North Dakota’s unemployment rate is under 4 percent while Idaho’s is over 9.5 percent. I have shown the difference in the individual tax rate.
Individual Income Tax rates in Idaho and North Dakota According to Salary Wizard
North Dakota 0 - $32,550 2.1%
$32,551 - $78,850 3.92%
$78,851 - $106,550 4.34%
$106,551 - $357,700 5.04%
Over $357,701 5.54%
Idaho 0 - $1,237 1.6%
$1,238 - $2,474 3.6%
$2,475 - $3,710 4.1%
$3,711 - $4,987 5.1%
$4,988 - $6,184 6.1%
$6,185 - $9,276 7.1%
$9,277 - $24,736 7.4%
Over $24,737 7.8%
Idaho’s top rate is 1.26% higher than North Dakota. The real difference is that everyone in Idaho that makes over $4,988 pays a higher tax rate than those making over $357,701 in North Dakota. Maybe the Idaho legislature should consider reducing the overall rate to 5.5% and having fewer tax brackets similar to the ones in North Dakota.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Three Problems
My name is Steven Thayn. I serve in the Idaho House of Representatives. I am honored to live in Idaho among Americans that possess noble aspirations and an unconquerable, can-do spirit.
America has three basic problems that manifest themselves in high taxes, federal deficits, unemployment, inflation, and trade deficits -- all symptoms of economic illness. We will not achieve a healthy economy until these three problems are addressed and solved.
The first problem is economic. America has too many expenses and too little income. Government expenses consume more wealth than the private sector is able to generate.
The second problem is voter confusion over who should care for the needy. While caring for the needy is a natural desire; government is not an efficient delivery system. Programs to help the needy consume 70 percent of the federal budget and growing! Tax reduction and economic growth are linked to entitlement reform.
The third problem, it has become culturally acceptable for people to live off of the wealth of others without an expectation of contributing to their own sustenance. This has driven up social spending, caused taxes to rise, increased social problems, and created a dependent, non-productive class of citizens.
These three problems must be addressed simultaneously. Government spending must be reduced so that more wealth can remain in the private sector which will allow the private sector to grow and create jobs. Voters must support a transition from state charity to private charity so that costs can be reduced and quality improved by supporting politicians who raise this important issue. Finally, it can no longer be culturally acceptable to live off the labor of others without an expectation of paying back by helping others.
America has three basic problems that manifest themselves in high taxes, federal deficits, unemployment, inflation, and trade deficits -- all symptoms of economic illness. We will not achieve a healthy economy until these three problems are addressed and solved.
The first problem is economic. America has too many expenses and too little income. Government expenses consume more wealth than the private sector is able to generate.
The second problem is voter confusion over who should care for the needy. While caring for the needy is a natural desire; government is not an efficient delivery system. Programs to help the needy consume 70 percent of the federal budget and growing! Tax reduction and economic growth are linked to entitlement reform.
The third problem, it has become culturally acceptable for people to live off of the wealth of others without an expectation of contributing to their own sustenance. This has driven up social spending, caused taxes to rise, increased social problems, and created a dependent, non-productive class of citizens.
These three problems must be addressed simultaneously. Government spending must be reduced so that more wealth can remain in the private sector which will allow the private sector to grow and create jobs. Voters must support a transition from state charity to private charity so that costs can be reduced and quality improved by supporting politicians who raise this important issue. Finally, it can no longer be culturally acceptable to live off the labor of others without an expectation of paying back by helping others.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Liberal Policies Hinge on Redistribution of the Wealth and Deficit Spending
Liberal Policies Hinge on Two Big Ideas
The economy of the United States will continue to struggle until two liberal policies are rejected and replaced with workable principles. All liberal polices hinge on one of the following concepts:
• Redistribution of the wealth is necessary and/or morally justified
• The economy can be stimulated through increasing the money supply (deficit spending)
If these policies can be shown to lack substance and/or are simply false, then liberalism is false and lack substance.
Is forced redistribution of the wealth through taxes practical or morally justified? According to traditional American political thought, the government obtains its power from the consent of the people. In other words, the government cannot do anything that the people cannot do themselves. You can’t delegate to government the power to steal when stealing is not a natural right belonging to every person.
An example would be to ask a simple question. Can person ‘A’ go into his neighbor’s house and take his food, money, or possessions without the owner’s permission. The answer is no. This would be theft. Theft is rejected as a moral good. However, can person ‘A’ ask government to take his neighbor’s food, money, or possessions without the owner’s permission and transfer it to ‘A’? The answer should be the same, no. Liberals answer differently. They say that this is a moral function of government.
Neighbor ‘A’ does not have the power to redistribute wealth and ‘A’ cannot give power that he does not have to government to redistribute wealth. Yet, redistribution of the wealth is exactly the basis of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has built a case that redistribution of the wealth is morally justified.
We hesitate to challenge this notion because it has become such a dominant part of American culture. Public education, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, federal student loans, earned income tax credit, etc. etc. and to some extent Social Security are all based upon redistribution of the wealth. We don’t want to address the issue because it would require significant changes.
The problem is that redistribution of the wealth increases the size of government, reduces the number of those that produce material goods, increases the number of people that consume material goods, and eventually leads to widespread poverty and suffering. It seems to me that we have a choice. We need to hit the reset button. We can make reasonable changes now or ignore the basic problem with redistribution of the wealth and allow the economy to collapse which will result in widespread misery and suffering.
