tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025948832913694345.post2686962940263731580..comments2024-03-22T02:15:56.280-07:00Comments on Jersey Jazzman: Milwaukee's Best?Dukehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16535645107179796099noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025948832913694345.post-42497875070848779912012-04-10T06:02:04.104-07:002012-04-10T06:02:04.104-07:00Stop trying to mislead people.
OSA is NOT funded...Stop trying to mislead people. <br /><br />OSA is NOT funded by corporate contributions. It is funded out of our tax dollars, plain and simple.<br /><br />If a child who is attending a public school gets a voucher, the money will come out of that child's school district budget.<br /><br />If a child who is already attending a private school gets a voucher (as will be the case for the vast majority of these), the money will come out of our state budget and will need to be replaced with additional taxes on all of us or with cuts to other programs.<br /><br />Corporations will only take advantage of the "tax credits" as a way to gain favor with Christie by supporting his pet project. They stand to gain absolutely nothing else in this program. Every dollar they put in is reimbursed by the State. This is not philanthropy on their part. It's politics.<br /><br />The tax scheme used in this bill is just a form of political money laundering, designed to fool people and to circumvent the separation of church and state in the constitution.<br /><br />Shame on your voucher pushers for your consistent lies and misinformation. I guess the idea can't stand on its own so you have to deceive people to try and sneak it by them. And they still hate it!<br /><br />New Jersey residents are smarter than you give them credit for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025948832913694345.post-81224898894714058222012-04-09T17:30:12.664-07:002012-04-09T17:30:12.664-07:00Why wouldn't corporations both put in solar pa...Why wouldn't corporations both put in solar panels AND do OSA if both lowered their tax bill?<br /><br />And when did we decide corporations are such good judges of where to send education funds?<br /><br />As I have pointed out over and over again, your theory of cost-savings to districts only works if you can account for the cost of educating each individual child. If the public school retains the most expensive children to educate, that very well may not help the school's bottom line.<br /><br />No one can claim OSA saves districts money until a cost/benefit analysis is done at this level. Has B4K or E3 done so? I'd like to see it.<br /><br />Further: in the Kean bill, as I read it, there is no limit to the number of scholarships that can go to students already enrolled in private schools. That will not save districts a dime, as SFRA aid is based on actual enrollment, not potential enrollment.<br /><br />Do you support a version of OSA that would ONLY have $ go to students who were previously enrolled in the public district? Or do you support a version that would guarantee state funds to the public district for every student who takes an OSA scholarship?<br /><br />Because I don't see any way that becomes "revenue neutral" for the state any more - one of the big claims of OSA supporters, including ACTING Commissioner Cerf.Dukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535645107179796099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025948832913694345.post-22325410175930189262012-04-09T16:10:05.042-07:002012-04-09T16:10:05.042-07:00No, Duke....here's how it works. Corporation B...No, Duke....here's how it works. Corporation B has a $160,000 tax obligation to the State of NJ. They decide to sponsor 20 OSA scholarships (let's say an average of @8k per). <br /><br />The 20 kids leave a failing, probably overcrowded, inner city school that is spending $25,000 per child ($500,000 for the 20 kids). The failing school keeps the funding difference of $17,000 per "ghost" child ($340,000). Their cost-per-child resources rise, their space concerns are alleviated, they can start new programs, retain and hire better teachers, etc.<br /><br />The 20 familes (mandated to be at the lower end of the poverty scale) get the civil right to choose their child's schooling, perhaps moving from a government-run school where they were failing, causing trouble, etc.<br /><br />Now...no OSA. That corporation figures out some other way to lessen its tax bill to NJ -- a way that probably will not result in new programs, less overcrowding, higher paid teachers, etc. That will not lower the tax burden on NJ taxpayers while raising the per child funding for inner city failing schools.<br /><br />Maybe they put in solar panels. Whatever.<br /><br />Got it? The OSA is a win-win-win-win. It's major problem is it has been politically footballed down to a tiny fraction of what it should have been.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025948832913694345.post-66399765473282349562012-04-09T12:13:39.998-07:002012-04-09T12:13:39.998-07:00So, if you give a corporation a tax credit for OSA...So, if you give a corporation a tax credit for OSA, they won't work as hard to find others?<br /><br />Seriously?<br /><br />By the way, I found the time to do these posts because I no longer troll around to other sites, posting comments every few hours. That takes up way more time than writing my own blog...Dukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535645107179796099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025948832913694345.post-6609396591659577202012-04-09T11:41:55.334-07:002012-04-09T11:41:55.334-07:00Duke, You're amazing! How do you write so much...<i>Duke, You're amazing! How do you write so much great stuff so quickly?</i><br /><br /><br />lol...where does he find the time? You do know what he does for a living, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025948832913694345.post-24376835860874375892012-04-09T11:38:20.307-07:002012-04-09T11:38:20.307-07:00Plus, the savings are assumed as if the voucher st...<i> Plus, the savings are assumed as if the voucher students would have cost the same as other students; this assumption is not tested and is most likely not valid. Students who leave for voucher schools are likely to cost less to educate than the students who remain. Neither of these issues is addressed in this report. [emphasis mine]</i><br /><br />Actually, Duke, if you look at mature voucher programs (e.g.: Florida) you see the not astonishing fact that the children whose parents decide to try something else are the ones NOT getting straight As and captaining the football team. They are the ones struggling to pass and the ones getting in troubling. In some areas the voucher quota is not even met.<br /><br />You further ignoring the point that there is no financia,l equivanet to the OSA, which is drawn from corporate tax deductible scholarships and not state monies. Do you really think all that money would otherwise just meekly find its way into the state treasury? Or perhaps would those same corporations find some other tax credit that doesn't do anything to alleviate the cost of education to taxpayers, but merely lower state tax revenue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025948832913694345.post-5618250431265173992012-04-08T06:21:37.887-07:002012-04-08T06:21:37.887-07:00Duke,
You're amazing! How do you write so m...Duke,<br /><br />You're amazing! How do you write so much great stuff so quickly?<br /><br />Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com