California cut state funding for libraries

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 13, 2012

There are reasons (some of them even good ones) why Andrew Carnegie, a ridiculously rich robber baron of the late nineteenth century, funded so many free public libraries all across the country. Carnegie saw that it was vital that everyone have access to freely available books and information. He saw it as more important than hoarding his wealth.

Libraries are for everybody, but since the wealthy need them less than the poor (they can buy books; they already have computers and the internet), it's not surprising if library patrons skew towards those who are so poor they "pay no taxes at all."

Most libraries are starved of funding, so they have fewer books and amenities than the people who work there would like to be able to provide. Does that mean they should be eliminated as useless?

And if people need enlightened self-interest arguments: Which would you prefer, that the poor people who live around you have some access to books, information, education, and the chance to learn; or none? Which makes life safer and better for you?

Deleted member 42 · Feb 13, 2012

MeretSeger said:
I love libraries, meaning, you know, a place for BOOKS. I mean, there are no BOOKS in my local library, anything I look up, they don't have. grrr.

Join the library board, or the FOL.

That's what got me to join—they were being pressured to go all digital for new books, and subscriptions.

And I knew as an IT person that that would be Very Bad.

kenthepen · Feb 13, 2012

Hoarding all that wealth has become the global game of choice, and will probably stay that way until the peasants come with their torches and pitchforks. I'm waiting for a sale at Home Depot.

Hip-Hop-a-potamus · Feb 13, 2012

I couldn't believe how bad it was in California even when I visited back in 2006.

I'm a genealogist working on a huge history of my dad's family (Smiths-- I enjoy a challenge), and travel around to different libraries and archives in many states to view old newspaper microfilm of obituaries and news stories that can lead me to more information (living relatives, etc).

These budget cutbacks KILL my research. #1, hours of facilities are cut, making it really difficult to plan a visit with all the furloughs.

#2, equipment isn't maintained. The downtown library in Los Angeles must have had about 30 microfilm viewers, and maybe 1 or 2 w/print capabilities. NONE of the other 30 were usable, because they had not been serviced in ages and were not working. So there were a ton of us fighting over the few that were working.

#3- No staff to go and get microfilm, if it is kept in a back room somewhere. So you're kind of SOL for viewing it.

So many of the other states keep massive databases of information on what they have. California has some, but they're not even ACCURATE and need to be updated. I spent extra time on my last trip in Riverside. I visited with a cousin there, but I could have used one day doing that and moved on. The database told me there were newspapers I needed @ the uni there. They weren't there. I was PISSED I'd wasted a day because research trips are expensive and I can't afford to waste a minute.

James D. Macdonald · Feb 13, 2012

TTCleveland said:
Appropriating taxes in such a way is a full-on assault on individual liberty and private property--both fundamental aspects of human rights.

The current taxes on the wealthy are ridiculously low, and the number of loopholes they've had written into law for themselves are ridiculously high.

Back in the fifties, an era noted for its peace and prosperity, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. I don't see anything wrong with going back to that.

Stijn Hommes · Feb 14, 2012

Jamesaritchie said:
It's happening all across the country, but it doesn't have to be the end of the world. It's easy to say states should keep funding libraries, but when the state is running at a huge deficit, cuts have to be made. No one wants to make cuts that affect them, and no one wants their taxes raised, even if they aren't actually paying any.

I don't know what it's like in California, but in my state. better than eighty percent of library patrons pay no taxes at all. Most of them actually get back more than they pay in, so their "fair" share amounts to less than zero. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for. Pay nothing, get nothing.

But in my city, patrons decided they were willing to pay to play, started donating their own time and money, and spent a lot of time soliciting donations from all over, and as a result, we have a library that's bigger and better than a city our size could have dreamed of before all this happened.

Most who complain don't even use pubic libraries, let alone donate time and money into keeping them open.

If that's true, I'm pretty sure illiteracy is going to skyrocket. Some things are worth investing in. States aren't supposed to have a revenue, that is a company term. States are supposed to look after the people who live there. By the way, with libraries and safe bike and walking paths receiving cuts, I'm wondering where all the money is actually going...

By the way, it's true something needs to be cut. I suggest we start with the ridiculous amount of money spent on the military.

robjvargas · Feb 14, 2012

Stijn Hommes said:
By the way, it's true something needs to be cut. I suggest we start with the ridiculous amount of money spent on the military.

By the way, you could cut the military down to zero dollars, and that wouldn't cut California's budget by a single dollar.

Hip-Hop-a-potamus · Feb 14, 2012

robjvargas said:
By the way, you could cut the military down to zero dollars, and that wouldn't cut California's budget by a single dollar.

