Well, now we know how Obamacare is going to be paid for...

[Jason]

I'm actually of the opinion that they need to stop funding schools based on attendance. Why make kids thy don't care about learning anything come to school to cause problems and distractions for the others? Those that want an education will score well on their tests.

[HaloMagic]

The cost per capita would naturally be higher in a state with a higher percentage of school age residents. I can't find info that compares California's age breakdown with other states without looking each one up but comparing the median ages California is the 6th youngest state. It stands to reason that the explanation for that isn't that we have a ridiculous amount of 20-30 year olds compared to other states but that we have a moderate amount more younger residents. People 5-18, and thus school age.

A more honest and fair way to look at education spending would be to look at spending per pupil. This would show how much we spend for each actual student, not how much we spend for each student PLUS each person who isn't a student. I couldn't care less if a community spends a lot more per capita than it's neighbor. If 60% of it's residents are students and only 20% of it's neighbor's are then it should be higher. There isn't a very good baseline to compare to when using per capita on targeted expenses.

California is 49th in education spending per pupil. That is the most recent data and doesn't include the result of the new Prop 30 taxes

[Jason]

This thread has morphed more than the wonder Twins

[fan_since79]

The funny thing is that the voters knew this would happen and still re-elected him.

Most of the voters didn't know jack. It's all propaganda these days. 

[Lifetime]

The cost per capita would naturally be higher in a state with a higher percentage of school age residents. I can't find info that compares California's age breakdown with other states without looking each one up but comparing the median ages California is the 6th youngest state. It stands to reason that the explanation for that isn't that we have a ridiculous amount of 20-30 year olds compared to other states but that we have a moderate amount more younger residents. People 5-18, and thus school age.

A more honest and fair way to look at education spending would be to look at spending per pupil. This would show how much we spend for each actual student, not how much we spend for each student PLUS each person who isn't a student. I couldn't care less if a community spends a lot more per capita than it's neighbor. If 60% of it's residents are students and only 20% of it's neighbor's are then it should be higher. There isn't a very good baseline to compare to when using per capita on targeted expenses.

California is 49th in education spending per pupil. That is the most recent data and doesn't include the result of the new Prop 30 taxes

In 2010 it was 39th. Before the recession it was 23rd.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/21/4579408/california-falls-to-35th-in-nation.html

[HaloMagic]

In 2010 it was 39th. Before the recession it was 23rd.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/21/4579408/california-falls-to-35th-in-nation.html

Education Weekly released an update in January that puts California at 49th.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/10/16sos.h32.html?tkn=RSUF2MsODVFaEOE%2FhnsqlUJEwMT2ZUskTADN&cmp=clp-edweek&intc=EW-QC13-EWH

In any event, it's pretty terrible. And it's a much better way of looking at our spending than per capita. Using per capita to compare spending or revenue that only affects a portion of the populace isn't very helpful. I guess it would be helpful if you wanted to determine if your targeted base is to high or low. In the case of education spending, there's not much you can do about the base.

[Lifetime]

I don't see that on the link you provided. 

 

I wasn't using per capita to look at the spending. Just dispelling the notion that a larger population equates to a higher per capita education cost. 

 

And given the state of the economy and the cuts that were made in CA, it's not really surprising that the per pupil spending would be increasingly lower. 

[Jay]

Obviously in CA the bullet train is a higher priority.

[Jason]

Obviously in CA the bullet train is a higher priority.

Heck yeah! I want to get to Merced as quicly as possible.

[floplag]

i find this intriguing.. where exactly is this money going?  it isnt the classroom, it isnt teacher salaries... this may be the best graphs of a corrupt system ever put forth.

[HaloMagic]

I don't see that on the link you provided.

I wasn't using per capita to look at the spending. Just dispelling the notion that a larger population equates to a higher per capita education cost.

And given the state of the economy and the cuts that were made in CA, it's not really surprising that the per pupil spending would be increasingly lower.

It's in one of the linked PDFs titled 'School Finance'.

I didn't mean to imply you were comparing systems by using per capita. I just put it into that post because I didn't want to pull a storm and have three consecutive posts. I agree with you. Per capita costs wouldn't rise just because of an increase in population. Provided that the population demographics stay constant there is a very real chance the per capita cost could actually decline as population rises.

[fan_since79]

Best analysis I've read so far of the coming chaos:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/

 

 

[halobob]

I especially liked this paragraph from the forbes article:

"Obama campaigned in 2008 on a promise that Obamacare would reduce the cost of health insurance by $2,500 for average families.  But since Obamacare passed, the cost of an average family policy has already increased by $3,000.  That reflects the philosophical problem that so many “progressives” have with math, which they are certain is a fascist conspiracy against working people.  (Why must 2 +2 always equal 4?  That is just fascist authoritarianism.  Why can’t we be flexible so it can sometimes equal 3, or 5?)"

[Lhalo]

I agree with you, especially the latter part.  So much of it falls on parents.  

But the kids don't belong to the parents. Un-frickin-believable.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N3qtpdSQox0

[mtangelsfan]

LOL, libs are frickin' crazy and arrogant.

[Taylor]

LOL, libs are frickin' crazy and arrogant.

 

Almost Taliban-like!

[arch stanton]

That;s why you shouldn't give up your AR-15

[Jay]

But the kids don't belong to the parents. Un-frickin-believable.

 

Progress!

[fan_since79]

Maryland's CareFirst Blue Cross/Blue Shield wants to raise rates 25%.

 

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/04/carefirst-proposes-25-percent-rate-increase-87977.html

[nate]

Rates will go much higher than 25% in some states.  The cost of these Affordable Care Act plans is through the roof because of all the mandates added to them.

[Taylor]

Lol @ "Affordable" Care Act.

[Angel Oracle]

The irony of California would be how much of that school money is spent on Admin costs.  

Bureaucracy at its' finest!

 

Part of California's problem is that unemployment has been high for quite a while now, and thus cutting into tax revenue. 

 

The prison guards do take in an obscene amount in pensions and at a younger age than other unions.  

Prison guards also have it easier than their patrol breathren, who have a free population to overlook, while the prison guards have more control over their population.