With the Davis School district now facing a $5.65 million deficit, the district is prepared to order layoff notices to 102 employees including at least 80 teachers 22 classified staff. It is a scene eerily reminiscent of 2008 when numerous positions and programs were on the chopping block.
Even with expected concessions from the employees, the district is facing devastating and catastrophic cuts. State law requires that these notices be given in writing to all employees to be laid off by March 15. The final resolution will be presented for approval at the February 18, 2010 Board meeting.
Also under consideration this evening will be whether to eliminate the seventh period for seventh-graders.
Commentary
For the most part the depth of the cuts speak for themselves. There is simply no way to know how devastating the impact will be nor at this point do we know how long the impact will be.
The people that we have elected as leaders at the local level have few choices or options at this time. The money is simply not there. Davis will undoubtedly survive far better than other less fortunate communities, but the impact even in Davis is likely to be devastating.
This is a general failure of leadership in Sacramento. One of the few programs that the public is not only willing to fund but may be willing to raise taxes for is education. And yet the leadership in Sacramento has allowed education to be strafed whether it be at the K-12 level or higher education.
As we reported earlier, the PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) came out with a study last week that showed that Californians are willing to raise taxes in order to pay for schools. If the leadership in Sacramento will not take this up, then the people need to. I am generally not a fan of the initiative process, but this is one case where the people would be better served by putting it on the ballot directly.
The PPIC found:
“When asked which of the four main areas of state spending they would most want to protect from budget cuts, 58 percent choose K–12 public education—the area most Californians have wanted to spare each of the nine times PPIC has posed the question.”
It continues:
“Across political parties, and regional and demographic groups, residents are most willing to pay more taxes to maintain funding at K–12 schools, with 79 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of independents, and 49 percent of Republicans saying they would be willing to do so. Prisons and corrections garner less than 15 percent support for higher taxes across parties, regions, and demographic groups.
On the flip side of this question—cutting spending to help reduce the budget deficit—Californians are least supportive of reductions in K–12 schools (82% oppose, 16% support) and largely opposed to cuts in higher education (65% oppose, 32% support) or health and human services (62% oppose, 34% support). A large majority (70% vs. 27% oppose) favor spending cuts in prisons and corrections.”
At the local level the decisions are no less difficult. The district is once again grappling with the form and timing for a new parcel tax measure. The question is whether it will include the traditional parcel tax that was passed with Measure P, the additional parcel tax of Measure W in addition to Measure P, or something above and beyond both.
Given the fact that Measure W passed with 75% of the vote back in 2008 and the fact that the district is about to cut a huge number of valuable teachers, we recommend the board consider asking the public this fall to fund what is needed to prevent a further loss of personnel or programs. However, to do that we recommend two additional things.
First, streamline the parcel tax to only fund teaching positions in core programs. That will ensure that core programs will remain intact.
Second, the city of Davis needs to postpone vote on the sales tax renewal. That would free up roughly $3 million from people’s pockets to go to schools.
While I recognize that there are valuable city services as well, in a time of crisis we have to pick and choose, and with my money, I would support schools and teachers over tree trimmers and park maintenance workers. I have nothing again the latter, but we can no longer afford both. Perhaps in a few years when the crisis clears and state funding for schools is restored, the district can return the favor and help out the city.
Those are my thoughts though I recognize that the city is bent on keeping what is theirs and what was largely squandered on inflated salary increases based in part on the sales tax and in part on the housing market bubble of the past decade and now those chickens are coming home to roost.
Someone is going to pay for those mistakes and I certainly hope it does not end up being our schools and our children.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“the district can return the favor and help out the city.”
Yeah, that’ll happen. LOL
“what was largely squandered on inflated salary increases based in part on the sales tax and in part on the housing market bubble of the past decade and now those chickens are coming home to roost.”
We’ve missed our chance to reel in the spending as most of the city contacts have now been signed without the cuts that were needed.
Sue and Lamar had it right, thank the “gang of three”.
Davis has two private elementary schools that appear to be doing well (MerryHill and St James) and a Waldorf school. As our public schools deteriorate I know many people who are putting their kids in private schools or thinking about it.
This can lead to a downward spiral since we are reimbursed based on public school enrollments and since support for public schools will fall when families are shelling out for private schools.
