Aug
6
Written by:
William Lutz
8/6/2010 12:25 PM
There's a lot of spin going back and forth on exactly what the Doggett amendment to the federal stimulus bill does. Democratic political consultant Philip Martin -- as usual -- posted partisan talking points to the Burnt Orange Report that, at best, constitutes political spin and, at worst, misrepresents the Republican objections to the Doggett amendment.
The Doggett amendment does not merely require the state to spend the same dollar amount that it currently spends on education. It requires the state to spend the same percentage of state general revenue on education than what it current spends. (Here is the exact text of the amendment from the Congressional Record -- section 11 is the Doggett amendment).
That's a big difference. In effect, complying with the Doggett amendment would require the state to increase dramatically the amount of state dollars sent to public school districts and increase state school finance formulas.
First, it's important to understand how school finance equity works. The state has formulas that tell school districts how much in combined state and local revenue they are entitled to receive. The local property value then determines what share of that comes from state sources versus local sources. When local property appraisals rise, the state's obligation under the school finance formulas decreases.
Under the current system, when property values expand, the Legislature decides whether to increase the per-student amount each school district gets under Texas school finance formulas and by how much. In other words, the Legislature controls the purse strings. Just about every session I've covered the Capitol -- including 2003 -- lawmakers increased the amount per-student that school districts receive, though sometimes those increases came with strings such as teacher pay raises. But it was a legislative decision.
Under the Doggett amendment, if the state accepts stimulus money, it would be required to increase the dollar amount the state puts into the public education system at the same percentage as the state's revenue sources increase. The result of that policy would be school districts would get -- in the form of increased school finance formulas -- all of the money resulting from increased property tax appraisals, an increase proportional to the increase in state revenue sources, and the federal money on top of that. In short, the Doggett amendment would result in massive, unaccountable spending increases.
It also makes it much more difficult for the state to meet its obligation under Medicaid while avoiding a tax increase. If there was a Republican version of Burnt Orange Report, it could portray the Doggett amendment as a tax increase and that would be a lot more defensible than what Martin posted in his talking points.
5 comment(s) so far...
That was an interesting thought.
By kimmy on
8/6/2010 3:45 PM
|
You're conveniently leaving out some important facts in order to attempt to "spin" the Republican response into anything but an utterly disgusting admittance that the party does not care about public schools. Texas is being required to maintain 2011 funding levels until 2013...the horror! Let's not foget Texas already has gross funding inequities designed by the legislature. This amendment is embarrassing because of the governor who chose to SUPPLANT not supplement $3 billion dollars of state obligations. Oh but wait a minute......I thought Perry didn't want to take any money from the big ole evil feds....what a difference a n $18 billion deficit makes!
By Julie L on
8/6/2010 3:46 PM
|
"it would be required to increase the dollar amount the state puts into the public education system at the same percentage as the state's revenue sources increase" And conversely, and more likely, public education would be cut by the same proportion as the decline in state revenue -- but not more, which is Doggett's goal.
By David Siegel on
8/6/2010 3:46 PM
|
No, Julie L. It's THROUGH 2013, which Texas cannot constitutionally commit to until the 83rd Session. Remember that Texas sets biennial budgets.
By Hank on
8/6/2010 3:50 PM
|
"You're conveniently leaving out some important facts in order to attempt to "spin" the Republican response into anything but an utterly disgusting admittance that the party does not care about public schools."
Julie, this is a disgusting and vile defamation and you know it. The past budgets have been passed on bipartisan basis and funding has been increased in prior years. Your ad hominem is an admission that the Democrats are not caring about the children, but are using this solely to engage in 'gotcha' smash-mouth partisan politics. There is NO good public policy purpose here; its just sticking it in the eye of Texas, just because the liberal Dems dont run the state. I am sick to my stomach how vile Doggett and his partisan blogging cronies are over this.
"conversely, and more likely, public education would be cut by the same proportion as the decline in state revenue -- but not more, which is Doggett's goal."
Doggett's goal is to shred the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. If he wants to influence state decisions, he should resign from his office and run for state Rep instead of proposing these horrible 'gotcha' amendments that do more harm than good.
By John H on
8/6/2010 10:55 PM
|