When Jim and I started fighting for education reform and education spending reform in Harvard many people did not like us or trust us but people eventually came around. We know the tax eaters, those living off the taxpayer teat and socialist will never like us and that is okay. In Illinois eventually more people came around to our side, hopefully someday more people will come around to our side in Croydon as well.
The following piece appeared on the Northwest Herald.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left an exercise for my readers.
Education reform
To the Editor:
I can’t even begin to tell you how much it warmed my heart to read the comments to Tony Casalino’s letter to the editor entitled “Supports tax increase” (May 1).
My husband, Jim, and I fought for education reform and education spending reform for four years before we decided not enough people were on board and Illinois was on a nonstop train to bankruptcy due to its spending problems and pension problems.
Good luck to you all, but you must do more than just respond to letters to the editors in newspapers. You must educate your friends and family, start tax-fighting groups, run for public office and, most importantly, support and vote for people who will be fiscally responsible and fight for true education reform.
Do not vote for any candidate who is funded with teachers union dollars. These are just your own education dollars working against you and your children’s futures.
Cathy Peschke
Co-founder Citizens for Reasonable And Fair Taxes, Croydon, N.H.
johnqpublic wrote on May 7, 2010 5:32 a.m.
"Think the NWH just published this letter to show their extensive reach? Not much going on in New Hampshire, huh?"
taxpayer wrote on May 7, 2010 7:20 a.m.
"Well said, Cathy. Finally the people are being made painfully aware of the situation."
kenbob wrote on May 7, 2010 7:23 a.m.
"This letter makes a lot of sense. Money doesn't solve education issues, true reform and a solid family values is what will make education work again. The astro-turf idiots in Springfield demanding to "raise my taxes" are nothing but a bunch of union goons. Throw money at the problem (while taxing everyone at higher rates) is their answer. Not in these days and not in any days is that the right answer."
Wake up America wrote on May 7, 2010 7:37 a.m.
"Hi Cathy....Yes, things have changed in the last few years....people have realized they've been massively ripped off by the schools....BOE's, Administrators and Teachers are now .....on the run.... Thanks to you and Jim for getting the facts out there...it was the start of today's movement..."
50 caliber wrote on May 7, 2010 10:56 a.m.
"John Q Public (Employee) caught RED HANDED! Take you anger out on your union. Thank you Cathy & Jim! The corrupted CRAZY TRAIN.... ALLLLLLL ABOARD, HA, HA, HA, HA, has crashed and burned like "so" many predicted. Your seminar's were damaging to the establishment and the liar's sitting on these school board's. Thank you very much. You are ALWAYS welcome back. "
Curmudgeonman wrote on May 7, 2010 11:30 a.m.
"So, Jim & Cathy, just what sort of reform did you fight for? From what I have read of your cybersquats, the only thing you fought for was to abolish public education. Is that the "reform" you speak of - get rid of schools? No wonder you couldn't find a following: you had no real, tangible ideas of reform. Go back to your maple trees in NH and continue grinding your one-room school district into the ground. "
Mr. Schneebly wrote on May 7, 2010 1:11 p.m.
"Cathy... you had me till the last sentence. Basically ou just used the vehicle of "school reform" to tout your anti-union hatred. Any reform to education should directly involve teachers. Oh and by the way they happen to belong to the union. If you are suggesting any sort of reform happes WITHOUT input from teachers you need to really look at your priorities. Instead of trying to use all parties to fix the problem you just want tos hove whatever concept of education reform you have down our throats. Sorry, anyone with half a brain won't support that!"
Mr. Schneebly wrote on May 7, 2010 1:14 p.m.
"You're talking about labor reform, not education reform. Figure out what your issue is and then try to deal with it. Stop concealing your real agenda with "education reform" and stay the heck away from decisions that effect MY children!"
GoodCitizen wrote on May 7, 2010 1:28 p.m.
"Schneebly, I think Cathy's term of Education Reform is fine in the context of the big picture. Teachers appear to support the Union's policies. Those policies have been shown to be not in the best interest of our children. Teachers have gone from being underpaid, to now being grossly overpaid. I'm not letting administrators off the hook with that statement. Administrators are nothing more than highway robbers. These costly teachers contracts get approved because parents can't take off work while a teachers strike. It's all out of control."
juschill wrote on May 7, 2010 1:30 p.m.