Dan Walters and other folks who appear to know what is going on in Sacramento (as well as the Legislative Analysts Office, which often gets it wrong) predict that the next round of cuts will hit health and prisons–so that is a minor piece of good news. The UCs and CSU will continue to raise tuition and eventually get out of their fiscal mess (though possibly leaving people who cannot afford tuition behind unless adequate financial aid is available). California is already one of the worse states in K-12; the damage to K-12 will be hard to recover from.
THe prison guard unions have been able to maintain high salaries and increased prison spending by lobbying legislators (Hmmm–this sounds vaguely familiar) –we may not lead the nation on spending per pupil but we are tops in terms of spending per prisoner.
We need leaders who can stand up to this nonsense which is why, as rusty says, the gang of three must go.
We’re at the point where the schools and the school district need to consider tapping into other resources. Sure, do the fundraising, but it seems clear that there’s only so much money available. Another resource that may be in abundance in Davis is volunteers.
Elementary noon time monitors are being cut, and yet the district needs supervisors because the teachers, by contract, are supposed to be free to eat lunch; the kids have to be supervised. Office secretaries are being cut, and yet there is already not enough available workforce to cover it all. Site computer technicians are being cut; who will take the time to see that the programs are properly loaded and operational for students? Reading specialists are being laid off. What happens to kids who need a little extra help in the early grades to develop their reading skills?
But there are two potential barriers. First there isn’t a central processing agency or person to receive and process potential volunteers and steer them to where they are most needed. If you are a parent of a current student, then you likely have the relationships with teachers/staff to know how to fit in and whom to talk to. If you are a retired person or “between jobs” and want to volunteer for the schools or even a parent who hasn’t developed contacts with staff and teachers, most folks in the district are too busy to know what to do with you if you walk in and ask to volunteer.
The second potential barrier is resistance from collective bargaining groups. I’m sure the collective bargaining groups won’t be happy to have volunteers replacing laid off workers. Volunteers may not necessarily have the same level of commitment as a paid professional, but it’s certainly better than nothing if the money isn’t there.
Davis has two private elementary schools that appear to be doing well (MerryHill and St James) and a Waldorf school. As our public schools deteriorate I know many people who are putting their kids in private schools or thinking about it.
That’s wonderful if you have the money for it. Some parents have actually opted to switch their kids to Davis schools because private/parochial school tuition was too much in these times. Loretto HS in Sacramento, a Catholic girls school, shut down last year because of declining enrollment.
There’s an op-ed piece in the Sac Bee today, page A15, by Jill Duman that argues for teachers taking cutbacks, referencing Davis schools, specifically. She wrote a similar piece last year. There’s a firewall to link to it, otherwise I’d have posted it. I think non-subscribers can register for free to see it.
This morning’s Sac Bee op-ed has this distressing gem:
(In reference to criticism of Davis teachers for refusing to consider salary reductions, even with positions of teachers hired as far back as ’99 on the chopping block:
“And those teachers who could face layoffs? ‘We don’t really know them,’ she (DTA President Salim) told the board. ‘do we care about people? Yes. But we’re not really a family.'”
No one expects (it might be nice but not expected)an organization like a teacher’s union to behave like a family. But if I were a member of that union I’d be enraged now that the union (to which I’m presumably paying dues) fails to support newer teachers to the extent that it backs tenured ones.
This organization, for better or worse, is the face of Davis teachers in an era where the district has a gun held to its head. Year after year. The DSF campaign, which we were happy to support, was a one-time fix and everyone knew it. These times dictate something much more than the business-as-usual negotiating stance of the DTA.
wdf1:
My point about private schools was that if their enrollments rise you reach a point where support for public schools declines–people don’t care. San Francisco has already reached that point.
My general(admittedly anecdotal) observation is that private schools that cater to upper middle class families are doing reasonably well, at least in Davis and the Bay Area. We moved to Davis, like many families, because of the schools, but, although Davis schools are much better than most in the State, clearly our K-12 system is in trouble.
if their enrollments rise you reach a point where support for public schools declines–people don’t care.
Phil, I agree with you 1000%. I think the union game has been to use public empathy for teachers and outrage over impacts to education services, to motivate the public to approve spending mandates and increased taxation. That game has drastically changed, and I think the teacher’s union – like most unions – cannot change strategy in time to prevent the collapse of the host that feed it. Here is why:
•Economic Bubbles – Previously, with real estate and stock values rising, more voters felt financial well off enough to tax themselves. Not only will we likely not return to the gravy-days of the past for a decade or more, but we have a mountain of debt to pay off from the previous splurging.
