DES MOINES – If Iowa legislators can overcome Governor Terry Branstad’s vetoes of school funding, North Iowa schools stand to gain tens of thousands of dollars each.
At this time, Democratic legislators in the Senate and House are working to create a consensus with enough Republicans to force a special session in Des Moines to hold votes on key bills the governor vetoed. Two-thirds of Senators and Representatives must sign a petition to initiate a special session.
“Republicans worked with us on this year’s final budget agreement, so I am hopeful that they will agree to patching some of the holes left by the Governor,” said Senator Amanda Ragan, as she and other Democrats urged citizens to lobby their legislators to approve the special session.
“If you believe schoolchildren, college students and Iowans needing mental health treatment deserve better, make your voice heard,” Senator Ragan continued. She noted that Republicans had already come to the table to approve the bills in the first place.
If the legislature can hold the special session and find enough votes to override the vetoes, North Iowa schools stand to gain funding they claim is vital to operations.
“It’s for the kids,” one lawmaker told NIT, off the record. “The just can’t learn as well without this funding.”
Mason City would gain $417,710, the largest amount, obviously, as the largest school in this area.
Garner-Hayfield-Ventura would gain $106,460; Clear Lake, $134,887; Charles City, $172,002; Central Springs, $91,672; Hampton-Dumont, $137,285; Osage, $103,661; Forest City, $122,475; Clarion-Goldfield-Dows, $106,360; North Butler, $71,498.
Ain’t going to happen. Learn to live within your means and it won’t be a problem. Start by firing that overpaid Superintendent Mama Anita and you will have a good start.
Slash n Burn !!! Sounds good to me ..
I am going to type this real slow so the idiots can understand it. If the had followed the law they would have had their money. They tried to go around the law and the rules. He was very clear that he would NOT use short term money for long term expense. The Democrats did it to themselves just like they always do. Then they want to cry about it. I understand that there is very little interest in a special session. If you want to blame anyone, blame the Democrats. As usual they have created this issue.
First, nice to know you are still the cordial person we all know and appreciate. Second, what law did they try to circumvent? This is not a “long term expense”. It was intended to fund this year’s shortfalls. That is what a rainy day fund is supposed to do. Finally, this was a bi-partisan decision to go for the money. And once again, the governor has assisted his monied friends while ignoring real concerns.
The LAW states a time for them to complete their budget and they didn’t do it again. So, they tried to use this method to cover their butts. He told them right from the start to do their jobs according to the law and that he would not approve a on-going problem with short term money. Both parties ignored the law and the governor and he did what he said he was going to do all along. he friends had nothing to do with it. Now, if you want to pick a fight just go ahead with your snide comments. I have replied very respectfully to your comments but if you want to act like that idiot who doesn’t even know his own name I can certainly treat you that way. It is up to you because I have dealt with…
“I am going to type this real slow so the idiots can understand it.”
“I have replied very respectfully to your comments but if you want to act like that idiot who doesn’t even know his own name I can certainly treat you that way. ”
Yeah, right.
OhOh
The only reason that LVS needs to “type” real slow, is because his fingers are waiting for his very limited brain to catch up.
The sad part is that his pea-brain never does catch up.
Hence the blathering idiocy that emanates from his keyboard.
@OhOh-That was not pointed at you. It was pointed at the copy cat idiot with no name. If it offended you I am sorry. But I am not sorry for the copy cat with no name. He is a jerk and a A-Hole that deserves no respect.
LVS is right on here. Schools already have enough money to educate our children. The teachers union runs the Democratic Party in Iowa and they tax and spend all the working people to the hilt to pad their own pocket.
It’s shameful!!
What is shameful is that so many of you believe that education shouldn’t be a top priority in Iowa. You are more concerned about your own pocketbook than the future of this state. Don’t forget that teachers pay taxes too. And probably a lot more than you do.
I wouldn’t mind taxes going up to help with supplies and things to actually help the students. But the problem has been that there has been too many tax increases that have gone into administration pockets for pay increases.
And because this is a ‘hot button’ issue, why doesn’t the reporter who owns this site, go ask some questions of local school officials? Ask what they had hoped to do with the money? How was it going to help? What would they do differently next year knowing they wouldn’t be getting the extra help? And don’t send emails to Anita asking her the questions, go to principals, teachers and custodial staff. They are the ones who will be most affected by the governor’s power play.
Excellent observation. Its too easy to sit back and use the same old argument about overpaid teachers and administrators. That tune has been played for years and it no longer resonates with me.
