'No' forces on Idaho Props to rally Saturday at Capitol

Opponents of Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna's 2011 K-12 laws are holding a get-out-the-vote rally from 1 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Saturday.

More information is on the group's Facebook page.

Paid for by the NEA

It was the NEA that hired signature collectors to get the laws overturned in the first place.

The NEA is against education reform of any kind.

Vote Yes on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

Saying something over and over does not make it true.

I was not paid to collect signatures, and none of the other parents, teachers, and concerned citizens were either.

Vote No on Props 1,2,3!!!!

I didn't say it...the opposition admitted it...

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2011/04/28/idahopolitics/luna_law_foes_hire_paid_signature_gatherers_insurance?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IdahoStatesmanIdahoPolitics+%28IdahoStatesman.com+Idaho+Politics%29

Mike Lanza, chairman of Idahoans for Responsible Education Reform, says paid signature gatherers have joined volunteers to gather signatures to force a referendum on the three reform laws authored by Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna.

Lanza said he doesn't know how many are working for the company hired for the job with money from the National Education Association on behalf of the Idaho Education Association.

"The IEA took this step, and I endorse it, because we are serious about succeeding in this petition drive," Lanza said in an email. "Having paid signature gatherers is not unusual, as you know. They've been hired as insurance. We expect to collect at least 60,000 signatures just through volunteers."

Just one more reason to....

Vote YES on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

That's even better!

Volunteer signature gatherers paying paid signature gatherers. (I paid those union dues, Silly.)

Vote NO, NO, NO!

Paid signature gathering is not legal in most places I know of.

Game Over-(IRONY): INSERT COIN

----------

Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

Yes campaign paid for by k-12 and VanderSloot

LUNA is against realistic, pragmatic and fiscally responsible education reform. His "plan" will continue to rape the pocketbooks of tax payers while producing no academic results. If you care about education and kids, vote NO on these mean spirited, money wasting laws. Those of us who haven't drank the kool aid are voting NO on all three....as it should have been in the first place. LUNA, the gov. And legislature have disrepected Idahoans by slamming these ill-conceived laws down the public's throats! And that's o.k. With you?

SCF opposition is against ANY education reform.

The SCF laws ARE education reform. Luna proposed them and they were passed by the legislature. Continuing to allow the teachers' union to rape the pocketbooks of taxpayers' is unconscionable and irresponsible. Especially given, the union's idea of reform is to maintain a downward spiral of academic results thereby ensuring Idaho's students fall f-a-r-t-h-e-r and f-a-r-t-h-e-r behind the rest of the world.

The teachers' unions will never reform on their own. The kicking and screaming from the NEA and IEA was always a given.

Vote YES on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

Shame on you

Your use of the word "rape" in this context is disgusting and deplorable. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

A completely stupid state....there will be consequences

This is the last hurrah, boys & girls....no matter which side wins. If you have bright, talented, ambitious kids, get out now, while you still can.

Is the sky falling?

That's a common tactic by the SCF opposition because they don't really have any substantive arguments against SCF. They have to all be fabricated like "laptops replacing teachers" or "with kids being kids (spill, drop, sprinkle)".

If your sky is in freefall then calm down and realize this: You don't really have anything to worry about because everyone knows the World ends on December 21, 2012.

Vote Yes on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

Substantive arguments! All

Substantive arguments! All I've heard from the "Yes" side is bashing teacher's unions. No substantive arguments to support the laws. Notice that Luna's claims that the laptops were all paid for is now shown to be a lie. Legislator's including those who voted for the bills are now questioning how to pay for them and noticing that the sweetheart deal with HP is for a lot more than Luna said it would cost. A student will get a laptop for 4 years of high school for which HP gets about $300/year for a laptop which at HP's cost (they won't be paying retail) will be about $1200 per laptop. HP has to provide repair/support costs but $900 worth???? It amazes me that tax conscious conservatives aren't screaming about this. So the new entitlement is that every kid gets a free laptop????

Union wants this to be about laptops...

Funny you are focusing so much on laptops. But, that's what the union pays you to do.

Claiming a $300 laptop costs HP $1,200 to manufacture is rather comedic and quite a stretch in logic. Claiming the contract amounts to a "sweetheart deal with HP" is even funnier. Getting our high school students a better education is what SCF accomplishes by giving them standard, supported technology and learning tools that prepare them for the real world. It doesn't get any better than that.

Incidentally, when HP says the laptop costs $300 you can bet that same laptop costs less than $300 to manufacture.

Vote YES on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

Reading isn't your strong point

Your union tourettes has caused you to be unable to read. He never said it costs HP $1200 to manufacture a laptop. The rest of your comment is just blather because you are still unable to focus on the fact no matter the cost, it is unfunded. Our wonderful leaders signed a contract that they have no idea how to pay for and you are jumping up and down wiggling your pom poms. What great fiscal policy. Thank goodness in a short time these laws will be overturned.

