The below Bill shows how intrusive our government has become and how far off public schools have come from being institutions of learning. In Europe children are being taken away from their parents because they are overweight how far off are we from having that happening here. We can not even get our children to read, write and perform math at grade appropriate levels let alone understand science and history. It is time to do away with garbage like this and focus on learning not social engineering.
The House and the Senate in New Hampshire need to be cleaned out over the next few years. I want the legislators in the coming years to get rid of any intrusive and Orwellian laws over the next few years, cut spending, reduce government programs and move all government pensions to defined contributions plans not defined benefits plans. As the number of those living off taxpayers dollars increasing the worse our State budget will become. If we don't do something about it soon we will be headed down the same path as California, Illinois, Arizona, New York, New Jersey, etc.
Quote of the Day - "[Schools:] vast factories for the manufacture of robots." - Robert Lindner (1914-1956)
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
HB 1479-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2010 SESSION
10-2319
04/01
HOUSE BILL 1479-FN
AN ACT requiring that body mass index be assessed in all pupils in grades one, 4, 7, and 10.
SPONSORS: Rep. Schulze, Hills 26; Rep. Stiles, Rock 15; Rep. French, Merr 5; Rep. Hogan, Hills 25; Rep. Pilliod, Belk 5; Sen. Hassan, Dist 23
COMMITTEE: Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs
ANALYSIS
This bill requires body mass index be assessed in all pupils in grades one, 4, 7, and 10 who have not opted out for religious reasons.
This bill is a request of the commission on the prevention of childhood obesity established by 2008, 219.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
10-2319
04/01
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten
AN ACT requiring that body mass index be assessed in all pupils in grades one, 4, 7, and 10.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; School Health Services; Body Mass Index Assessment. Amend RSA 200 by inserting after section 32 the following new section:
200:32-a Body Mass Index Assessment.
I. In addition to the requirements of RSA 200:32, the school nurse of every school shall conduct a body mass index assessment for all pupils in grades one, 4, 7, and 10 who have not opted out pursuant to paragraph II. The assessment shall not include the pupil’s name, address, phone number, date of birth, social security number, or any other personally identifiable information about the pupil. The results of the assessment shall be provided to the school board, the school administrative unit superintendent, and to the department of education. The school shall retain the assessment results as part of the pupil’s school health record. The school shall furnish a copy of the assessment results to the parents or legal guardians of the pupil.
II. No body mass index assessment shall be required of a child whose parent or guardian objects thereto in writing on the grounds that such assessment is contrary to the child's religious tenets and teachings. The school shall develop a form allowing a parent or legal guardian to opt out of the body mass index assessment for religious reasons.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
LBAO
10-2319
Revised 10/30/09
HB 1479-FN - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT requiring that body mass index be assessed in all pupils in grades one, 4, 7, and 10.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Education states this bill may increase local expenditures by $86,261 in FY 2010, $90,574 in FY 2011, $95,103 in FY 2012, $99,858 in FY 2013, and $104,851 in FY 2014. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county, and local revenue or state and county expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The Department of Education states this bill requires school nurses to annually assess the body mass index of every student in grades one, four, seven, and ten who have not opted out for religious reasons. The Department states a survey of school nurses in 2009 indicates approximately 50% of school nurses annually record height and weight for certain grades, and 21% of those recorded are converted to body mass index. The Department assumes 50% of students in the grades identified will be impacted by this bill. There are currently 60,534 students in the grades identified; therefore, an estimated 30,267 will be impacted. The Department assumes 5 minutes per student will be required to record height and weight, calculate body mass index, and communicate with parents. The Department states the average school nurse salary is $47,000, or $0.57 per minute. The Department estimates the cost to local school districts to implement the requirements contained in this bill will be $86,261 in FY 2010 (30,267 students X 5 minutes per student X $0.57 per minute). The Department estimates the annual cost to local school districts will increase by 5% in subsequent school years, for estimated costs of $90,574 in FY 2011, $95,103 in FY 2012, $99,858 in FY 2013, and $104,851 in FY 2014.
__._,_.___
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Taxpayer Funded Socialist Indoctrination Centers
I need to shout from the soap box today.
Taxpayer Funded Socialist Indoctrination Centers (Public schools aka government schools) have been doing one thing right, raising good little socialists. When taxpayers and parents do not understand that parental control of their child's education is an inalienable right, the socialists and communists have won.
