The outline of the State budget is taking shape and I thought this line was interesting.
...a $187 million reduction in education funding made possible by reduced enrollment,
Arizona's population is certainly increasing, so where have all the children gone? Perhaps...Mexico? The US Supreme Court has said that illegal aliens under the age of 18 are entitled to a free education. (I don't remember where in the Constitution that provision is found, but I think it's right after the section about your fundamental right to birth control and just before the Article that says Congress can control what type of light bulb you buy at your local Home Depot.)
Of course there's no Constitutional right to a job (yet), and while many of the kids in our local schools were legal, obviously their parents weren't. At $10K a kid, it doesn't take too many parental self deportations to balance the budget.
(Ironically, Napolitano's biggest accomplishment--the employer sanctions bill, completely pays for her second biggest accomplishment--all-day kindergarten. It's also a huge transfer of benefits from the poor to the middle class.)
It might be due to Sheriff Joe's antics, but couldn't it also be due to, y'know, the lousy housing market?
Every indicator for real estate isn't just circling the bowl, they're heading down the old sewer pipe. Housing prices are down. So are real estate transactions, new housing, etc. People have stopped moving here. Just check with U-Haul and the local moving companies.
When people stop moving here, they kinda stop enrolling kids in school too.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that is more likely to impact school enrollment than the revival of the No Nothing Party.
(http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0233110-00&templatename=/art)
Posted by: SonoranSam | June 25, 2008 at 10:13 AM
"just before the Article that says Congress can control what type of light bulb you buy at your local Home Depot"
Oh Lord, please don't tell me you're going to start straying into Joe Farah territory. You might as well get fitted for a tin foil hat now.
Posted by: The Klute | June 25, 2008 at 10:38 AM
SonoranSam,
It was the 'Know Nothing' movment not the "NO Nothing' movment. It should be noted that the 'know nothings' joined the Republican party when their own movement wilted away. Some wags would say that the 'Know Nothings' continue be alive and well in the current GOP.
Posted by: ron | June 25, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Less children enrolled means less people in the neighborhood means less taxes means less revenue means....
Less children enrolled means less people means more vacant houses means dropping values means less taxes (sales and property) means same police and fire costs to protect vacant houses, fix streets, jail folks (I thought less people should mean less crime), same politicians receiving same salaries means....
Posted by: ron | June 25, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Gentlemen,
Front page Az Repugnant June 15th.
"POPULATION COUNTS WERE FAR OFF THE MARK
Estimates based on new homes hurt cities,
schools"
As to migrant departures there are a large
number of empty houses during the last 6 months in the Van Buren corridor between 19th avenue and 35th avenue.
I make the comment since I have ridden my bike in the area for 8 years.
Posted by: NICK | June 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Nick,
I am sure that most of those homes are now even worth less since they probably have been stripped off all the copper and any other valuables in them.
A house on my street about 7 miles north of said corrider went for $109K a few weeks ago - reason for low price - stripped!
Posted by: ron | June 25, 2008 at 01:07 PM
Alhambra Elementary school district predicts it will lose about $2 million next year due to dropping school enrollment.
Posted by: ron | June 25, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Speaking of less people should mean less crime, why is there a new jail in the Sherrif's budget this year?
Posted by: ron | June 25, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Ron: You're right. KNOW Nothing it is, and Know Nothing it was.
Since another R post is referring to a group as "Neo-communist," Maybe we can start calling Sheriff Joe, Rusell Pearce et al the "Neo-Know Nothings?"
Posted by: SonoranSam | June 25, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Sonora,
"Neo-Know Nothings?" seem to be having their
way quite often.
Posted by: NICK | June 25, 2008 at 05:14 PM
Sonora,
Check this.
US Neocons Accused of Role in Irish 'No' Vote
Did neo-cons from the United States fund the campaign in Ireland to reject the Lisbon Treaty? Accusations to that effect are widespread -- particularly given the business contacts of a leading group in the "no" camp.
Posted by: NICK | June 25, 2008 at 05:38 PM
Sam..
You say that "It might be due to Sheriff Joe's antics, but couldn't it also be due to, y'know, the lousy housing market?"
Unfortunately, Greg never mentioned anything about the Sheriff. What he did say was, "it doesn't take too many parental self deportations to balance the budget." See that part about "self" deportations? I believe that has to do more with the employer sanctions bill than with Sheriff Arpaio.
Posted by: Paul | June 25, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Just curious. Is there a single statement in Greg's post which is actually factually correct, because I can't find a single one. Someone please help me.
Posted by: todd | June 25, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Todd: For starters, reading from the bottom, it is true that Employer Sanctions is the Guv's biggest accomplishment.
Posted by: Name: | June 25, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Sonoran Sam misreads or misrepresents. It isn't a case of "people stop moving here and stop enrolling kids", that would be flat enrollment. This is a case of people leaving. Lots of people leaving. All at once, as though something happened like, maybe a new law that discourages people from hiring illegals? Don't blame the housing market, because its bad everywhere!
Posted by: Tim S. | June 26, 2008 at 12:33 AM
WAKE UP TODD,
The US Supreme Court has said that illegal aliens under the age of 18 are entitled to a free education.
Posted by: NICK | June 26, 2008 at 02:35 PM
NICK,
The Supreme Court has never ruled that illegal aliens under the age of 18 are entitled to a free education. It ruled that the state cannot discriminate against these children unless it could be shown there was a substantial state interest.
Posted by: todd | June 26, 2008 at 07:01 PM