•Fears of Greater Taxation and Lower Wages – We all expect to see taxes increased at the federal level, state level and local level. Meanwhile, we all expect lower compensation and benefits.
•Growing Anger Over Public Employee Compensation – The total compensation for public-sector jobs (when including benefits) has grown while compensation and benefits for the private sector has significantly declined. There is growing resentment over this with the voting public.
•Education Cost-Value Lessons – DC spends almost twice as much per student as we do in California and the education outcomes are worse. More and more people now understand that greater spending is not going to improve public education quality. There are systemic problems that greater spending seem to exacerbate.
•Alternatives – Technology and profit-motivated efficiencies are making public school education alternatives more affordable. These are already chipping away at public school enrollment and the trend will continue even if public school quality stays the same. It needs to improve while becoming less costly only to stay in the game.
I see a future where public education becomes a niche service, while the private sector takes over. I think the faster that happens, the better off we will all be. Even teachers will benefit from this as pay is more directly linked to talent and performance.
Jeff:
While agree that a private sector may take over it will only be for those willing and able to pay for private school. I don’t see vouchers (and don’t want to get too far off topic).
I don’t see this as desirable though I do think more competition and decentralization (charter schools etc) would be a good thing. I am actually a member of the California Faculty Association which in turn is a member of the AFT, but I have not been impressed with these unions.
While agree that a private sector may take over it will only be for those willing and able to pay for private school.
Phil, yes, but as the price goes down, more middleclass and lower middleclass families will choose it and when that happens the public schools will be left teaching only the poor. At some point don’t we vote in vouchers so that these kids can take advantage of what the private schools offer too?
I don’t think the business of public education has a clue that they are competing with alternatives that are quickly gaining ground and will soon overtake them.
Technology and profit-motivated efficiencies are making public school education alternatives more affordable. These are already chipping away at public school enrollment and the trend will continue even if public school quality stays the same. It needs to improve while becoming less costly only to stay in the game.
Jeff, your previous examples in making this point have been college level education, using examples of distance ed and online courses as examples. Are there examples where K-12 private schools have been made more affordable because of these technologies and profit-motivated efficiencies?
but as the price goes down, more middle class and lower middleclass families will choose it and when that happens the public schools will be left teaching only the poor.
Have private school (K-12) costs come down in recent years?
Are there examples where K-12 private schools have been made more affordable because of these technologies and profit-motivated efficiencies?
Yes
Have private school (K-12) costs come down in recent years?
Some have lowered costs. The ones that are exploiting technology and leveraging economies of scale to deliver standard instruction at a lower price-point.
I submitted a letter to the Enterprise on this subject and don’t know when it will show. Just Google “virtual high school” and you will start getting an idea of what I am talking about. Another interesting point is that many of these are certified public school alternatives. Davis might be much further down on the list to be impacted by this, but think of a strapped school district cutting services to the point that parents enroll their kids in a public-private hybrid where the public is a techology-enabled virtual school that gets the tax money otherwise slated for the local brisk-and-mortar school.
Just yesterday my wife asked me if we want to put the kid in private school in light of the increase in class sizes that are expected. I want to support public education but if my kid doesn’t adjust well to a large classroom I will do what is in the best interest of the child without a second’s hesitation.
Jeff: “At some point don’t we vote in vouchers so that these kids can take advantage of what the private schools offer too?”
Sure, when the amount of the vouchers covers the entire cost of the child’s education, and when private schools are mandated to accept all students that apply from their geographical region. Until then, vouchers harm the public schools and the private schools can simply close off enrollment when they reach capacity.
At some point in the next few years the California economy is going to turn around, unemployment will fall, real estate prices will rise, tax revenues to the state will dramatically increase and our legislature will then spend every cent that comes in, re-hire every teacher and other state employee who was laid off, raise the salaries and benefits and pensions and medical plans for the best-connected public employees and then we will wake up and realize …. we need to raise tax rates again in order to afford all the spending the legislature has engaged in.
So much smarter would have been — if the voters of California were not so stupid — to have passed Prop 76 in 2005. The Democratic Party machine (i.e., the firefighters, the CTA, the prison guards and the Highway Patrol and so on) fought vigorously to defeat 76. And it was crushed soundly. However, if it had passed, we would be in less of a pickle today and we would avoid this roller-coaster budgeting process which, systemically, we will face again and again after we come out of this recession.