"Mr. Schneebly, what do you say we stay away from desisions that affect your kids and you agree to educate your kids and stay away from our wallets? Or are we supposed to give you our money, but not our input? "
pryan1967 wrote on May 7, 2010 3:57 p.m.
"Curmudgeonman-Where did Jim or Cathy EVER say "do away with public education"? On the other hand...where did the teacher's union (and, by extension, the teachers themselves) ever say "Let's do what's best for the KIDS, rather than what will fatten our wallets"?"
warmfuzzy wrote on May 7, 2010 4:12 p.m.
"Shneeb-You’re wrong! Education Reform will enable LABOR reform. Do this first. Start with getting rid of TENURE. Let the good ones stay and the bad ones get FIRED. The Education System is broken because of a decision that put the needs of workers ahead of the needs of children. Other states that surround Illinois don't have TENURE. Get rid of it and you will see great leaps in education reform. Labor won't like it, but it will take a bite out of Labor's strength. Remove Labor from ALL Public Sectors-You will see HUGE changes and REAL Gov’t reform. Do you get it? Unions are the PROBLEM."
imhotep wrote on May 7, 2010 5:26 p.m.
"Poster Poll, Question 1. The purpose of a public education system is: a.to provide quality education for our children, b.to provide well paying jobs and pensions to "education workers" (teachers & bureaucrats)? 2. If Government mismanagement has bankrupted our Public Education system, the brunt of austerity measures should be borne by: 1."education workers/bureaucrats", or 2. children? "
+froggy+ wrote on May 7, 2010 6:49 p.m.
"nobody wants to takes your poster poll nancy"
IL Tax Payer wrote on May 8, 2010 7:59 p.m.
"Cathy-your letter is right on the mark. I believe MOST Illinoisians are finally getting it. Thanks to YOU and JIM for getting the REAL financial story out there and getting the education of the tax payer ball rolling - e.g., out of line salaries, benefits, 100% of TRS being paid by the tax payer, sick days, more vacation days than anyother sector, and on and on. For years we all believed the "woe is me poor educator" story - we all now know the real story."
Showing posts with label More funding (taxes) begets more funding (taxes).. Show all posts
Showing posts with label More funding (taxes) begets more funding (taxes).. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
In Theory Socialized Medicine Sounds Great, but Does it Work?
Socialized medicine sounds great and in a Utopia it may work. But the reality is we do not live in a Utopia. We have socialized education already, is it working? No really is it working?
Public education for the most part is a monopoly and controlled almost completely by the unions and lobbyist who make big money off taxpayers dollars. Do the research yourself first start at your own school district take a look at how much it costs to educate each child and the educational results. Those results would include dropout rates, graduation rates and results on standardized tests. Next take a look at the contracts and benefits of all employees. Don't forget to research the school budget to check for waste and fraud.
Next step would be to investigate public ed at the state level, how much of our tax dollars are used to pay pensions, how underfunded is the pension system, is your state constitutionally required to shore up funds? State pensions are bankrupting states.
Next look at the federal level how much money is spent on education. We have all heard of Big Business but you may not be aware of Big Ed. It is all there in black and white if you just look.
Medicare is virtually bankrupt look it up yourself.
Now we want to take Medicare and expand it for what and to what? It is not working in other countries and they are trying to back away from it in other countries. Here are just a few stories to take a gander at woman refused ambulance, thousands of surgeries maybe cut, Canadian Doctors say system imploding and millions of canadians don't have a family care doctor. There are plenty of stories out there about the problems with socialized medicine read it yourself.
Socialized medicine is about controlling people and sticking a middle man between you and your doctor. Just getting rid of the middle man government and the insurance companies will save billions and billions on medical care. You are being fed a lot of propaganda and you need to counter that propaganda, you need to know what is in the health care bill proposals and how it affects you, lastly you need to know there are real solutions that can save trillions of dollars in the long run.
