Comments (0)

By Marc, March 6, 2010 10:33 pm

Here is the letter a teacher received in the mail from Speaker Bill Howell (R-28^th) yesterday:

There are so many things wrong with this letter; I don’t even know where to begin. Howell couldn’t be more dishonest and misleading – I’ve come to expect nothing less from him.

He justifies the House’s cuts to K-12 education by claiming that

prior to last year, state funding for public education was largely protected…

This is simply not true. Gov. McDonnell (R-VA), like Howell, has also tried to justify cuts to K-12 education by falsely asserting that these sorts of cuts have been largely “spared” in recent years. Again, not true. Cuts in Direct Aid have already led to a 15 percent reduction in K-12 funding in just the last 2 years.

How Howell can claim that the “net impact [of the House’s cuts] would result in [only] a decrease of $80 million (statewide) for K-12 education over the biennium,” is dubious, if not an outright distortion of the facts, at best?! The House has actually proposed $863.6 million in cuts to Direct Aid for FY’11-12, compared to the level of Direct Aid funding for FY’08-09. Consequentially, this will lead to 24, 225.3 K-12 jobs lost. Let us not forget that the cuts present in the FY’10 budget resulted in the elimination of state funding for 8,758 positions. That’s nearly 33,000 jobs lost; or a nearly 19 percent reduction in force for Virginia schools, based on the 2007-2008 Annual Superintendent’s Report that reported a total of 177,017 support and instructional positions statewide.

Howell actually goes on to say that

by lifting expensive state mandates, instituting structural reforms to VRS and giving local school divisions greater flexibility in state funding for education for Stafford County (an additional $3.5 million) and the City of Fredericksburg (an additional $597,000) as compared to the initial budget bill proposed in December by former Governor Kaine.

By state mandates, Howell is referring to the Standards of Quality (SOQ). The SOQ defines the basic standards of a minimum quality education in Virginia. These minimum standards define the minimum number of personnel (e.g. teachers to students, principals to students) required to meet the SOQ. Many of the more affluent school districts greatly exceed these minimum standards, while many of the poorer school districts simply meet these minimum standards. Virginia is ranked 37^th in the nation in per pupil spending, actually trailing the national average by $1,238. These “state mandates” are hardly expensive, comparatively speaking to what 36 other states are paying and the fact that we are well below the national average.

So Howell and his Republican allies in the House plan on lowering the minimum standards to save money and put our children at even a further disadvantage. This will inevitably mean larger class sizes.  If that isn’t bad enough, the House also plans on rolling back the rates, to FY 2008 levels, that the state will pay out to the localities in order to meet their share of these minimum staffing standards.

As I discussed in an earlier post, the Local Composite Index (LCI) determines the state and local shares of funding a minimum education in Virginia. Anything above these minimums are paid for entirely by the localities. I also mentioned that Gov. McDonnell planned on cutting the SOQ staffing requirements (leading to larger class sizes) to reduce the required amount of funds provided to the localities by the state to meet these new lower minimum requirements.

The additional state funds that Howell quotes for Stafford and Fredericksburg are as a result of re-benchmarking the LCI, which is done on an annual basis to reflect the local economic climate. Howell seems to imply that this is in some way related to “lifting expensive mandates [and] instituting structural reforms to VRS.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, because of the watering down of the minimum educational standards contained with the SOQ, Stafford and Fredericksburg will be receiving less money – not more (see Table 1). This actually exacerbates the funding cliff that exists for Stafford and Fredericksburg in FY’12.

While utter panic and fear set in, fear not, Howell and the Republicans have a plan (Snark). It’s not bad enough that they have proposed to lower the minimum educational standards in Virginia, resulting in a decrease in funding, but they plan to make up this difference on the backs of our teachers and support staff. You heard me right. The same folks who have gone without raises and who have seen health care premiums rise significantly over the last several years. Thanks to Howell, local school boards will now have the option of requiring employees to pay up to 5 percent of the cost of the Virginia Retirement System. This is how Howell defines “giving local school divisions greater flexibility.” Well thanks, Bill! This equates to another reduction in teacher and support staff pay.

So the VRS “flexibility” simply shifts a portion of what the localities were paying onto the backs of teachers and support staff. In addition to shifting a portion of VRS contributions onto these employees, Gov. McDonnell and Howell are also planning on steep cuts in contributions, overall, to the VRS. The effect of this will be nothing short of devastating and will most likely result in significant future budget woes – possibly having to be covered through increased taxes. As the Richmond Times-Dispatch noted,

The problem is the widening gap between what retirement experts say is necessary to fully fund the pension plans and what the state is willing to pay. Virginia’s pension plans were funded at 84 percent of their future liabilities for state employees last summer and 76 percent for teachers; by 2013, VRS projects the plans would fall below 62 percent of their obligations for state employees and 59 percent for teachers at current contribution rates.

Gov. McDonnell and Howell also plan on additional “reforms” of VRS for new employees. As the Virginia Education Association explains,

Future hires will have a reduced retirement benefit.

The House lowers the multiplier for future hires from the current 1.7% to 1.65%. The Senate does not change the multiplier.

