Meet Da Greenwood Goodie Mob
Proving our point that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between most Republican and Democratic politicians in South Carolina, a one-party government “Goodie Mob” has formed in Greenwood, S.C. – and it’s working to make sure the Palmetto State spends every red cent of its Obama play money.
In fact, Greenwood’s top two Republican leaders – Sen. Billy O’Dell and Rep. Mike Pitts – are parroting Democratic doomsday talking points about what would happen if we don’t get it, joining newly-elected liberal Sen. Floyd Nicholson in backing the effort to spend the $700 million in bureaucratic bailout funds that Gov. Mark Sanford would rather use to pay down debt.
You can soak up the uni-party love for yourself in the Greenwood Index-Journal, which covered the bureaucrat bailout rally … err, “citizens’ forum” … last week.
From the IJ (click to enlarge):
In case you can’t read small type (or didn’t ‘click to enlarge’), O’Dell and Pitts joined Nicholson in regurgitating every liberal PR talking point that’s out there about these funds, right down to the hyperbolic references to “massive cuts” and “teacher layoffs.”
That’s funny, because the last time we checked, Greenwood’s three school districts still had plenty of cash in the bank.
In fact, the three districts currently have a combined carry-forward balance of $20.6 million, which is up from $20.3 million the previous year.
Massive cuts? Teacher layoffs?
Please.
It was also funny watching Pitts oppose school district consolidation because it would “cost money.”
God save this state.
Comments
By Steve on March 29th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Sic,
Will you and/or Howie Rich please sign up for Accounting for Dummies? You keep harping on total reserves and until you back out legally required bond reserves and an adequate cash flow reserve to avoid tax anticipation notes, your data doesn’t mean squat. You keep harping on facts that any first year accounting student can tell you are meaningless without further analysis. Keep up the good work on the Stimulus but back off the reserve garbage.
By fitsnews on March 29th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
“Steve,”
What about when the state forbade municipalities to keep reserve accounts? What happened then? Were no schools built? Were no teachers paid? Did no learning take place?
Sadly we know the answer to that last question …
Obviously you want to keep a reasonable general and capital reserve fund in place (5% or so), but in some of these districts we are looking at fund balances that are closing in on the 20% mark of the annual budget.
And that’s just the percentage of what they ESTIMATE, not what they spend, because everybody knows the clever trick these districts play is to budget based on estimates, not actual expenses (i.e. why we have these carry-forward balances in the first place).
So why don’t you “back that out” of your numbers and get back to us, tough guy.
-FITS
By G.L. on March 29th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Sen. O’Dell needs to go. I don’t know he has Third Congressional District pipe dreams, but the true conservatives in his district don’t even want him in the State Senate.
By Levy on March 29th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Will is dead right. Schools do not need that much cash on hand, even to cover requirements. Frankly, if we are truly in a crisis in which core classroom services have to be cut, and the schools cannot possibly cut ANYTHING else but teachers, well……seems to me a hell of a time to tap that reserve, Steve! Unless, of course, the schools could find some other places to cut first. But that couldn’t possibly be the case, could it?
By James the Foot Soldier on March 29th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I thought bond reserves were part of the bond issue (termed uses of funds) – at least they were when I took Accouting 101.
By Steve on March 29th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Sic,
I obviously can’t check with Miriam Hair at MASC on Sunday night but to my knowledge no school districts in SC are now or have been funded by municipalities. Some are under counties and some are fiscally autonimous but I don’t think past restrictions on municipalities would affect school districts.
I know this may not be a source you would trust but the Government Finance Officers Association recommends keeping anywhere from 5% to 15% in undesignated fund balance for general purpose governments. (http://www.gfoa.org/downloads/budget-appropriate.pdf) They further note that “…higher levels of unreserved fund balance may be needed if significant revenue sources are subject to unpredictable fluctuations…”. That sure sounds like the great sales tax for property tax swap that caused the bond rating agencies to issue a ratings outlook downgrade for all South Carolina school debt following the passage of Act 388. The 5% to 15% recommended balance also does not include any required bond debt.
I agree with you that we have too many school districts in SC and there are likely some out there that may have too much fund balance according to GFOA. My point is that constant harping that school districts have large fund balances is akin to screaming that the sky is blue; it’s a normal situation and not an indication of an overall problem. You have accurately noted that education is a large piece of the budget pie on both the state and local level so accepted undesignated fund balance will not be a small number.
I’ll check my home county (we have a countywide school district) and get back to you but you have already praised them because their undesignated fund balance dropped this year.
By fitsnews on March 29th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
“Steve,”
A-ite. If it’s so normal, then why have these carry-forward balances jumped from a total of $400 million five years ago to nearly $800 million today.
Did your income double in the last four years man? Perhaps more to the point, did teacher salaries double over that time period?
Just askin …
-FITS
By Toyota Kawaski on March 30th, 2009 at 8:39 am
wow sick your knowledge of edumacation is so impressive