Comments on: Moran on abuser fees http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/ Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:06:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: vjp http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/comment-page-1/#comment-70726 Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:50:56 +0000 http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/#comment-70726 MB – VA constitution is a strange beast. It’s got all kinds of stuff in there one would never expect.

AEM – the funding formula, by nearly everyone’s definition, is screwed up. The state share is underfunded due to their use of minimum requirements, which almost none of the localities use.

]]> By: Anon E. Mouse http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/comment-page-1/#comment-70674 Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:08:36 +0000 http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/#comment-70674 It all depends on your definition of “fair.” In Hampton, for instance, the state will pay 55% of the FY’08 school budget.

If we drill down here, we see that the state pays more than 45% for all Tidewater cities. (Go to “Spending, Revenue, and Taxes” then “Revenue Distributions” for each city.)

Statewide, the state paid 40.3% of all K-12 public school costs in 2004.

It seems that Tidewater is getting funded by NoVa.

]]> By: MB http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/comment-page-1/#comment-70666 Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:23:13 +0000 http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/#comment-70666 One wonders how much worse – or better – Virginia’s gov’t would be but for its rather restrictive constitution (e.g., the Dillon rule, all fines go to the Literary Fund, etc.).

]]> By: vjp http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/comment-page-1/#comment-70663 Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:04:00 +0000 http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/#comment-70663 AEM – it’s about the earmarks of the funds. The fines are earmarked to go to the Literary Fund.

Last time I looked, the state was paying a lot less than its fair share for schools. The last thing we need is to have the resources for schools reduced.

]]> By: Brian Kirwin http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/comment-page-1/#comment-70627 Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:17:14 +0000 http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/#comment-70627 Ah..got it

]]> By: Anon E. Mouse http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/comment-page-1/#comment-70623 Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:12:18 +0000 http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/#comment-70623 No, Moran is arguing that the FINES (which go to the Literary Fund) will not be imposed because the FEES (over which the judges have no discretion) are too high.

]]> By: Brian Kirwin http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/comment-page-1/#comment-70620 Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:01:40 +0000 http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/#comment-70620 So the Democrats are simultaneously arguing that the fees both will and will not be imposed?

]]> By: Anon E. Mouse http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/comment-page-1/#comment-70604 Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:18:34 +0000 http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/07/19/moran-on-abuser-fees/#comment-70604 Sorry, but the argument simply does not hold water. Was there no school construction before the Literary Fund was established? Of course there was. The money came from other sources. If the Literary Fund were underfunded or disestablished, the General Assembly would again get money from other sources for school construction. Money is fungible, and these earmarked accounts are a convenient fiction, just like the Social Security Trust Fund.

]]>