Posted by Michelle, a member of the Donlon Elementary School community, on Mar 16, 2009 at 7:44 am
RESPONSE TO: California Lottery
Schools & Kids, posted by Anne, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2009 at 11:03 pm
The Lottery works like this: An example: Say the lottery made 40,000 dollars. The state government would give the 40,000 to education directly and then in the background take the 40,0000 out of the school budget and moved it to other programs. The schools get nothing. It is a cheat to the schools and a terrible loop hole.
Posted by Bruce, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2009 at 9:24 am
All the money raised by the lottery wss earmarked for education. The Honorable Willie Brown then realized that the initiative for the lottery didn't require the lottery to be additional funding for education and promptly used what should have been used for education to fund more give away programs to buy votes.
After all, that is what politics is all about. Getting reelected at all costs. Screw the taxpayers, keep them in office.
Posted by GC, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I was talking about this very subject this weekend with some friends, and they brought up a good questions. Since the state decided that what ever the dollar amount the lottery contributed to the schools would than affect the amount that the state will contribute (yes quite the loophole) Can this be done with the parcel tax. So if we all give this extra tax money can the state than deduct from thier funding what we are giving to our district? Or can we be assured that this tax will be in addition to the state money?
Posted by Bob, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Mflanagin: Glad you found the loophole. It says none of the parcel tax money can go directly to administration raises BUT did not restrict any of the other $120M or so of the district funding from going to raises. The district was even asked to put in a clause that there would be no administrative raises during the term of the parcel tax. Since the administration was involved in writing the parcel tax resolution, they wanted no such clause.
This is just like a family with two incomes and the deal is that none of one of the family members income will be used directly for going out to eat. Since the mortgage, utilities, and everything else is paid for by both incomes, you could still go out to eat as long as you did not cash the check at the restaurant.
This is just like the lottery. The state has to pay a certain amount towards schools in total. They now have suplemental income from the lottery so they redirect school funds they would have had to pay for without the lottery and give it to other sources. The lottery ended up not being additive but rather substitutive in income.