Cost cuts begin in Colo. City
School district staff also slashed by state
Pat Kossan
Arizona Republic
January 24, 2006
Arizona cut Colorado City School District's administrative staff in half, canceled its 52 credit cards and sold nine of its 18 vehicles, according to a report made Monday to the state Board of Education.
Despite the cost-cutting moves, two Utah educators visited the troubled district's classes and found education programs passing most state and federal requirements.
The staff cuts and disposal of property are part of a state takeover triggered in December when the board found the district had "grossly mismanaged" its money. The 378-student district sits in a remote community on the Arizona-Utah line that is home to several polygamist religious sects.
State-appointed receiver Peter Davis, owner of Phoenix-based Simon Consulting, also cut the district's 35 cellphones down to seven and closed a 60,000-square-foot office building, where only 10 staff members were working. That should save about $70,000 a year in utility bills. Davis also whittled down 27 non-classroom employees to about 14, which is expected to save about $450,000 by the end of next school year.
The district's airplane will be auctioned next month.
Eventually, Davis wants to raise the $17,000 starting salary for teachers, but now the district needs every penny. It has an operating budget of about $2.2 million but owes the state $360,000 for budget overruns, has a bond debt of $1.2 million, and owes $1.3 million to the Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, which has been helping it cover checks.
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Upcoming Tax Legislation
Good Senate Tax Bills— This Thursday, February 2, at 9:00 a.m., the Senate Finance Committee will meet in Senate Hearing Room 1. Among the bills the committee will hear are Sen. Dean Martin’s SB 1465, which would phase out the state income tax over 20 years
Taxpayer Appreciation and Investment Act— Next Monday, February 6, the House Ways and Means Committee will hear public testimony on HB 2489, introduced by Rep. Laura Knaperek (R-Tempe). The TAIA, to be phased in over two years, would reduce personal and corporate income tax burdens by 10 percent. The committee hearing will begin at 1:30 p.m.
Taxpayer Appreciation and Investment Act— Next Monday, February 6, the House Ways and Means Committee will hear public testimony on HB 2489, introduced by Rep. Laura Knaperek (R-Tempe). The TAIA, to be phased in over two years, would reduce personal and corporate income tax burdens by 10 percent. The committee hearing will begin at 1:30 p.m.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Governor Napolitano Has Presented a Phony Budget
Danger: Budget on board
Napolitano's plans for spending in 2007 are based on assumptions (and we know how that works)
Jan. 22, 2006 12:00 AM
In a very material respect, Gov. Janet Napolitano has presented a phony budget. It depends on an assumption that just isn't going to happen.Napolitano's budget assumes that there will be about a billion dollars in excess funds from this year to pay for spending next year. Current law, however, provides that at least $440 million of this year's surplus go into the "rainy day fund," and arguably all of it.
At the end of last year's legislative session, Napolitano did a curious thing. She vetoed legislation that earmarked some of last year's surplus for the rainy day fund, about $314 million. But she failed to veto a similar provision for this year's surplus.So, current law says that any surplus for this year automatically goes into the rainy day fund. Arguably that could mean the entire $1 billion. There is, however, a separate law that limits the amount of deposit into the rainy day fund to a percentage of state revenue. Legislative budget staffers are assuming that law caps the deposit at $440 million.
Usually in these budget fights, Napolitano has the upper hand. Nothing gets done without her signature.But in this case, the Legislature has the upper hand. If nothing is done, the money goes automatically into the rainy day fund and isn't available for spending next year. And the money begins to be deposited there as early as next month. So, Napolitano's budget rests on the assumption that the Republican Legislature will repeal the automatic deposit to the rainy day fund and make it available for Napolitano to spend. That's not going to happen. Perhaps it's useful for Napolitano to put out a budget that shows what, in an ideal world, she would do. But, realistically, she's going to have a lot less money to spend, probably at least the difference between what current law provides for a rainy day deposit and the $180 million she proposes for next year. Knowing how she would propose to spend within that more realistic constraint would be more valuable than the pretend budget she has presented.
