2014 Senate Projections

[wufan]

Not to try and upset you @CBB_Fan:, but was the link I presented false?

[Kung Wu]

This is one reason I rarely contribute to political threads, this argument exactly. If I'd don't provide links, I'm not trustworthy. If I do provide links, they are always not good enough. ALWAYS. Liberals dismiss conservative sources, conservatives dismiss liberal sources regardless of the validity of the information presented. You think Wufan's report is balanced because it tells you what you want to hear, and think my sources are invalid solely because of their source, not their content. The only way to win an argument with someone is to convince them that they had the idea themselves.

I linked to those sources because of the data they contained, because they were completely free of any editorializing. Still dismissed out of hand because of the source. Instead I could have linked to a kansas.com post where our state courts declared our funding unconstitutionally low (note, the effort is worthless because our state Senate can just amend that section of our Constitution out). I could have appealed to emotions and told personal anecdotes about how the local high school has forced every middle-aged teacher into retirement to save money, gone to four days a week to save on busing, and cut many quality programs; however I feel that doing so is dishonest. Not because it isn't true, but because I prefer backing up statements with facts instead of second hand opinions. If I wanted to appeal to authority, I'd have used this blog by former Kansas Budget Director Duane Goossen, who is one of those that belief the state's budget situation is dire.

Anyway, the point of my gripe is that logic and reason tend to get thrown by the wayside when people talk politics. Taking arguments independent from their source is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and is just as important in any debate. But usually (as was the case in Kansas's elections) arguments turn into appeals to emotion, ad hominen attacks and a lot of confirmation bias. I chose my sources not because they agreed with what I said, but because they were primarily free of political language. I could go on all day posting links that people disagree with, and it would just be shouting to the air. Which is actually why I didn't post links in my original post. In my past experiences (mostly not on this board) the only thing that happens is that a lot of time gets wasted.

All that aside, you still didn't answer my question. Do you really believe that Kansas will be insolvent within 2 years, and that's just a "self-evident fact"? (BTW, states can't "file" for "bankruptcy". They can only become insolvent. They are not the same thing, but for the purposes of this discussion I will assume you meant Kansas will become insolvent.)

That question doesn't require any links or justification or explanation -- it's just a yes or no question, you either believe what you said or you don't.

[MoValley John]

Kansas has written into their constitution a baseline for education funding? That strikes as a bit odd. Was this baseline an amendment written into the constitution or was this baseline solely determined by the court? I honestly find this interesting.

[MoValley John]

Being confused about a state constitution that guarantees a minimum per pupil funding level, I Googled to see if Nebraska had similar funding requirements. Nebraska doesn't. I'm not saying Nebraska is better or worse, they just don't require a minimum per pupil expenditure. Apparently, there have been cases before the Nebraska Supreme Court asking that minimums be set. Minimum funding was rejected as a "Non Justiciable Political Question."

How the state allocates funds to districts has always been a contentious issue in Nebraska, as both rural and urban districts think they get the shaft as it relates to the school funding formula. I really think constitution amendments requiring minimal funding are odd. Here is a link regarding school funding cases in Nebraska. http://schoolfunding.info/2012/05/sc...s-in-nebraska/

[wufan]

Here's a link on the decision:

http://www.mainstreamcoalition.org/gannon_explained

[MoValley John]

Wow! I wouldn't think any governing body would hamstring itself by setting any minimum expenditures. Much less, setting that limit based on a per pupil basis. Especially when your spending splits out what is considered per pupil. If you were a district, you could spend money on non per pupil items and claim that the state is underfunded. This looks like one huge political football.

[wu_shizzle]

Good luck making education spending in Kansas more efficient. The unholy trinity of the Teacher's Unions, State Media and KS Supreme Court will make sure that no one dares question the status quo.

Just look at how they went after Sam Brownback who has overseen more education spending than any KS Governor in history.

