Jim Gibson who apparently thinks that funds for school children will appear magically if we slash taxes and slash teacher salaries might be shocked to know that as the number of his million dollar A YEAR friends increase dramatically the jobs they DON'T CREATE don't appear. I wonder why after all Gibson's God, Rush Limbaugh, says he never got a job from a poor person. Aren't the filthy rich job creators the way the Rush, the Republicans, and Jim Gibson say?
Of course not, we all know rich people don't create well paying jobs, only DEMAND creates jobs. If there is no demand, our rich friends are happy to keep every cent safe in their vaults. If there is demand, they pay as little as possible to the "servant" class, to meet that demand. But it is that demand that makes jobs. Nothing else.
Make the rich pay their fair share. Increase benefits and salary to what the billionaire bullies call the rabble or the "servant class" (folks like you and me), and we will spend the money to create demand. Silly billionaires strangling our wages strangles the economy and ultimately strangles their income.
To create demand their must be decent salaries and benefits. Only strong unions create high paying middle class jobs that make the demand. Jim Gibson and his rich friends don't get it. Never have, never will.
----------------------------
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/californians-with-million-dollar-incomes-up-sharply.html
January 11, 2012
Number of Californians with million-dollar incomes up sharply
The number of Californians reporting incomes of more than $1 million increased sharply last year, as did their share of the income stream, a new report from the Franchise Tax Board reveals.
The new data will fuel the political debate over whether high-income Californians should pay higher taxes.
There were 10,000 taxpayers in the million-dollar income club during the 2009 tax year -- just one-third of one percent of all returns -- but that number jumped 27 percent to more than 13,000 for 2010, based on tax returns filed in 2011.
The income millionaires reported adjusted gross incomes of $22.4 billion in 2009, an average of $2.2 million each. In 2010, the total jumped 30.2 percent to $29.1 billion, with the average remaining virtually unchanged.
Those increases were by far the largest of any income group, the FTB said, while that group's share of all adjusted gross income increased from 3.7 percent in 2009 to 4.5 percent in 2010, while its share of taxes jumped from 9.5 percent to 11 percent.
The top 1 percent of income taxpayers, about 140,000 returns with incomes averaging $1.1 million in 2009, saw their share of personal incomes drop sharply during the recession years, from a high of 25.2 percent in 2007 to just 18.4 percent two years later. Their income tax burdens also dropped, from 48.1 percent of the state's total in 2008 to 36.9 percent in 2009 -- a decrease that hit the state budget, which is largely dependent on income taxes, hard.
The 2010 data indicate that the wealthy are rebounding, which explains the recent surge in state revenues, but how extensive that recovery will be is the source of great controversy, especially the varying revenue estimates of the Brown administration and the Legislature's budget analyst. Gov. Jerry Brown also hopes that voters will agree to impose income tax surcharges on the highest income Californians this year.
Categories: California by the Numbers, State budget
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/californians-with-million-dollar-incomes-up-sharply.html#storylink=cpy
Monday, January 16, 2012
See Video that Jim Gibson and Rush Limbaugh don't want you to see
Here is a link to the Kardashian video that Rush Limbaugh, FOX News owner Rupert Murdoch, and Jim Gibson don't want you to see:
http://www.millionairestaxca.com/
http://www.millionairestaxca.com/
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Rusty Harris lie: Teachers are given more time to speak than others
Rusty Harris charge that teachers are allowed to speak to the school board longer than non teachers is just as phoney as the rest of his error filled screed. http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/harris/harris-vista-teacher-union-stakes-out-big-win/article_6b4453cc-5ca9-508e-b897-8eb35b889d57.html
Rusty writes: "The trio took a "some are more equal than others" stance and upheld the practice of giving union representatives an unrestricted amount of time to speak."
The fact is that at each board meeting reports are made to the school board by various committees appointed by the school board. The two employee associations are also allowed to give reports. They are allowed the same amount of time that the committee reports have. This is a longer time than given to individuals, NOT ON THE AGENDA, who show up to speak to the board. The proposal of Jim Gibson was to reduce the time of the association report to the time allotted to those NOT ON THE AGENDA.
The Gibson motion was rejected by the majority for good reasons. It is important for the school board to know what their thousand plus employees are thinking. Hearing a brief report is a good way for this to happen. There had been no case of abuse by the two associations, so the majority of school board members voted not to reduce the time for association spokesman to report to the board.