In New Hampshire we have lost our freedom to educate our children as we see fit. When will homeschooling be legal without government intervention in New Hampshire? When will parents have the right to educate their child at the school of their choice? When parents realize that parental control of their child's education is an inalienable right and their responsibility and not the governments responsibility.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Taxpayer Funded Socialist Indoctrination Centers (Public schools aka government schools) have been doing one thing right, raising good little socialists. When taxpayers and parents do not understand that parental control of their child's education is an inalienable right, the socialists and communists have won.
In New Hampshire we have lost our freedom to educate our children as we see fit. When will homeschooling be legal without government intervention in New Hampshire? When will parents have the right to educate their child at the school of their choice? When parents realize that parental control of their child's education is an inalienable right and their responsibility and not the governments responsibility.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Another Chink Taken out of your Right to Parent.
Read it and weep.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Parents just lost some of their rights today when the Senate Committee voted ITL on a Bill that would have required parental permission before conducting a mental evaluation on a child.
Senator Letourneau voted with US on this Bill, but unfortunately Senator Kelly, Senator Lasky, Senator Merrill and Senator Bragdon voted ITL.
Sen. Letourneau brought up the incident with the 2nd grade child in Taunton who was subjected to a mental evaluation after drawing a picture of a crucifix. THis is one of many examples of the schools overreacting and now the school is going to be subjected to a lawsuit from the parents.
IF you see/talk to Sen. Lenourneau, please let him know we appreciate his vote in favor of parental rights on this issue.
Ann Marie Banfield
Education Liaison Cornerstone Policy Research
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Parents just lost some of their rights today when the Senate Committee voted ITL on a Bill that would have required parental permission before conducting a mental evaluation on a child.
Senator Letourneau voted with US on this Bill, but unfortunately Senator Kelly, Senator Lasky, Senator Merrill and Senator Bragdon voted ITL.
Sen. Letourneau brought up the incident with the 2nd grade child in Taunton who was subjected to a mental evaluation after drawing a picture of a crucifix. THis is one of many examples of the schools overreacting and now the school is going to be subjected to a lawsuit from the parents.
IF you see/talk to Sen. Lenourneau, please let him know we appreciate his vote in favor of parental rights on this issue.
Ann Marie Banfield
Education Liaison Cornerstone Policy Research
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
You be the Judge. Liar or not a liar?
"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Barack Obama Liar, Liar Pants on Fire.
Last year you as a taxpayer had an additional standard deduction, up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples, for state and local property taxes (section 63) (Personal Tax Incentives), this year this deduction no longer exists.
In my book that is a tax increase how about yours? Don't forget Newport and the SAU want to raise the Croydon school budget 29% over last year. Do you have the money to pay these extra taxes?
To read about other tax increases go to the Heritage Foundation's website.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Last year you as a taxpayer had an additional standard deduction, up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples, for state and local property taxes (section 63) (Personal Tax Incentives), this year this deduction no longer exists.
In my book that is a tax increase how about yours? Don't forget Newport and the SAU want to raise the Croydon school budget 29% over last year. Do you have the money to pay these extra taxes?
To read about other tax increases go to the Heritage Foundation's website.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
It is Indeed Time to "Undo That Absurd Court Ruling!"
Anyone with half a brain cell knows that educrats, teachers unions and scum suckers living off school tax dollars were the bucks behind the Claremont and Londonderry lawsuits. This morsel of common sense appeared in the December 31, 2009 issue of the Union Leader.
Bob Odell and the Democrats in the legislature pander too much to these groups. Can any of these people think for themselves?
The current tax burden is disgusting, the one they will burden our children with because of their greed is unconscionable.
Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
School subsidies: The elephant in the room
Thursday, Dec. 31, 2009
As noted in this editorial (click for link), the last decade began with a huge dispute over education funding. Donor towns sued to stop having their money taken and redistributed to other communities' schools. At the start of this decade, donor towns are still with us.
The state spends about $1 billion a year on aid to local public schools. It claims and allocates that money not because the figure is somehow sacrosanct or because school districts wouldn't find ways to thrive without state aid, but because the state Supreme Court removed the Legislature's ability to decide whether to provide such aid and how much that aid should be.
Heading into the next budget, and the next decade, the single most important step the state could take to straighten out its finances would be to undo that absurd court ruling.
