Here is an interesting perspective on this conversation from the comicstrip Prickley City. This ran March 20th and was followed with a series of strips exploring the issue further:
My apologies for misreading your argument in my haste. I don't have time to go back and forth about the impact or the merits of the 54% spending level in Arizona.
However, I still believe the power of school choice overrides the self interest of Teacher's Unions. And I still believe your guilt by association argument about ALEC somehow taints the Goldwater Institute is spurious.
So your main arguments are:
1) GI is associated with ALEC and are therefore guilty by association. Read this and think about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_f…
2) Schools spend 7% more on administration than the national average, which means to me that when the legislature cut funding school boards and school administrators choose to cut classroom education rather than administration. You obviously agree with this prioritization. I would prefer to see administrator cut rather than teachers and classroom support cut. Buy whether it's your way or my way, either way it's a matter of the policy maker's choice.
I find your arguments spurious on their face. No rebuttal is required.
I know that Jim, my point is that it could still qualify for a future ballot once the Supreme Court rules later this year or next. The final resolution awaits their decision. Had the Supreme Court not continued the matter then you would have been right that it would never appear in its current incarnation. Until that is decided one way or another the matter remains open for a future ballot. Further the problem for the city isn't going away, but getting worse. The City Manager projects a cumulative $250 million short fall in the city's operating fund within five years. You might want to check that out.
Take a look at the City Manager's budget presentation to the Mayor and Council from April of this year. Hint it's a PowerPoint you can find on this web page: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/budget and click on the April 14th PowerPoint link, which is actually a pdf file. Then read it or just cut to the chase and look at slides 47 to 53. These slides show that the city had $2.3 million surplus in unallocated funds at that time. The slides also show options to use that money and the city's bottom line. What the elected officials did as a) use the $2.3 million they had and about $9 million the city doesn't have to give employees a raise, b) cut pension contributions from 14% to 6.5% and c) made the numbers on slide 53 that show a $250 million cumulative operating fund deficit over the next 5 fiscal years even worse. In short the Mayor and Council came up to Tucson's Fiscal Cliff, looked over the edge and gleefully jumped. No wonder you can't endorse this cycle. It would be a sin to endorse a Republican but the incumbents are too incompetent and irresponsible for words. And there you have it. Don't believe this set of facts, check it out yourselves.
Well the truth is that the pension initiative isn't dead, it's pending at the Supreme Court. The Supremes continued the pro initiative committee's appeal while awaiting an opinion from the Court of Appeals so that the Supremes have something to review. At least that is what the Star said. Could it be that the much maligned Star got it right and the "uber accurate" Jim Nintzel made a mistake? Perish the thought....
Steve K is being disingenuous....during his tenure on the council the city's pension fund shortfall has increased by almost 9%. Yet when someone tries to do something he opposes it. Why didn't he do his job and fix it in the first place? What is his alternative solution?
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
3725 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation