Jason's blog 10th Mountain Division Infantryman served with my son
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Inspired by my brother to write about myself.
Current mood: depressed
My brother Jeffery wrote about himself on his profile and it has inspired me to write a little about myself and my feelings on a few topics.
I am not the most dependable person I know. I used to be, but I am now only a shell of my former self. I have been burdened, beaten, blown-up, and broken, and I have cracked under the pressure. Sometimes I look at myself now and think of who I used to be and wish that the bomb had killed me. Every time that I put on my uniform its a slap in the face, it is a mockery of who I once was. I am completely heartbroken at the loss of James, Darren, and Kurt. I will never forgive myself for not bringing my boys home. I wonder if I will ever be able to feel love again. I wonder if I will ever be able to feel happiness without the help of alcohol. I agree with Jeffery about what kind of vehicles a man should drive but he should have added a Jeep in there. And I dont mean a soccer mom-mobile Jeep, but a real Jeep. I dont believe anybody should have to defend their lifestyle. I do not believe one man has the right in any sense to tell another man what to do, but some people need to be told how to improve themselves. I am glad the State of Geargia did not let me vote because of my anarchist views because Bush turned out to be full of shit. However, I do have respect for him because he is the President and he acts like a President (unlike Clinton). He does what he thinks is best and says "fuck the critics." I do not have respect for those idiots who drive around with the "He's not my President" bumper stickers because he is, and we as a nation have elected him twice. He is also the President of the countries out there who depend on us to remain countries. Canada, Mexico, and most of South America and Europe Im looking at you. Im tired of hearing other countries in North America and Europe complain about how the US sticks its nose where it doesnt belong. Listen you morons, you enjoy the peace and stability that you do because the US stuck its nose in your business and gave you back your peace and stability. Sometimes I am completely disgusted with my government, because its true motivater has never been whats right or wrong but whats best for big business. The mighty green dollar drives everything in our "democracy." I normally like brunettes better than blondes but short bright blone hair knocks me down. Most of my girlfriends have been brunettes but I would prefer a blonde wife because I want blonde haired blue eyed children. I dont think that will ever be an issue because I dont see myself ever getting married. I dont think it is something that will every be afforded to me. Whats the point anyways? Its not like it is sacred anymore anyways. What can you do when your married that you cant do when your single? I do not think tattoos are sexy or a good idea. Getting someones name tattooed on you is the stupidest thing you can do. I think tattoos look terrible on women. However there are a few select women who have fucking awesome tattoos and broke that mold. I could go on all night but Im tired.
8:38 PM - 3
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Here it is! The proposed California School Budget and associated cuts.
Well,they are cutting the school budget,but don't worry they will raise taxes.Not on the basic levels of taxes but they will raise fees, close tax loopholes, and increase OTHER types of taxes. So we will get everything we continue to need from the bourgeoning government, ever thirsty for revenue, and as we continue to ask the government to run our lives and take away our freedom, we pay pay pay. So, my question is, why do people criticize our government and call them propogandists,incompetent power brokers and then turn around and ask them to run more of our lives. I can't imagine why anyone would want the government to run healthcare. Look at the mess our schools are in. I don't see how you can have it both ways. I understand the redistribution of wealth and how it can promote social justice but why is it always about money? Why do people want more and more of it, then we turn around and attack the corporations that support and foment our capitalism, which by the way, is why we can have all he redistribition of wealth in the first place. Don't we need to start talking about Marxism and Socialism to get to where we really want to go in America, with big government saying who gets what and when? Why do we preserve capitalism when Socialism would be more effective in making our society into what people want. Please don't tell me every proponent of a just society would not give up the American materialism for a chance t help others have an economically just existence equal to all others. If we would quit competing for better jobs, better education, better houses etc. and lower our sights, there would be something for everyone and capitalism would fail. Isn't this the right thing to do for humanity? Shouldn't we as Americans offer to educate, care for and feed anyone who needs it in he world so we can truly have peace and cooperation? Why do we want to be so prosperous? Or do we? I am having trouble seeing how we can accomplish all we want as a society and secretly have to exploit the world to turn around and have the money to support all we want as a society. I am having a hard time making sense of the fight between liberal and conservative, capitalist and socialist, races, cultures, men and women, gays and straights. Why is there so much fighting and it always boils down to money and who gets it. It makes me wonder if there can ever be social justice for ALL.
Analysis of Governor's 2008-09 Budget
The Governor’s Budget for 2008–09 Proposes Historic Cuts for Education
February 5, 2008
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget for 2008–09 has sent shock waves through the education community. He has recommended a $4.8 billion cut for K-14 education, on top of a $400 million reduction for education in the current year. The net effect is about $750 less per student than K-12 education would normally receive or about $18,750 per classroom.
On Jan. 10, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a proposed budget for 2008–09 that includes cuts for most state programs, but hits education particularly hard. His proposal calls for the suspension of Proposition 98—the state’s minimum funding guarantee for public schools and community colleges—in order to help address a $14.5 billion state budget shortfall. The proposed cuts are the largest ever contemplated for public schools in California. Along with the budget release, the governor declared a fiscal emergency that will affect funding in the current year. Consistent with new regulations approved by voters in Proposition 58, the Legislature is required to act quickly to address the current budget problem.
This brief describes the governor’s proposal and outlines the immediate impacts it is expected to have on California school districts as they complete this school year and plan for the next. (To download a PDF version of this brief, please click here.)
The state budget situation will affect current year funding
For K–14 education, the most immediate concern is the state decision regarding funding for the current school year. The governor’s budget calls for a $400 million reduction in 2007–08 state appropriations to public schools and community colleges. The $400 million includes a reduction of $40 million for community colleges and $360 million for K–12 schools.
Along with recommending a $360 million reduction for K–12 education, the governor recommended a process for how the cuts should be made. The Department of Finance (DOF) would identify funding allocated to categorical programs that has not been sent to districts yet and/or may not be needed. If the total reduction is not covered by these funds, the governor proposes taking the balance from districts’ general purpose revenue limit funds.
Because of this uncertainty, the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), and the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA)—agencies charged with the oversight of school districts’ fiscal health—are cautioning that the amount available from these programs may not reach $360 million. These organizations are urging districts to plan for the worst-case scenario based on the assumption that about $180 million could be cut from revenue limit funds statewide, which is equal to about one-half of one percent of revenue limit funding for each district, or about $30 per student. The state would take this deduction at the time it issues districts’ second round of funding—commonly referred to as the P-2 allocation—after the school year ends.
A further proposal in the governor’s budget is to delay that P-2 allocation to districts, which totals about $1.3 billion, from July to September. This move is aimed at strengthening the state’s cash reserves. Education advocates say it would do so at the expense of local school districts, some of which would have to borrow to meet their own cash flow requirements.
The governor proposes funding education $4.8 billion below what COLA and workload projections would otherwise provide in 2008-09
The governor’s proposal for 2008–09 assumes that his current year recommendations will be implemented. He then recommends that K–14 education be treated in the budget year the same way as other state programs.
In crafting the 2008–09 proposal, the administration first created a “workload” budget for all state programs, including education. The workload budget starts with the revised 2007–08 funding levels and projects what each program would get based on a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and changes in workload, which for K–12 schools means average daily attendance. Then the governor proposes an across-the-board cut of approximately 10% for almost all state-funded programs. For public schools, however, the reduction would be 10.9% according to the Department of Finance. The total reduction from the workload budget is $4.8 billion, with $4.3 billion from K–12 education and $500 million from community colleges.
Total Proposition 98 funding for 2008–09 would, under the governor’s proposal, be $55.6 billion. As the table below shows, that is $1.4 billion less than K-14 education was slated to receive in the current year and $1 billion less than it would receive under the governor’s revised 2007-08 budget.
An important question is what net effect these reductions would have on schools. Estimates of the impact on per-pupil funding help to put it into perspective. The difference between what schools would get in 2008-09 (based on the governor’s workload budget) and the final budget proposal is $750 per student. The $1.4 billion difference between what they were allocated in the 2007–08 Budget Act and the proposal comes to about $250 per student. These figures are based on the state’s average daily attendance, which the governor’s office is estimating at 5.89 million students for 2008–09.
A cut of that magnitude would require the suspension of Proposition 98, which can only occur with a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature. Proposition 98 was also suspended in 2004-05 but that was a year when state revenues were growing so the suspension did not involve cuts from the prior year. That year, education advocates promised Schwarzenegger that they would not fight a suspension vote, provided that the maximum reduction to education funding would be $2 billion, a level which provided both COLA and growth. This year, the state’s major education groups have already come out forcefully opposing another suspension.
Proposition 98 Funds
2007–08 (in millions) 2008–09 (in millions)
Budget Act Revised Governor's Proposal
K–12
$50,797 $50,423 $49,310
Community Colleges $6,209 $6,167 $6,223
Other agencies $119 $119 $106
Total $57,125 $56,709 $55,640
Data: Legislative Analyst’s Office, Overview of the Governor’s Budget, January 2008
Education cuts affect general purpose and categorical funds differently
As is the case with the current year reductions, the governor’s budget proposal is specific in its recommendations for how education cuts should be made. For K-12 education, the three-step process for calculating the reductions in state funding looks like this:
apply to eligible programs the 4.94% cost of living adjustment (COLA) called for in state law to eligible programs,
adjust the program funding for enrollment changes (most programs), which is generally a decrease because of declining enrollments, and
impose a 10.9% cut on the total workload funding for 2008-09.
School Services of California estimates that for districts’ revenue limit funds, the net result of this calculation is a 2.4% cut statewide. For categorical programs that receive a COLA, the cut averages about 6.5%. A few programs would not receive COLA adjustments and are simply cut by 10.9%.
One approach to explaining this difference is to think of Proposition 98 funds for schools as a pie that is first divided into two major sections: revenue limit funds and categorical programs.
Considering the revenue limit slice first: this segment includes both property taxes and state funds. The 10.9% cut would apply only to the state-funded portion, with the net result a 2.4% reduction in total revenue limit funding for the average school district.
The categorical program segment comes exclusively from state funds. About 8.5% of categorical dollars are in programs that do not receive a COLA (based on either law or historical patterns) and are marked for the full 10.9% reduction. For the bulk of categoricals, applying the governor’s formula results in a 6.5% reduction. Further, the state effectively has divided the categorical portion of the pie into a multitude of separate slices or programs that range widely in size. The governor’s proposal calls for keeping all those slices.
The following table shows that the six largest state categorical programs—which include child care/development and adult education—fare somewhat differently under this scenario.
Program Revised 2007-08 Base
Funds for workload change COLA (4.94%) Total 2008-09 Baseline Budget Proposed 08-09 funding after reduction of 10.9% Net reduction as % of 2007-08 Base
(All dollar amounts are in millions)
Special Education $3,133 -$17 $169 $3,285 $2,927 -6.6%
Class Size Reduction (K-3) $1,830 $9 $57 $1,896 $1,689 -7.7%
Child Care & Development $1,734 $11 $80 $1,825 $1,626 -6.2%
Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant $1,076
-$5 $53 $1,123
$1,001 -7.0%
Economic Impact Aid $994 $0 $49 $1,043 $930 -6.5%
Adult Education $753 $19 $38 $811 $722 -4.2%
Data: Department of Finance. Adjustments: Strategic Education Services
The Legislature has alternatives to consider
The same total savings to the state could be achieved using a variety of other approaches to categorical funding in particular and to the funding pie for schools overall. For example, some categorical slices could be eliminated or reduced even more to make funds available for other uses. Policymakers could also decide to not cut revenue limits at all, but make all the reductions from the categorical side of the pie.
The Legislature has two sets of decisions to make related to next year’s K-12 budget allocations. The first is whether it agrees with the governor’s basic recommendation of a cut for K–12 schools and the amount of that cut. The second is how it wants to configure the slices of the funding pie, perhaps changing some of the slices. The latter could take many different forms depending on whether lawmakers have specific programs they want to eliminate or protect, and the degree to which they believe local school districts need flexibility in a particularly difficult budget year.
School districts must start taking actions now, planning for the worst
Each year, school districts in California begin developing their budgets for the coming year based on the governor’s budget. This document is just the starting point for what promises to be a lengthy and contentious debate in Sacramento. At the same time, it forms the basis for district projections, legal reporting, and personnel decisions that must be made before the debate is finished or state decisions are clear. Districts are being urged by FCMAT and others to “plan for the worst” so they can meet their financial obligations no matter what the final budget decisions are.
Step one is for each district to determine the extent of its potential funding cuts. The impact of the governor’s budget proposal on a given district will vary for a variety of reasons. The actual reduction in general purpose funding depends on the district’s current revenue limit amount and a set of detailed calculations. The balance of cuts, especially those from categorical programs, will be more complex as they depend on which programs a district participates in and the portion of students they expect to serve (at least for many programs).
Based on the governor’s budget, most districts will have to cut personnel
School districts’ work evaluating next year’s budget—and potential cuts—must begin immediately because they will quickly face important personnel decisions. By March 1, districts must give notice to any administrator who could be reassigned to the classroom for the 2008–09 school year, which is a distinct possibility given the severity of the proposed budget cuts. By March 15, they must provide layoff notices to teachers who might not be employed next year. If they do not give the affected employees notice by these deadlines, their subsequent ability to make these staffing reductions will be limited. Because personnel costs represent more than 80% of expenditures in most districts, few will be able to respond to the “worst case scenario” without some workforce reductions. The Education Coalition is predicting that the governor’s proposal could lead to dramatic reductions in support staff at schools as well as widespread teacher layoffs, with resulting increases in class sizes.