We typically do not cover healthcare on this site but because of the implications this will have on our taxes and taxes for future generations we feel it is important to share this information with our readers.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Quote of the Day -“Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it.” - Cecil Palmer
Public education for the most part is a monopoly and controlled almost completely by the unions and lobbyist who make big money off taxpayers dollars. Do the research yourself first start at your own school district take a look at how much it costs to educate each child and the educational results. Those results would include dropout rates, graduation rates and results on standardized tests. Next take a look at the contracts and benefits of all employees. Don't forget to research the school budget to check for waste and fraud.
Next step would be to investigate public ed at the state level, how much of our tax dollars are used to pay pensions, how underfunded is the pension system, is your state constitutionally required to shore up funds? State pensions are bankrupting states.
Next look at the federal level how much money is spent on education. We have all heard of Big Business but you may not be aware of Big Ed. It is all there in black and white if you just look.
Medicare is virtually bankrupt look it up yourself.
Now we want to take Medicare and expand it for what and to what? It is not working in other countries and they are trying to back away from it in other countries. Here are just a few stories to take a gander at woman refused ambulance, thousands of surgeries maybe cut, Canadian Doctors say system imploding and millions of canadians don't have a family care doctor. There are plenty of stories out there about the problems with socialized medicine read it yourself.
Socialized medicine is about controlling people and sticking a middle man between you and your doctor. Just getting rid of the middle man government and the insurance companies will save billions and billions on medical care. You are being fed a lot of propaganda and you need to counter that propaganda, you need to know what is in the health care bill proposals and how it affects you, lastly you need to know there are real solutions that can save trillions of dollars in the long run.
We typically do not cover healthcare on this site but because of the implications this will have on our taxes and taxes for future generations we feel it is important to share this information with our readers.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Quote of the Day -“Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it.” - Cecil Palmer
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
It's the Spending Stupid Rally in Concord Today
Event: "Tea Party" / Tax Protest! - "AREN'T YOU DYING TO TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES SOMETHING?"
What: Festival
Host: New Hampshire Liberty Alliance
Start Time: Wednesday, June 24 at 12:00pm
End Time: Wednesday, June 24 at 2:00pm
Where: State House Concord
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Presidential Candidates Comparisons.
We are not endorsing either candidate. We at CRAFT want to make sure that voters make informed decisions regarding the impact their vote will have on their taxes.
Thank you,
Cathy
Quote of the Day - "America is a land of taxation that was founded to avoid taxation." ~Laurence J. Peter
This post has been corrected. Please note some people are questioning the accuracy of this chart. Please go to the sources listed in the post and make the comparisons your self. Some people disagree but it appears to be a question of semantics not accuracy.
Thank you,
Cathy
Quote of the Day - "America is a land of taxation that was founded to avoid taxation." ~Laurence J. Peter
This post has been corrected. Please note some people are questioning the accuracy of this chart. Please go to the sources listed in the post and make the comparisons your self. Some people disagree but it appears to be a question of semantics not accuracy.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
NEA
Why does anyone ever support an educational tax increase when those tax dollars are going to go to unions that will just fight for more taxes and fight against school choice and vouchers.
Hat tip to Labor Pains.org for referring me to this Wall Street Journal article.
Extracurricular Politics
August 5, 2008
Teachers' unions are expert at presenting the interests of their members and of public school students as one and the same. Which is why it's always illuminating to see how the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association, spends its political money.
Each year, NEA members pay into a "Ballot Measure/Legislative Crises Fund" that allows the union to spend tens of millions of dollars on all manner of state and national political issues. Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency, a longtime union watchdog, has tracked this fund's spending. In the 2007-08 fiscal year, not surprisingly, the NEA spent $2.3 million -- on top of $1 million spent the previous fiscal year -- fighting a school voucher referendum in Utah.
But other expenditures reveal this national NEA cash -- which is separate from PAC contributions that must adhere to federal campaign-finance laws -- as a fund for various and sundry left-wing political causes. Mr. Antonucci reports that during the current fiscal year the NEA sent the Hawaii State Teachers Association $20,000 to conduct polling on a state constitutional convention. It sent the Massachusetts Teachers Association $60,000 to oppose a state income-tax repeal. And it sent the Florida Education Association $200,000 to oppose property-tax cuts in the Sunshine State.