During her State of the State address, Napolitano said that she would never again let the state get into the position of being unprepared for a fiscal downturn. Her budget, however, would increase rather than diminish the state's vulnerability to such a downturn. Next year, Napolitano assumes that the state will collect about $9.2 billion in revenue. Napolitano purposes spending about $10.1 billion, with the difference being made up through this year's surplus.Even subtracting a proposed deposit to the rainy day fund and repaying various state funds that were swept during the lean years, Napolitano purposes to spend about $400 million more next year than will be generated in taxes. The states that did best in the last downturn were those where spending increased the least during the go-go days of the 1990s. Napolitano is trying to lead Arizona in precisely the opposite direction.
With state revenues booming, Napolitano has been revealed as quite a spender, contrary to the penny-pinching image she sought to project with last year's budget.According to the legislative budget staff, maintaining state programs and obligations will cost $8.9 billion next year. Napolitano proposes spending about $700 million more than that, excluding a rainy day deposit and repayment of the swept funds. Overall, Napolitano is recommending an increase in state spending, again excluding savings and fund repayments, of nearly 17 percent. But the revelation is perhaps clearest in her so-called "targeted tax relief" proposal. "Targeted" means government gives you a break for doing things approved by the government. In Napolitano's case, that means offering health insurance, buying certain items at certain times, driving a fuel-efficient car, and investing in university-related research.There are two problems with such "targeted" tax cuts. They are economically inefficient, since government doesn't make spending or investing decisions as optimally as people exercising their own judgments with their own money. And they erode the tax base, making a truly economically productive tax code, which would feature low rates on broad bases, more difficult.
Real tax relief is when government lets you keep more of what you earn to spend on whatever you think best and most productive or enjoyable. What Napolitano is proposing is more accurately thought of as spending through the tax code. Direct subsidies would be a more honest and less economically disruptive approach.
Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8472. His column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Napolitano's plans for spending in 2007 are based on assumptions (and we know how that works)
Jan. 22, 2006 12:00 AM
In a very material respect, Gov. Janet Napolitano has presented a phony budget. It depends on an assumption that just isn't going to happen.Napolitano's budget assumes that there will be about a billion dollars in excess funds from this year to pay for spending next year. Current law, however, provides that at least $440 million of this year's surplus go into the "rainy day fund," and arguably all of it.
At the end of last year's legislative session, Napolitano did a curious thing. She vetoed legislation that earmarked some of last year's surplus for the rainy day fund, about $314 million. But she failed to veto a similar provision for this year's surplus.So, current law says that any surplus for this year automatically goes into the rainy day fund. Arguably that could mean the entire $1 billion. There is, however, a separate law that limits the amount of deposit into the rainy day fund to a percentage of state revenue. Legislative budget staffers are assuming that law caps the deposit at $440 million.
Usually in these budget fights, Napolitano has the upper hand. Nothing gets done without her signature.But in this case, the Legislature has the upper hand. If nothing is done, the money goes automatically into the rainy day fund and isn't available for spending next year. And the money begins to be deposited there as early as next month. So, Napolitano's budget rests on the assumption that the Republican Legislature will repeal the automatic deposit to the rainy day fund and make it available for Napolitano to spend. That's not going to happen. Perhaps it's useful for Napolitano to put out a budget that shows what, in an ideal world, she would do. But, realistically, she's going to have a lot less money to spend, probably at least the difference between what current law provides for a rainy day deposit and the $180 million she proposes for next year. Knowing how she would propose to spend within that more realistic constraint would be more valuable than the pretend budget she has presented.
During her State of the State address, Napolitano said that she would never again let the state get into the position of being unprepared for a fiscal downturn. Her budget, however, would increase rather than diminish the state's vulnerability to such a downturn. Next year, Napolitano assumes that the state will collect about $9.2 billion in revenue. Napolitano purposes spending about $10.1 billion, with the difference being made up through this year's surplus.Even subtracting a proposed deposit to the rainy day fund and repaying various state funds that were swept during the lean years, Napolitano purposes to spend about $400 million more next year than will be generated in taxes. The states that did best in the last downturn were those where spending increased the least during the go-go days of the 1990s. Napolitano is trying to lead Arizona in precisely the opposite direction.
With state revenues booming, Napolitano has been revealed as quite a spender, contrary to the penny-pinching image she sought to project with last year's budget.According to the legislative budget staff, maintaining state programs and obligations will cost $8.9 billion next year. Napolitano proposes spending about $700 million more than that, excluding a rainy day deposit and repayment of the swept funds. Overall, Napolitano is recommending an increase in state spending, again excluding savings and fund repayments, of nearly 17 percent. But the revelation is perhaps clearest in her so-called "targeted tax relief" proposal. "Targeted" means government gives you a break for doing things approved by the government. In Napolitano's case, that means offering health insurance, buying certain items at certain times, driving a fuel-efficient car, and investing in university-related research.There are two problems with such "targeted" tax cuts. They are economically inefficient, since government doesn't make spending or investing decisions as optimally as people exercising their own judgments with their own money. And they erode the tax base, making a truly economically productive tax code, which would feature low rates on broad bases, more difficult.
