Subscribe to EspressoPundit

« Speaking of Shut Downs...Updated: Effect on the Republic | Main | Today's Morning Shot »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451db8169e20115719afc6d970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Governor Vetoes K-12 Budget:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I just don't get it!?

The biggest expense a state has are it's employees and Teachers.

I'm sorry but WE ALL have to suffer.

Teach Cuts across the boards.

All Day kindergarden eliminated.

Cut State employees and offices.

Jan you are a waste of OUR time. Jezzus!!!

ANOTHER LIB bleeding heart with the children in mind just to make happy with the teacher's union and the parents that can't afford day care.

"The Governor has signed Senate Bill 1188, the 2009-10 General Appropriations Act. There is no shut down of State Government. All state employees should continue to report to work as scheduled. July 1, 2009 1:00 PM" - www.azdoa.gov

Just like I predicted, no epic government shutdown will occur. I wonder if there will be any spike in the Wednesday sales of newspapers. I rather think that http://www.ArizonaGuardian.com/ subscriptions are selling at a goodly pace this week.

I wonder if Burns is staying... He is supposed to leave for Germany on the 4th....

I didn't realize the line-item veto could be used to increase spending. And K-12 is more than just a "portion" of the budget.

Dennis,

Do you understand the budget as presented to the Governor was not complete? It did not meet the deficit and some of the cuts to education were illegal? Now, before you go getting all over the teachers' unions (of which I am no fan) and libs...it is voter protected law that caused this situation. The voters of Arizona mandated annual increases to education and because of Prop 105, anything passed by voters cannot be undone by the legislature. Had she signed that into law, a suit would have been filed and the state would have had to defend it, would have lost under precedent, and had to repay schools and handle the cost of the law suit.

Be mad, but be mad at the legislators that didn't have a back bone to stand up to Janet and got us into this mess. Now they want to act like the great crusaders of all things conservative...sorry, it won't fly!

That would be a real shame if Bob Burns had to cancel his European vacation.

I am puzzled by the insistence on a tax increase vote. Has anyone heard of polling that would indicate a different outcome than California voters produced? What would motivate the governor's advisors to bet that not cutting spending will produce a yes to higher taxes in 16 months?

Jean- you are not getting it either.

A small tax increase- which the penny is, will pass, given the list of cuts that will result from it.

The level of spending that is locked in dictates that the cuts will be the most painful possible.

This is the legacy of J-No- she boxed up the republican party.

At least Jan Brewer is bright enough to recognize the fiscal position and *try* to manage a way out with the least damage possible.

Jean, if that is the case, than why didn't the wing nuts agree to send it to the ballot? Oh, and speaking of wing nuts, I found it comical how Ron Gould told everyone on the floor how he checked and yes it would be a violation of the "no tax pledge." Hey, get on your knees, the mighty Grover likes the groveling.
Must...(cough, cough) cut...(cough)...taxes

Its a little funny how the teachers get the AX but the admin people keep their jobs...I guess since they do the hire fire they get to decide...heaven forbid a Superintendent should take a pay cut.

Ann, case law on the voter mandate issue is quite clear: the choice for the legislators was "education" OR "school transportation." While in the past they have done both, this time, they selected the less expensive "OR".

The Governor wants to use the tax increase for education? No, I don't think so. She just wants to use "education" to sell the tax increase, then take an equal amount of money out of education and put it into roads and other big-ticket items of her friends.

This governor has become a bully who is mad she didn't get her way. She doesn't understand you can not tax your way to prosperity.

One of the best parts of the education budget is the elimination of using tax money to pay for union presidents' time out of the classroom to do union business.

That amounts to $30,000 to $60,000 per school district - all 200+ of them.

So, the unions use taxpayer money to lobby the legislature for more taxpayer money. Then, they use the free time to harass their districts. (Oh, I know all the claims of helping the district, but the bottom line is taxpayer money is used for lobbying purposes and anti-district rhetoric.)

The elimination of this option is long overdue.

I was referencing the excess utilities case; Judge Katz ruled that the law was clear and could not be changed based on other interests of the state. The 2%, or inflation factor, would be seen similarly.

FYI...I abhor the union president release time but that is not a given. It is the norm in big mega-districts but do not assume it to be true of all.

The overly ambitious assumptions may sound good but they do not hold water.

North Valley Republican: We will see in court if you are right. There is an avalanche of legislative history -- cost estimates offered in Prop. 301, other statutes that are clearer and ballot language that shows the intent was to increase education funding overall -- that cuts against your interpretation. It also cuts against your interpretation that the Legislature has always funded the 2% in the manner required -- even after the downturn after 9/11. The worst of all of it is that the Legislature would be inviting a law suit that need not occur: the education groups (at least the sensible ones like the school boards) have said if the calculation is right at the front-end (2% to base + transportation) and a cut were made at the back-end to make the budget work, they won't sue. Their whole interest is keeping the inflation factor alive for when things get better. The Leg can get to where they want to go without needless, dogmatic-driven litigation.

Patrick,

"The Leg can get to where they want to go without needless, dogmatic-driven litigation."

Yes, but ABA is the best union in town and has the best friends in the GOP who love to go to court everytime you turn around - how much has Maricopa County BOS, the MC county attorney and the Sherriff already spend on lawyers in the past couple of years?

How much has the Legislature paid? In Flores alone, the attorneys cost is over $4 million, with $895 per hour going to Ken Starr.

Patrick, I think you made my point. The only group celebrating all this is (drumroll, please) the bar assocation.

The comments to this entry are closed.