To me the choice is obvious; we need to make basic changes in the way social services are provided. The sooner we act; the less hardship will be created.
Liberals also believe that the economy can be stimulated by increasing the money supply. This is simply false. Economies are stimulated through work and production. Money is simply a tool of exchange. Money is not the economy. Increasing the money supply actually harms the private sector through decreasing private capital and decreasing the size of the productive private sector. Monetary policy is a kind way of saying"Grow Government.”
http://chum.ly/n/7bbaa8
The economy of the United States will continue to struggle until two liberal policies are rejected and replaced with workable principles. All liberal polices hinge on one of the following concepts:
• Redistribution of the wealth is necessary and/or morally justified
• The economy can be stimulated through increasing the money supply (deficit spending)
If these policies can be shown to lack substance and/or are simply false, then liberalism is false and lack substance.
Is forced redistribution of the wealth through taxes practical or morally justified? According to traditional American political thought, the government obtains its power from the consent of the people. In other words, the government cannot do anything that the people cannot do themselves. You can’t delegate to government the power to steal when stealing is not a natural right belonging to every person.
An example would be to ask a simple question. Can person ‘A’ go into his neighbor’s house and take his food, money, or possessions without the owner’s permission. The answer is no. This would be theft. Theft is rejected as a moral good. However, can person ‘A’ ask government to take his neighbor’s food, money, or possessions without the owner’s permission and transfer it to ‘A’? The answer should be the same, no. Liberals answer differently. They say that this is a moral function of government.
Neighbor ‘A’ does not have the power to redistribute wealth and ‘A’ cannot give power that he does not have to government to redistribute wealth. Yet, redistribution of the wealth is exactly the basis of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has built a case that redistribution of the wealth is morally justified.
We hesitate to challenge this notion because it has become such a dominant part of American culture. Public education, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, federal student loans, earned income tax credit, etc. etc. and to some extent Social Security are all based upon redistribution of the wealth. We don’t want to address the issue because it would require significant changes.
The problem is that redistribution of the wealth increases the size of government, reduces the number of those that produce material goods, increases the number of people that consume material goods, and eventually leads to widespread poverty and suffering. It seems to me that we have a choice. We need to hit the reset button. We can make reasonable changes now or ignore the basic problem with redistribution of the wealth and allow the economy to collapse which will result in widespread misery and suffering.
To me the choice is obvious; we need to make basic changes in the way social services are provided. The sooner we act; the less hardship will be created.
Liberals also believe that the economy can be stimulated by increasing the money supply. This is simply false. Economies are stimulated through work and production. Money is simply a tool of exchange. Money is not the economy. Increasing the money supply actually harms the private sector through decreasing private capital and decreasing the size of the productive private sector. Monetary policy is a kind way of saying"Grow Government.”
http://chum.ly/n/7bbaa8
Essay on the nature of Money from the MIses Institute
The Free Market: The Fallacy of the Money Supply: mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=444
This 1500 word article explains the nature of money and why liberal economic policy cannot work.
http://chum.ly/n/7bb939
This 1500 word article explains the nature of money and why liberal economic policy cannot work.
http://chum.ly/n/7bb939
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Post from steventhayn at CHUMLY
The Liberal Narrative Exposed
The Liberal Narrative Exposed:: The economy can only be stimulated by an increase in production. There is no other way. Liberals believe that increasing the money supply can stimulate the economy. The truth is that monetary policy (increasing the money supply) cannot stimulate the economy any more than a drug addict can be cured by taking another hit of heroin.
Liberals base this belief on FDR’s policies during the Great Depression. They believe FDR ended the Great Depression by increasing the size of government. The problem with this belief is that it is not true. FDR created the longest depression in US history and it only ended after his polices were rejected by Congress in 1946. WWII simply masked the effects of liberal polices by trading huge increases in debt for war time production.
"Government statisticians present economic growth in terms of monetary expenditure data, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and industrial production. These indicators are designed in line with Keynesian thinking that spending equates to income — hence, more spending leads to a higher national income and therefore to a higher economic growth.” September 01, 2009 by Frank Shostak
Economic growth should be measured in private sector material output. If increasing the money supply can stimulate the economy, then we need to print boatloads of money and stimulate it. However, stimulus packages like the ARRA don’t work because they only stimulate consumption but do little to stimulate production.
The ARRA invested $100s of millions of dollars into medical care for the needy, salaries for government workers, and food for the poor. All of this money is gone with nothing to show for it. If the amount of money that was spent on ARRA projects had been invested in factories and production, we would now have ongoing production, jobs, and tax revenues being generated by these factories. What we have is debt with no production.
If the $787 billion had been spent on creating jobs by spending $250,000 per job, there would have been 3,148,000 jobs manufacturing jobs created. This would have lead to another 3or 4 support jobs or another 12,000,000 jobs or a total of 15,000,000 new jobs.
The current unemployment rate according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics in February 2011 is 8.9 percent or 13.7 million total unemployed.
The money was simply misspent. We could have totally eliminated unemployment. Now, we have debt and unemployment, the worst of both worlds.
http://chum.ly/n/7aa708
The Liberal Narrative Exposed:: The economy can only be stimulated by an increase in production. There is no other way. Liberals believe that increasing the money supply can stimulate the economy. The truth is that monetary policy (increasing the money supply) cannot stimulate the economy any more than a drug addict can be cured by taking another hit of heroin.
