>>And your point is WHAT? You folks scream that we don't >>perform and at the same time want to spend as little >>as possible. > >You said the public schools are "vastly underfunded". >You are grossly mistaken. If the facts suggest >anything, they suggest that schools are over-funded...
and I gave you three examples:
(1) New York City; http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/pdf/erc5_06.pdf The number you are looking for is $15.3 BBBillion, which is more than twice the SUM of Police, Fire, and Sanitation, and verges on 30% (even I am surprised) of the total NYC expense budget of $52.7 BBBillion, for Fiscal Year 2007.
Then, it seemed that you tried to equivocate (say it ain't so) by,
>The idea is to spend money effectively.
but I rejected that,
>You said the schools are "vastly underfunded". Any >reasonable person would take this as a call for more >money, which is very different from "spend money >effectively".
I look forward to a reasoned support for your assertion that the public schools are "vastly underfunded".
I should add that, in the case of NYC, I have referred exclusively to the expense budget so far. But if you do not play nice on this thread, Michael, I will start to include figures from the capital budget.
Note: The list administrator edited the original subject line.