Yes, but states do get money from the federal government. We can thank Mr. Bush for bankrupting us so that can't happen.

robjvargas · Feb 14, 2012

Hip-Hop-a-potamus said:
Yes, but states do get money from the federal government. We can thank Mr. Bush for bankrupting us so that can't happen.

Or we could follow The Constitution and leave states responsibilities (and rights) to the states.

10th Amendment said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Interesting concept, that.

10th Amendment

My disagreeing with prevailing presumptions, however, has got me in trouble once already. I won't rock that boat any further.

Terie · Feb 14, 2012

Jamesaritchie said:
I don't know what it's like in California, but in my state. better than eighty percent of library patrons pay no taxes at all.

BS. Once again, JAR is making shit up.

Do they pay no gasoline taxes when they buy gas? No sales taxes when they buy taxable goods? What about excise taxes built into most retail prices -- are those removed at the cash register? What about payroll taxes -- do their employers not deduct those from their paychecks?

Just because someone doesn't pay federal income tax doesn't mean they pay no taxes at all; it merely means that they don't make enough income to pay federal income taxes. This is only a portion of the taxes people pay. Besides, it's been proven over and Over and OVER that poor people pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than wealthy people do.

And where does this 'better eighty percent of library patrons' come from anyway? Did someone in your state do a survey on the taxes paid by library patrons to come up with this figure? Or did it just come out of your imagination?

James D. Macdonald · Feb 14, 2012

robjvargas said:
Or we could follow The Constitution and leave states responsibilities (and rights) to the states.

That problem was debugged 1860-1864.

robjvargas · Feb 14, 2012

James D. Macdonald said:
That problem was debugged 1860-1864.

You've already trained me not to challenge the prevailing presumptions.

:Shrug:

Twizzle · Feb 14, 2012

Terie said:
And where does this 'better eighty percent of library patrons' come from anyway? Did someone in your state do a survey on the taxes paid by library patrons to come up with this figure? Or did it just come out of your imagination?

As a former librarian, let me just say I have no clue if JAR is making shit up, but libraries do need to track and report circulation and reference help desk statistics, and it does impact funding.

So, we knew who borrowed what, who asked what, who utilized what, at all times. And this info is avail to the public (minus identifying info such as names), as it's reported. And I should add, we did do surveys-particularly come budget time. While ques such as do you pay taxes weren't asked, others such as "do you own a home in town", etc were...

Now, do these stats tell you what tax bracket people borrowing books are in? No. Not technically.

But they do tell you quite a bit. Quite. And yes, I live in town (and know it and its people well) so I suspect I could comfortably infer, based on our stats and funding rec'd, that the majority of our borrowers were probably federal and/or town tax payers, or members of households that were.

I would not, however, pretend that it was fact as I don't have access to their returns. But I'd feel pretty good slapping down some cash on a bet about it. A great wad of it.

Amadan · Feb 14, 2012

robjvargas said:
You've already trained me not to challenge the prevailing presumptions.

Cry tears for the poor oppressed libertarian whose views are JUST TOO EDGY FOR THE SHEEPLE!

California's budget will remain in a state of ever-increasing fuckedness until they do something about Prop 13, which will happen approximately never.

Jamesaritchie said:
It's happening all across the country, but it doesn't have to be the end of the world. It's easy to say states should keep funding libraries, but when the state is running at a huge deficit, cuts have to be made. No one wants to make cuts that affect them, and no one wants their taxes raised, even if they aren't actually paying any.

I don't know what it's like in California, but in my state. better than eighty percent of library patrons pay no taxes at all. Most of them actually get back more than they pay in, so their "fair" share amounts to less than zero. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for. Pay nothing, get nothing.

You really have no concept of what a "public good" is, do you?

Besides your blatantly pulled-out-of-your-ass numbers, the point of publicly funded libraries is to encourage a literate well-educated populace. Which, I realize, is not something you actually consider desirable, serfs being much more biddable when they can't read and all, but it's kind of a bedrock value for the rest of us.

Norman D Gutter · Feb 14, 2012

So the State cut funding for local libraries. So what? If the local communities believe the library is a good investment, let them fund it. It will cost less in taxes at the local level than at the State level, and will assure local control.

Why is everyone so anxious to fund their things with other people's money?

Amadan · Feb 14, 2012

Libertarians really come out of the woodwork to salivate at the thought of closing down libraries.

Terie · Feb 14, 2012

Norman D Gutter said:
Why is everyone so anxious to fund their things with other people's money?

What a silly argument.

I don't have kids, but I have no problem with my tax money going toward funding eduction. I get a lot of benefit over the long term by other people's kids getting an education.

I hardly ever use the local public transport system, but I have no problem with my tax money going toward funding it. When I see an old dear standing at the bus stop with her shopping bag and know that she can easily get to and from the supermarket, I don't begrudge my tax contribution.

