Bill Moyers Journal: Palin did NOT cut funding for special needs kids

[many a good man]

Kathleen Hall Jamieson stated that Palin actually increased funding, but the money was shifted to a new program. She cited it as an example of bad reporting by the MSM. Bill didn't argue.

Should we drop this one or did she get it wrong?

[firedupdem]

1. What new program? It seems as if she would be talking about

the new program she shifted the money to....oh, I forgot, she can't talk for a few more weeks.

[leftofcool]

2. yep ya got it way wrong

the new program is called "kid's academy" or something like that. I read about it in their education budget but can't remember all the details

[yourout]

3. Let me guess.....the new program is run by a church.

[NeoTheo]

4. It just keeps getting more and more bizarre.

"Kathleen Hall Jamieson stated that Palin actually increased funding, but the money was shifted to a new program".

Or another way to say that was that the original program, in which she increased funding for, never actually saw a dime of it?

And pray tell, what program was the money she increase for the other program shifted to. I'm thinking maybe an abstinence only campaign. Just a guess, all things considered.

[many a good man]

7. I just did a poor job paraphrasing

She said the budget item that was cut 62% is true, but she increased special needs funding under another program. Overall there was a huge net increase in funding for special needs kids.

[NeoTheo]

10. Ok, yes that is more clear and puts a different light on the matter

Thanks

[Gabi Hayes]

35. I read somewhere else that the increase was about 25 thousand dollars

correct me if I'm wrong......

EDIT: correcting self>>>>post 6 here is what I was talking about and the difference was 50K, but it was per student, not aggregate

that said......

Jamieson is STILL a hack, btw, hiding under the aegis of her academic credentials. I'm always disappointed that Moyers uses her as the sine qua non of media analysis. he'd be better served by having someone from media matters and someone from a similarly 'biassed' RW outfit, like MRC. that would be fun, because the RWers' analyses are usually predicated on distortion, at best


she ALWAYS concentrates more on dem inconsistencies, including tonight's best example, when she highlighted an Obama commercial (not approved by him) that had some factual inaccuracies, saying it was 'wrong' to do things like this

she didn't mention ANY of the lies from McCain's ads, or how almost ALL of them are filled with lies

wonder why that is......

[Eric J in MN]

5. Link saying the budget for the three years compared

...prepared by Frank Murkowski administration:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/newest_palin_smear_she_cut_spe.asp

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

33. I want to know why the plan isn't at the Alaskan site. This article links to Education Weekly

and in their article they have a broken link to the plan, so until we see the plan (which we don't even know if it was passed), an informed opinion cannot be made. For all we know, Education Weekly is screwing around with the numbers.

[many a good man]

6. Not much detail, but here is a seemingly unbiased summary:

From Education Week, 4/29/2008

Gov. Sarah Palin and state lawmakers have gone ahead with an overhaul of Alaska’s school funding system that supporters predict will provide much-needed financial help to rural schools and those serving students with disabilities.

The plan, enacted in the recently concluded session of the legislature, is based on recommendations issued by a legislative task force last year. It will phase in a greater flow of money to districts outside of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, over the next five years.

Advocates for rural and remote schools have lobbied for years for more funding, in particular noting the higher fuel, transportation, and other costs associated with providing education in communities scattered across the vast state.

A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/04/30/35recaps.h27.html

[Arctic Dave]

8. Ok then , were did the money go.

[many a good man]

9. See #7

Sorry again about my paraphrasing. The big increase went to special needs kids in rural areas because it costs more money to get help to them. Not sure if the city kids in Anchorage got shortchanged.

[Arctic Dave]

13. I guess what I'm saying is, we don't know the name of the program

and the article is not very specific as to were the monies actully go. Saying it is outside of Anchorage is not very precise, Wasilla after all, is outside of Anchorage, Fairbanks is outside of Anchorage, Etc. This will be one of those questions best answered by the School Superintendent.
Thanks for the post.

[merh]

18. But what you forget is that Alaska has no budget concerns.

Alaska has huge budget surplus --

The money is there to fund the existing programs as well as to fund the other program. The cuts don't appear to be necessary and are cuts to the budgets of existing and necessary program(s).

