
Toad: [i]”Calsters members pensions are a lot less lucrative than you think our age factor starts at 1.4% at 55 as opposed to many Pers covered employees who get 2.5% at 55 or cops who get 3% at 50. You’re barking up the wrong tree.”[/i]
From [url] http://www.calstrsbenefits.us/post/know-formula-0 [/url]
[quote] You can retire as early as age 50 with at least 30 years of service credit, or age 55 with at least five years of service credit—or under the special circumstances of concurrent retirement with certain California public retirement systems.
Recent CalSTRS members—on average—retire at nearly age 62 after more than 25 years of service with a retirement benefit that replaces about 60 percent of their highest salary.[/quote]
So, let’s take a 62 year old teacher working for DUSD making $70k per year. After retirement, Calsters will pay them $42k per year for the rest of their life (with inflation adjustments). Life expectancy for a woman born in 1950 is currently 85.5 years. So Calsters would need to fund this teacher’s pension enough to last for 23.5 years. Assuming a 2% COLA and a 5% investment rate of return, the total present value of this benefit is $665,396.
Without even getting into a teacher vs. other professional comparison of wage levels and the number of hours worked per year, this $665k pension value significantly exceeds what comparable private-sector workers are provided for retirement benefits. Certainly it is not as generous as the obscene benefits paid public safety employees, but it is an expensive benefit nonetheless. It is also a significantly underfunded liability that will continue to put pressure on politicians to raise taxes to meet funding commitments. This then adds insult to injury to all the private-sector taxpayers having to save for their own retirement.
[url]http://www.calstrsbenefits.us/post/know-formula-0[/url]
CALSTRS is not something that the DTA or DJUSD can negotiate. The formula and contributions are fixed by the state legislature.
“always leaving untouched lucrative pension and health care benefits”
I work in a Woodland school the district pays about $500/ month toward my health benefits My monthly out of pocket cost for heath, dental and vision benefits for my family was an additional $1000/month last time I looked.
Calsters members pensions are a lot less lucrative than you think our age factor starts at 1.4% at 55 as opposed to many Pers covered employees who get 2.5% at 55 or cops who get 3% at 50. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
“Assuming a 2% COLA and a 5% investment rate of return, the total present value of this benefit is $665,396. “
5% is too low for Rate of return. I believe Calsters just dropped their rate to 7.5% so the bucket is not as big as you think.
I just mailed my ballot back, and voted YES on Measure C. Of course we support our kids’ educations.
However, if you want to look at monetary issues, the quality school system adds huge value to the price of real estate in this town. I would say that the price increase of homes due to the school system far, far, far exceeds whatever Mr. Coleman and his friends are complaining about for the parcel tax renewal.
If you put the same house in Woodland, and tried to sell both at the same time, the price difference is mostly due to our superior school programs.
[quote]the price difference is mostly due to our superior school programs[/quote]
It’s related to that. But also, our superior schools are due to our population of highly educated parents. And our higher housing prices are largely due to our proximity to a massive high paying employer. I seem to recall that the latest state report on STAR tests showed that Davis [i]underperformed[/i] when adjusted for its demographics and income. (Perhaps I’m wrong on this, but I recall something along these lines.)
Frankly. I’m a bit surprised that Michael Harrington champions high priced and unaffordable housing. I personally would like to see more affordable housing in Davis, such as that found in Woodland.
J.R.: [i]I seem to recall that the latest state report on STAR tests showed that Davis underperformed when adjusted for its demographics and income. (Perhaps I’m wrong on this, but I recall something along these lines.)[/i]
There was a piece in the Sac Bee about a month ago that showed that API scores for Davis elementary schools dropped slightly last year. A key argument that the leaders of the No campaign like to make is that no Davis school made it into the top 15, and that this means that Davis schools aren’t so good. Willett Elementary was in fact number 17. All Davis schools scored above the threshold to be defined as “high achieving”. Nnearly all that ranked ahead of Willett were charter or magnet schools that allow for a selective process to determine its student population. Many had very few low income students. Most of Davis schools are neighborhood schools that take all comers; Davis schools have more low income students than most realize. Those scores were not adjusted for demographic considerations.
“This then adds insult to injury to all the private-sector taxpayers having to save for their own retirement.”
I look at this somewhat differently. What is causing injury to the private sector worker is the “obscenely” low benefits provided by much of the private sector.
In deciding that $42 K is too much to pay our hypothetical 85 year old teacher, one has to have decided what is the right amount to pay a person in retirement. So what is the right amount Jeff ?