Lets hear directly from Mama Anita on just what she would do with additional funding….. then form an opinion. Conversely what is the intended designated use of the funds from a legislative perspective. Come on Amanda and Sharon, give us the bottom line minus the political BS.
@Reality-I don’t want to speak for Matt but I know he has tried many times to get information from Grandma Anita and gets sandbagged every time. They refuse to give out information until after the fact.
Point well taken LVS and her track record has been awful. She denies and hides as her standard operating procedure. I still think that if anyone can get to the truth its Matt. And at a minimum he can make them wiggle, squirm and wet their panties.
The money the governor vetoed was not going to those “overpaid” teachers. It was to go for supplies, overhead and other costs that go up astronomically every year. You do realize that those costs have to be paid, don’t you?
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Schools gain “tens of thousands” is code for the taxpayers will be footing the bill eventually.
We could stop this nonsense in a hurry. All we have to do is make the people with kids in school pay the taxes and people without kids would not. If they had to pay their own way they would learn to be economical instead of spending money on un-necessary things and giving over paid teachers raises every year. Other states do it that way, why not here.
Typical LVS comment.
So, now that you are really old & your kids are grown and on their own, you don’t want to help pay for educating today’s youth.
I’m sure that you did not mind that people without kids helped to pay for your young children’s education way back when.
But that’s different, huh LVS.
What a load of crap, but typically ignorant, considering the source.
I paid for mine and a lot of others. Why should I pay for a bunch of freeloaders and dummys like you. If you are a example of what kids are learning it is a total waste of time and money. You are nothing but a liberal wannbe who wants everything given to him. Back when my kids went to school they knew how to run the system without the top heavy management and waste.
LVS, you are one seriously pathetic individual.
How about some facts vs the BS that you pull out of your nether regions.
State of Iowa percentage of yearly budget spent on Education.
1960-16%
1970-29%
1980-24%
1990-25%
2000-23%
2010-19%
Looks like we had to spend more of the budget to educate your kids.
The lowest budget percentage is when you were in school.
That explains a lot.
You really are that stupid aren’t you Copy Cat.? Tell me what was spent in dollars, not percentages. What a fool you are.
I’ve presented you with facts LVS, but you are to much of a cretin to comprehend them.
Because your alligator sized mouth always overrides your canary sized brain, you will always be a dimwit.
If anyone else were actually to be you for a day, they would kick their own ass for being such a dumbass.
@No Name Copy Cat-There you go shooting off your big mouth while hiding behind a keyboard. You are just a sneaky, cowardly troll but you are welcome to try to kick my butt any time you think you are tough enough. Bring it on chicken sh##.
@No Name Copy Cat-It just goes to show you total ignorance when you confuse percentage with actual cost. You are just afraid to show the real figures because it will show what a fool you really are.
@LVS I’m not sure why the actual dollar amount is relevant. I could get by for a couple weeks on $5 of gas in 1965, that doesn’t mean my car is less fuel efficient because it costs me $50 now. It means things are more expensive now. Of course the $ amount is much higher now than in the past.
@Anonymous-that is exactly my point. If you are comparing percentage you are not comparing apples to apples. It is the same reason I always hated percentage raises. They always favor the person making the most money and that is just the opposite of the way it should be. Besides, what cost 50 years ago have absolutely no comparison to what happens today. It was just more B.S. diversion by the Copy Cat.
Anonymous-I would have to agree with you on this. Comparing dollars spent would not be a good measure as $100 back then would buy more than $100 would now but % to the total budget would give you a better picture as to when more was spent on education. Example: if I spend 25% of my income on groceries in 1960 and 20% of my income on groceries in 2015 the dollar amount of the groceries is more in 2015 but the total % of my money I spend on groceries is still less in 2015 than in1960.
@Anonymous-Also, taxes are much higher today and we have to school levy’s. There is to much difference to compare percentage. Using actual cost and the factoring in cost of living difference will give a accurate picture.
@copy cat-while you are looking for a braiun see if you can find someone who will help you find a name all your own. You are a absolute disgrace to the name “maybe”.
FOR THE PEOPLE THAT DONT HAVE KIDS IN SCHOOL THEIR TAXES WOULD GO UP ALSO! WRONG!!!!!
They would already have the tens of thousand if the Democrats had followed the law and the rules. Of course the Democrats think the law is for everyone except them. Every sanctuary city in the country is run by Democrats who are disobeying the law, and of course we have the biggest law breaker sitting in the White House.