Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (9771)	3/5/1998 3:07:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Hi Christine, I am not a Californian but wasn't the decision by the state's courts to equalize school spending a big reason for any decline in spending? I remember that since that decision the districts that had been spending more than average have gotten around that decision by making everything optional, i.e., parents pay for the extras or volunteer because the schools "can't" spend the money themselves. The poorer districts have not benfitted. From what I have read, that decision has had a bigger impact on school spending than Prop 13. The law of unintended consequences.

To: Grainne who wrote (9771)	3/5/1998 8:34:00 PM
From: WalleyB	Respond to of 20981

My main point in bringing up Proposition 13, however, is that loss of tax revenues started a rapid decline in the quality of California's schools. A favorite tact of Govt is to always place the wants as a priority on the budget and cut the needs when the tax payers balk at coughing up their hard earned coin. Cal. didn't have to cut off the schools, but in order to prove to the citizens that it was not a nice thing passing that prop 13 the state made them pay. Look at the other things that went begging, Emergency services for one. THe state of Wa is no better when it comes to this kind of tactic.