Davis schools scores were lower on some relative basis last year but so were the number of days students attended due to budget cuts. Voting no on C can only make things worse. As for trying to make housing costs lower through the starvation of the schools I think you are taking the wrong approach. A better approach would be to build more housing, adding to supply, and, achieving the same goal of lower housing costs without the associated neglect of the failure to provide the children of the community their best opportunity at human development.
Toad: [i]”5% is too low for Rate of return. I believe Calsters just dropped their rate to 7.5% so the bucket is not as big as you think.”[/i]
Calsters and CalPers and most other public pension funds have come under fire for their way too optimistic, probably politically-motivated, projections. A 5% rate of return for any retirees’ investment portfolio is very generous considering the need to a more a risk-managed balanced investment approach. If private pensions are pursuing a riskier and more aggressive investment strategy to save political face, then we will have bigger problems like this last recession should have proved. The next market swing will leave taxpayers with an every bigger underfunding pension liability.
Medwoman: [i] I look at this somewhat differently. What is causing injury to the private sector worker is the “obscenely” low benefits provided by much of the private sector. In deciding that $42 K is too much to pay our hypothetical 85 year old teacher, one has to have decided what is the right amount to pay a person in retirement. So what is the right amount Jeff ?”[/i]
My point is that it is way out of synch with the benefits received by the majority of American workers, and it is not sustainable. In asking the question this way, you are basically saying that an 85 year old teacher’s well-being is more important than other’s well-being. What about the 85 year old office worker on fixed income that will be required to pay higher taxes while also paying higher prices resulting from business having to pay higher taxes?
I think it would be wonderful if we could determine the “right amount” and make sure every single American could retire at age 60 and live comfortably for the rest of their life without worrying about having enough money. The problem is an aging population with fewer kids willing to work and a government more focused on providing end-user services instead of being focused on a robust growing economy that provides more of the end-user services. We are heading to a clear economic train wreck. It is idiotic that the US is adopting European-style socialist tendencies at the same time we only have to look across the pond to see the disastrous results.
There is only one viable answer to this problem and that is to grow our economy and get more people working and saving for their own retirement. The retirement age of 65 was selected when Social Security was enacted because that was the life expectancy at the time. With a life expectancy of 85, Americans are going to have to get used to either saving more of their income to fund their retirement, or working for more years. Personally, baring severe health issues or a winning lottery ticket (which will be difficult since I don’t tend to play the lottery) I will probably be working until I am 70-75. A lot of people working in the private sector are planning the same because they have to. Defined benefit pension plans are unsustainable dinosaurs. All retirement should be converted to 401(k)-style plans with a based employer contribution plus a matching component to incentivize employee to save for their own retirement.
“you are basically saying that an 85 year old teacher’s well-being is more important than other’s well-being. What about the 85 year old office worker on fixed income that will be required to pay higher taxes while also paying higher prices”
No, that is not what I am saying. I believe that we are rich enough as a nation to do just exactly what you are claiming is impossible. I believe that if we were to alter our outlook and goals as a nation, and to value human life as we like to pretend that we do, it would be unthinkable for some to have billions while others go hungry. We have the wealth and the ability. What we lack is the will.
medwoman, do you know that the wealthiest 10% of taxpayers in the USA contribute a larger percent of total tax revenue than all other countries… including all countries in socialist Europe? You could tax the wealthiest 1% of tax payers in this country 100% of their wealth and it would still not solve our fiscal problems related to entitlements and unfunded pension liabilities. You and others are fooling yourself believing this 99 percenter political rhetoric. The middle class is going to get hit and get hit hard if we don’t stop and reverse our out of control spending.
There are many wealthy people in Europe, so why then isn’t the EU just increasing taxes on them to solve their debt and deficit problems?
There is a misconception out there from some… perpetuated by the liberal left and their Hollywood and media pals… that wealth just exists as some fixed pile and lucky people grab a larger handful of it. The fact is that wealth has to be earned. It does not exist at all unless it is earned. If you tax it enough you will destroy both the incentives and the feasibility for people to go take the risks to go earn it.
Based on your comments, I think you must fall for the wage gap myth… that the gap between rich and poor has grown. The fact is that over the last 3 years the wage gap has srunk significantly. Wealthy people have lost a much, much greater percentage of their wealth than has the middle class and certainly the poor.
Regardless, it does not matter what that a few people are stinkin’ wealthy. What matters is how many individuals have the opportunity to create a good life. If more people in this country are able to create a good life, then why demonize and punish those that are more successful?
In your scenario, the 85 year-old school teacher will have a good retirement life in comparison to those in the private sector having to pay for it themselves. You were making a case for the teacher at the expense of other retirees that do not have a defined pension. The vast majority of Americans do NOT have a defined pension.