Palin's stern veto pen at a time when the state is swimming in cash has helped establish her credentials as a fiscal conservative, economic analysts here say -- although critics complain that she has failed to use the state's unprecedented oil bounty to help tackle perennial issues of domestic violence, alcoholism and inadequate child healthcare.

"The surplus just seems to get bigger and bigger," said Oliver Scott Goldsmith, head of the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska. "The state is awash in oil dollars, and the projection is that for the next few years we will have significant surpluses over and above current levels -- in the billions of dollars."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surplus5-2008sep05,0,2756085.story

Dispute this for me:

The following programs are included within this component:
Special Education Service Agency (SESA)

The Annual budget for 2007, which preceded Gov. Palin was $8,265,300.

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/...

The Annual budget for 2008, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/...

The Annual budget for 2009, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/...

This is a cut in special needs services to children in Alaska of 5,109,300 , or 62%.

So, as the Alaska State Budget description states, "Without the supplementary services the child’s needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases."

(links to active pdfs no longer work, were they scrubbed) - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/3/163229/8631

And this is my question - reading this:

A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (emphasis added).

If it was a reallocation of funds, why the increase in 2011 if the cuts did not affect the existing program? Why such an increase and why 2011? (A cynic would note that her son would require the programs in 2011.)

The cuts were made, the pdfs show that - just because you create new programs or distribute the monies to other programs doesn't mean you have not cut programs.

This site has the links to the budgets and pdfs that seem to work

The facts here show Governor Palin cut funding for special needs kids dramatically.

In 2007, before Palin assumed her office of governor, the State of Alaska FY2007 Governor’s Operating Budget for the Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools Component Budget Summary (this department provides services---not just school but services---for children with severe disabling conditions) includes approved and necessary budget increases to help special needs children. This budget was released in December, on the 15th to be precise, 2006.

In that budget, the budget actuals are (FY = Fiscal Year):

FY 2005 6945.30
FY 2007 Management Plan 7949.30
FY 2007 Governors 8265.30

Palin was elected governor in November of 2006, and assumed her position in January 2007.

When budget time rolled around in 2007, Sarah Palin---self professed advocate for special needs chldren, mother to a special needs child, aunt to a special needs child, and who promised in her acceptance speech last night that she was there for special needs children---slashed the budget. When she said she would be a "friend and advocate in the White House," I guess she just meant in words, not with actual money for needed services.

Here's what the State of Alaska FY2008 Governor’s Operating Budget for the Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools Component Budget Summary shows:

FY 2006 7949.30
FY 2007 Management Plan 3173.70
FY 2008 Governor 3156.00

You see right. Under Governor Palin, funds decreased from a planned budget of 8265.30 to 3156.0. That's a 62% decrease. Actual consumed amount went from 7949.3 to 3156.00, where it lingers to this day. That's a 60% decrease.

How many children lost services? Too many.

h/t to CBS News for links to budgets.

http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/09/sarah-palin-sla.html

[1]

11. it doesn't matter whether it is true or not...

it just matters that we got this story out there...

[tomg]

28. Sorry, but I've heard that

before. It matters that we get the right story out there. Every time a story is wrong or pure bullshit - and is quickly undercut - we lose credibility. More than that, time is wasted and for each bit of bullshit that comes out and sidetracks, five get through under the radar.

I am a teacher. My wife is a teacher. I gave her the original 62% cut story . She mentioned it where she teaches and so did I. We now have some cleaning up to do. I know three right-wingers who will be down her throat ( if they remember).

[kysrsoze]

31. DEAD WRONG! Spreading half-truths and lies is a specialty of the Right. I want no part of it

If that's what you intend to do, please go fight for the other side and wreck their credibility.

[marshall]

36. No, the ridiculous stories of last week are the reasons Palin is flying so high now

She burst onto the public radar amidst "who's the momma" tabloid rumors that immediately made their way into MSM news programs. It fell apart faster than the Bush National Guard 1970s documents story and has propelled her into a sympathetic light.