Expect more of the same going forward in a state near you. "Unlike most previous years," writes Mr. Antonucci, "NEA finished 2007-08 with a surplus of nearly $5.9 million, which means the union will enter the 2008-09 school year with almost $20 million available to spend." It's a shame the NEA doesn't spend as much money and effort trying to improve lousy schools as it does trying to keep taxes high.
Quote of the Day "“It’s a shame the NEA doesn’t spend as much money and effort trying to improve lousy schools as it does trying to keep taxes high.”
Hat tip to Labor Pains.org for referring me to this Wall Street Journal article.
Extracurricular Politics
August 5, 2008
Teachers' unions are expert at presenting the interests of their members and of public school students as one and the same. Which is why it's always illuminating to see how the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association, spends its political money.
Each year, NEA members pay into a "Ballot Measure/Legislative Crises Fund" that allows the union to spend tens of millions of dollars on all manner of state and national political issues. Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency, a longtime union watchdog, has tracked this fund's spending. In the 2007-08 fiscal year, not surprisingly, the NEA spent $2.3 million -- on top of $1 million spent the previous fiscal year -- fighting a school voucher referendum in Utah.
But other expenditures reveal this national NEA cash -- which is separate from PAC contributions that must adhere to federal campaign-finance laws -- as a fund for various and sundry left-wing political causes. Mr. Antonucci reports that during the current fiscal year the NEA sent the Hawaii State Teachers Association $20,000 to conduct polling on a state constitutional convention. It sent the Massachusetts Teachers Association $60,000 to oppose a state income-tax repeal. And it sent the Florida Education Association $200,000 to oppose property-tax cuts in the Sunshine State.
Expect more of the same going forward in a state near you. "Unlike most previous years," writes Mr. Antonucci, "NEA finished 2007-08 with a surplus of nearly $5.9 million, which means the union will enter the 2008-09 school year with almost $20 million available to spend." It's a shame the NEA doesn't spend as much money and effort trying to improve lousy schools as it does trying to keep taxes high.
Quote of the Day "“It’s a shame the NEA doesn’t spend as much money and effort trying to improve lousy schools as it does trying to keep taxes high.”
Saturday, March 1, 2008
New Hampshire Citizen.org
With the elections coming up educating yourself before any vote is your most important weapon against further tax increases and protecting your hard earned dollars for your own retirement and children's college education. Today we would like to highlight New Hampshire Citizen.org
as a source of information for protecting your hard earned dollars.
There is no such thing as a good tax. - Winston Churchill
The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward. - John Maynard Keynes
Taxation with representation ain't so hot either. ~Gerald Barzan
America is a land of taxation that was founded to avoid taxation. ~Laurence J. Peter
Did you ever notice that when you put the words "The" and "IRS" together, it spells "THEIRS?" ~Author Unknown
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. - Robert A. Heinlein
as a source of information for protecting your hard earned dollars.
There is no such thing as a good tax. - Winston Churchill
The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward. - John Maynard Keynes
Taxation with representation ain't so hot either. ~Gerald Barzan
America is a land of taxation that was founded to avoid taxation. ~Laurence J. Peter
Did you ever notice that when you put the words "The" and "IRS" together, it spells "THEIRS?" ~Author Unknown
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. - Robert A. Heinlein
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
School funding vote may come next week
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader. Be sure to visit the Union Leader website to view the comments by Union Leader readers. Our schools have a spending problem and not a funding problem. More funding will only encourage more spending which will lead to future tax increases. Lawsuits due to adequate funding have done nothing to improve the quality of education in public schools.
School funding vote may come next week
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief
Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008
CONCORD – The New Hampshire Senate could vote on a school funding constitutional amendment as soon as next week, after a bipartisan proposal passed committee review on a 3-2 vote.
Gov. John Lynch, members of both parties and several spokesmen for business told the Senate Judiciary Committee that an amendment sponsored by Senate leaders is the right move for education funding.
Critics said the state should forget constitutional amendments, end a decade of delay and fund education fairly.