To his credit, Gov. John Lynch tried. But his fellow Democrats in Concord could not destroy the goose that might one day soon lay the income tax egg. A judicial requirement to raise education subsidies annually will, over time, create a financial crisis sufficient to convince legislators to find a new source of substantial revenue.
The most recent budget raised school subsidies by $123 million to comply with the court's dictate. The amount Gov. Lynch and legislative Democrats swiped from the Joint Underwriting Association, a private non-profit group, to balance the budget: $110 million.
Removing $1 bllion a year from the Legislature's control via a dictate that education funding must never be cut but funding for social services and law enforcment may makes no sense. Legislators must retake the authority to decide how to spend that money. Failure to do so will lead to a crushing level of taxation never before seen in this state.
Bob Odell and the Democrats in the legislature pander too much to these groups. Can any of these people think for themselves?
The current tax burden is disgusting, the one they will burden our children with because of their greed is unconscionable.
Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
School subsidies: The elephant in the room
Thursday, Dec. 31, 2009
As noted in this editorial (click for link), the last decade began with a huge dispute over education funding. Donor towns sued to stop having their money taken and redistributed to other communities' schools. At the start of this decade, donor towns are still with us.
The state spends about $1 billion a year on aid to local public schools. It claims and allocates that money not because the figure is somehow sacrosanct or because school districts wouldn't find ways to thrive without state aid, but because the state Supreme Court removed the Legislature's ability to decide whether to provide such aid and how much that aid should be.
Heading into the next budget, and the next decade, the single most important step the state could take to straighten out its finances would be to undo that absurd court ruling.
To his credit, Gov. John Lynch tried. But his fellow Democrats in Concord could not destroy the goose that might one day soon lay the income tax egg. A judicial requirement to raise education subsidies annually will, over time, create a financial crisis sufficient to convince legislators to find a new source of substantial revenue.
The most recent budget raised school subsidies by $123 million to comply with the court's dictate. The amount Gov. Lynch and legislative Democrats swiped from the Joint Underwriting Association, a private non-profit group, to balance the budget: $110 million.
Removing $1 bllion a year from the Legislature's control via a dictate that education funding must never be cut but funding for social services and law enforcment may makes no sense. Legislators must retake the authority to decide how to spend that money. Failure to do so will lead to a crushing level of taxation never before seen in this state.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Healthcare Bills Unconstitutional
I will remind my readers that although this site primarily deals with education reform and school taxes the assault to our freedom and the tax impact of the current Administration's policies can not be ignored.
The healthcare Bills are unconstitutional. Please take the time out of your day and call your representatives and senators and tell them to vote no on this healthcare legislation. Real reform involves opening up individuals to by insurance from any company not just a few and torte reform. Real reform will revolve around a reduction of mandates not more mandates.
The following piece appears in the Wall Street Journal.
Quote of the Day - "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..." --James Madison
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything.
By ORRIN G. HATCH, J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
Mr. Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law. Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
The healthcare Bills are unconstitutional. Please take the time out of your day and call your representatives and senators and tell them to vote no on this healthcare legislation. Real reform involves opening up individuals to by insurance from any company not just a few and torte reform. Real reform will revolve around a reduction of mandates not more mandates.
The following piece appears in the Wall Street Journal.
Quote of the Day - "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..." --James Madison
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything.
By ORRIN G. HATCH, J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
Mr. Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law. Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Attend vote on HB 368 on January 6, 2010
Last year over 1000 homeschoolers showed up at the Capitol to rally against HB 367 and HB 368. In the Democrats thirst for tax dollars and control of New Hampshires' children they try to ram HB 368 down our throats again.
I am sharing the following email I received.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Hello Home-schoolers!
The House of Representatives will be meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday January 6th at the State House in Concord. On this day your representatives will be voting on House Bill 368.
Have you spoken with each of your representatives?
Do you know how they will be voting on this bill?
Will you be attending?
It is worth contacting your district representatives: phone or mail. Simply ask for them to support the bipartisan (14-6) vote of Inexpedient to Legislate and to not support any amendments.
My representatives were very supportive. Two of them were not going to commit until seeing everything in front of them on that day, but after a few minutes of speaking with them about the education committee vote on November 19th, they agreed to support the ITL recommendation. This was very rewarding to hear! FYI: I did get 3 answering machines and recommend that you have prepared a message that you can leave right on their machine asking for their ITL vote. Also, don't forget to let them know you are their constituent. This is very important to them.
Let's make this New Year a great one for home education! See you on January 6th!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)