Liberals base this belief on FDR’s policies during the Great Depression. They believe FDR ended the Great Depression by increasing the size of government. The problem with this belief is that it is not true. FDR created the longest depression in US history and it only ended after his polices were rejected by Congress in 1946. WWII simply masked the effects of liberal polices by trading huge increases in debt for war time production.
"Government statisticians present economic growth in terms of monetary expenditure data, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and industrial production. These indicators are designed in line with Keynesian thinking that spending equates to income — hence, more spending leads to a higher national income and therefore to a higher economic growth.” September 01, 2009 by Frank Shostak
Economic growth should be measured in private sector material output. If increasing the money supply can stimulate the economy, then we need to print boatloads of money and stimulate it. However, stimulus packages like the ARRA don’t work because they only stimulate consumption but do little to stimulate production.
The ARRA invested $100s of millions of dollars into medical care for the needy, salaries for government workers, and food for the poor. All of this money is gone with nothing to show for it. If the amount of money that was spent on ARRA projects had been invested in factories and production, we would now have ongoing production, jobs, and tax revenues being generated by these factories. What we have is debt with no production.
If the $787 billion had been spent on creating jobs by spending $250,000 per job, there would have been 3,148,000 jobs manufacturing jobs created. This would have lead to another 3or 4 support jobs or another 12,000,000 jobs or a total of 15,000,000 new jobs.
The current unemployment rate according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics in February 2011 is 8.9 percent or 13.7 million total unemployed.
The money was simply misspent. We could have totally eliminated unemployment. Now, we have debt and unemployment, the worst of both worlds.
http://chum.ly/n/7aa708
Reform of Public Schools
As many of you know, I have been very interested in improving and reforming public education. One of the reasons that reform efforts have been disappointing is because we have always funded based on attendance. I think it is time to consider funding based on what is learned.
We don't simply want students in school, we want them to learn.
http://chum.ly/n/7a7752
We don't simply want students in school, we want them to learn.
http://chum.ly/n/7a7752
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Food Stamps in the Commerce and Human Resource Committee
In Commerce and Human Resource Committee, a discussion was held concerning the problems caused by issuing all Food Stamps on the first day of the month. The issue was between the Northwest Grocers Association and the Department of Health and Welfare. The Northwest Grocers Association was concerned about the added costs i.e. the extra employees and the number of people, because of long lines, that leave food in their carts and walk out of the store which causes food spoilage.
The position of DHW said that it would cost more to issue Food Stamps over several days.
The Liberal Narrative is concerned about the health and budgets of the government agency budget, in this case, the DHW. The Conservative Narrative is concerned about the health and budget of private businesses which, by the way, are the ones that actually produce and distribute the food in the first place.
The vote was very predictable. The two Democrats and one Republican voted to hold the Department of Health and Welfare budget harmless by wanting to kill the bill. The 6 other Republicans voted to protect the budget of the Grocers and asked the DHW to implement the policy.
http://chum.ly/n/789a83
The position of DHW said that it would cost more to issue Food Stamps over several days.
The Liberal Narrative is concerned about the health and budgets of the government agency budget, in this case, the DHW. The Conservative Narrative is concerned about the health and budget of private businesses which, by the way, are the ones that actually produce and distribute the food in the first place.
The vote was very predictable. The two Democrats and one Republican voted to hold the Department of Health and Welfare budget harmless by wanting to kill the bill. The 6 other Republicans voted to protect the budget of the Grocers and asked the DHW to implement the policy.
http://chum.ly/n/789a83
Friday, March 4, 2011
Post from steventhayn at CHUMLY
Shaken Baby Syndrome
Shaken Baby Syndrome:: A resolution raising awareness on the dangers on shaking a baby. Please never, never shake a baby. It can cause death and permanent damage. Set the baby down and walk away rather than shake out of frustration.
http://chum.ly/n/734ced
Shaken Baby Syndrome:: A resolution raising awareness on the dangers on shaking a baby. Please never, never shake a baby. It can cause death and permanent damage. Set the baby down and walk away rather than shake out of frustration.
http://chum.ly/n/734ced
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
My Thoughts on Luna's Plan
Superintendent Luna's proposal to reform public education has provoked a profound response and divide. A quote from a teacher will illustrate this point;"I have never seen teacher morale at a lower point; they are frustrated, frightened, saddened, and exhausted by these plans while also trying to educate students. An employee's working conditions directly affect their productivity, no matter how hard they try to conceal it. It is a very scary situation, and it will only be made worse with the passage of these bills.” Idaho public school teacher
Which side is right? I am not sure. The reality is that both sides have valid points. Let me explain why I basically agree with the Luna Plan.
1. I believe that within five years it will be common to have students beginning in late elementary school through college to have one or more classes or parts of classes online or a class or subject partially taught with the help of a computer program. I don't believe that it is necessary to mandate 4 classes. It will happen naturally and they won't replace teachers.
2. The current public education system is expensive and not meeting the needs of many students because of our reliance upon direct-instruction. A better model is self-instruction or teacher moderated self-instruction. Technology is an important part of a self-instruction model.
3. Tax increases are needed to fund the current system. I cannot support tax increases. Changes need to be made.
Never the less, I have concerns about parts of Luna's proposal.
1. The state cannot buy technology and then decide how to use it. It is important that a specific purpose and goal/goals be identified and, then, purchase technology to meet these specific goals. It needs to me measurable and accountable. Luna's plan is not yet developed enough to do this. There will be a committee formed to bring recommendations back next session to justify the use of technology. If this committee does not make a good case for how the technology is to be used, I cannot support it.
