From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: A followup to Amendment 1
Keywords: Taxes,Amendment1
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:01:30 GMT

farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow) writes:

>My main gripe with Amendment 1 is that it assumed that current government 
>budgets were adequate. Sorry, but it just ain't so.
>
>I, for one, am getting very concerned about the educational fallout of 
>Amendment 1. For the record, I voted against Amendment 1, and think it should 
>be repealed.
>
>When I see that Jeffco has to cut $30 million from their school budget next
>year, I am worried. The first thing on the chopping block was apparently 2/3
>of Jeffco's admin staff. Wow, a whopping $3 million in savings (I wonder how
>much we will pay out in unemployment from all this?). Where do you think the 
>rest is coming from?
>
>According to the news last week, Denver schools have to cut almost $40 million
>Where will it all come from?
>
>I think you can sum it up by saying goodbye to all extra curricular activities

[...]

>Just my opinion. Please show me that I am wrong, I would really like it to
>be so.

I don't expect a few Usenet postings to change your mind, but consider the
following: 

1) When the federal income tax came into being (in 1914 I believe), the
combination of federal, state, and local taxes took about 10% of the average
wage earner's income.  That number has been on a slow but steady increase
ever since, and now stands at approximately 47%.  The point is: given these
statistics, it is hard to argue that governments are being starved for
money.

2) Again on a nationwide average, the cost of a private K-12 education is
$2500.  The average cost of a demonstrably inferior K-12 education in a
public institution is around $4500.  These numbers are based on 1989 data.

3) Try to put yourself in the bureaucrat's shoes whose job it is to bring
money in for whatever organization he runs.  When faced with budgetary
cutbacks, do you really expect him to say: "No problem, we'll just get rid
of the wasteful do-nothing empolyees and everything will be fine."?  He'd
look pretty silly saying that.  He has a vested interest in declaring that
he runs a lean, mean organization, and that only worthwhile, useful programs
would have to bear the impact of budget cuts.  Cutting popular programs is
in fact one of the favorite scare tactics employed by advocates of big
government. 

I don't have sources handy for 1) and 2) above, and yes I *do* have my own
axe to grind.  Considering the importance of the issues you bring up,
personal research is probably the only viable approach to resolving one's
position on them.

Now for a few cheap shots on other statements you made in the same article:

>My wife and I are expecting our first child in July. Right now, I'm betting
>that child will go to private school or we will move out of the state, because
>Colorado public education is going down the drain thanks to Amendment 1.

I suggest that you have been duped. See 2) and 3) above.

>More fun, the paper today said that shorter prison terms and early releases
>are in the works due to lack of funds to keep criminals in prison. Maybe when
>an ex-con who got out early kills someone, we will start to think about the
>consequences of all this.

Can we say "Legalize drugs"?


Jim Rosinski
Xref: sparky co.politics:2488 co.general:2298