Besides Gibson's motion also struck many as petty politics. Why give in to that? The majority chose not to.
Rusty writes: "The trio took a "some are more equal than others" stance and upheld the practice of giving union representatives an unrestricted amount of time to speak."
The fact is that at each board meeting reports are made to the school board by various committees appointed by the school board. The two employee associations are also allowed to give reports. They are allowed the same amount of time that the committee reports have. This is a longer time than given to individuals, NOT ON THE AGENDA, who show up to speak to the board. The proposal of Jim Gibson was to reduce the time of the association report to the time allotted to those NOT ON THE AGENDA.
The Gibson motion was rejected by the majority for good reasons. It is important for the school board to know what their thousand plus employees are thinking. Hearing a brief report is a good way for this to happen. There had been no case of abuse by the two associations, so the majority of school board members voted not to reduce the time for association spokesman to report to the board.
Besides Gibson's motion also struck many as petty politics. Why give in to that? The majority chose not to.
Harris lie: Bales was forced into retirement
This crazy break from reality was also in Rusty Harris' editorial found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/harris/harris-vista-teacher-union-stakes-out-big-win/article_6b4453cc-5ca9-508e-b897-8eb35b889d57.html?mode=story
According to the North County Times article Joyce Bales retired at age 65 after forty years in education. http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_f8ff610c-75c6-50c8-9d61-b4bc86554f2e.html
She is going to Tennessee to retire, not to look for another job as a superintendent. She made no mention in the article about wishing she could stay on longer. She was allowed to become FULLY vested in the California state teachers retirement system when she was re-hired in 2008. She will have retirement income from at least two states. The California amount should be more than six figures a year. Why would she want to stay any longer?
Where does Rusty Harris come up with the fantasy that she wished to stay?
Does he realize that she is doing virtually no work now?
At the cabinet meetings at the district office, she hardly ever even utters a word. All the work is done and presented by associate and assistant superintendents. At least that is the skinny I have heard from one person who attends those meetings.
Joyce is no longer has the ump or enthusiasm for the job. She has been treading water since the 2008 election. Some have hinted at cognitive decline. Who knows?
What we do know is she has NEVER indicated she wanted to stay here any longer. She is the one who set her retirement date not the school board.
Where does Rusty Harris get off writing, "the board's ruling trio made clear to Bales her contract would not be extended, thus forcing her retirement." There is zero evidence of that except perhaps in the fantastical stories Jim Gibson makes up to entertain his gullible supporters.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/harris/harris-vista-teacher-union-stakes-out-big-win/article_6b4453cc-5ca9-508e-b897-8eb35b889d57.html?mode=story
According to the North County Times article Joyce Bales retired at age 65 after forty years in education. http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_f8ff610c-75c6-50c8-9d61-b4bc86554f2e.html
She is going to Tennessee to retire, not to look for another job as a superintendent. She made no mention in the article about wishing she could stay on longer. She was allowed to become FULLY vested in the California state teachers retirement system when she was re-hired in 2008. She will have retirement income from at least two states. The California amount should be more than six figures a year. Why would she want to stay any longer?
Where does Rusty Harris come up with the fantasy that she wished to stay?
Does he realize that she is doing virtually no work now?
At the cabinet meetings at the district office, she hardly ever even utters a word. All the work is done and presented by associate and assistant superintendents. At least that is the skinny I have heard from one person who attends those meetings.
Joyce is no longer has the ump or enthusiasm for the job. She has been treading water since the 2008 election. Some have hinted at cognitive decline. Who knows?
What we do know is she has NEVER indicated she wanted to stay here any longer. She is the one who set her retirement date not the school board.
Where does Rusty Harris get off writing, "the board's ruling trio made clear to Bales her contract would not be extended, thus forcing her retirement." There is zero evidence of that except perhaps in the fantastical stories Jim Gibson makes up to entertain his gullible supporters.
Rusty Harris lie: Olive School was dismantled
Rusty Harris tried to show that three of our duly elected school board members were controlled by the union because "the Olive team was dismembered for showing lackluster fealty to the union by adhering to Bales' ideas, methods and goals"http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/harris/harris-vista-teacher-union-stakes-out-big-win/article_6b4453cc-5ca9-508e-b897-8eb35b889d57.html?mode=story
Ridiculous. This is fantastical and paranoid charge with no basis in fact or evidence or reality.
The school was not dismembered. It was not closed. It was moved several hundred yards to save the district money.
Is Harris pro-waste of taxpayer funds?