Concurrently, districts must analyze their financial position through January 31 and prepare their Second Interim financial report, which is submitted to the local County Office of Education. In that report, a district certifies its ability to meet fiscal obligations in the current year and next two years.
See the full budget cycle calendar
Preliminary information indicates that 55% of districts might be in financial trouble
A survey of county offices conducted by CCSESA indicates that perhaps 55% of districts in the state will file a qualified or negative certification—saying that they either might not or cannot meet their financial obligations.
Normally, a negative or qualified certification triggers extra scrutiny on the part of County Offices of Education and can trigger sanctions, but the sheer numbers will likely prompt some variation in how that is handled. FCMAT and CCSESA are working with county offices and district officials to develop a rational approach for this extraordinary situation.
In the slightly longer term—through the end of June—the state’s budget process will proceed. An important benchmark in that process will be the May Revision, which will update the state’s revenue and caseload projections leading up to the final budget decisions for 2008–09. At that point school districts will have more information with which to finalize their budgets, which must be approved by June 30, regardless of whether state leaders have met the constitutional deadline for the overall state budget.
What are the key decisions policymakers must consider in the months ahead?
The budget is likely to be the major focus for state policymakers through at least the next six months. The Legislature will be responsible for either turning the governor’s proposals into law or developing alternatives that deal with the state’s fiscal crisis differently.
In his State of the State speech, the governor positioned this year’s budget difficulties as an expenditure problem. Others, including the Legislative Analyst and education advocates, say that the state cannot just cut expenditures to bridge its $14 billion gap. Rather, they are calling on the Legislature to expand state revenues as well, which could be done by closing some tax loopholes, increasing fees, or raising taxes in some other way. Such actions would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and the agreement of the governor, as would the suspension of Proposition 98. Ultimately, legislative passage of the state budget has the same two-thirds requirement, which means that all three decisions will likely be closely tied together.
Whatever level of funding is available to schools, state policymakers will also have to decide how the funds will be allocated and the effects on specific programs or allocations, such as revenue limits.
In addition to the specifics related to dollar amounts, the governor has also proposed some fundamental changes to the state’s budget process. One proposal is the Budget Stabilization Act, which in high-revenue years would exclude funds from the calculation of General Fund growth and give the governor power to make unilateral spending reductions if a deficit occurs. Another is a change to how the state calculates the annual cost-of-living adjustment for state programs, including Proposition 98. These could have a significant effect on the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee, but details on these proposals are not yet available. Because both require voter approval, the Legislature will need to decide whether to place them on the June 2008 ballot and in what form.
Despite already being funded at a lower level per pupil than schools in most other states, and having some of the worst staffing ratios in the nation, California schools will almost certainly face budget cuts in 2008-09. Members of the State Legislature could decide they agree with the governor’s approach and cut about $800 per student from K-12 education. They could take cuts from other areas of state government. Or they could choose to pursue more solutions on the revenue side of the ledger in order to mitigate the level of cuts they must make.
Defining the options that get serious consideration and the terms of the debate will be an important part of this spring’s discussion in Sacramento and will be crucial to the solutions that eventually are considered and adopted. It appears that California is in for a long—and likely very difficult—debate before the 2008–09 budget is finally adopted this summer. Whatever is decided will reverberate through California public schools for years to come.
Download this brief as a PDF
© 2008 EdSource, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Analysis of Governor's 2008-09 Budget
The Governor’s Budget for 2008–09 Proposes Historic Cuts for Education
February 5, 2008
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget for 2008–09 has sent shock waves through the education community. He has recommended a $4.8 billion cut for K-14 education, on top of a $400 million reduction for education in the current year. The net effect is about $750 less per student than K-12 education would normally receive or about $18,750 per classroom.
On Jan. 10, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a proposed budget for 2008–09 that includes cuts for most state programs, but hits education particularly hard. His proposal calls for the suspension of Proposition 98—the state’s minimum funding guarantee for public schools and community colleges—in order to help address a $14.5 billion state budget shortfall. The proposed cuts are the largest ever contemplated for public schools in California. Along with the budget release, the governor declared a fiscal emergency that will affect funding in the current year. Consistent with new regulations approved by voters in Proposition 58, the Legislature is required to act quickly to address the current budget problem.
This brief describes the governor’s proposal and outlines the immediate impacts it is expected to have on California school districts as they complete this school year and plan for the next. (To download a PDF version of this brief, please click here.)
The state budget situation will affect current year funding
For K–14 education, the most immediate concern is the state decision regarding funding for the current school year. The governor’s budget calls for a $400 million reduction in 2007–08 state appropriations to public schools and community colleges. The $400 million includes a reduction of $40 million for community colleges and $360 million for K–12 schools.
Along with recommending a $360 million reduction for K–12 education, the governor recommended a process for how the cuts should be made. The Department of Finance (DOF) would identify funding allocated to categorical programs that has not been sent to districts yet and/or may not be needed. If the total reduction is not covered by these funds, the governor proposes taking the balance from districts’ general purpose revenue limit funds.
Because of this uncertainty, the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), and the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA)—agencies charged with the oversight of school districts’ fiscal health—are cautioning that the amount available from these programs may not reach $360 million. These organizations are urging districts to plan for the worst-case scenario based on the assumption that about $180 million could be cut from revenue limit funds statewide, which is equal to about one-half of one percent of revenue limit funding for each district, or about $30 per student. The state would take this deduction at the time it issues districts’ second round of funding—commonly referred to as the P-2 allocation—after the school year ends.
A further proposal in the governor’s budget is to delay that P-2 allocation to districts, which totals about $1.3 billion, from July to September. This move is aimed at strengthening the state’s cash reserves. Education advocates say it would do so at the expense of local school districts, some of which would have to borrow to meet their own cash flow requirements.
The governor proposes funding education $4.8 billion below what COLA and workload projections would otherwise provide in 2008-09
The governor’s proposal for 2008–09 assumes that his current year recommendations will be implemented. He then recommends that K–14 education be treated in the budget year the same way as other state programs.
In crafting the 2008–09 proposal, the administration first created a “workload” budget for all state programs, including education. The workload budget starts with the revised 2007–08 funding levels and projects what each program would get based on a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and changes in workload, which for K–12 schools means average daily attendance. Then the governor proposes an across-the-board cut of approximately 10% for almost all state-funded programs. For public schools, however, the reduction would be 10.9% according to the Department of Finance. The total reduction from the workload budget is $4.8 billion, with $4.3 billion from K–12 education and $500 million from community colleges.
