How Will CSD Use Federal Stimulus Funding?
Decatur Metro | July 2, 2009 | 10:12 amHere’s a breakdown of how City Schools of Decatur plan to use the roughly $1.1 million in federal stimulus money it will receive this year. (Data and details taken from Action Item D from the July 14th agenda)
$444,100 - (Salary and benefits) “2.5 regular education paraprofessionals from Oakhurst, 2.5 regular education paraprofessionals from Winnona Park, and 2 regular education paraprofessionals from Clairemont to the federal stimulus account codes. Also, 1 K-3 spanish teacher from each elementary school will be coded to federal stimulus funding.”
$18,000 - (supplemental pay items) District staff with 5 or more day reduction will have up to 4 days restored “About 45% of the employees in this category requested additional days to be able to complete certain tasks.”
$75,000 – City of Decatur After School program
$10,000 - system professional learning
$125,000 – 50% of additional operating expenditures allocation – “$55,000 for instructional materials and supplies, $50,000 for instructional technology (primarily ActivBoards), $10,000 for professional learning fees and travel, and $10,000 for media books and materials.”
$25,000 – rising 9th grade leadership camp
$178,900 - salary and benefits for “2 of the learning lab teachers at the high school, a part-time IB coordinator at the high school, and the rising 9th grade leadership camp”
$228,300 – part-time RTI specialist, an inclusion teacher at the middle school, a new self-contained teacher at the middle school, a new paraprofessional to support the new inclusion teacher, and a paraprofessional at Glennwood.
$10,000 - occupational and physical therapy services
$5,000 – early childhood supplemental services
$5,000 – assistive/adaptive instructional technology equipment
$3,200 – GNETS
$10,000 - professional learning fees and travel
Does anyone know what an inclusion teacher for the middle school is? I’m guessing either a teacher for gifted curriculum that teaches within regular class (i.e. inclusion vs. pull-out model) or a teacher for special ed students that are kept within regular classrooms. I’m guessing that it’s NOT someone who teaches the heretofore not well-known topic of Inclusion, as in Math, Language Arts, Spanish, Social Studies, Science, and Inclusion.
Boy our local economy and test scores should just shoot through the roof. No fluff here! $25k for a leadership camp! What a joke. This school system can go through money like nothing I have ever seen. I can’t wait to see the tax hit we take from paying off the debt associated with the Democrats stimulus debacle along with the future taxes we’ll have to pay to sustain these new CSD positions/programs. But I shouldn’t be too upset, we’ll have ActivBoards to show for our millions!!!
It’s almost comical that you pick a 9th grade leadership camp to harp on–no,
no, wait it is completely hilarious that that was your choice over, say, the City of Decatur After School program–which will cost $75,000, or the $444,100 for paraprofessionals at elementary schools and Spanish teachers for each school.
What is wrong with leadership camp? for 9th graders no less. So you want our kids to all be moron legacies at Princeton? You know, I’m sure, taxes are less in Wyoming or Montana–the fewer people the less taxes.
You can tag the Dems with the stimulus all you want, but I’m pretty sure it was your boy from Texas that started it.
I am no fan of Bush, but let’s get the facts straight. Bush enacted TARP — a program to re-boot the financial system. Bush had nothing at all to do with the “stimulus” bill passed under Obama, which is the source of funds for all the programs listed in this post. The two programs are, in design, completely different. TARP was a massive short-term expense, but it was used to purchase assets — preferred shares of banks that, in theory, can later be sold, bringing money back to the Treasury. Many banks have already repaid their TARP funds. Obama’s stimulus, on the other hand, was a massive increase in government spending that has only the most tenuous relationship to economic stimulus. It will, however, make states and local governments highly dependent on the feds for years to come, which is probably the point.
Nice response Gibbs. You are a classic liberal. The government spends the money so they must be spending it well. Just take a peek over at Westchester for some great CSD spending. Now, I’m dying to see what critical leadership skills we are buying for $25k. Hey, maybe you can sit in on the class taught by the Inclusion Teacher, might open your mind to some intelligent right-of-center point of views. Funny, I didn’t see one proposal in the last year for a tax increase from the CSD asking to fund these positions/programs. Surely if they were critical our leadership would have come begging to the tax payers for help! After all, the schools will completely collapse without Spanish teachers and ActivBoards!
So, what’s the answer then BEL? Refuse the money? Does that include the funds that helped some existing teachers keep their jobs for another year? I think you have a valid point about what’s going to happen to these programs once the funding runs out in a year, but I don’t understand this Dem vs. Rep argument.
I’m pretty sure both parties are guilty of overspending. For instance, forget the one-time stimulus, what I’m really excited about paying down the road is the trillions for this new ridiculously expensive prescription drug benefit. Why isn’t anyone talking about that spending that we REALLY can’t afford. Oh right…seniors come out in record numbers on Election Day huh? hmm… That’s just one reason why the convenient, stimulus-hating “won’t anyone think of the children!?” argument makes me gag.
