Here it is. Clyde, it was from one of your threads:

 

Keep in mind Gov. Palin CUT the Special Needs Budget by 62% from her first budget, before she had a special needs child herself.

 

It would be great if you would include a link to support allegations against Palin such as this one.

 

What does "Annual adjustment to FY09 calculation for Special Education Service Agency (SESA) per AS 14.30.650." mean and how does this link support your assertion that Palin cut the budget for Special Needs education by 62%? What is the FY2008 budget number versus the FY2009 total?

 

Does this article help ? The 2009 budget adjustment shows that they will spend 23.2 million, but it is not funded.

 

: Alaska, Children, Governor Of Alaska, Sarah Palin, Special Education Service Agency, Special Needs, Off The Bus News

 

 

Show your support.

Buzz this article up.

Buzz up!

Share Print View Comments

Sarah Palin's speech received loud applause at the Republican National Convention (RNC), especially the talking points on America first and the strong language blasting Barack Obama and Joe Biden. She also won applause on issues regarding special needs of children. But in the "State of Alaska Fiscal Year 2008 Governor's Operating Budget" the "Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools Component Budget Summary" reveals that funds were cut by 38 percent for the fiscal year of 2008-09.

 

During 2006, children served by special education facilities and programs, including the Special Education Service Agency (SESA) and the Alaska School for the Deaf , received more state support; but as of 2008 and 2009, the proposed budget was cut from $7,949.30 down to $3,156.00.

 

Under Alaskan Budget Documents:

 

These funds provide supplementary educational services to students with severe disabling conditions. The resident school where the child would normally be placed does not have the resources to provide an adequate educational program. Without the supplementary services the child's needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases.

Palin sliced the program by more than half, laying out a mere $3,000 for special needs kids for the year and saving the tax payers of Alaska less than $5,000.

 

Sarah Palin

 

He is, without citing the source, using an article that is from the Huffington Post. I have no idea where the 62% number is coming from. Here is what I got:

 

Murkowski cut the 2006 budget for SESA by $27,500.

 

Palin increased the 2007 budget for SESA by $3,200. In addition to the SESA increase, she allocated $312,800 more dollar for the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy, which is:

This instructional program is operated in Anchorage with student

enrollees from across the state. Students work on challenging academic programs in a “boot camp” environment.

Completing high school and building career goals and skills are the goals.

 

Palin decreased the 2008 budget for SESA by $17,700.

 

In conclusion, Palin actually increased the Governor’s Operating Budget for the Department of Education and Early Development & Special Schools. When she took office in 2006, the budget for that Department was $7,469,000. Now, the budget for that same department is $7,949,300. This is an increase of $480,300. She also did this before she had a child with Special Needs. I can only imagine that her commitment to Special Needs children is stronger now.

 

The Huffington Post article only includes the data that they wanted to- when I checked out the link that they provided, I found the truth.

 

Diamond Dandy, you have been quite obsessed lately with your so-called Palin half-truths and lies. Maybe you should check your own sources before you go accusing people of these things. :thumb:

 

Did you look at the 2009 Budget Amendments, line 10.

 

It shows 23.3 in RED INK for K-12 support / Special Schools, which includes the SESA. That states that no adjustment has been made.

 

I was hoping you'd say that. I wanted to see how much research you had really done.

 

In my first post, I outlined how Sarah Palin had increased the budget for Special Needs Education. However, after I posted, I did a bit more research.

 

I was very confused as to what "Annual adjustment to FY09 calculation for Special Education Service Agency (SESA) per AS 14.30.650." really meant. So I looked it up.

 

See here:

 

AS 14.30.650.

 

AS 14.30.650. Funding.

 

Detail: :

 

Each fiscal year the department shall allocate to the agency not less than $15.75 times the number of students in the state in average daily membership in the preceding fiscal year as determined under AS 14.17.600. Money to carry out the provisions of this section may be appropriated annually by the legislature. If amounts are insufficient to meet the allocation authorized under this section for a fiscal year, the allocation shall be reduced pro rata. The amount allocated to the agency shall be reduced each fiscal year by the amount contributed by the department to the Teachers' Retirement System (AS 14.25) or the Public Employees' Retirement System (AS 39.35) on behalf of employees of the agency.

 

 

Sarah Palin did not cut funding to the SESA by 23.2%, or by any percentage. What that table is showing is an annual adjustment. It is following Alaskan law. See the bolded above. Due to the number of students in the system, the funds had to be reduced. SARAH PALIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT.