Total Proposition 98 funding for 2008–09 would, under the governor’s proposal, be $55.6 billion. As the table below shows, that is $1.4 billion less than K-14 education was slated to receive in the current year and $1 billion less than it would receive under the governor’s revised 2007-08 budget.
An important question is what net effect these reductions would have on schools. Estimates of the impact on per-pupil funding help to put it into perspective. The difference between what schools would get in 2008-09 (based on the governor’s workload budget) and the final budget proposal is $750 per student. The $1.4 billion difference between what they were allocated in the 2007–08 Budget Act and the proposal comes to about $250 per student. These figures are based on the state’s average daily attendance, which the governor’s office is estimating at 5.89 million students for 2008–09.
A cut of that magnitude would require the suspension of Proposition 98, which can only occur with a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature. Proposition 98 was also suspended in 2004-05 but that was a year when state revenues were growing so the suspension did not involve cuts from the prior year. That year, education advocates promised Schwarzenegger that they would not fight a suspension vote, provided that the maximum reduction to education funding would be $2 billion, a level which provided both COLA and growth. This year, the state’s major education groups have already come out forcefully opposing another suspension.
Proposition 98 Funds
2007–08 (in millions) 2008–09 (in millions)
Budget Act Revised Governor's Proposal
K–12
$50,797 $50,423 $49,310
Community Colleges $6,209 $6,167 $6,223
Other agencies $119 $119 $106
Total $57,125 $56,709 $55,640
Data: Legislative Analyst’s Office, Overview of the Governor’s Budget, January 2008
Education cuts affect general purpose and categorical funds differently
As is the case with the current year reductions, the governor’s budget proposal is specific in its recommendations for how education cuts should be made. For K-12 education, the three-step process for calculating the reductions in state funding looks like this:
apply to eligible programs the 4.94% cost of living adjustment (COLA) called for in state law to eligible programs,
adjust the program funding for enrollment changes (most programs), which is generally a decrease because of declining enrollments, and
impose a 10.9% cut on the total workload funding for 2008-09.
School Services of California estimates that for districts’ revenue limit funds, the net result of this calculation is a 2.4% cut statewide. For categorical programs that receive a COLA, the cut averages about 6.5%. A few programs would not receive COLA adjustments and are simply cut by 10.9%.
One approach to explaining this difference is to think of Proposition 98 funds for schools as a pie that is first divided into two major sections: revenue limit funds and categorical programs.
Considering the revenue limit slice first: this segment includes both property taxes and state funds. The 10.9% cut would apply only to the state-funded portion, with the net result a 2.4% reduction in total revenue limit funding for the average school district.
The categorical program segment comes exclusively from state funds. About 8.5% of categorical dollars are in programs that do not receive a COLA (based on either law or historical patterns) and are marked for the full 10.9% reduction. For the bulk of categoricals, applying the governor’s formula results in a 6.5% reduction. Further, the state effectively has divided the categorical portion of the pie into a multitude of separate slices or programs that range widely in size. The governor’s proposal calls for keeping all those slices.
The following table shows that the six largest state categorical programs—which include child care/development and adult education—fare somewhat differently under this scenario.
Program Revised 2007-08 Base
Funds for workload change COLA (4.94%) Total 2008-09 Baseline Budget Proposed 08-09 funding after reduction of 10.9% Net reduction as % of 2007-08 Base
(All dollar amounts are in millions)
Special Education $3,133 -$17 $169 $3,285 $2,927 -6.6%
Class Size Reduction (K-3) $1,830 $9 $57 $1,896 $1,689 -7.7%
Child Care & Development $1,734 $11 $80 $1,825 $1,626 -6.2%
Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant $1,076
-$5 $53 $1,123
$1,001 -7.0%
Economic Impact Aid $994 $0 $49 $1,043 $930 -6.5%
Adult Education $753 $19 $38 $811 $722 -4.2%
Data: Department of Finance. Adjustments: Strategic Education Services
The Legislature has alternatives to consider
The same total savings to the state could be achieved using a variety of other approaches to categorical funding in particular and to the funding pie for schools overall. For example, some categorical slices could be eliminated or reduced even more to make funds available for other uses. Policymakers could also decide to not cut revenue limits at all, but make all the reductions from the categorical side of the pie.
The Legislature has two sets of decisions to make related to next year’s K-12 budget allocations. The first is whether it agrees with the governor’s basic recommendation of a cut for K–12 schools and the amount of that cut. The second is how it wants to configure the slices of the funding pie, perhaps changing some of the slices. The latter could take many different forms depending on whether lawmakers have specific programs they want to eliminate or protect, and the degree to which they believe local school districts need flexibility in a particularly difficult budget year.
School districts must start taking actions now, planning for the worst
Each year, school districts in California begin developing their budgets for the coming year based on the governor’s budget. This document is just the starting point for what promises to be a lengthy and contentious debate in Sacramento. At the same time, it forms the basis for district projections, legal reporting, and personnel decisions that must be made before the debate is finished or state decisions are clear. Districts are being urged by FCMAT and others to “plan for the worst” so they can meet their financial obligations no matter what the final budget decisions are.
Step one is for each district to determine the extent of its potential funding cuts. The impact of the governor’s budget proposal on a given district will vary for a variety of reasons. The actual reduction in general purpose funding depends on the district’s current revenue limit amount and a set of detailed calculations. The balance of cuts, especially those from categorical programs, will be more complex as they depend on which programs a district participates in and the portion of students they expect to serve (at least for many programs).
Based on the governor’s budget, most districts will have to cut personnel
School districts’ work evaluating next year’s budget—and potential cuts—must begin immediately because they will quickly face important personnel decisions. By March 1, districts must give notice to any administrator who could be reassigned to the classroom for the 2008–09 school year, which is a distinct possibility given the severity of the proposed budget cuts. By March 15, they must provide layoff notices to teachers who might not be employed next year. If they do not give the affected employees notice by these deadlines, their subsequent ability to make these staffing reductions will be limited. Because personnel costs represent more than 80% of expenditures in most districts, few will be able to respond to the “worst case scenario” without some workforce reductions. The Education Coalition is predicting that the governor’s proposal could lead to dramatic reductions in support staff at schools as well as widespread teacher layoffs, with resulting increases in class sizes.
Concurrently, districts must analyze their financial position through January 31 and prepare their Second Interim financial report, which is submitted to the local County Office of Education. In that report, a district certifies its ability to meet fiscal obligations in the current year and next two years.
See the full budget cycle calendar
Preliminary information indicates that 55% of districts might be in financial trouble
A survey of county offices conducted by CCSESA indicates that perhaps 55% of districts in the state will file a qualified or negative certification—saying that they either might not or cannot meet their financial obligations.