[CBB_Fan]

All that aside, you still didn't answer my question. Do you really believe that Kansas will be insolvent within 2 years, and that's just a "self-evident fact"? (BTW, states can't "file" for "bankruptcy". They can only become insolvent. They are not the same thing, but for the purposes of this discussion I will assume you meant Kansas will become insolvent.)

That question doesn't require any links or justification or explanation -- it's just a yes or no question, you either believe what you said or you don't.

I do not argue personal beliefs. It's pointless. No one will ever change a personal opinion a message board comment. Besides which, while states cannot file for bankruptcy they have sought that right. I think I may have assumed for some reason that they had won it in the past 3 years after reading that article some time ago.

The answer to your question comes from that budget link at the end of my post. Currently Kansas is $30B in debt, and by 2016 we have emptied the state general fund reserves while continuing to cut revenue. Even if our net assets exceed our liabilities, they will not be liquid enough to permit payments as they come. Furthermore, our current politicians have shown they will not change their approach or methods and will continue to cut taxes recklessly. While I probably shouldn't doubt the ability of accountants to make it all work on paper, it is impossible for me to see anything positive in Kansas's economic future.

@wufan. The post was not incorrect. The facts were correct. I had even considered linking to that page before you linked it, mainly for its last graph. However, it is calculating spending in an entirely different way than the links I had posted. The question to be asked isn't which set of data is correct, but which is more applicable to the situation. Base state aid is the largest individual sum of money give to schools, and is actually paid out per pupil. I'd say it is the most reasonable number to use, because it is the money that can go towards the education of the regular student.

The numbers that site uses are the total per student said from federal, state, and local aid. That includes a large portion of money that goes towards pensions, special education, and construction; none of which significantly impacts education for a regular student. It also is somewhat dishonest in that speaks of the aid to Kansas schools, not the aid from Kansas to schools (using federal and local aid).

[SHOCKvalue]

As I've said on this forum before, my wife is a teacher in a Wichita area district. It is not 259, nor is it one of the districts known for the high personal income of its residents. Just a working class and middle class district. Brownback's policies have had no real impact on her job, nor the school she specifically works at as a whole. She would tell you this if you asked. She's also not a union member, and even if she was, the union in this district is not terribly unpalatable.

I say this because it seems most of the belaboring about Brownback from area educators - in my personal experience - comes from those employed by USD 259. That's a district where a pair of first year, married teachers would earn at roughly the 75th percentile of household income in the Wichita metro, and where the combined insurance benefit would be valued at possibly up to roughly $20K per annum (if they had a small family), all at zero premium cost to the recipient. These sacred cows will not be slaughtered, even if it means schools make prohibitive adjustments to functions directly associated with the student and his or her learning experience.

My anecdotal story here is that one time I was in the home of a pair of individuals employed by an affluent suburban Wichita district, and nearing retirement. For whatever reason I don't recall, this couple started off on a tangent and tirade against Brownback and his apparent anti-education policies. The was in a home located in a west side country club development, and worth about $350K. Such a sacrifice these people must have made to work in education, and only end up in a home worth approximately 300% the median Wichita home value. They were also a WSU educated household, with KU allegiances. I wanted to drop my drawers and take a deuce in their front porch flower pot on my way out, but alas I did not.

[Kung Wu]

I do not argue personal beliefs.

...

The answer to your question comes from that budget link at the end of my post. Currently Kansas is $30B in debt, and by 2016 we have emptied the state general fund reserves while continuing to cut revenue. Even if our net assets exceed our liabilities, they will not be liquid enough to permit payments as they come. Furthermore, our current politicians have shown they will not change their approach or methods and will continue to cut taxes recklessly. While I probably shouldn't doubt the ability of accountants to make it all work on paper, it is impossible for me to see anything positive in Kansas's economic future.

I'm not arguing and I won't try and talk you off your opinion. I don't even know enough about the Kansas budget TO argue, because I don't follow Kansas' local politics that closely. I just want to know if you believe that Kansas will be insolvent at the end of two years, and that's a "self-evident fact". The second paragraph is a "yes".