Sure, when the amount of the vouchers covers the entire cost of the child’s education
Don: remember, in my example we have already lost most of the middleclass kids to alternative private schools. Are you envisioning some way to prevent that from happening? If private schools get more affordable, assuming there is no increase in public school quality that would be a counter value proposition, wealthy and middleclass families are going to leave. They are not going to keep their kids enrolled in public school just to protect the low income kids. So, we will end up with a higher and higher concentration of low income kids. At some point don’t we allow ourselves to be taxed (assuming it is needed) a bit more to help these kids get the better education? Also consider that private education alternatives are growing more affordable than public school, so maybe a voucher would cover the cost. At some point larger private schools leverage economies of scale and another student with a voucher returns them some profit.
So you know, I am worried about this and would prefer that we find a way to save public schools from themselves.
At some point in the next few years the California economy is going to turn around
Rich, there are some pretty significant structural issues with our state and national economy that point to a longer and slower climb before we return to past gravy days. We have mountains of government debt to pay off already. The feds will try to raise taxes. CA will try to raise taxes. Municipalities will try to raise taxes. Meanwhile public school alternatives will continue to become more affordable, more flexible, more customer-oriented, more outcome-oriented… basically more better. Also, I think there is a lot of resentment over public employees pay and benefits… too much for even a robust economy to quell. Private companies are not going to start allowing their employees to retire at 50 or 55 with a 90% pension and full healthcare benefits… and real wages in the private sector are likely to be stagnant for years. Teachers unions are being swept up in the tide of all that bad mojo.
Jeff:
I would support a well designed voucher program which dealt with access issues, but I don’t see it as politically feasible. Many people, Republicans and Democrats oppose vouchers.
But if and when the upper middle class abandon public schools (which has already happened in many cities) there will be even less support. I certainly agree that the unions have shot themselves in the foot but cutting teachesr salaries while firefighters receive obscene benefits is also not good policy.
I just don’t see Vouchers as a solution. Most schools in affluent areas are doing fairly well and the schools that are doing poorly are dealing with the type of kids that vouchers are least likely to help.
Jeff: “Are you envisioning some way to prevent that from happening?”
Charter and magnet schools give parents options and help to bypass some of the institutional obstacles to innovation.
Most schools in affluent areas are doing fairly well and the schools that are doing poorly are dealing with the type of kids that vouchers are least likely to help.
David, I agree with the first point… for now. However, how do you explain the wildly popular DC schools voucher program that the Democrats just killed? The performance data they had collected since the program started showed substantial performance improvements for the students. Many believe this is precisely why the Democrats killed it. Vouchers are the ticket for kids stuck in poorly performing schools. The teachers’ unions pull political levers to ensure there is never enough voucher performance data to make a strong case in favor of more vouchers.
You know, I am always perplexed at how a bleeding heart progressive can have a fit about teachers not making enough, but then not show much outrage at the life sentences imposed on copious numbers of kids receiving a sub-standard education. Every child permanently harmed by crappy public school education should be considered a national tragedy and justify a call to arms. The fact that Democrats would kill that program is evidence that they are hypocrites; choosing to give favoritism to the unions as political payback, at the expense of so many powerless poor families that had dreams of their kids being lifted out of poverty with a higher quality education.
According to figures I have found, there are about 1600 students in the DC voucher program, at a cost of $7500 per pupil. There are nearly 26,000 students in charter schools in DC, making it one of the highest percentages in charter schools in any big city. If resources are limited, and you have a choice of continuing a program for a small number of students or redirecting that money to programs that benefit a larger number, how is that “favoritism to the unions?” Clearly, given a choice, parents in DC choose charter schools.
I’m also uncertain as to how many lessons from DC can really be applied anywhere else.
Don: your point makes no sense to me. There were limited vouchers available in the program. They had to use a lottery system. They only alloted $7500 per voucher even though the per student spending of DC schools is almost $17k. Even so, if there were 26,000 vouchers available, I have no doubt that there would be 26,000 takers.
DC is the poster child for this type of debate because we are spending $17k per child (compared to $9k in CA) but the outcomes are dismal. Give $17k vouchers to 26,000 DC students ($442 million) and check what happens in five years, and I have no doubt that their education outcomes would significantly exceed what they would have accomplished as an inmate of DC public schools.
Taking this back to the topic of this post so I don’t get deleted… there are things that can be done in this state to provide a higher quality education at a lower cost.
