I was more than a little incensed by an article in today's San Francisco Chronicle discussing the dispensation of federal budgetary largesse to buttress the battered finances of California public schools.
While state schools chief Jack O'Connell exulted over the arrival of $2.6 billion from Obamanon and the feds ("We're happy people...we jumped on it right away, and we're going to make it very easy for school districts to access these funds."), the article sounded a note of grim futility in subsequent paragraphs.
According to the Chronicle, "...though the federal money is specifically meant to help districts rescind layoffs, many school officials say they're hesitant to use the one-time money for ongoing costs like salaries at a time when state finances are so uncertain."
The article quotes an East Bay school district superintendent, Dick Nicoll, who said that if state voters refuse to approve the six ballot measures in the May 19th election, "the stimulus money will be of little help."
"...most districts are going ahead with their final layoff notices," Nicoll is quoted as saying in the article.
So what was the point of the stimulus check from D.C.? What WILL that one-time fed money be spent on, if not to retain teachers and stanch the bleeding employment stats for California?
The purpose of a Keynesian measure such as deficit spending is to reduce unemployment. That's why we're all supposed to grit our teeth and blithely accept the whopping increase in the national debt that accompanies this deficit spending. If we still get increased unemployment to go with our increased debt, what was the point of the exercise?
Maddening...