The House uses the “Rule of 90” for future hires. Your age and service would need to add up to 90 for you to qualify for full retirement. The full retirement age in the Senate bill for future hires is age 60 with 30 years of experience.

The Senate conforms the full retirement age for new hires having less than 30 years of experience to the Social Security retirement age.
For new hires, both chambers change the formula for determining the Average Final Salary (AFS) to the average of the highest 5 years. This is a change from the average of the highest three years.

Finally, the House and the Senate both change the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). The COLA is intended to protect your retirement income from inflation. Currently, the COLA is capped at 5%. You get a 1% increase for each of the first three percentage points of inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and 0.5% for each additional point up to seven percentage points of inflation. The current cap is 5%. Under the new proposal you get a 1% increase for the first two percentage points of inflation, followed by 0.5% for the next eight points up to ten percentage points of inflation. The new cap is 6%.

The state saves money on the new COLA if inflation is low, but loses money if inflation is high.

The problem with all of this is that it will take a very long time to realize any savings, let alone in FY’11 or FY’12.  The math simply does not add up.

If you can’t take anymore, I would stop reading at this point. The Washington Post also describes how the House budget plans on lumping

together funding for the Virginia Preschool Initiative, early reading and other targeted programs for at-risk students. Instead of distributing the money based on the number of students who qualify for free or reduced-cost lunch programs (proven barometers for identifying at-risk students), block grants then would go to localities according to student enrollment as defined by average daily membership.

The effect would be to take money intended to help students who are at risk of educational failure and redirect it to districts that are larger and wealthier.

These “block grants” would now be awarded based on student enrollment and not on need. This is what Howell calls “flexibility.” Oh yeah, according to Del. Kay Kory (D-38^th), the “block grants” will also be slashed by $500 million.

All of what I’ve just talked about represents catastrophic cuts to public preK-12 education. What’s sad is that Howell tries to dupe constituents with misleading data and false conclusions. He is the worst of the worst type of politicians. So while Gov. McDonnell and Howell provide significant tax credits to businesses and funds them with these catastrophic cuts, our children are being victimized. Hey I guess since our schools are being gutted, the only way to attract businesses is to provide huge incentives to come here. Our school system certainly wouldn’t be what attracts them.

Gov. McDonnell and Howell clearly don’t understand the economic benefit of a strong education system: gutting preK-12 education, creating a huge VRS liability and laying off 30,000 workers is clearly a better economic plan. Anyone want to call for a re-vote?

Comments (2)

By Marc, January 4, 2010 6:43 pm

As we learned from the last election cycle in Virginia, the perceived “safe” candidate doesn’t always equate to electoral success. This brings me to the 2010 race for Congress in the 1^st Congressional District. Over the next several months, Democrats will decide on a challenger to Rep. Rob Wittman (R-1^st CD).

I believe the single most important factor in being able to win this race is the ability of our eventual Democratic nominee to energize Obama voters and get them to actually show up for this mid-term election. I’m under no illusion that the first congressional district is a particularly easy one for Democrats; however, I believe that Krystal Ball is the only candidate who can pull off a major upset. As she often states, this election will come down to “money, mobilization and a good message.”

Krystal has already raised more money than any of our immediate past Democratic candidates were able to raise throughout their entire campaigns. As of the last reporting period, she has raised more than a quarter of a million dollars; and it is likely from what I’m hearing that she will be approaching a half million dollars at the end of this reporting period (12/2009). To put this in context, this would be more than Shawn O’Donnell (D-2006), Philip Forgit (D -2007) and William (“Bill”) Day (D-2008) were able to raise combined throughout their entire campaigns. This huge cash advantage will allow Krystal to gather the necessary resources to get her message out.

In a recent interview with Blue Virginia, she listed education, environmental protection and technology based job creation as the issues she was most passionate about.

Being the husband of a public school teacher, I see firsthand what a vital role our teachers play in providing a quality education to our children. They are constantly being asked to do more with fewer resources. Krystal understands education. She understands that in order to maintain and grow an exceptional core of teachers that we must focus on “recruitment, retention and fair pay.”

Specifically addressing recruitment, I think that it is important to understand why professionals choose fields such as engineering over teaching. To me it is not simply all about the almighty dollar as it is about allowing teachers to actually teach. Teach not to a test, but allow teachers a bit more freedom in actually teaching. It seems to me that each year we are spending more and more time on test preparation, which directly impacts actual instructional time in the classroom. Why is this the case? Under the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal government requires us to conduct tests to measure students’ academic proficiency. If certain academic thresholds are not met, this impacts the amount of federal funding a school receives. And, by the way, the federal government mandates that this testing be conducted, but provides no funding to support it (a.k.a. the “Unfunded Mandate”). I totally believe that we need academic standards, but the system is fatally flawed and is need of a major overhaul.

Krystal strongly believes that the federal government should not be “putting legislative handcuffs on local communities” and so do I.  Krystal also understands that there are many folks in local communities who may have a particular expertise that could provide tangible benefits to students in the classroom; however, they do not meet licensure requirements. She has proposed alternative licensure programs to help attract these folks and deal with an aging teacher population that will result in significant retirements in the coming years. One thing is for sure; Krystal is the candidate who offers the most concrete solutions to improve our education system.