The only voters who really support vouchers (in large numbers) are low-income parents whose children would be better served by more choices and people who are already sending their kids to private schools. For the most part, everyone else opposes vouchers, Democrat, Republican and independent. The idea is ballot-tested and it loses (in California) by great percentages.
Just because it is terribly unpopular does not mean vouchers are a bad idea. But because they cannot win in California, I think they are not worth discussing. Move on and look at other options to try to marginally improve educational outcomes. …
We know that smaller class sizes K-6 results in sustained better performance. Alas, that is being thrown out in our budget mess.
The idea is ballot-tested and it loses (in California) by great percentages.
Yes, looking backward, but I am looking forward. Declining public school quality coupled with higher quality affordable alternatives will create a demand that does not exist today because today parents think their public schools are good enough. However, we are looking at some pretty signficant cuts to education accross the state.
In this article, David writes:
[quote]There is simply no way to know how devastating the impact will be nor at this point do we know how long the impact will be.[/quote]
Assuming the impact is devestating, what are the alternatives parents will seek: Tax themselves more, wait for the economy to heal, or seek alternative education paths for their kids?
Several years ago I had acouple of co-workers who sent their children to private catholic high schools in Sacramento and they were concerned that a voucher program would allow any kid to attend the schools, including those with a history of little interest in learning and a lot of interest in delinquency. The head of the school told them not to worry because they would just raise the cost of the school to an amount enough above the voucher amount to enable them to remain selective and keep out those kids who they felt shouldn’t be there.
This is bad news, but at this point it is just another data point in a year of terrible economic news. It won’t be devastating, it will simply lead to continued deterioration as class sizes increase, counselors aren’t available, and enrichment classes disappear. At this point I am kind of numb to numbers like these.
I attended school in a district where the voters routinely refused to pass bond measures to upgrade facilities that were not even earthquake-safe. Our district was overwhelmed by the residential growth in San Diego. 30 – 40 students were common in classes, including honors and advanced courses. Vocational classes were practically non-existent. Yet the overwhelming majority of students from our district went on to college.
Times are tough. The teachers and administrators are professionals and will deal with this. I see little likelihood that the city will choose to hold off on the sales tax. Obviously the district will go forward with the parcel taxes. So we will just have to see what kind of mood the voters are in.
wesley506… cite sources, which can be verified, or stop your attack on Catholic schools… you have little or no credibility…
wesley506: so your point is that teachers are angelic for accepting and teaching all those bad kids, and the Catholic Schools are run by demonistic elites that would make sure they remain exclusive to only the good people.
It is sad that you or anyone else would actually believe crap like that.
Catholic schools have been taking in and teaching troubled kids since forever. There are schools like Jesuit High School that are in such demand they have to limit enrollment and this may exclude misbehaving or struggling students. Certainly some exclusive private schools are not going to tollerate troublemakers… any more than the public schools do.
Truth be said, Catholic schools will take “problem” kids if they believe that the environment they have will help those kids… unlike DJUSD who will stereotype a kid based on one incident… been there… done that…
This is what kind of K-12 education Californians got for their money before the budgets got really bad:
[url]http://www.edsource.org/assets/files/mockler10v6.pdf[/url]
(5.36 MB file)
wdf1: This guy is paid by the CTA. His presentation cherry picks data points, and frankly does not correlate with other reported facts. There are good points…. for example, the number of non-English-speaking students. However, for example, charts that show CA teachers instructional hours at 1080 compared to Japan at 524 is simply not true. This presentation is also missing outcomes comparisons with other states.
There certainly is much to be proud of with California school’s testing performance over the last four years thanks to the media and left-demonized NCLB Act. Didn’t the teachers’ unions fight that piece of legislation and still do today?
Considering the costs, the following chart http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/images/B2179AppendixAcharts/State-by-state-spending-chartsWEB/b-student-spending-chart-a1-CA.gif shows that from 1994 – 2004; California’s spending increases per student tracks with the rest of the nation. Maybe that is going to change going forward, however I doubt it as almost all states are dealing with the same education budget shortfalls.
From the 2009 US Census Bureau data http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf California’s per-student spending $9,152 is about equal to the national average of $9,666.
The other point missing is a comparison of state outcomes relative to spending. There is simply zero evidence that spending more per pupil provides a commensurate return. In fact, there is evidence that spending more actual reduces outcomes. His presentation actually makes this point… if CA is 34th on the list of spending per student and we are still doing such a great job educating our kids, then what is the problem?