Normally, a negative or qualified certification triggers extra scrutiny on the part of County Offices of Education and can trigger sanctions, but the sheer numbers will likely prompt some variation in how that is handled. FCMAT and CCSESA are working with county offices and district officials to develop a rational approach for this extraordinary situation.
In the slightly longer term—through the end of June—the state’s budget process will proceed. An important benchmark in that process will be the May Revision, which will update the state’s revenue and caseload projections leading up to the final budget decisions for 2008–09. At that point school districts will have more information with which to finalize their budgets, which must be approved by June 30, regardless of whether state leaders have met the constitutional deadline for the overall state budget.
What are the key decisions policymakers must consider in the months ahead?
The budget is likely to be the major focus for state policymakers through at least the next six months. The Legislature will be responsible for either turning the governor’s proposals into law or developing alternatives that deal with the state’s fiscal crisis differently.
In his State of the State speech, the governor positioned this year’s budget difficulties as an expenditure problem. Others, including the Legislative Analyst and education advocates, say that the state cannot just cut expenditures to bridge its $14 billion gap. Rather, they are calling on the Legislature to expand state revenues as well, which could be done by closing some tax loopholes, increasing fees, or raising taxes in some other way. Such actions would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and the agreement of the governor, as would the suspension of Proposition 98. Ultimately, legislative passage of the state budget has the same two-thirds requirement, which means that all three decisions will likely be closely tied together.
Whatever level of funding is available to schools, state policymakers will also have to decide how the funds will be allocated and the effects on specific programs or allocations, such as revenue limits.
In addition to the specifics related to dollar amounts, the governor has also proposed some fundamental changes to the state’s budget process. One proposal is the Budget Stabilization Act, which in high-revenue years would exclude funds from the calculation of General Fund growth and give the governor power to make unilateral spending reductions if a deficit occurs. Another is a change to how the state calculates the annual cost-of-living adjustment for state programs, including Proposition 98. These could have a significant effect on the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee, but details on these proposals are not yet available. Because both require voter approval, the Legislature will need to decide whether to place them on the June 2008 ballot and in what form.
Despite already being funded at a lower level per pupil than schools in most other states, and having some of the worst staffing ratios in the nation, California schools will almost certainly face budget cuts in 2008-09. Members of the State Legislature could decide they agree with the governor’s approach and cut about $800 per student from K-12 education. They could take cuts from other areas of state government. Or they could choose to pursue more solutions on the revenue side of the ledger in order to mitigate the level of cuts they must make.
Defining the options that get serious consideration and the terms of the debate will be an important part of this spring’s discussion in Sacramento and will be crucial to the solutions that eventually are considered and adopted. It appears that California is in for a long—and likely very difficult—debate before the 2008–09 budget is finally adopted this summer. Whatever is decided will reverberate through California public schools for years to come.
Download this brief as a PDF
© 2008 EdSource, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Veterens Issues College Tuition
I think veterans should be educated for free anywhere they want, free medical for life and never have to pay taxes. Why would anyone want to resist helping our veterans.
MichaelMoore.com
Latest News
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10919
February 11th, 2008 6:42 pm
GI Bill falling short of college tuition costs
Pentagon resists boost in benefits
By Charles M. Sennott / Boston Globe
WASHINGTON - Halsey Bernard made it through a tour in Iraq as a machine gunner. The question for him now is will he make it through the University of Massachusetts.
It isn't a question of academics for the 24-year-old Boston resident. It's about money - and about the obligation of a nation to its fighting men and women. Bernard, who served with the Second Battalion Eighth Marines in Nasariyah, Iraq, in 2003, is one of thousands of veterans who have returned from combat service only to find that their GI Bill college benefits fall far short of actual costs.
"What they tell you on TV and what the recruiters tell you when you go to sign up is: 'Don't worry. College is taken care of.' And it is not true," said Bernard. "Today it is a serious financial struggle and bureaucratic struggle and personal struggle to try to go to college after serving in combat."
The original GI Bill provided full tuition, housing, and living costs for some 8 million veterans; for many, it was the engine of opportunity in the postwar years. But, in the mid 1980s, the program was scaled back to a peacetime program that pays a flat sum. Today the most a veteran can receive is approximately $9,600 a year for four years - no matter what college costs.
Now, five years into the Iraq conflict, a movement is gathering steam in Washington to boost the payout of the GI Bill, to provide a true war-time benefit for war- time service. But the effort has run headlong into another reality of an unpopular war: the struggle to sustain an all-volunteer force.
The Pentagon and White House have so far resisted a new GI Bill out of fear that too many will use it - choosing to shed the uniform in favor of school and civilian life.
"The incentive to serve and leave," said Robert Clarke, assistant director of accessions policy at the Department of Defense, may "outweigh the incentive to have them stay."
Such administration objections infuriate the lead advocate in Congress for upgrading GI Bill benefits, US Senator James Webb, Democrat of Virginia. Webb, a Vietnam veteran and the only serving senator with a son who has seen combat in Iraq, said he simply can't understand why veterans struggling to pay for higher education is not on the nation's political radar screen, particularly in the presidential primary season when the war and the economy are both at the center of the debate.
"I worry about this and what it says about our nation's view of the value of service," Webb said. "We hear from those opposed that it is too expensive and it's too complicated. Excuse me? In 1946, they worked out how to provide for veterans on the back of a memo pad with a stubby pencil. . . . We are five years into the war in Iraq, we need to get this done."
Webb's bill, which has drawn 31 cosponsors but no Senate action since he filed it a year ago, would cover the full cost of attending state university for in-state residents as well as a stipend for living expenses. It is projected to cost about $2.5 billion per year.
The benefit is capped at the cost of the most expensive public state college or university in any given state. In Massachusetts that would be UMass-Amherst, where total student costs for a year - tuition, fees, room, board, and books - run over $20,000.
Reservists - who now get a fraction of the benefit available to active-duty troops, controversial in a war that leans heavily on reserve forces - would also gain from Webb's plan. Under a draft of his bill, all operational troops who served at least two years of active duty would receive the same benefit.
Massachusetts already offers more higher education help to veterans than other states, an $800 annual stipend on top of GI Bill benefits. That has enabled Bernard to hang on financially at UMass-Boston. If the Webb bill were to pass, Bernard's full costs at the university would be comfortably covered, and he could focus on his studies without having to worry every week about making ends meet.
Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war veteran and director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an organization based in New York, said that enhancing the GI Bill is a solid investment in the country's future. One study he cites suggests that every dollar spent on the original GI Bill created a seven-fold return for the economy.
"Funding the GI Bill as Senator Webb proposes it for one year would cost this country what it spends in Iraq in 36 hours," he said.