Real tax relief is when government lets you keep more of what you earn to spend on whatever you think best and most productive or enjoyable. What Napolitano is proposing is more accurately thought of as spending through the tax code. Direct subsidies would be a more honest and less economically disruptive approach.
Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8472. His column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Bill Summaries
I now have the capability to email you electronic copies of all proposed legislation in either as written (sometimes confusing) or the summary which provides the history and the provisions of the bill. If you would like additional information on a specific bill just send me a quick email with the bill number, if known, or a keyword that I can use to search. This is a great tool and I am excited that we have this new way to communicate.
State Employee Pay Raise
The legislature has passed a $170 Million Dollar pay raise that gives state workers on average a 6.3% boost that includes $1,600 base raise witha a 2.5% performance pay increase. The increased salaries take effect March 11, 2006
Chamber Day at the Capitol
Today is Chamber Day at the Capitol and I am excited about seeing all of those from my district who work so tirelessly to support small businesses throughout the state!
Monday, January 30, 2006
Mr. David Burnell Smith
God is so good to give us all strength as we walk through the fire!
Today, on the floor, we heard the resignation/floor speech of Mr. David Burnell Smith...a good man who made an unfortunate mistake when spending his campaign monies provided by the clean elections commisssion. Representative Smith came forward when he realized his mistake and attempted to rectify the situation. I would like to take this time to acknowledge his honesty and to commend him for his composure through out the continuing media circus and clean elections investigation. I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans that treated Mr. Smith with dignity and respect. My hope is that this graciousness continues throughout the remainder of the session.
Today, on the floor, we heard the resignation/floor speech of Mr. David Burnell Smith...a good man who made an unfortunate mistake when spending his campaign monies provided by the clean elections commisssion. Representative Smith came forward when he realized his mistake and attempted to rectify the situation. I would like to take this time to acknowledge his honesty and to commend him for his composure through out the continuing media circus and clean elections investigation. I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans that treated Mr. Smith with dignity and respect. My hope is that this graciousness continues throughout the remainder of the session.
School Choice-Goldwater Institute
Unions or Children First?
Democratic officials are increasingly embracing school choice
by Dan Lips
January 30, 2006
If the legislature passes corporate tuition tax credits for a third time, Governor Napolitano will have a choice to honor her promise or, once again, veto this popular program.
Democratic officials are increasingly embracing school choice
by Dan Lips
January 30, 2006
If the legislature passes corporate tuition tax credits for a third time, Governor Napolitano will have a choice to honor her promise or, once again, veto this popular program.
This isn't the easy calculation it might seem to be. Napolitano and Democratic officials across the nation face a similar dilemma—school choice legislation forces them to choose between core constituencies.
The families who benefit most from school choice are the most undeserved by the current public school system: low-income and often minority. But those most opposed to school choice are another core Democratic constituency: the teachers unions that provide campaign funding and grassroots manpower for Democratic campaigns.
Many democrats are beginning to part ways with the unions. Democratic Mayor Anthony Williams and Senators Robert Byrd, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Lieberman all provided critical support for the new Washington, D.C., voucher program. Last year, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell expanded the state's private school scholarship program. And Democratic state legislators in New Jersey are pushing a school voucher program to help inner-city children.
Governor Napolitano must strike a balance between the demands of the 30,000-member Arizona Education Association and the needs of Arizona's children. Wisconsin’s Democratic Governor Jim Doyle faces a similar quandary. Milwaukee’s voucher program has proven so popular that more families apply for scholarships than are available. But Gov. Doyle has vetoed several proposals to raise the cap on enrollment. Because of these vetoes, thousands of inner-city children may be sent back to public schools this fall.
What will it take to change these Democratic governors' political calculus? As more parents recognize that school choice can improve their children's lives, a growing number of Democratic leaders will be forced to choose whether to stand with the teachers unions or with underprivileged children.
Dan Lips is Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation and a Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