This guy is paid by the CTA. His presentation cherry picks data points, and frankly does not correlate with other reported facts. There are good points…. for example, the number of non-English-speaking students.
John Mockler in the pocket of CTA? Well, I dunno. Maybe. I usually think of him a bit more aligned with school administrators. But school adminstrators and teachers often have common cause. He’s often cited as the author of Prop. 98, but he was also Interim Secretary of Education for California and former Executive Director of teh California State Board of Education.
Depending on how one frame a “successful education,” you can easily say our public school system sucks because it hasn’t adequately served 20-40% of the population as we would hope, or you can also see that it has made impressive progress given the available resources and where it has come from. It is whether you take a glass half full/half empty.
California education was moving in the right direction up to this point — steady improving progress. I will be interested to see what happens with outcome measures this year and the next few years.
As for NCLB, I have a love-hate relationship. It’s great to establish national standards for education, and to demand that our students and teachers perform better.
I have a problem with the 100% goal and defining anything less than 100% as failure. I see an asymptotic relationship between the level of proficiency expected of students and the amount spent on resources to have everyone reach that level of proficiency.
Given the public resources available, it may be economical to have 85-90% reach proficiency, but prohibitively expensive to reach 100% of students proficient. “Soft bigotry” on my part? Maybe, but at some point sensible economics has to prevail.
it may be economical to have 85-90% reach proficiency
The pareto principle: the last 20% of quality (proficiency) takes 80% of the effort.
Most government programs to effect some positive social change seem to be based on incomplete analyses where the law of unintended consequences lowers or reverses the expected benefit over time, or worse. For that reason, I am a fan of stupidly-simple and honest government goals. At leat then we know what to measure, and what gets measured generally gets done. NCLB is far from perfect; but trying to make it so would make it like Obamacare… it would either never get done, or it would confuse and confound the public until enough screamed to scrap it.
Growing Anger Over Public Employee Compensation – The total compensation for public-sector jobs (when including benefits) has grown while compensation and benefits for the private sector has significantly declined. There is growing resentment over this with the voting public
Here Here..amen to that. it’s in the salaries folks…they are too high…there are too many guaranteed cola’s in all govt. union contracts.
you people need to wake up and stop being so bloody greedy.
if the teacher’s union doesn’t want to take a cut, then go on David and keep on printing your articles, in favor of them keeping their wonderful salaries.
putting out an article that calls for the city to take raises from the firefighters to the teachers, is a great idea, but won’t happen. in addition you completely derailed growing support and a possible resolution that would have resulted in a much needed teacher’s union pay cut.
good job david.
what the bollox are you smokin
hpierce,
catholic schools are just as bad as the catholic church. YOU are the ones that are damned to hell. stop trying to convince everyone else that we’re going there.
ps. the catholic church is filled with a bunch of greedy, power mongering, child molesting hypocritical males that hate women and love overpopulation.
u ppl don’t believe in the sanctity of life. you believe that pain and suffering is the only path to “God”. you would rather the world be overpopulated filled with desperate poor people that will work for next to no wages for the corporations that the churc supports.
you are all a bunch of evil hypocrits.
down with the catholic church and it’s pegagogy
putting out an article that calls for the city to take raises from the firefighters to the teachers, is a great idea, but won’t happen. in addition you completely derailed growing support and a possible resolution that would have resulted in a much needed teacher’s union pay cut.
The teachers and classified staff generally agree in concept to furloughs. The details of such a plan are being discussed.
What kind of salary do you think is appropriate for teachers?
hpierce, you catholics are all the same. How about giving up your hypocrisy, greed and ignorance for lent. It would do the world good.
thank you very much and have a nice unforgiving, hatefuly, hypocritical day. filled with retribution and contributions to the vatican.
here’s how i think we can save the world…
sell the vatican, feed the world!!!
actually, you can thank sarah silverman for that…
perhaps you and your coalition of hateful religious thugs can call up the comedy channel and threaten to boycott their shows for having such a wretched heretic on their channel.
well here’s to you Sara Silverman. I concurr wholeheartedly…sell the vatican, feed the world.
AMEN!!!
wdf 1,
with regards to furloughs…well, it’s kind of a fuzzy kind of math. they still get paid to take days off. how is that saving money?????
it’s not
i propose that all teachers except those making 40 or under should get a 5% pay cut.
actually, all public govt. unionized labor should get a 5-10% pay cut and agree to a salary freeze for the next 2 years. The private sector has to deal with it, why not the public sector?