YES, refuse the money. If everyone refused the money then we wouldn’t have to worry about the huge debt that awaits us. But noone will stand up to the “think of the children” arguement, so everyone takes the money.
This “stimulus” was passed without a single Rep vote. Most of members of the House and Senate didn’t even read the entire bill! It is just spending money to spend money. You’re right, neither party has shown the guts to cut spending. You’re also right that the prescription drug benefit is an ill-managed program that never should have been enacted. I complained about it then and I will complain about it now. But to not be out done, Obama wants to get the goverment involved in the entire healthcare system. So a government that can’t efficiently manage a drug program, wants to now manage everything else.
Wow, do I wade in here and betray my political leanings? Sure, why not.
I have a thick skin.
I agree with a number of statements in the above posts: both parties are guilty of overspending; the prescription drug program is awful; and that we will see increased taxes as a result of the stimulus package(s).
My take on it is, we are moving headlong into a world of hurt that will take decades to recover from (if we ever can). You think the stagflation of the 1970′s was bad? Wait a couple of years, when we have to start paying for the trillions in debt we are taking on now. It will make the 70′s look tame. Think France…consistent 10+% unemployment, a large minority population constantly in unrest, no growth, stagnant economy, welfare-state programs galore etc.
And don’t get me started on the health-care “overhaul.” I fully admit the current system is very flawed, and 48 million unemployed citizens needs adressing. But is the current proposal really the answer? Can we afford it? Um…no.
Like BEL, I worry about how quickly these decisions are being pushed through the government, with little to no understanding or true debate taking place. This is happening only six months after BHO entered office. The next 3 1/2 years (or possibly 7 1/2) truly scare the heck out of me.
I meant 48 million “uninsured,” not “unemployed.”
What about thinking globally but acting locally? The CSD school board is planning to take out an “interest only” loan for 10 million dollars. It will add up to millions of local tax dollars spent just on interest. Why isn’t there a cry of outrage about that?
The money distributed is “Stimulus” money to be used to stimulate the economy. Something had to be done because of the loss of jobs, closing of companies, etc. The implication is that Obama just gave it out because he wants socialism. Teachers are keeping their jobs. Students are being better served. I find it difficult to understand how those on the “right” can ridicule the present government when the Republicans ran the economy into the ground for many reasons, including a ridiculous, unnecessary war. I hope that my comments do not reveal my political leanings. But, if they do, so be it.
I assume, JEM, that you are responding to my post, given your snarky comment about revealing political leanings.
Do I deny the Republicans spent ridiculous amounts of money? No. Do I deny the Iraq war has been a massive drain on the economy? No. Do I deny the Reblicans were a big disappointment? No.
My questioning of the current administration’s spending policies is not ridicule. It is simply misgivings about HOW these huge decisions are being made, and the speed at which they are being enacted. I also said nothing about socialism, a word whose meaning is so vague as to be irrelevant.
What worries me most is that we have moved so far past a stimulus to get the economy on track, all the way to a money pit where we will never see a return on our investment. Nor, for that matter, regain the ability to pay back the debt. China is, and will continue to be, the primary holder of American debt. And those who consider China an ally are naive and disillusioned at best (JEM, I’m not saying you are in this group, I’m just putting it out there). In other words, before the money pit funds are even available, we are already beholden to China. This is the same China that brutally represses its own citizens, copies our technology, puts its spies in our high-tech companies and steals our military secrets. Every dollar we borrow from them puts us more in their thrall.
Eric, I absolutely agree that taking money from China is a terrible path to take. I know that China is out for itself only. Please tell me what you would do if you were pres??
I can’t and won’t answer your question. I’m not in political office, nor have I ever run (or ever will run) for office. You may consider that a cop-out; I don’t. And we all know the old saying – opinions are like rear ends; everyone has one and they all stink.
Please don’t mistake my arguments as statements that I can do better. The main point I am trying to make is that so many major decisions that have repercussions way beyond today are being made so quickly and without the necessary due diligence. Even with the downturn, the American economy is resilient enough to wait out a thorough review of the options available for making it strong again (including letting the most successful free market in history fix itself without government involvement).
The press and government (on both sides of the aisle) throw out the word “trillion” with seemingly reckless abandon these days. But I am scared witless no one is stopping to consider just how much a trillion dollars is. A thousand billion dollars! I can’t even conceive of that amount of money, especially when our country just doesn’t have it.
I think there are a couple elements intertwined here that make this a particularly difficult conversation. One is the reaction to the recession and the other is our national debt. (Obviously the recession and our debt are so close they’re making little debt-babies, but for the sake of examining the previous arguments, let’s stick with those two things.