2. Class size is a problem. All things being equal it is better to have a smaller class than a larger class. However, I am not completely convinced that the Idaho school system cannot maintain its current class size with fewer employees. This is an issue that should also be studied during the next 12 months. For example, if administrators taught one class per day and librarians and others including teachers, during their prep period, monitored an online class, class sizes could be kept near their current size.
3. Discipline is another issue of concern. We need to give administrators and teachers the ability to hold students accountable. How can we expect teachers to teach classes with more students without giving them the tools to maintain discipline?
4. The present school system has too many students that are not engaged in the learning process. We need more students that want to be in class. Interestingly, I sat through a presentation on how iPods and iPads can be used to engage these students. I am hopeful that technology can actually be part of the solution to this problem.
Finally, what direction should we take if we don't increase technology; if we don't consider and implement Luna's Plan? I have asked this question many times. The response I usually get is to increase taxes. It is my belief that the voters spoke very clearly last November that they did not want a tax increase. The main issue of both the Governor and Superintendent races was if we should raise taxes on education or not. Tom Luna got 60 percent of the vote or 93,000 votes more than his opponent saying he would not raise taxes.
I personally am committed to try to do the almost impossible task of improving public education with less money. I think it can be done and Luna's plan has some potential to accomplish this task; however, it must be monitored very closely and be well thought out before final implementation in 2012 (18 months from now).
http://chum.ly/n/6e853d
Which side is right? I am not sure. The reality is that both sides have valid points. Let me explain why I basically agree with the Luna Plan.
1. I believe that within five years it will be common to have students beginning in late elementary school through college to have one or more classes or parts of classes online or a class or subject partially taught with the help of a computer program. I don't believe that it is necessary to mandate 4 classes. It will happen naturally and they won't replace teachers.
2. The current public education system is expensive and not meeting the needs of many students because of our reliance upon direct-instruction. A better model is self-instruction or teacher moderated self-instruction. Technology is an important part of a self-instruction model.
3. Tax increases are needed to fund the current system. I cannot support tax increases. Changes need to be made.
Never the less, I have concerns about parts of Luna's proposal.
1. The state cannot buy technology and then decide how to use it. It is important that a specific purpose and goal/goals be identified and, then, purchase technology to meet these specific goals. It needs to me measurable and accountable. Luna's plan is not yet developed enough to do this. There will be a committee formed to bring recommendations back next session to justify the use of technology. If this committee does not make a good case for how the technology is to be used, I cannot support it.
2. Class size is a problem. All things being equal it is better to have a smaller class than a larger class. However, I am not completely convinced that the Idaho school system cannot maintain its current class size with fewer employees. This is an issue that should also be studied during the next 12 months. For example, if administrators taught one class per day and librarians and others including teachers, during their prep period, monitored an online class, class sizes could be kept near their current size.
3. Discipline is another issue of concern. We need to give administrators and teachers the ability to hold students accountable. How can we expect teachers to teach classes with more students without giving them the tools to maintain discipline?
4. The present school system has too many students that are not engaged in the learning process. We need more students that want to be in class. Interestingly, I sat through a presentation on how iPods and iPads can be used to engage these students. I am hopeful that technology can actually be part of the solution to this problem.
Finally, what direction should we take if we don't increase technology; if we don't consider and implement Luna's Plan? I have asked this question many times. The response I usually get is to increase taxes. It is my belief that the voters spoke very clearly last November that they did not want a tax increase. The main issue of both the Governor and Superintendent races was if we should raise taxes on education or not. Tom Luna got 60 percent of the vote or 93,000 votes more than his opponent saying he would not raise taxes.
I personally am committed to try to do the almost impossible task of improving public education with less money. I think it can be done and Luna's plan has some potential to accomplish this task; however, it must be monitored very closely and be well thought out before final implementation in 2012 (18 months from now).
http://chum.ly/n/6e853d
Monday, February 14, 2011
A Tax Increase is a Cut to Someone's Budget
Tom Luna has proposed changes to the public education system. Many of his ideas have been met with opposition. While I agree that changes need to be made to his plan, Superintendent Luna has raised a significant issue – how can we maintain the current system with less funding?
Most of those opposed to Luna's plan feel that public education funding cannot be cut. They say education is the key to the future. They say it is too important to cut. They propose raising more money through higher taxes.
Is this what the voters told us last November? No! They said to make do with what we have. I would like to point out that a tax increase is a cut to someone's budget. It is a cut to family budgets. It is a cut to business budgets. How much will unemployment increase if we raise taxes? How many more jobs will be lost if we raise taxes?
How many more parents will have to work two jobs if we raise taxes and will not have time to help their children with homework if we raise taxes?
http://chum.ly/n/6aad1b
Most of those opposed to Luna's plan feel that public education funding cannot be cut. They say education is the key to the future. They say it is too important to cut. They propose raising more money through higher taxes.
Is this what the voters told us last November? No! They said to make do with what we have. I would like to point out that a tax increase is a cut to someone's budget. It is a cut to family budgets. It is a cut to business budgets. How much will unemployment increase if we raise taxes? How many more jobs will be lost if we raise taxes?