Cause of frustration
That promise of an education in return for serving the country is one of the most frequently cited reasons that young men and women join the military, and it is plastered all over recruitment banners and television advertisements.
The limited return on the promise is one of the most common sources of bitterness and frustration that emerge in interviews with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
They are people like Liam Madden, a 23-year-old who served with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit in Anbar Province in 2004 and 2005 and now attends Northeastern University. "They dangle the promise of education before you when you are recruited, but then they flip it around when they don't want you to leave and warn you that it will only cover a community college and you are better off staying in the military."
Madden, who hails from a pocket of rural poverty in Vermont, said he is barely able to make his tuition payments at Northeastern and has gotten by in part through paid speaking engagements for the small-but-growing organization known as Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Beyond the financial struggle is a daunting bureaucratic obstacle course that can confound veterans and sometimes steer them away from the benefit altogether. That struggle starts with the requirement that all participants buy into the program with a $1,200 upfront payment.
William Bardenwerper, an Army veteran of Iraq with an undergraduate degree from Princeton University, described a six-month odyssey of paperwork in trying to navigate the current GI Bill. He kept a detailed log of his frustrating, and to-date fruitless, effort to access his benefits for graduate school.
"Not to sound elitist," said Bardenwerper, "but if a 31-year-old Princeton grad has a hard time deciphering what he is entitled to, then I have no idea how a 21-year-old armed only with a GED could navigate this system."
Signs of progress
There have been, in recent weeks, some signs that the political logjam blocking Webb's bill may be easing. He has picked up new cosponsors, though there are still only three Republicans among them, including the two senators from Maine. And the Bush administration has hinted at a desire for compromise on the issue. In his State of the Union speech last month, the president spoke of one relatively small shift - making unused GI Bill benefits available to spouses and families of veterans.
But there are few if any indications of a breakthrough. Meanwhile, some private efforts are underway to try to fill the gap for veterans.
One key player is James Wright, president of Dartmouth College, who believes the current GI Bill is outdated and an insult to combat veterans. A Korean War veteran from a working-class background who tapped the GI Bill to launch his academic career, Wright has helped begin a privately funded program in coordination with the American Council on Education to offer college counseling to veterans and help them find financial aid to supplement the GI Bill.
Efforts by Wright, other academic institutions, and individual philanthropists, such as billionaire financier Jerome Kohlberg, who last year announced a $4 million scholarship fund for veterans, are helping a few soldier-scholars. But only a few.
"There's a moral imperative for us to provide for veterans, and there is a practical benefit to educating these men and women who have served their country," said Wright, who last week announced that he will step down at Dartmouth but plans to continue his advocacy for GIs and an enhanced GI Bill. "For us to be failing to live up to that responsibility is unconscionable."
Webb believes such efforts, as noble as they are, do not relieve the federal government of its obligation to provide an opportunity for higher education to those who serve the country.
But Pentagon officials say the risk that an expanded benefit could cut into reenlistment rates is real. Clarke, of the Department of Defense, said it is simply off-base to compare what was offered to World War II veterans to the situation today. There was no concern about retention rates back then, he said; rapid demobilization was the order of the day.
And Clarke said he doubts reports that military recruiters are painting an overly rosy picture of education benefits. "I think recruiters are always going to play up the best case, but I don't think they are going to take that past what is the truth."
Whatever compromise emerges in Washington - if any does - it will do little for veterans like Todd Bowers, 28, who dreamed of attending an elite private college after returning, after being shot in the face, from his second combat tour.
Severely wounded but also incredibly lucky, he recovered well. Ambitious, he enrolled at George Washington University - transferring from the community college in Arizona he had attended before his first tour.
But George Washington is one of the nation's most costly colleges, with total expenses running over $55,000 a year. His GI Bill benefit as a Marine reservist would cover only a small fraction of that, and his savings - all $18,000 he had earned while overseas - and loans couldn't close the gap.
The military sent him his Purple Heart in the mail but told him there was nothing else they could do to help him pay for college. The financial stress, on top of his war trauma symptoms - insomnia, nightmares, memory loss - was too much. In the end, he dropped out.
Today, Bowers spends his time roaming through the Capitol as a lobbyist on veterans issues for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, pressing the case for Webb's bill.
"You end up feeling that the military thinks that all you deserve is a community college. It's pretty disgraceful. I think I can do better, and I think anyone who served the country in combat deserves better," he said.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10919
Generated on: Wednesday 13th of February 2008 09:37:38 PM Site Created by Plank
MichaelMoore.com
Latest News
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10919
February 11th, 2008 6:42 pm
GI Bill falling short of college tuition costs
Pentagon resists boost in benefits
By Charles M. Sennott / Boston Globe
WASHINGTON - Halsey Bernard made it through a tour in Iraq as a machine gunner. The question for him now is will he make it through the University of Massachusetts.
It isn't a question of academics for the 24-year-old Boston resident. It's about money - and about the obligation of a nation to its fighting men and women. Bernard, who served with the Second Battalion Eighth Marines in Nasariyah, Iraq, in 2003, is one of thousands of veterans who have returned from combat service only to find that their GI Bill college benefits fall far short of actual costs.
"What they tell you on TV and what the recruiters tell you when you go to sign up is: 'Don't worry. College is taken care of.' And it is not true," said Bernard. "Today it is a serious financial struggle and bureaucratic struggle and personal struggle to try to go to college after serving in combat."
The original GI Bill provided full tuition, housing, and living costs for some 8 million veterans; for many, it was the engine of opportunity in the postwar years. But, in the mid 1980s, the program was scaled back to a peacetime program that pays a flat sum. Today the most a veteran can receive is approximately $9,600 a year for four years - no matter what college costs.
Now, five years into the Iraq conflict, a movement is gathering steam in Washington to boost the payout of the GI Bill, to provide a true war-time benefit for war- time service. But the effort has run headlong into another reality of an unpopular war: the struggle to sustain an all-volunteer force.
The Pentagon and White House have so far resisted a new GI Bill out of fear that too many will use it - choosing to shed the uniform in favor of school and civilian life.
"The incentive to serve and leave," said Robert Clarke, assistant director of accessions policy at the Department of Defense, may "outweigh the incentive to have them stay."
Such administration objections infuriate the lead advocate in Congress for upgrading GI Bill benefits, US Senator James Webb, Democrat of Virginia. Webb, a Vietnam veteran and the only serving senator with a son who has seen combat in Iraq, said he simply can't understand why veterans struggling to pay for higher education is not on the nation's political radar screen, particularly in the presidential primary season when the war and the economy are both at the center of the debate.
"I worry about this and what it says about our nation's view of the value of service," Webb said. "We hear from those opposed that it is too expensive and it's too complicated. Excuse me? In 1946, they worked out how to provide for veterans on the back of a memo pad with a stubby pencil. . . . We are five years into the war in Iraq, we need to get this done."