There are as many VTA and CSEA members (a majority) at Olive school as at any other campus in the district. Is that is "lackluster fealty"? What?
Come on Rusty get your facts straight. Next time talk with someone besides Jim Gibson when deciding what is true and what is not true in VUSD. There are FIVE school board trustees, not just one.
Ridiculous. This is fantastical and paranoid charge with no basis in fact or evidence or reality.
The school was not dismembered. It was not closed. It was moved several hundred yards to save the district money.
Is Harris pro-waste of taxpayer funds?
There are as many VTA and CSEA members (a majority) at Olive school as at any other campus in the district. Is that is "lackluster fealty"? What?
Come on Rusty get your facts straight. Next time talk with someone besides Jim Gibson when deciding what is true and what is not true in VUSD. There are FIVE school board trustees, not just one.
Rusty Harris lie: Teachers demolished Linda Mood-Bell reading program
Rusty Harris in his editorial said that teachers demolished Joyce Bales, "costly but effective reading program." http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/harris/harris-vista-teacher-union-stakes-out-big-win/article_6b4453cc-5ca9-508e-b897-8eb35b889d57.html?mode=story He is referring to the Linda Mood-Bell program that Joyce Bales mandated for every school site in the school district.
(http://www.lindamoodbell.com/)No one argues that it was not effective for the small number of students cherry picked by LMB staff to be helped. The problem was there are equally effective reading programs recommended by the State of California that are far cheaper that helped all students.
More importantly it was not the teachers who were upset at this waste, so much as the parents who previous to Joyce Bales had LOCAL SITE DISCRETION to choose and purchase for their own kids the program they wanted through funds provided to the state mandated School Site Council (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=52001-53000&file=52850-52863)
The parents at several school campuses opposed Joyce Bales grab of SSC money for her LMB program. They spoke against Bales plan at school board meetings and pursued legal challenges. However the parents lost at the school board meetings and in their other challenges. So the parents did what all disgruntled folks do in a democracy. They organized and elected two new members of the board who were more parent friendly (former PTA officers Jaka and Chunka) and re-elected another (Herrera).
The new majority decided SSC's could once again use their site money and make their own local site decision instead of having a district wide decision rammed down their throats.
NOTE: No other school district in California besides VUSD under Dr. Bales used LMB as their primary reading supplement. There are over one thousand school districts in the state.
Also note: LMB is NOT on the California Approved List of Intensive Interventions for reading.http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/Departments/BusinessServices/BAC%20Meetings/BAC%20Minutes%202-12-09.pdf
(http://www.lindamoodbell.com/)No one argues that it was not effective for the small number of students cherry picked by LMB staff to be helped. The problem was there are equally effective reading programs recommended by the State of California that are far cheaper that helped all students.
More importantly it was not the teachers who were upset at this waste, so much as the parents who previous to Joyce Bales had LOCAL SITE DISCRETION to choose and purchase for their own kids the program they wanted through funds provided to the state mandated School Site Council (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=52001-53000&file=52850-52863)
The parents at several school campuses opposed Joyce Bales grab of SSC money for her LMB program. They spoke against Bales plan at school board meetings and pursued legal challenges. However the parents lost at the school board meetings and in their other challenges. So the parents did what all disgruntled folks do in a democracy. They organized and elected two new members of the board who were more parent friendly (former PTA officers Jaka and Chunka) and re-elected another (Herrera).
The new majority decided SSC's could once again use their site money and make their own local site decision instead of having a district wide decision rammed down their throats.
NOTE: No other school district in California besides VUSD under Dr. Bales used LMB as their primary reading supplement. There are over one thousand school districts in the state.
Also note: LMB is NOT on the California Approved List of Intensive Interventions for reading.http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/Departments/BusinessServices/BAC%20Meetings/BAC%20Minutes%202-12-09.pdf
False Harris charge: District caved into a union friendly settlement
In Rusty Harris' editorial, he charges that there are three members of the VUSD school board are controlled by the teachers union. (What an insult to both our fine school board members and the voters of VUSD who elected them!)
Harris writes: VUSD "Caved into a union-friendly settlement of a lawsuit focused on the fact district taxpayers had been subsidizing the teacher association president's pay for decades."
This is twice wrong.
First district tax payers had never subsidized teacher association presidential pay. The VTA paid more than the full cost to the district of a release time president under the old fairly negotiated, MUTUALLY AGREED UPON, collectively bargained contract. The VTA paid slightly more than the cost of a replacement teacher for the president's classroom position.