How many more parents will have to work two jobs if we raise taxes and will not have time to help their children with homework if we raise taxes?
http://chum.ly/n/6aad1b
Friday, February 11, 2011
Education Debate can become a discussion
I have sent out many emails with ideas on how keep class size smaller. Citizens like this direction and are starting to enter into a discussion. This is great!
http://chum.ly/n/699c1d
http://chum.ly/n/699c1d
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Thayn's kindergarten proposal
H0123SOP.pdf (application/pdf Object): legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2011/H0123SOP.pd...P.pdf
http://chum.ly/n/6856e7
http://chum.ly/n/6856e7
Rep. Thayn Introduces Kindergarten Bill
Boise, Idaho: Rep. Steven Thayn of the Idaho house introduced a bill today in the House Education Committee that would reform the current state kindergarten program. The bill would do two things of interest to legislators again beset by budget shortfalls. First, reduce kindergarten spending by 2/3 saving the state $33 million. Thayn said: "$33 million would fill ½ of the public school portion of the budget shortfall without reducing teachers' salaries or programs in grades 1-12.” Second, the bill would allow administrators, the State Department of Education, parents, legislators, and teachers to reevaluate the current kindergarten system and goals.
The present kindergarten system provides 36 weeks of instruction for all children. His proposal would give school districts flexibility in how much kindergarten they may offer. Some may offer as little as three weeks to students that already have the skills necessary to succeed in first grade while offering up to 36 weeks to other students that do not have the necessary skills. His proposal would allow for much smaller classrooms for at-risk students and allow them to receive more individualize attention.
Rep. Thayn sees the need to increase the number of engaged, motivated learners in school which would reduce teacher stress. Thayn believes that the number of students receiving A's and B's is increasing indicating many of our better students are not being sufficiently challenged while the number of D's and F's are also increasing indicating a feeling of disenfranchisement that many student and parents are feeling with the current system. Thayn believes that this issue needs to be addressed starting in kindergarten.
Thayn advocates a concentrated effort on the part of the school system to include parents of at-risk students, try to make them feel respected and valued by bringing them into the classroom, and help them feel comfortable working with the teacher. Establishing this strong relationship could result in long-term benefits, according to Thayn.
The bill was introduced today in the House Education Committee and can be found on the legislative website on Wednesday.
Rep. Steven Thayn is in his third term in the Idaho House from Emmett, Idaho.
http://chum.ly/n/681822
The present kindergarten system provides 36 weeks of instruction for all children. His proposal would give school districts flexibility in how much kindergarten they may offer. Some may offer as little as three weeks to students that already have the skills necessary to succeed in first grade while offering up to 36 weeks to other students that do not have the necessary skills. His proposal would allow for much smaller classrooms for at-risk students and allow them to receive more individualize attention.
Rep. Thayn sees the need to increase the number of engaged, motivated learners in school which would reduce teacher stress. Thayn believes that the number of students receiving A's and B's is increasing indicating many of our better students are not being sufficiently challenged while the number of D's and F's are also increasing indicating a feeling of disenfranchisement that many student and parents are feeling with the current system. Thayn believes that this issue needs to be addressed starting in kindergarten.
Thayn advocates a concentrated effort on the part of the school system to include parents of at-risk students, try to make them feel respected and valued by bringing them into the classroom, and help them feel comfortable working with the teacher. Establishing this strong relationship could result in long-term benefits, according to Thayn.
The bill was introduced today in the House Education Committee and can be found on the legislative website on Wednesday.
Rep. Steven Thayn is in his third term in the Idaho House from Emmett, Idaho.
http://chum.ly/n/681822
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Luna's Plan and smaller class size
Luna's education reform plan is causing much discussion. One of the main complaints is that class size will increase if 700 teachers were not rehired. I actually found a way to decrease class size in secondary classes with fewer teachers. Let me show you how.
1. There are going to be 2772 fewer classrooms available with 462 fewer secondary teachers.
2. There are 2497 administrators and councilors. If 2000 of them taught one class per day or monitored one online class per day this would regain 2000 of the 2772 lost classrooms leaving only 772 to make up.
3. Of the 7050 secondary teachers that will be left under Luna's plan, if 4000 of them monitored an online class during their prep period, there would actually be 3228 new classroom which would reduce class size from 18.1 to 17.9 students per teachers.
One of the points that Luna maybe trying to demonstrate is that we can and should use the human resources we have more fully. I don't think Luna is saying that we have too many teachers rather we need to utilize our resources more wisely.
http://chum.ly/n/673f71
1. There are going to be 2772 fewer classrooms available with 462 fewer secondary teachers.
2. There are 2497 administrators and councilors. If 2000 of them taught one class per day or monitored one online class per day this would regain 2000 of the 2772 lost classrooms leaving only 772 to make up.
3. Of the 7050 secondary teachers that will be left under Luna's plan, if 4000 of them monitored an online class during their prep period, there would actually be 3228 new classroom which would reduce class size from 18.1 to 17.9 students per teachers.