Webb's bill, which has drawn 31 cosponsors but no Senate action since he filed it a year ago, would cover the full cost of attending state university for in-state residents as well as a stipend for living expenses. It is projected to cost about $2.5 billion per year.
The benefit is capped at the cost of the most expensive public state college or university in any given state. In Massachusetts that would be UMass-Amherst, where total student costs for a year - tuition, fees, room, board, and books - run over $20,000.
Reservists - who now get a fraction of the benefit available to active-duty troops, controversial in a war that leans heavily on reserve forces - would also gain from Webb's plan. Under a draft of his bill, all operational troops who served at least two years of active duty would receive the same benefit.
Massachusetts already offers more higher education help to veterans than other states, an $800 annual stipend on top of GI Bill benefits. That has enabled Bernard to hang on financially at UMass-Boston. If the Webb bill were to pass, Bernard's full costs at the university would be comfortably covered, and he could focus on his studies without having to worry every week about making ends meet.
Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war veteran and director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an organization based in New York, said that enhancing the GI Bill is a solid investment in the country's future. One study he cites suggests that every dollar spent on the original GI Bill created a seven-fold return for the economy.
"Funding the GI Bill as Senator Webb proposes it for one year would cost this country what it spends in Iraq in 36 hours," he said.
Cause of frustration
That promise of an education in return for serving the country is one of the most frequently cited reasons that young men and women join the military, and it is plastered all over recruitment banners and television advertisements.
The limited return on the promise is one of the most common sources of bitterness and frustration that emerge in interviews with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
They are people like Liam Madden, a 23-year-old who served with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit in Anbar Province in 2004 and 2005 and now attends Northeastern University. "They dangle the promise of education before you when you are recruited, but then they flip it around when they don't want you to leave and warn you that it will only cover a community college and you are better off staying in the military."
Madden, who hails from a pocket of rural poverty in Vermont, said he is barely able to make his tuition payments at Northeastern and has gotten by in part through paid speaking engagements for the small-but-growing organization known as Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Beyond the financial struggle is a daunting bureaucratic obstacle course that can confound veterans and sometimes steer them away from the benefit altogether. That struggle starts with the requirement that all participants buy into the program with a $1,200 upfront payment.
William Bardenwerper, an Army veteran of Iraq with an undergraduate degree from Princeton University, described a six-month odyssey of paperwork in trying to navigate the current GI Bill. He kept a detailed log of his frustrating, and to-date fruitless, effort to access his benefits for graduate school.
"Not to sound elitist," said Bardenwerper, "but if a 31-year-old Princeton grad has a hard time deciphering what he is entitled to, then I have no idea how a 21-year-old armed only with a GED could navigate this system."
Signs of progress
There have been, in recent weeks, some signs that the political logjam blocking Webb's bill may be easing. He has picked up new cosponsors, though there are still only three Republicans among them, including the two senators from Maine. And the Bush administration has hinted at a desire for compromise on the issue. In his State of the Union speech last month, the president spoke of one relatively small shift - making unused GI Bill benefits available to spouses and families of veterans.
But there are few if any indications of a breakthrough. Meanwhile, some private efforts are underway to try to fill the gap for veterans.
One key player is James Wright, president of Dartmouth College, who believes the current GI Bill is outdated and an insult to combat veterans. A Korean War veteran from a working-class background who tapped the GI Bill to launch his academic career, Wright has helped begin a privately funded program in coordination with the American Council on Education to offer college counseling to veterans and help them find financial aid to supplement the GI Bill.
Efforts by Wright, other academic institutions, and individual philanthropists, such as billionaire financier Jerome Kohlberg, who last year announced a $4 million scholarship fund for veterans, are helping a few soldier-scholars. But only a few.
"There's a moral imperative for us to provide for veterans, and there is a practical benefit to educating these men and women who have served their country," said Wright, who last week announced that he will step down at Dartmouth but plans to continue his advocacy for GIs and an enhanced GI Bill. "For us to be failing to live up to that responsibility is unconscionable."
Webb believes such efforts, as noble as they are, do not relieve the federal government of its obligation to provide an opportunity for higher education to those who serve the country.
But Pentagon officials say the risk that an expanded benefit could cut into reenlistment rates is real. Clarke, of the Department of Defense, said it is simply off-base to compare what was offered to World War II veterans to the situation today. There was no concern about retention rates back then, he said; rapid demobilization was the order of the day.
And Clarke said he doubts reports that military recruiters are painting an overly rosy picture of education benefits. "I think recruiters are always going to play up the best case, but I don't think they are going to take that past what is the truth."
Whatever compromise emerges in Washington - if any does - it will do little for veterans like Todd Bowers, 28, who dreamed of attending an elite private college after returning, after being shot in the face, from his second combat tour.
Severely wounded but also incredibly lucky, he recovered well. Ambitious, he enrolled at George Washington University - transferring from the community college in Arizona he had attended before his first tour.
But George Washington is one of the nation's most costly colleges, with total expenses running over $55,000 a year. His GI Bill benefit as a Marine reservist would cover only a small fraction of that, and his savings - all $18,000 he had earned while overseas - and loans couldn't close the gap.
The military sent him his Purple Heart in the mail but told him there was nothing else they could do to help him pay for college. The financial stress, on top of his war trauma symptoms - insomnia, nightmares, memory loss - was too much. In the end, he dropped out.
Today, Bowers spends his time roaming through the Capitol as a lobbyist on veterans issues for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, pressing the case for Webb's bill.
"You end up feeling that the military thinks that all you deserve is a community college. It's pretty disgraceful. I think I can do better, and I think anyone who served the country in combat deserves better," he said.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=10919
Generated on: Wednesday 13th of February 2008 09:37:38 PM Site Created by Plank
I would probably feel like kicking someone's @%&!@% if it were my child being buried!
What does a soldier's funeral have to do with the gay issue? They are using death for publicity. Sick.
Fallen Heroes Funerals Protested
Posted By Blackfive
This is so wrong and sad. While SSG Christopher Piper was laid to rest properly and honorably (thanks to the Marblehead Police)...
Protest at Soldier's Funeral Brings a Massachusetts Town Together
A big turnout and police bagpipes drown out a Kansas group opposed to homosexuality
By Elizabeth Mehren
Times Staff Writer
MARBLEHEAD, Mass. — This proud old seaport, whose sons and daughters have fought in every American war, was grieving for Army Staff Sgt. Christopher Piper. The 43-year-old Green Beret died after his Humvee hit a roadside bomb June 3 in Afghanistan.
When word got out that demonstrators from Kansas planned to disrupt Piper's funeral Monday, residents vowed not to let them interfere with the tribute to their hometown hero.