This MUTUALLY AGREED UPON arrangement was not unique to VUSD. Close to one hundred other school districts in the state used similar language in their contracts. For more than a decade this provision was considered legal and passed all tests. But the VUSD vs VTA lawsuit overturned this precedent not only VTA, but for ALL other school districts and associations in the state. Hardly a "union friendly" thing to do.
Second the amount the school teachers were forced to pay in the settlement was the full amount allowed in the law due to statue of limitation rules.
Now all teachers in our district and every other district in the state are forced to subsidize their school districts for a release time president. Associations must pay not the actual cost to the district for a replacement for the released association president but far more. This lawsuit's success now means the FULL amount of an identical teacher with same place on salary schedule must be paid even when the district hires a much lower price replacement teacher. This is far above and beyond the districts costs. It amounts to a subsidy for the school district taken from the salaries of every teacher in the school district.
This lawsuit means the salary expenses for a school district actually go DOWN when an association president is given release time. This is blatantly unfair and not the intent of the original legislators nor would any fair minded average person think this arrangement fair. Sadly a poison pill was quietly inserted by Republicans into the original legislation that allowed this unfair and undemocratic ruling to be made by the court.
Neither the lawsuit or its settlement were in any way "union friendly." To call them so is to be either ignorant or worse.
Harris writes: VUSD "Caved into a union-friendly settlement of a lawsuit focused on the fact district taxpayers had been subsidizing the teacher association president's pay for decades."
This is twice wrong.
First district tax payers had never subsidized teacher association presidential pay. The VTA paid more than the full cost to the district of a release time president under the old fairly negotiated, MUTUALLY AGREED UPON, collectively bargained contract. The VTA paid slightly more than the cost of a replacement teacher for the president's classroom position.
This MUTUALLY AGREED UPON arrangement was not unique to VUSD. Close to one hundred other school districts in the state used similar language in their contracts. For more than a decade this provision was considered legal and passed all tests. But the VUSD vs VTA lawsuit overturned this precedent not only VTA, but for ALL other school districts and associations in the state. Hardly a "union friendly" thing to do.
Second the amount the school teachers were forced to pay in the settlement was the full amount allowed in the law due to statue of limitation rules.
Now all teachers in our district and every other district in the state are forced to subsidize their school districts for a release time president. Associations must pay not the actual cost to the district for a replacement for the released association president but far more. This lawsuit's success now means the FULL amount of an identical teacher with same place on salary schedule must be paid even when the district hires a much lower price replacement teacher. This is far above and beyond the districts costs. It amounts to a subsidy for the school district taken from the salaries of every teacher in the school district.
This lawsuit means the salary expenses for a school district actually go DOWN when an association president is given release time. This is blatantly unfair and not the intent of the original legislators nor would any fair minded average person think this arrangement fair. Sadly a poison pill was quietly inserted by Republicans into the original legislation that allowed this unfair and undemocratic ruling to be made by the court.
Neither the lawsuit or its settlement were in any way "union friendly." To call them so is to be either ignorant or worse.
Rusty Harris falsely villifies Vista school teachers
Rusty Harris continues the long tradition at the North County Times of one sided vilification of the Vista Teachers Association today. http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/harris/harris-vista-teacher-union-stakes-out-big-win/article_6b4453cc-5ca9-508e-b897-8eb35b889d57.html
As usual the attack is without merit and without fact. Apparently the only source Rusty Harris has is VUSD school board member, Jim Gibson. Gibson whose ability to tell fantasy tales is legendary also seems to have an anti-public education bias that filters everything he understands, sees or hears so that even the most ordinary school business is turned into dreadful tales of union and teacher maleficence. His accounts of what happened at a school board meeting are so tinged with this bias that they bear no relationship to the reality reflected in the recordings of the meeting, the minutes of the meeting or the heard or seen by the rest of the folks in attendance including the North County Times report Stacy Brandt.
Harris in the editorial today simply repeats the old Gibson shibboleth that the teachers control the school district with the additional paranoid touch that now the teachers will pick the new superintendent to get as Harris puts it "the big award it has diligently strived for during the past six years ---- total control of the school district."
This last bit of paranoia strangely contradicts the standard Gibson group propaganda lie that the teachers took control of the district in 1994 when two trustees were recalled by the VUSD community. The Gibson group use as proof of their false "control" accusation the democratic participation of Vista teachers in school board elections. The Gibson group views democracy by teachers as threatening or demonic.