One of the points that Luna maybe trying to demonstrate is that we can and should use the human resources we have more fully. I don't think Luna is saying that we have too many teachers rather we need to utilize our resources more wisely.
http://chum.ly/n/673f71
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Idaho's shortfall near $130 million
January's revenue was up over $14 million than expected. So, it looks like the budget shortfall will not be $185 million but much closer to $130 million. Just finished one scenario on how to balance the budget. It included:
1. Restructure kindergarten $33 million
2. High deductible policy for state legislators $.3 million
3. No subsidy for drivers training $3.5 million
4. Cuts in Health and Welfare $40 million
5. Elimination of public TV $2.2 million
I recommend no cuts in corrections.
http://chum.ly/n/65b6ed
1. Restructure kindergarten $33 million
2. High deductible policy for state legislators $.3 million
3. No subsidy for drivers training $3.5 million
4. Cuts in Health and Welfare $40 million
5. Elimination of public TV $2.2 million
I recommend no cuts in corrections.
http://chum.ly/n/65b6ed
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Another Idea to Save Money
The State of Idaho pays $125 per student that takes drivers training. This amounts to $3.5 million per year. Should this money be used to protect other important education programs instead?
http://chum.ly/n/650b47
http://chum.ly/n/650b47
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Ideas to balance the 2012 budget Public schools section
Some of you are aware that I have suggested 7 ideas that should be discussed in order to balance the budget. I have added two more and now there 9 ideas. If the state of Idaho is facing a $180 million shortfall, then public schools' portion of that budget shortfall is about $90 million. How will this shortfall be addressed?
I have listing these 9 ideas with the hope that other ideas will surface and from the list of ideas the best ideas will be implemented. I am not supportive of all of these ideas, and in fact, not all of them are needed. The legislature only needs to find $90 million in savings in public education and the ideas listed total over $350 million. Here are my thoughts on each of the 9 ideas. If you have any other ideas, I would be happy to add them to the list.
Option #1: Establish a twelve week kindergarten program to get kids ready for school rather than the current 36 week program. Potential Savings - $40 million
Comments -- Very supportive – A targeted kindergarten program aimed at those behind the other students could overcome the"Matthew Effect” and still accomplish much of what is currently being accomplished.
Option #2: Reduce wages and benefits to all teachers and administrators by 12 percent – Potential Savings $89 million.
Comments – Not supportive - I don't think this is a good idea.
Option #3: Create a statewide medical insurance pool for teachers that has a high deductible policy with a Health Savings Account – Potential Savings $15 to $35 million
Comments – Very supportive -- Depending upon the details this concept has the potential to both improve medical accessibility and reduce costs.
Option #4: Cut technology improvements by 25 to 50 percent – Potential Savings $6 to $12 million
Comments – Supportive – Superintendent Luna has suggested spending $24 million a year for several years on technology in the classroom. I am not sure every classroom or teacher would or could use this technology.
Option #5: Cut all or some teacher aids – As of FY10, Idaho school districts and charter schools paid approximately 3,000 FTP worth of "Instructional Assistants" about $70 million is salaries. At a minimum, there would be an additional 7.65% cost for FICA on top of that. Only those working half time or greater would have PERSI paid as well, at an employer cost rate of 10.39%.
Comments – Somewhat supportive – Idea #6 is accomplished by having fewer teachers. It seems to me that the number of aids and teachers are related and can't be discussed separately.
Option #6: Increase class size by 2 – Potential Savings $100 million
Comments – Supportive – This is Superintendent Luna's way to fund changes in public education. It should be discusses in conjunction with option #5. The underlying issue of this concept is how to increase the number of motivated students.
Option #7: Encourage motivated students to take two summer classes in order to graduate a year early* – Potential Savings between $13 million and $90 million
Comments – Very supportive – The legislature started moving this direction last year with the passage of the MAPP bill that allows and encourages students to graduate early with a scholarship. The problem is that this idea will not help this year's budget. This is a long-term strategy. Let me point out that 72 credits are required to graduate from most high schools in the state beginning in the 7th grade. 5 years x 14 credits = 70 credits. This means that if motivated students took two summer classes sometime between the 7th grade and the 11 grade, they could graduate a year early.
Option #8: Eliminate public funding for all sports programs – Potential Savings Unknown
Comments – Not supportive
Option #9: Consolidate school districts – Potential Savings around $17 million
Comments – This is a local choice.
Summary
If the kindergarten idea were implemented ($40 million), a statewide pool created ($35 million), and less money were allocated for technology ($12 million), this would total approximately $87 million. The budget problem may be solved with no wages cuts and medical insurance may even be improved. I think it can be done.
http://chum.ly/n/63ff10
I have listing these 9 ideas with the hope that other ideas will surface and from the list of ideas the best ideas will be implemented. I am not supportive of all of these ideas, and in fact, not all of them are needed. The legislature only needs to find $90 million in savings in public education and the ideas listed total over $350 million. Here are my thoughts on each of the 9 ideas. If you have any other ideas, I would be happy to add them to the list.
Option #1: Establish a twelve week kindergarten program to get kids ready for school rather than the current 36 week program. Potential Savings - $40 million
Comments -- Very supportive – A targeted kindergarten program aimed at those behind the other students could overcome the"Matthew Effect” and still accomplish much of what is currently being accomplished.
Option #2: Reduce wages and benefits to all teachers and administrators by 12 percent – Potential Savings $89 million.
Comments – Not supportive - I don't think this is a good idea.
Option #3: Create a statewide medical insurance pool for teachers that has a high deductible policy with a Health Savings Account – Potential Savings $15 to $35 million
Comments – Very supportive -- Depending upon the details this concept has the potential to both improve medical accessibility and reduce costs.
Option #4: Cut technology improvements by 25 to 50 percent – Potential Savings $6 to $12 million
Comments – Supportive – Superintendent Luna has suggested spending $24 million a year for several years on technology in the classroom. I am not sure every classroom or teacher would or could use this technology.