With regards to environmental protection and technology based job creation, Krystal understands that they are not mutually exclusive. She understands that in order to address the ever-widening income inequality gap in this country that we must look at creating jobs in industries which we have a comparative advantage, such as renewable energy. This requires bold leadership and a true understanding of business. As a successful small business owner herself, Krystal understands that once “the costs of environmental destruction are brought from externalities to business expenses” that industries such as renewable energy will become economically viable. This will help create high wage jobs that just so happen to provide an added bonus of being environmentally positive.

If all of this isn’t enough to convince you that Krystal is one heck of a candidate, look at a recent endorsement by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. In his endorsement he notes

“Krystal will be a strong champion of our armed service members and a fierce advocate for our veterans and their families, both inside and out of the district. I am impressed by her call to service and with her background as a CPA and small business owner. I believe she has a valuable perspective from which to legislate on economic issues, and will be the best voice for Virginia’s first district.”

As the Chair of the Stafford Democratic Committee, I have witnessed many successful and not so successful candidates and campaigns over the last two years. Krystal is one of the most intelligent, hard working candidates I have come across over this period of time and, put simply, is our best chance of winning a very difficult first congressional district race. She inspires people to want to work for her and produces a similar fervor amongst her supporters that was present in 2008 for President Obama. She is far from the safest candidate, a 28-year old first time candidate, but where did safe get the Democrats in the 2009 Gubernatorial race?

Comments (0)

By Marc, December 15, 2009 8:39 pm

Krystal Ball, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia’s 1^st Congressional District, penned an op-ed late last week that laid out the need for the US to take the lead in confronting the reality of weather climate change. She went on to say that this isn’t only an environmental issue, but rather a national security and economic imperative.

Krystal’s Op-Ed:

I was born and raised in an area of Virginia surrounded by the Chesapeake Bay.  The bay is a priceless treasure and the largest estuary in the United States.  It is second only to New Orleans in its vulnerability to climate-change induced flooding.  I believe that man-made climate change is a scientific fact and confronting the reality of greenhouse gas emissions a critical moral and environmental imperative. Our failure to rise to this challenge would be a betrayal of our children and future generations.   Right now, the world’s attention is focused on the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.   My attention is also focused on Copenhagen.  But not because I am an environmentalist, rather it is my patriotism, my experience as a small business owner and my study of economics that focus me on Copenhagen.

Eliminating our dependence on imported oil is a national security imperative.  Our consumption of foreign oil bought from petro-dictators is the financial engine of worldwide terrorism.  When I think about our men and women in uniform killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by improvised explosive devices and road-side bombs, as I marvel at their heroism, I can’t help but think about where the money came from to buy the explosives and the nails and ball bearings launched at them by jihadi cowards.  Our purchase of foreign oil funds the regimes who fund the terrorists.  It’s as simple as that. It doesn’t matter whether you want to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels because of global warming or because you want to cut off funds to the terrorists…the patriotic thing to do and the environmental thing to do are the same.  The US has 3% of the world’s proven oil reserves.  Osama Bin Laden’s birthplace of Saudi Arabia has 25%.  “Drill baby drill” may be the Saudi energy strategy, but it is no strategy for the US.

Cutting out our reliance on fossil fuels isn’t just about national security, it’s also about jobs.  That’s why I think about the Copenhagen Summit as the jobs summit.  Our car companies went bankrupt because we ignored world-wide demand for more fuel efficient cars and focused on higher short-term profits from SUVs and trucks.  China leads the world in manufacturing, not just in the manufacture of the household goods that used to be made in America, but in solar power production and electric vehicle production.  Our universities, our scientists, our venture capitalists are the best in the world by far.  We have the largest consumer market in the world and are the world’s largest consumers of energy.  The US is the natural choice to lead the world in energy-efficient, green technology and alternative and renewable energy.  India, China, Japan and Europe are all aggressively promoting green technology as part of their economic growth strategy.

We work longer hours and have more productive workers than India or China.  We are the best positioned in the world to lead in green technology  and if we invest in that leadership, the entire world will buy green technology produced in America by American workers.

In the US, a fierce political debate rages about whether climate change is real.  In the rest of the world, there is no such debate.  The rest of the world accepts the reality of climate change and they are gearing up industry, research investment and regulation to make their economies more energy efficient, less reliant on fossil fuels, to turn their buildings green, to develop electric cars and affordable solar power in order to confront the reality of climate change.   Those focused on events in Copenhagen are derided by “global warming skeptics” as tree-hugging internationalists who care more about world opinion than the economic reality of job creation in the United States.  They deride climate change legislation as “Cap and Tax” and sound alarm bells about the economic consequences of higher energy costs that come with controlling greenhouse gas emissions.   I say, for the cleanliness of our air, the purity of our water, the diversity of our wildlife, the national security of our homeland and the job creation of the 21st century, we need to heed the warning of Copenhagen and take the lead in the world-wide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  And in the process, if we just happen to avoid a civilization ending climatic catastrophe, we can call that a bonus.