"I was worried that it would fester anger," said Louise Moore, 39, fighting back tears and waving a small American flag. "Instead it got everyone together."
The 14 demonstrators from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., picketed Monday on a corner near the Old North Church, a Congregational parish founded in 1635, soon after Marblehead was settled. The followers of the Rev. Fred Phelps, who blame American tolerance of homosexuality for the Sept. 11 attacks and the resulting U.S. military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, have targeted Massachusetts for protests because it is the only state where same-sex marriage is legal.
Shirley Phelps-Roper, a lawyer for the Kansas church, said Monday that the funeral demonstration was nothing personal against Piper, who was not gay.
"We are protesting the sins of this nation," Phelps-Roper said. "That doesn't exclude him."
The group also has demonstrated at high school and middle school graduations across Massachusetts, contending that school curricula promote homosexuality.
On the corner of a narrow street lined with Colonial-era buildings, the Kansas contingent tried shouting its anti-homosexual message at mourners who overflowed from the church. But every time demonstrators spoke out, the 14-man Boston Police Department bagpipe band broke into thunderous sound....
This is the same group that protested Carrie French's funeral. If you haven't been to Bubblehead's before, please see the link to understand the evil this group represents.
It is a "church" led by Fred Phelps (his wife is their lawyer).
Phelps and his ilk have been spewing hate for a long time and this is one way of getting their message across and getting press. Normally, I would say ignore them because that will irritate them more. The Marblehead Police are to be commended for the bagpipe idea. Good thinking, fellas. I think you protected and served the rights of everyone. I think this is the beginning of creative countering of Phelps.
But unfortunately they are making the families suffer indignities that should never be allowed. SSG Piper and CPL French deserve better, too, but they would probably be more worried about the pain this causes their families.
Patrick from Gryphmon (who comments here occasionally) had a post about this for Carrie French. He knows about Phelps and knows that the way to squelch Phelps is to ignore him. Patrick has a very good post about the history and the evil of Phelps.
I call your attention to all of this for one reason - be vigilant. More than likely, there will be more protested funerals.
If anyone knows of his groups plans in Chicago, please let me know. We'll mount a peaceful but interesting psyops mission...I can think of 100 ways to drive Phelps crazy...Think of a truck breaking down on the street in front of the protesters... blocking their view...and, maybe...just maybe the truck will be painted with a giant "Phelps is Gay" sign (and someone should "own his site" with that, too)...and maybe inside the truck will be...
June 30, 2005 • Permalink
Fallen Heroes Funerals Protested
Posted By Blackfive
This is so wrong and sad. While SSG Christopher Piper was laid to rest properly and honorably (thanks to the Marblehead Police)...
Protest at Soldier's Funeral Brings a Massachusetts Town Together
A big turnout and police bagpipes drown out a Kansas group opposed to homosexuality
By Elizabeth Mehren
Times Staff Writer
MARBLEHEAD, Mass. — This proud old seaport, whose sons and daughters have fought in every American war, was grieving for Army Staff Sgt. Christopher Piper. The 43-year-old Green Beret died after his Humvee hit a roadside bomb June 3 in Afghanistan.
When word got out that demonstrators from Kansas planned to disrupt Piper's funeral Monday, residents vowed not to let them interfere with the tribute to their hometown hero.
"I was worried that it would fester anger," said Louise Moore, 39, fighting back tears and waving a small American flag. "Instead it got everyone together."
The 14 demonstrators from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., picketed Monday on a corner near the Old North Church, a Congregational parish founded in 1635, soon after Marblehead was settled. The followers of the Rev. Fred Phelps, who blame American tolerance of homosexuality for the Sept. 11 attacks and the resulting U.S. military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, have targeted Massachusetts for protests because it is the only state where same-sex marriage is legal.
Shirley Phelps-Roper, a lawyer for the Kansas church, said Monday that the funeral demonstration was nothing personal against Piper, who was not gay.
"We are protesting the sins of this nation," Phelps-Roper said. "That doesn't exclude him."
The group also has demonstrated at high school and middle school graduations across Massachusetts, contending that school curricula promote homosexuality.
On the corner of a narrow street lined with Colonial-era buildings, the Kansas contingent tried shouting its anti-homosexual message at mourners who overflowed from the church. But every time demonstrators spoke out, the 14-man Boston Police Department bagpipe band broke into thunderous sound....
This is the same group that protested Carrie French's funeral. If you haven't been to Bubblehead's before, please see the link to understand the evil this group represents.
It is a "church" led by Fred Phelps (his wife is their lawyer).
Phelps and his ilk have been spewing hate for a long time and this is one way of getting their message across and getting press. Normally, I would say ignore them because that will irritate them more. The Marblehead Police are to be commended for the bagpipe idea. Good thinking, fellas. I think you protected and served the rights of everyone. I think this is the beginning of creative countering of Phelps.
But unfortunately they are making the families suffer indignities that should never be allowed. SSG Piper and CPL French deserve better, too, but they would probably be more worried about the pain this causes their families.
Patrick from Gryphmon (who comments here occasionally) had a post about this for Carrie French. He knows about Phelps and knows that the way to squelch Phelps is to ignore him. Patrick has a very good post about the history and the evil of Phelps.
I call your attention to all of this for one reason - be vigilant. More than likely, there will be more protested funerals.
If anyone knows of his groups plans in Chicago, please let me know. We'll mount a peaceful but interesting psyops mission...I can think of 100 ways to drive Phelps crazy...Think of a truck breaking down on the street in front of the protesters... blocking their view...and, maybe...just maybe the truck will be painted with a giant "Phelps is Gay" sign (and someone should "own his site" with that, too)...and maybe inside the truck will be...
June 30, 2005 • Permalink
Friday, February 8, 2008
Anti-war protestors at Walter Reed Hospital.
Should people be allowed to say anything they want about the wounded soldiers that are recuperating at Walter Reed? On what basis?
Is this free speech, hate speech, slander or libel. Are these soldiers actually agents of the government or servants of the goverment. They actually have less rights than citizens. Can they be targeted if they are not agents of the government?
If anyone can answer these questions, please do. I do not know enough about the limits of free speech. I thought we could say anything we wanted to as long as it wasn't hate speech or lies spead knowingly about others, or is that even allowed?
Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital By Marc MoranoCNSNews.com Senior Staff WriterAugust 25, 2005
See Marc Morano's Video Report
Washington (CNSNews.com) -
The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist here to die for Halliburton."
The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.
Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19."I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.
According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers,"
Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital. But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for a Lie" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families."I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.
Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful." When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him."We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever,"
Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service. "You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters. "We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."
McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans."
If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service. "I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.
The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh."[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate." Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted."[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.
At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate."Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "
We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations.
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle. Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)