Better to just stick to the facts that really are facts.

[Breeze54]

12. Are you LOST?!

:wtf:

I can't believe I'm reading this crap on DU!! :puke:

DEFEND THE DEFENDERS!!!

NOT THE RW BATSHIT CRAZY ATTACKERS!!!

Gezssus fucking cripes!!! :grr:

[many a good man]

14. If we attack them with untruths, it gives them ammo to fire back

It makes us look bad if we attack them with something that is demonstrably false. It calls into question our other attempts to bring out the truth. The undecideds will just throw up their hands and conclude both sides are lying.

Best to get it right. Lord knows there is enough to throw back in their faces.

[Iris]

17. Exactly. Just reading this thread so far has me wondering what else we are hearing might not be

true. And we're the die-hards. The independent voters will just start turning a blind eye if they think everything they hear is inaccurate.

[merh]

19. Then read the thread as it should have been written

The budget cuts WERE made - creating new programs does not negate that existing programs with needs and that provide services need to have the budgets they once had and the 62% cuts do hurt the programs.

And please keep in mind, Alaska has budget surplus - they are flush with cash because of the oil price increases.

You don't cut what is just because you create new programs to address additional needs.


see post 18

[dems_rightnow]

20. They didn't create a new program

They merely moved it from being lumped into the special needs line item to its own budget line item.

[merh]

22. explain?

And why the increase in 2011 after the cuts or movement?

And why the need to do this given the budget surplus?

[dems_rightnow]

24. They broke out into a separate line item....

.... money that previously was grouped in a different one.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2008/09/gov_palins_budget_for_special_1.html

There's no new program.

[merh]

32. Did they increase it's budget?

Did they increase the budget for the remaining program?

So the "boot camp" (juve detention programs - correctional in nature as opposed to the special needs programs for disabled) gets its own line item in the budget - is that because the funds were being used for special needs and not just the boot camp?

And why the 2011 increase no increast now or for 2009, 2010?

[Fumesucker]

25. Yeah, right.....

The Repubs deal in nothing but "inaccuracies" and get away with it constantly.

[kiva]

29. Exactly. Using talking points that are lies, and unprovable charges,

doesn't help us with those we are trying to convince (independent voters) to vote for our candidates. I know that some posters here regard DU only as a place to vent their anger--fair enough, but that also means that information in their posts often isn't true.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. Please spend some time reading Alaska bloggers

and the archives of the Anchorage Daily news http://www.msn.com/ . The paper is fairly unbiased (maybe with a slight liberal bent) and I'm sure they reported on all the budget stuff as it was happening. The bloggers have a more "up close and personal" view of Sarah Palin than any outside sources do. Phil Munger's blog here http://www.progressivealaska.blogspot.com/ has listed down the right-hand side multiple sources than can be checked here for facts and opinions.

Clearly Sarah has caught you all by surprise, but she has a record up here and rather than making stuff up, it's probably a good idea to see what the locals who have known her forever think about her and her positions. She is mixed -- not all evil, certainly not all good, but very persuasive, and someone not to be taken lightly. Underestimate her at your peril -- just ask Frank Murkowski, Tony Knowles, Conoco-Phillips/BP/Exxon, and many, many others.

[Egnever]

45. Thanks for those links

[BloodOfPatriots]

15. It is important to be accurate

[aikoaiko]

16. I'm impressed with Moyers for putting this on.

[dansolo]

21. Does the new program help the same children

What if the old program help urban areas, but the new program shifted money to more rural areas? Even if the dollars may be increased (which is still unclear), then number of children that may be helped by the money may go down. And if there is such a large budget surplus, why is there a need to so dramatically cut the funds for the original program?