It’s hard to keep a conversation about the federal stimulus focused because it’s not like the fed is using money it has (would the opposition to a stimulus be any different if the fed had a surplus and no debt?). No, it’s putting itself in even more debt. So, immediately we’re (myself included) not just talking about the philosophy of a stimulus package but we’re weighing it against the effects of an increased national debt. And as Eric pointed out, then folks start throwing around the word trillions and our collective head explodes.
I don’t disagree that we have serious money problems. But I think that people that judge Obama as typical tax and spend are measuring him against some politician that doesn’t exist. Democrats “tax more and spend more” and Republicans seemed to have decided that we cut taxes, but still spend. I think the current President is pragmatic enough to realize the dangers of running insane deficits. But he came into office with a huge frickin’ problem. Show me one individual voted into office that wouldn’t sign a stimulus at that moment from either party. Watch as people loose their jobs and everyone blames the man or woman in charge. That’s an unrealistic expectation. And what about the tax cut portion of the bill? Does that count for nothing?
The Federal Debt is a huge problem, but nobody wanted to talk about it before Lehman. In my mind, that’s the larger crime here, regardless of how much more poorly that plays on the airwaves compared to $18 million for pig research!
Here’s what it comes down to for me…regardless of whether the stimulus “works”, I at least understand why it was enacted. On the other hand, I have no clue why no one in power cared about the deficit prior to the collapse. That’s how I weigh the bad vs. worse.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that no one cared about the deficit pre Obama. Even Bush’s deficits — small as they were compared to current and projected deficits — raised some ire on the right. And of course the left criticized the deficit spending insofar as it went to the war, though they seemed to be A OK with the prescription drug plan and other domestic boondoggles. At any rate, we all agree the debt is a massive problem, so worrying about who was the first to really care about it seems quite beside the point. Profligacy in the past is no excuse for more of the same now.
But what’s bringing more outcry now is the sheer size of the deficit. CBO is projecting deficits of over $1 trillion for the next few years — heretofore unheard of levels — and Obama’s plan to reduce it going forward is essentially to spend much more on healthcare now to supposedly reduce spending later. To put it mildly, there is a huge risk that this won’t work, and deficits will be even larger than projected. And oh, by the way, regardless of the stimulus, we face the ticking time bomb of 42 trillion in unfunded medicare and SS liabilities.
I think you are right that just about any administration would have enacted some stimulus, but what Obama did barely qualifies as such. Consider two facts: one, as this post demonstrates, much of the money was directed to uses that fall outside what we regard as stimulus — funding for schools, etc. You may think that funding is a good idea, but it’s not the kind of thing that gets plants back on line, banks lending money, people buying cars, etc. Two, and more importantly, very little of the stimulus money has actually been spent. Something on the order of 8%. A stimulus is supposed to be a jolt of money injected into a sagging economy. What we have here is a very slow drip of funds into areas where the stimulative effect is weak, at best.
What’s most interesting to me is that we are now seeing where this kind of fiscal irresponsibility ends — California’s budget crisis — and we’re ignoring its lessons. Hell, half of California itself is under the delusion that the state has a revenue problem, not a spending problem, when if they had just retrained spendiong growth to population groowth + inflation, they’d have a surplus right now.
One last comment — I agree that the Republicans have not been fiscally responsible. But please keep in mind that Bush’s tax cuts did not reduce federal revenue. They actually increased markedly for most of his terms. People seem to assume that tax cuts = less revenue, but on the federal level, it has rarely worked that way. We’re now headed straight for the worst possible scenario, which is huge tax hikes in the midst of 10% unemployment. Obama has already all but reneged on his pledge to tax no one making less than $250k, and I think folks earning over that line will be looking at marginal tax rates over 50%.
Appreciate and agree with most of your statements/concerns DEM. I’m also worried about how the stimulus money is being spent and how much effect it has had or will have. But I think that the stimulus gets too easily wrapped up in the larger spending problem. As I said previously, the stimulus wouldn’t have been an issue if other spending wasn’t already out of control. As you pointed out medicare and SS are the real killers here. The stimulus is small beans…it just gets the focus because it’s tangible and it’s Obama’s first big move, so people try to read into it how he will act over the next 3 1/2 years.
I’m interested in this statement….”But please keep in mind that Bush’s tax cuts did not reduce federal revenue. They actually increased markedly for most of his terms.” Could you provide more detail on this or provide a link?
Sounds we could use the emergence of the “anti-party.” One that does everything that people hate… “Higher taxes! Cut programs!”
The problem is that there are no clear cut answers to our economic situation. I think the Obama Administration is doing the best they can in a very difficult situation.We will have to wait and see if the stimulus package truly gets us going or not. We will never know if doing nothing and letting the market take over would work. Anyway, to get back to Decatur, the money will at least help a few teachers and students in Decatur for the time being.