Option #5: Cut all or some teacher aids – As of FY10, Idaho school districts and charter schools paid approximately 3,000 FTP worth of "Instructional Assistants" about $70 million is salaries. At a minimum, there would be an additional 7.65% cost for FICA on top of that. Only those working half time or greater would have PERSI paid as well, at an employer cost rate of 10.39%.
Comments – Somewhat supportive – Idea #6 is accomplished by having fewer teachers. It seems to me that the number of aids and teachers are related and can't be discussed separately.
Option #6: Increase class size by 2 – Potential Savings $100 million
Comments – Supportive – This is Superintendent Luna's way to fund changes in public education. It should be discusses in conjunction with option #5. The underlying issue of this concept is how to increase the number of motivated students.
Option #7: Encourage motivated students to take two summer classes in order to graduate a year early* – Potential Savings between $13 million and $90 million
Comments – Very supportive – The legislature started moving this direction last year with the passage of the MAPP bill that allows and encourages students to graduate early with a scholarship. The problem is that this idea will not help this year's budget. This is a long-term strategy. Let me point out that 72 credits are required to graduate from most high schools in the state beginning in the 7th grade. 5 years x 14 credits = 70 credits. This means that if motivated students took two summer classes sometime between the 7th grade and the 11 grade, they could graduate a year early.
Option #8: Eliminate public funding for all sports programs – Potential Savings Unknown
Comments – Not supportive
Option #9: Consolidate school districts – Potential Savings around $17 million
Comments – This is a local choice.
Summary
If the kindergarten idea were implemented ($40 million), a statewide pool created ($35 million), and less money were allocated for technology ($12 million), this would total approximately $87 million. The budget problem may be solved with no wages cuts and medical insurance may even be improved. I think it can be done.
http://chum.ly/n/63ff10
Friday, January 28, 2011
House GOP leaders raise budget concerns - Eye On Boise - Spokesman.comSpokesman.comSpokesman.com - Jan. 27, 2011
www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2011/jan/27/house-go...#more
This is an article that details the size of the budget shortfall at $185 million
http://chum.ly/n/6320bd
This is an article that details the size of the budget shortfall at $185 million
http://chum.ly/n/6320bd
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Post from steventhayn at CHUM.LY
Can the State of Idaho Reduce its Budget by $200 million?
The legislature is faced with a growing shortfall in state tax revenues. I would like to offer suggestions on how to reduce costs by $200 million or 8 percent of the total state general fund budget. I chosen an organized approach to approach with this problem.
1. Choose a target number - $200 million
2. Determine the percent of the budget – 8 percent
3. Determine the size of the 5 areas of the budget.
a. K-12 - $1.2 billion
b. Other education - $360 million
c. DHW – $463 million
d. Public safety - $222 million
e. All other - $120 million
4. Reduce each area of the budget by 8 percent to establish a baseline goal for each budget.
a. K-12 - $96 million
b. Other education - $28 million
c. DHW - $36 million
d. Public safety - $17 million
e. All other - $9.6 million
5. Start identifying targeted budget cuts to try to reach goals in section 4. I started with k-12 education and have developed several strategies for comparison purposes only. The following options are designed to help understand the ramifications of different approached to budget cutting ideas with the hope that the least harmful can be identified.
Option #1: Fund a six week summer kindergarten program to get kids ready for school rather than the current 36 week program. Potential Savings - $50 million
Option #2: Reduce wages and benefits to all teachers and administrators by 12 percent – Potential Savings $89 million.
Option #3: Create a statewide medical insurance pool for teachers that had a high deductible policy with a Health Savings Account – Potential Savings $15 to $35 million
Option #4: Cut technology improvements by 25 to 50 percent – Potential Savings $6 to $12 million
Option #5: Cut all or some teacher aids – Savings unknown
Option #6: Increase teacher size by 2 – Potential Savings $100 million
Option #7: Encourage motivated students to take enough summer classes to graduate one year early – Potential Savings between $13 million and $90 million
Which of these options, in your opinion, should be pursued and considered?
http://chum.ly/n/621125
The legislature is faced with a growing shortfall in state tax revenues. I would like to offer suggestions on how to reduce costs by $200 million or 8 percent of the total state general fund budget. I chosen an organized approach to approach with this problem.
1. Choose a target number - $200 million
2. Determine the percent of the budget – 8 percent
3. Determine the size of the 5 areas of the budget.
a. K-12 - $1.2 billion
b. Other education - $360 million
c. DHW – $463 million
d. Public safety - $222 million
e. All other - $120 million
4. Reduce each area of the budget by 8 percent to establish a baseline goal for each budget.
a. K-12 - $96 million
b. Other education - $28 million
c. DHW - $36 million
d. Public safety - $17 million
e. All other - $9.6 million
5. Start identifying targeted budget cuts to try to reach goals in section 4. I started with k-12 education and have developed several strategies for comparison purposes only. The following options are designed to help understand the ramifications of different approached to budget cutting ideas with the hope that the least harmful can be identified.
Option #1: Fund a six week summer kindergarten program to get kids ready for school rather than the current 36 week program. Potential Savings - $50 million
Option #2: Reduce wages and benefits to all teachers and administrators by 12 percent – Potential Savings $89 million.