[democracy1st]

23. i'll go back and research that I recorded the program but Kathleen Hall Jamieson

was wrong on a lot of the points she made,i'll note them later

[Gabi Hayes]

37. thank you. I'm so sick of her tendentious, VERY slanted 'analyses'

she said very little about the obvious fact that McCain's entire campaign is based upon a fundament of nothing but lies and distortions

I can't remember the details now, but I'll check the transcript to see if my impression was correct that at least two thirds of the misstatements she brought up were from Obama, when it's clear that almost every single McC ad starts out with a distortion, and degenerates into outright lies

she'd have an easier time finding a mcc ad that didn't have a lie in it, because there probably aren't more than a few, if any

[tomg]

26. This is why I love Bill Moyers.

He is the ACLU of the Media. Scrupulously honest.

[madmom]

27. I've asked this before and didn't get a bite, but I'd like to know why

they need federal money for anything is they have so much money in their state coffers?

[onenote]

30. in case you didn't realize

There have been as many Democratic governors in Alaska as repubs and the current state legislature has a sizable Democratic presence. They haven't been opposing federal requests as far as I know so I'm not sure why one would try to make an issue of it.

Also, Alaska isn't the only state with a surplus. A number of states, including states with Democratic governors and legislatures (such as New Jersey), also have surpluses and I don't think any of them are refusing federal money. http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080819a.html

Doesn't seem like a productive line of argument.

[Gabi Hayes]

39. how bout this: which is the most socialist state in the union....by far?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3931057&mesg_id=3931057

how much money to they pay in federal taxes?

how much in the way of federal funding do they get back?

what's the percapita amount each Alaska resident gets from the state government?

what would the federalized per capita amount be if every US citizen got what they get in Alaska?

what would that translate into in total federal outlays per annum?

are those useful stats to throw out in the pugs' hypocritical 'smaller government/reduce spending' attacks on dems?

[madmom]

43. Oh but she is the one saying she said "no thanks" to governmenbt hand outs!

[many a good man]

44. Right on! It's the hypocrisy

They are hypocrites on earmarks, spending, personal freedoms, etc., etc., etc.

Personally, I don't think spending federal money locally is a bad idea if it goes for a worthwhile project, helps the local economy, and helps people. If you're serious about taming the budget deficit you should look at Pentagon spending and tax cheats like corporations and millionaires.

Republicans are pigs at the trough who turn around and tell you with a straight face they are avenging angels.

[sandnsea]

34. Because they pay federal taxes

I just object to her saying if they want something, "they'll do it themselves", when they clearly take as much federal money as any other state.

[Blue_In_AK]

40. You are correct, Sandnsea

We do pay federal taxes, just like everyone else, and Alaskans have the same needs that have traditionally been covered by federal budgets -- i.e., highway maintenance, military and defense expenditures (which account for a great deal of the federal money sent our way), national parks, and so on -- as well as social programs, such as SCHIP. I make no excuses for Ted Stevens and Don Young, who have taken pride in the amount of federal money they've sent our way, but I'm sure there are many Democratic congressmen and senators who have sent a lot of money to their states, as well. When it gets right down to it, every state has its pet projects, and every legislator, Democratic or Republican, is out there trying to buy votes by providing money for them.

[Gabi Hayes]

41. they get almost two dollars back from the government for every dollar they pay in.

contrast that to NY, which gets less than 80 cents/dollar, number 42 on the list of percentage paid/received

[Gabi Hayes]

42. check it out....very interesting order of payments/receipts.....thanks to Raineyb for this, btw:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

[Blue_In_AK]

46. That's because there aren't that many of us.

Federal projects (for example highways) cost what they cost, whether they're being built for a population of 600,000 or 6,000,000. That's why our per capita share of federal spending seems so out of whack. It's not that we're really receiving so much greater benefit for those dollars or that we're living so high and mighty. If you lived up here, especially out in the rural areas, you would see that we lag far, far behind the rest of the country in basic services. Again, not here in the cities, but out in the Bush. Our energy costs are extraordinarily high, we pay much more for food even here in town than you do, we pay exorbitant shipping costs -- sometimes the shipping is three times more than the cost of the item being sent here. Notice the fine print the next time you order something on line ("free shipping except to Alaska and Hawaii"). I could go on and on about situations where we pay more for things than you do down there.

So please don't think that we're all rolling around up here in the lap of luxury because that's definitely not the case. This isn't Dubai, believe me.