Laptops are funded

It's a multi-year plan. If the laptops are unfunded then so is everything that the Idaho State Gov't takes more than one year to purchase. I guess that means our wonderful leaders are doing business as usual, huh?!?

"HP gets about $300/year for a laptop which at HP's cost (they won't be paying retail) will be about $1200 per laptop"

The commenter said HP's cost will be $1,200 per laptop. You do realize HP manufactures its own PCs and laptops, correct? What other manufacturer did you believe was going to provide them to HP?

Good thing you got that reading comprehension problem cleared up!

Vote Yes on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

No there is no funding

No funding source identified. The legislature will have to find that source in the next session. Either you are ignorant, stupid, or a liar because this has all been spelled out for you. Just because something is passed by the legislature it doesn't guarantee that funding source is identified. You seem to believe that to be true. Let me repeat. The laptops are unfunded mandates. They have to some how find almost 10 million to cover the costs of this contract just for the fall of 2013. That doesn't cover the next year, the year after that and the year after that. Lets see how fun it is when the legislature cuts more programs that are important to your family to pay for this albatross. No thank you.

"But if Proposition 3 survives, lawmakers will have to find more than $9.9 million to cover the costs of getting the first batch of laptops in the hands of a third of high school students next fall."

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/10/24/2322297/with-contract-signed-focus-now.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

As for what the commenter above you said. I quote "A student will get a laptop for 4 years of high school for which HP gets about $300/year for a laptop which at HP's cost (they won't be paying retail) will be about $1200 per laptop."

What he is saying is that we are being charged $1200 for a $300 laptop being that students will have it for 4 years. Not that HP costs are $1200. HP's Cost is referring to how much they are charging US, not the cost for manufacturing. You are so hot and heavy to argue with everyone that you don't even read what you're arguing with.

Union boss mode engaged...

See how quickly you degrade into the union boss mode? Can't stick to the facts so you go straight to the name-calling.

Fact: The typical high school student doesn't go to High School for 4 years! So that cannot be how the commenter arrived at the "HP gets about $300/year for a laptop which at HP's cost (they won't be paying retail) will be about $1200 per laptop." The key is "at HP's cost" and it very clearly says that cost is $1200. See, "HP's cost" is not the same as "HP's charge to the State".

Fact: The funding decisions are the Legislature's to make. Once Prop 3 is upheld, they're committed to fund it.

Fact: Tax revenues are projected to be higher. The economy is on the rebound. Good news for everybody regardless of their stance on SCF.

Fact: The IEA or NEA or whichever local teachers' union you support will NEVER propose nor implement education reform voluntarily. They don't exist for that purpose. They don't exist to better student's education. The only reason the union exists is to collect dues and maintain enough power to make the school district subservient to the union. The SCF laws threaten their control over local school districts. The teachers' union has succeeded in controlling in entirety the Boise School District. In fact, it's in the Master Contract that we taxpayers have to pay the Boise Education Assn (the local teachers' union) union president's salary and pay for "Professional Leave" days for union members to attend union activities!!!

All this faux outrage you spew over a sound and justifiable set of education reform laws while you overlook how the teachers' union is stealing taxpayers' money right under our noses!!! Yep, that's a union boss's mentality!!!

Vote YES on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

Union tourettes mode again

That's the best you can do? Is call me a union boss? I wonder how that could be since I am not a teacher nor am I a member of any union. I have never been a member of a union. Deflecting in such a manner is typical for you since you have no facts.

1. $300/laptop for 4 years = $1200 that is what the original poster was referring to. Simple math. Do you need a calculator.

2. The legislature is now committed to fulfilling the requirements of the contract. How that will be done is unknown. That makes it unfunded. This means that they will have to cut other important programs or egads! raise taxes. A program that is funded already has the source of the funds identified. That you don't understand this simple fact is telling and no wonder that you continue your ridiculous blather on and on.

3. It doesn't matter what revenues are projected to be. There is no source of funding identified. You forget that we are already in the hole 35million due to a tax cut for the rich with one time money. So much for our fiscally conservative legislature.

You are so predictable now that you're even repeating your insults verbatim. It's a bit humorous, but mostly sad. Trust me there is nothing faux about my outrage or the outrage of the majority of Idahoans. I rest well knowing that on November 7th, these laws will be no more. That is not something you can do. This is why you keep up your tirade, because the Yes vote is the losing vote. They will be repealed no matter how much you squawk and say the term "union bosses" and try to twist the words of those you argue with. You've chosen the losing side. That's your choice. You are the one that has to live with it.

