Yesterday, I posted a reader note on an alternative response to budget cuts in our school district. Afterward, I received two notes from another, longtime reader, suggesting a second alternative. I’ve combined the two notes on the second alternative with an ellipsis.
Mr. Adams, I hate to sound like a broken record about this, but if the WUSD citizenry is looking for place to ‘cut’, how about employees’ health retirement benefits? I’ve no doubt the district could have made up for most of the staff cuts they just announced if they simply stopped increasing their employees’ retirement health benefits, which for most employees now totals well over $100,000 per employee. Of course, you will not hear this from the district nor the Register, but it is worth pointing out nonetheless…
You might want to include also the fact that increases in their health retirement benefits are NOT included in reported pay raises that we all hear about.
Every time a teacher retires, it costs the district over $100,000 in health benefits on the spot.
There’s more than one way to compensate for a reduction in state aid, to a school district or municipality.
(And, if it should be true that the Obama administration establishes some form of universal health care – an effort that I am convinced would be wildly imprudent – the proposal outlined above would be doubly compelling.)
Loss of state aid may be addressed in more than one way, and although corresponding reductions will be necessary, there’s more than one response available, no matter how often one might hear from politicians and bureaucrats that only one choice was possible.