As a matter of fact, according to the averages, I'm currently paying over £9,000 a year in taxes more than I'm currently receiving back in government goods and services, and I have no problem with that at all.

It's called 'community'.

Besides, some of the benefits are intangible. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

robjvargas · Feb 14, 2012

Amadan said:
Libertarians really come out of the woodwork to salivate at the thought of closing down libraries.

Interesting. Not one post here even approximately celebrates the closing down.

But someone somewhere might be salivating over it, I guess.

robjvargas · Feb 14, 2012

Terie said:
What a silly argument.

I don't have kids, but I have no problem with my tax money going toward funding eduction. I get a lot of benefit over the long term by other people's kids getting an education.

Nor does he. Or was I the only one who noticed his first paragraph stating that local funding would cost less than state funding?

Norman D Gutter · Feb 14, 2012

Thank you, robjvargas, for being a good reader.

Amadan · Feb 14, 2012

robjvargas said:
Nor does he. Or was I the only one who noticed his first paragraph stating that local funding would cost less than state funding?

And the people in rich communities will have nice libraries and the people in poor ones won't have any, just like ~~Robert Heinlein~~God intended.

Twizzle · Feb 14, 2012

Norman D Gutter said:
So the State cut funding for local libraries. So what? If the local communities believe the library is a good investment, let them fund it. It will cost less in taxes at the local level than at the State level, and will assure local control.

Why is everyone so anxious to fund their things with other people's money?

Again, can't speak for every library and state out there but our library is funded by town, state, and federal funds, as well as with private donations and volunteers. It is controlled locally, for the most part, by an elected Board of Trustees and the town manager, who report to the elected Town Council.

So, as a taxpayer, donor, and volunteer (and I pay taxes both locally and federally), I personally help fund my local library. Am I anxious that other people's money be used as well? Damn skippy. I can't do it alone. As was said, it's called community and investing in ourselves.

I will say, however, our Board of Trustees and Director have dicked up the budget by overspending on her salary, among other items, and have cut open hrs to compensate, and I'm part of the effort to fight that. The funding isn't the main issue for us-though, it has been cut. It's the gross overspending and irresponsibility.

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 14, 2012

robjvargas said:
Nor does he. Or was I the only one who noticed his first paragraph stating that local funding would cost less than state funding?

Why would it cost less if funded at the local level than at the state level?

And wasn't part of the argument that the poorest communities, who can afford them the least, need libraries the most?

Terie · Feb 14, 2012

robjvargas said:
Nor does he. Or was I the only one who noticed his first paragraph stating that local funding would cost less than state funding?

Why gosh. Apparently you did not notice that I don't live in a place that has state vs federal funding. And yet (gasp!) I'm still allowed to have an opinion and express it regarding the line about paying for things with 'other people's money', which is applicable no matter where one lives.

Besides, the second paragraph (to which I responded) is not linked rhetorically to the first. They have completely different topic sentences.

See how reading comprehension actually works?

Norman D Gutter · Feb 14, 2012

Alessandra Kelley said:
Why would it cost less if funded at the local level than at the state level?

The farther away your tax dollars go, the harder it is to keep track of them, to know what they are being spent on. So waste and fraud are more likely at higher levels of government. If the State funds a local library, they are getting the funds from people who live in the local communities. The State collects the money, subtracts a collection fee, and send the money back to the community. They probably make a slight re-distribution from wealthier communities to poorer communities, but even the wealthy communities will be crying out for the State funding, as if it's free money. So while it's nice to think we are helping out poor communities, the premium extracted by wealthier communities for that service makes it ridiculously expensive.

If the money is collected locally and distributed locally, it will be easier to track, and easier to bring an end to any mis-appropriation of funds. I testified in the criminal trial of a local mayor who added a water line serving his own undeveloped property to a larger, community wide water project. The mayor thought no one would notice the $30,000 or the line. But it was discovered when a citizen noticed the line under construction, knew whose property it was aiming for, and contacted law enforcement. Good-bye Mr. Mayor. Imagine trying to do that at the State level.

I'm a huge fan of libraries, and spend as much time in them as I can. If there is a way to help poorer communities have better libraries without breaking the bank, I'm all for it. But I don't think it can happen without the "me too" factor driving the price too high.

Best Regards,
NDG

California cut state funding for libraries

Sophipygian

Deleted member 42

My rhymes are bottomless

Your Genial Uncle

Know what you write...

My rhymes are bottomless

Writer is as Writer does

Your Genial Uncle

Cluck that.

Engineer Sonneteer

Writer is as Writer does

Engineer Sonneteer

Cluck that.

Sophipygian

Writer is as Writer does

Engineer Sonneteer