HP's cost per laptop is not the same as HP's charge per laptop

Don't even need a calculator to understand that much, do you? The math doesn't add up at all when you understand the difference between the two. If HP's cost was $1200/laptop then HP wouldn't be in business for long under similar contract provisions as Idaho received.

"that is funded already has the source of the funds identified"

The source of the funds is from tax revenue. That hasn't changed. The JFAC and Legislature work through dividing up the revenue pie every year. Apparently, your complaint boils down to the fact you don't like the Legislature making those spending decisions. Yet, they manage to do it every year!

"You forget that we are already in the hole 35million due to a tax cut for the rich with one time money"

What? We're not "in the hole" because the Idaho Constitution won't allow it!!! Maybe the issue is that old entitlement mentality rearing its ugly head. You thought that $35 million (surplus due to higher tax revenue) was for education?!? Why would you think like that? Oh, I know...cause your union boss tells you to, that's why!

Let's apply your logic: Unless the tax revenue is earmarked for education or laptops, the Legislature should be prevented from spending that money on education or laptops. It follows that, since the 2012 $35 million "surplus" wasn't earmarked for education then the legislature can't spend it on education. You got what you wanted and you're still not happy! It's quite clear to me you'd complain about anything 'cause the union boss said so.

They're called "entrenched interests" for a reason.

Vote YES on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

HP has been trying to get our of the PC business since...

they fired Carly Fiorino. That market is almost lost to them. LAPTOPS, in comparison still have a steady market for now as they fill a niche that tablets and minis can't fill (I/O and a full OS, at least until Windows 8 takes off).

----------

Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

A victim of the New Math popular in 1970s?

Idaho will not be leasing the laptops from HP, which is what your funky math suggests. Nor will the first group of students receiving the laptops receive a new one each year until they graduate. The $300 per student figure includes maintenance and support.

Spin it to make yourself feel better

No they aren't leasing them but the contract requires them to pay $300 per year for the laptops and to buy new ones every four years. Yes this includes maintenance and software costs. Spin it to make yourself feel better, however, no matter how you look at it, the cost to give that laptop to a student throughout their high school career is $300 per year. $1200. The only thing funky about it is that the costs are much higher than we were told when these laws were introduced and at present there are no funds identified to cover them. Thank goodness the laws will be overturned and we won't have to suffer the consequences of the hole that Luna has begun to dig us into.

Until the legislature adopts

Until the legislature adopts an appropriation bill and the governor signs it, there are no funds identified for education, period. You remain wrong about the math.

Tom_P: Idahoans will get scabies, go to WY for immunity!

Powerful stuff, Tommy.

----------

Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

While we wait for the world to end on December 21,

vote NO on all three props.

Education can't be improved, reformed, or energized by bashing teachers.

When we all die for the Mayans, ED will be saved, not needed!

----------

Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

I was also gathering signatures

and I wasn't paid. I got 1,000.

Same here. 100% Volunteer

I was happy to volunteer my time to collect the signatures. I didn't get paid a dime.

Irrelevant

There were not enough committed volunteers like yourself to collect the necessary signatures within the required time frame. Without the help of paid signature gatherers the referenda would not be on the ballot.

Baloney.

Did you even think before you typed that?

whoevever collected them...

there certainly were enough people who wanted to sign those petitions.

Less than 10% of the

Less than 10% of the registered voters signed petitions.

That, as far as I can tell, is enough.

----------

Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

I gathered about 300

I gathered about 300 signatures. Unpaid.

So how many people turned

So how many people turned out for this rally scheduled to take place right before kickoff time in Wyoming?

It was a lot warmer here and it's on KBOI and the Eagle.

----------

Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

Paid signature gatherers vs Idaho Legislators paid to...........

Not concerned at all with paid signature gatherers; concerned with Idaho Legislators paid last session to ram through the bad legislation that is called “education reform.”

How much money did For-profit education companies Apollo Group/University of Phoenix, K-12 Corporation, etc pay Idaho Legislators the past two sessions?

Why did Nonini deep-six the Cronin legislation that would have created transparency, protected Idaho Citizens from bad actors in the troubled For-profit education industry? Why did my Party deep-six Ethics Legislation?

Foster and Fields and the pro prop 1, 2, 3 crowd question Ben Ysursa’s integrity for standing for Idaho citizens specific to Sunshine Laws. Another disconnect between the pro-props crowd and Idaho Citizens.

Parents, Teachers, Students, and yes, even the teachers Union earned our trust.
Lobbyists, Legislators, and the trouble For-profit education industry did not.

Abramoff: "Fire up the jet baby, we're going to El Paso!!" Mike Scanlon: "I want all their MONEY!!!" Email interchange between Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon, February 6, 2002

Vote no on props 1, 2, and 3.

Did they all wave their No! No!'s for the speakers?

----------

Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<