Option #3: Create a statewide medical insurance pool for teachers that had a high deductible policy with a Health Savings Account – Potential Savings $15 to $35 million
Option #4: Cut technology improvements by 25 to 50 percent – Potential Savings $6 to $12 million
Option #5: Cut all or some teacher aids – Savings unknown
Option #6: Increase teacher size by 2 – Potential Savings $100 million
Option #7: Encourage motivated students to take enough summer classes to graduate one year early – Potential Savings between $13 million and $90 million
Which of these options, in your opinion, should be pursued and considered?
http://chum.ly/n/621125
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Solutions for Medicaid Spending
Concerning: Medicaid and other entitlement spending
Fellow Legislators:
The question that is before us is how to provide social services to the needy at reduced costs. Medicaid spending consumes most of the DHW budget and is growing every year. The reason is simple. It is an open-ended program with no limits. If a person qualifies, then the state taxpayer must pay.
There are two main budget items in the state budget that consume 85 percent of all spending: education (65 percent with k-12 taking up 50 percent) and DHW (20 percent). Public education, under the direction of Tom Luna, is developing a strategy so that better outcomes can be achieved at less cost. This is being done through the use of technology, flexibility, and allowing students to learn at accelerated rates. Public education is well positioned to move into the future even with reduced funding. This is not the case for the DHW.
While it is necessary to address this year's budget problems which will require fairly small changes to or eliminations of current programs, this ‘tinkering-around-the-edges' approach will not solve the underlying problem. If we do not develop a long-term strategy, we will be back next year simply trying to get through another year.
It is my hope that we consider and develop a long-term strategy to improve DHW services while reducing and controlling costs this legislative session. A long-term strategy would place us in a proactive position allowing the legislature to improve the quality of services. I would offer several suggestions for your consideration.
1. Caps and limits: Medicaid and other social programs were designed to help the neediest of the needy. They were not designed to provide services to a large percentage of the population. We learned during the Clinton years that lifetime limits on programs like Aid to Families to Dependent Families could actually work. In Idaho, AFDF or TANF has a two year limit. This program is not growing and is working as intended. I propose two types of limits; first, lifetime limits, and second, limits to a percent of the population. For example, 13 percent of the population of Idaho is now on Food Stamps. Limiting this program to 10 percent or 8 percent of the population could be achieved by changing eligibility requirements. This could also be done for Medicaid and other programs while still helping the neediest of the needy.
2. Each person should, especially for the working poor, have an Individual Improvement Plan (IIP). The purpose of the IIP would be to help them achieve independence and self-sufficiency through skill development and personal growth. This could be best accomplished through a non-paid mentor.
3. The state of Idaho needs flexibility in order to use the resources we have in more reasonable ways. The regulations of the federal government drive up costs without significant regard to the actual needs of the people or common sense.
The adoption of these three principles (and others) would change the DHW discussion and place Idaho on firm footing for future changes and improvements. Without these changes, I don't see any real change taking place. I recognize that some of these changes are not now possible under current federal rules. Rules can and should change.
#Medicaid #Long-term #solutions #for #Idaho
http://chum.ly/n/5e9b34
Fellow Legislators:
The question that is before us is how to provide social services to the needy at reduced costs. Medicaid spending consumes most of the DHW budget and is growing every year. The reason is simple. It is an open-ended program with no limits. If a person qualifies, then the state taxpayer must pay.
There are two main budget items in the state budget that consume 85 percent of all spending: education (65 percent with k-12 taking up 50 percent) and DHW (20 percent). Public education, under the direction of Tom Luna, is developing a strategy so that better outcomes can be achieved at less cost. This is being done through the use of technology, flexibility, and allowing students to learn at accelerated rates. Public education is well positioned to move into the future even with reduced funding. This is not the case for the DHW.
While it is necessary to address this year's budget problems which will require fairly small changes to or eliminations of current programs, this ‘tinkering-around-the-edges' approach will not solve the underlying problem. If we do not develop a long-term strategy, we will be back next year simply trying to get through another year.
It is my hope that we consider and develop a long-term strategy to improve DHW services while reducing and controlling costs this legislative session. A long-term strategy would place us in a proactive position allowing the legislature to improve the quality of services. I would offer several suggestions for your consideration.
1. Caps and limits: Medicaid and other social programs were designed to help the neediest of the needy. They were not designed to provide services to a large percentage of the population. We learned during the Clinton years that lifetime limits on programs like Aid to Families to Dependent Families could actually work. In Idaho, AFDF or TANF has a two year limit. This program is not growing and is working as intended. I propose two types of limits; first, lifetime limits, and second, limits to a percent of the population. For example, 13 percent of the population of Idaho is now on Food Stamps. Limiting this program to 10 percent or 8 percent of the population could be achieved by changing eligibility requirements. This could also be done for Medicaid and other programs while still helping the neediest of the needy.
2. Each person should, especially for the working poor, have an Individual Improvement Plan (IIP). The purpose of the IIP would be to help them achieve independence and self-sufficiency through skill development and personal growth. This could be best accomplished through a non-paid mentor.
3. The state of Idaho needs flexibility in order to use the resources we have in more reasonable ways. The regulations of the federal government drive up costs without significant regard to the actual needs of the people or common sense.
The adoption of these three principles (and others) would change the DHW discussion and place Idaho on firm footing for future changes and improvements. Without these changes, I don't see any real change taking place. I recognize that some of these changes are not now possible under current federal rules. Rules can and should change.
#Medicaid #Long-term #solutions #for #Idaho
http://chum.ly/n/5e9b34
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)