JB
I do not know if you did not read my response or just chose to discount it.
“In your scenario, the 85 year-old school teacher will have a good retirement life in comparison to those in the private sector having to pay for it themselves. You were making a case for the teacher at the expense of other retirees that do not have a defined pension. The vast majority of Americans do NOT have a defined pension.
I am aware that the vast majority of Americans do not have a defined pension. It is my position that they should. Not that some should because they work in the public sector, but that all should. You seem to repeat over and over that wealth must be earned while completely ignoring the fact that the super wealthy get that way by exploiting the work of the less affluent while not providing adequately for their pensions. Do you really think that Apple would have made the same profits it did without sending it’s manufacturing jobs to China? Steve Jobs didn’t. His tremendous wealth and profits did not largely benefit the middle class here except to provide us with fantastic products. This is in no way meant to denigrate the tremendous creativity of Mr. jobs or other innovators, but merely to point out that while in the past having a really good new idea may have benefitted the middle class here, that is no longer true.
medwoman: [i]” but merely to point out that while in the past having a really good new idea may have benefitted the middle class here, that is no longer true.”[/i]
Do you think jobs that pay benefits are just created out of thin air?
I think you need to look beyond the class warfare political rhetoric to understand a few of things.
One: guys like Steve Jobs did not create Apple computer for the money. Few successful entrepreneurs are motivated by money. They are motivated to accomplish great things. Steve Jobs wealth is a byproduct of his success growing a successful company.
Two: most of his wealth was in stock in the company. It is paper wealth and the value of it depends on the continued success of the company.
Three: regular Americans, including those covered by all the underfunded pension funds, buy Apple stock and their livelihood and retirement benefits from the rise in stock value.
You seem to focus on the glass half empty. Do I really need to contrast your negative point about Apple using cheap foreign labor with all the positive economic benefits derived from Steve Job’s invented products? This isn’t even a chicken and egg question… without Apple computer products this entire industry segment would not exist. The jobs and wealth created by producing and selling these marvelous products would not exist. Likewise, the model T would not have been built without Henry Ford. Steve Jobs and Henry Ford became super wealthy because they had skills and visions, took risk, and grew a business. They didn’t and don’t “exploit” labor, they hired free people in a simple agreement to pay them market compensation for certain services. These people could always quit and get another job if they were unhappy with their compensation. However, with fewer successful people like Steve Jobs and Henry Ford as a result of business-crippling taxes and regulations, there will be fewer jobs to choose from. A larger supply of labor reduces worker freedom to quit one job and find another. SO, if you are looking for someone to blame, blame your President and members of Congress, and liberal Democrats that demand higher taxes and greater regulation and the demonization of business and wealth and the class warfare.
You should read about Toyota struggling to maintain market share because they retain high labor cost manufacturing in Japan. It is not going well. As Toyota loses market share to high-quality lower-cost products from their competition, they have to lay off workers. These workers not only lose their pension, but their entire livelihood. In this respect Toyota operates like the government. The difference is that Toyota cannot just increase taxes to make up the growing gap between revenue and spending.
The reason Apple uses cheap Chinese labor is that they are being relentlessly competed against by Android-based devices. The Android operating system was acquired by Google and then given away free as a way to compete with Apple products on price. For Apple or any other company to succeed in this global economy, businesses need to always do things faster, better and cheaper; otherwise they will shrink and eventually disappear and the jobs they would otherwise provide disappear too.
The entitlement mentality is really screwing up the world. Humans were designed to work. We should work and save for our retirement. If we don’t save enough, we have to work more years. It is not the responsibility of others to care for us this way, sorry. We should be hatching thousands of Steve Jobs and Henry Fords to provide the most robust job market so we have the best opportunity to care for ourselves.
As you probably can tell, I am a bit agitated over this canard from the left that wealthy people owe it to poor people and that wealthy people are not paying their “fair share”. Obama has drawn the line in the sand with his latest Federal budget. It is class warfare. It is going to get real ugly in the game of politics, and the divisions and polarization in this country are going to get much worse.
I do agree that we need to look at passive income capital gains tax as the lower tax rate is being exploited by many to grow wealth without producing anything. However, by raising capital gains tax rates, the impact to the cost of capital and fixed income people will cause a lot of economic damage and pain. We are in a time of tremendous global economic competition. Every policy we enact that makes it more difficult to start and grow business provides an advantage to our competition. The result is going to be fewer jobs and a greater cry for entitlements to bridge the gap. This sets up a downward spiral of economic health that will make you and me eventually long for the days of 10% unemployment and 401k plans.
Jamie Dimon gets it right:
[url]http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1450365871001/[/url]