 

THE HUFFINGTON POST WRITER FROM WHOM YOU GOT THIS IDEA, IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE US. SHE IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF US, AND USING GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY TO PUSH HER OWN AGENDA AND LIES.

 

I get your point that their structure is based on a specific fee per student in need of special needs, that the number of students dropped, so the allocation dropped. However, was the fee reduce? Was the fee increased?

Are students being main streamed and no longer classified as special needs kids? There are lots of ways to play with numbers.

 

Indeed, there was, but it was not because Sarah Palin cut it by her own discretion, as your first post and the article infers.

 

Beyond that, I proved in post #28 that, overall, Sarah Palin increased the budget for Special Needs Education in Alaska.

 

The allegations of the article are categorically untrue. IMO, government transparency is a vital cog to America's future because it allows us to see exactly what our elected officials are spending our money on. The article writer has deliberately tried to misinform and manipulate the numbers.

All commentators spin. Not all of them misrepresent facts and figures and outright lie.

 

What facts and figures did Beck lie about? He took an excerpt from something Obama said, didn't give the full context, and made a point out of it. I've seen it done by every single one of the people I mentioned.

 

And, no, I can't give you a specific example, nor will I waste my time trying to find one. I don't keep a notebook on this type of stuff. But, it is why I rarely, very rarely, watch any of them.

What facts and figures did Beck lie about?

Beck portrayed Obama's statement as referring to the health care debate, when in fact it wasn't. He also misrepresented the group of people to which Obama was referencing.

westsider and Clyde,

 

As far as I can tell the Huffington Post's writer used an automatic budget adjustment (as well as left out a lot of information) to lie and say that Palin decreased a specific budget. That is an intentional lie.

 

FWIW, I hope no one sees this as a defense of Beck or Palin.

westsider and Clyde,

 

As far as I can tell the Huffington Post's writer used an automatic budget adjustment (as well as left out a lot of information) to lie and say that Palin decreased a specific budget. That is an intentional lie.

 

FWIW, I hope no one sees this as a defense of Beck or Palin.

Honestly, I haven't had a chance to read it. Plus, I don't read the Huffington Post and don't exactly consider it a credible, unbiased source of information.

Beck portrayed Obama's statement as referring to the health care debate, when in fact it wasn't. He also misrepresented the group of people to which Obama was referencing.

 

Fair enough...I read that post three times looking for something. The health care sentence apparently didn't register.

 

But, I still view them all the same. I don't award brownie points to the others for being more clever with their lying/dishonesty/spin/misrepresentation or whatever else you want to call it.

Honestly, I haven't had a chance to read it. Plus, I don't read the Huffington Post and don't exactly consider it a credible, unbiased source of information.

 

No doubt. Neither is Glenn Beck. Clyde just asked for an instance of someone else intentionally lying (and you indicated that others don't when you said "Not all of them misrepresent facts and figures and outright lie") and I was just illustrating another example of it happening.

Honestly, I haven't had a chance to read it. Plus, I don't read the Huffington Post and don't exactly consider it a credible, unbiased source of information.

 

But Beck is??? :idunno:

You don't honestly believe that Obama was laying the blame on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do you?

 

No.

 

I also know he was not, as Beck said, talking about the voters.

Here it is. Clyde, it was from one of your threads:

 

I do remember that one. Good example. On the list.

No.

 

I also know he was not, as Beck said, talking about the voters.

 

 

I didn't hear Beck's spin on the whole "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking" thing but I did hear Neal Boortz talking about it today. On Boortz's show I took it as being aimed at Congress, more so republicans. He played it in conjunction with Obama's campaign and acceptance speech on how we ALL had to work together in Washington, republicans and democrats, reach across the isle while forgetting the partisan politics of the past etc, etc. I took it as a display of contrasting statements.

 

Again, I didn't hear Beck's deal.

 

Of all the talkers out there, I advise anyone interested in getting a fair analysis, listen to Neal Boortz. Seriously.

But Beck is??? :idunno:

I didn't say he was ... believe me, that would be the last thing I say about Beck.

I didn't say he was ... believe me, that would be the last thing I say about Beck.

 

So then why does what Beck said warrant criticism, but not the example cch provided from the other side?

So then why does what Beck said warrant criticism, but not the example cch provided from the other side?

 

You mean besides the part where he says they are not credible in his eyes and the fact that he had not read the piece?

Of all the talkers out there, I advise anyone interested in getting a fair analysis, listen to Neal Boortz. Seriously.

I've managed to run across Boortz a few times late at night on WSB in Atlanta. Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised. I don't agree with him a great deal of the time, but his show had much less rancor and more reasonable discussion/analysis than the others I hear regularly.