As you may recall the Vista Teachers were forced into politics for the first time when radicals took majority control of our board in 1992 and made national headlines by their antics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista,_California
Apparently it is an outrage when school teachers avail themselves of the same democratic right as every other American. Even when they only did so to save the district from the circus that occurred during the take over of the school board with major network satellite trucks stationed outside our school board meetings and national reporters from many national news papers assigned to cover the meetings. Hundreds of radical religious right showed up to yell support for gutting FACT based sex education and diluting science programs with superstition.
I presume since Vista Teachers have one of the lowest median salary in San Diego County and since the school board we "control" sued us, the lie that the false allegation that teachers control the district just will not fly any more so now it has morphed into teachers 'will control' the district soon.
As to controlling the process of picking the new superintendent because the VTA "controls" three school board members what an insult to duly elected representatives of the school district. Besides the president of the VTA was informed by the school board that neither she nor any teacher will be involved in the search for a new superintendent. There will be no seat at the table for teachers even a non-voting, non-speaking seat. No teacher will be able to listen in or have input in the selection process at all until possible the field has been narrowed to three candidates. And then perhaps if the board is in a good mood that day, they might inform the VTA of just who the top three candidates are. Wow, that sure sounds like control of the process to me, yeah right.
Poor Rusty, he needs to go back to basic Journalism 101 and get facts from more sources than one, grouchy old man (Jim Gibson) who frequent statements show a disdain, even hatred, for fact based public education, who refused to allow his four children to attend public schools, who pushed religiously based discrimination issues (Prop 8, Carrie Prejean Day) and never has one nice thing to say about any school or any teacher in Vista
.
As usual the attack is without merit and without fact. Apparently the only source Rusty Harris has is VUSD school board member, Jim Gibson. Gibson whose ability to tell fantasy tales is legendary also seems to have an anti-public education bias that filters everything he understands, sees or hears so that even the most ordinary school business is turned into dreadful tales of union and teacher maleficence. His accounts of what happened at a school board meeting are so tinged with this bias that they bear no relationship to the reality reflected in the recordings of the meeting, the minutes of the meeting or the heard or seen by the rest of the folks in attendance including the North County Times report Stacy Brandt.
Harris in the editorial today simply repeats the old Gibson shibboleth that the teachers control the school district with the additional paranoid touch that now the teachers will pick the new superintendent to get as Harris puts it "the big award it has diligently strived for during the past six years ---- total control of the school district."
This last bit of paranoia strangely contradicts the standard Gibson group propaganda lie that the teachers took control of the district in 1994 when two trustees were recalled by the VUSD community. The Gibson group use as proof of their false "control" accusation the democratic participation of Vista teachers in school board elections. The Gibson group views democracy by teachers as threatening or demonic.
As you may recall the Vista Teachers were forced into politics for the first time when radicals took majority control of our board in 1992 and made national headlines by their antics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista,_California
Apparently it is an outrage when school teachers avail themselves of the same democratic right as every other American. Even when they only did so to save the district from the circus that occurred during the take over of the school board with major network satellite trucks stationed outside our school board meetings and national reporters from many national news papers assigned to cover the meetings. Hundreds of radical religious right showed up to yell support for gutting FACT based sex education and diluting science programs with superstition.
I presume since Vista Teachers have one of the lowest median salary in San Diego County and since the school board we "control" sued us, the lie that the false allegation that teachers control the district just will not fly any more so now it has morphed into teachers 'will control' the district soon.
As to controlling the process of picking the new superintendent because the VTA "controls" three school board members what an insult to duly elected representatives of the school district. Besides the president of the VTA was informed by the school board that neither she nor any teacher will be involved in the search for a new superintendent. There will be no seat at the table for teachers even a non-voting, non-speaking seat. No teacher will be able to listen in or have input in the selection process at all until possible the field has been narrowed to three candidates. And then perhaps if the board is in a good mood that day, they might inform the VTA of just who the top three candidates are. Wow, that sure sounds like control of the process to me, yeah right.
Poor Rusty, he needs to go back to basic Journalism 101 and get facts from more sources than one, grouchy old man (Jim Gibson) who frequent statements show a disdain, even hatred, for fact based public education, who refused to allow his four children to attend public schools, who pushed religiously based discrimination issues (Prop 8, Carrie Prejean Day) and never has one nice thing to say about any school or any teacher in Vista
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)