The amendment will give the Legislature more flexibility to target aid than it has now. The Supreme Court's rulings in lawsuits by Claremont and Londonderry have said the state is responsible for every dollar it costs to provide an adequate education for each public school student.
Lynch argues that mandated level funding is the wrong approach. He wants to be able to target aid to poorer school districts.
"An education plan that obligates us to send the same amount to every child before we help communities with greater needs does not reduce the inequity that exists between schools. Rather, it widens the disparities and maintains the status quo," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Joseph Foster, D-Nashua, prime sponsor of CACR 34, said the bill simply provides "the flexibility to distribute state education aid to the communities that need it the most." Senate Minority Leader Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, is co-sponsor.
The amendment states that lawmakers have to make a reasonable effort to define an adequate education, and find a reasonable funding method to "alleviate local disparities" among school districts.
The state School Administrators Association and the state School Board Association, NEA-NH, the state's largest teacher's union, as well as several House members, opposed the bill. They argue it is unnecessary, since the state can already target aid, once it covers the basic cost of education for each child.
Others warned that by using the word "reasonable" twice, it will allow the state to shirk its current responsibilities, and leave the court little power to intervene.
Attorney William Chapman, who represented Londonderry in a school funding suit, said the changes will push up property taxes.
"Every dollar the state does not raise to fund adequate education falls on the local property taxpayer. Is that what your constituents really want?" Chapman asked.
Londonderry School Superintendent Nathan Greenberg criticized the amendment, saying it leaves too many questions unanswered. There is no telling how the bill will affect school district aid, he said. Calling it "an open-ended scenario, he complained, "You're asking us to vote on something we know nothing about."
The amendment comes forward at the same time a joint House-Senate committee is finishing work on a new school funding formula that will spend about $900 million. The plan sends enhanced funding to schools with higher populations of low-income, special education and English language learners.
Portsmouth Mayor Tom Ferrini said the amendment will bring stability to school budgets, and "stop cities and towns from being fearful of a yearly game of Russian roulette with risk for all and certainty for none."
A total of four Republican senators are co-sponsors on the amendment. Foster said he does not think all Senate Democrats will vote for the bill, but support from GOP sponsors and others will make up for the defections.
The amendment needs 60 percent approval in both the Senate and House to advance to voters in November. That would mean 15 senators and 239 of the current members of the House. Voters have to approve any amendment to the constitution by a two-thirds majority.
Lynch and other witnesses who favor the amendment said it's time voters had a say in education funding matters.
"Let's give the people of New Hampshire a say," Lynch said.
Rep. David Scannell, D-Manchester, echoed Lynch, saying, "Move this question to the people and give them an opportunity to give some finality to this."
Not all agreed.
"Suddenly we have this interest in a referendum €¦ We are not a referendum state," Rep. Christine Hamm, D-Hopkinton, said. Lawmakers are obligated to give the amendment their best consideration before sending it to voters, she said.
The Senate passed a school funding amendment last year by a 15-9 vote. The measure saw several wording changes before it went to the full House, where it was defeated by a two-to-one margin. Only 108 Democrats voted for the measure. Republicans were to join with them, but the deal fell apart on the first vote and the two sides were unable to reach a compromise.
Besides defeating the bill, the House took parliamentary steps that will make it more difficult for the House to take up the measure again this year.
Yesterday, Sens. Robert Letourneau, R-Derry, and Robert Clegg, R-Hudson, voted against the Foster-Gatsas amendment. Foster, Sen. David Gottesman, D-Nashua, and Sen. Deborah Reynolds, D-Plymouth, voted for it.
The committee voted 4-1 to reject CACR32, an amendment by Sen. Joseph Kenney, R-Wakefield. It would return all control over education to local communities, and says the state "may provide supplemental funding." Clegg's was the only voice supporting the bill.
Amendment:
"[Art.] 83-a [Funding Public Education.] In fulfillment of the state's duties set forth in the preceding article, the general court shall have the authority and responsibility to reasonably define the content of an adequate public education and to distribute state funds for public education in the manner that it reasonably determines to alleviate local disparities."
School funding vote may come next week
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief
Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008
CONCORD – The New Hampshire Senate could vote on a school funding constitutional amendment as soon as next week, after a bipartisan proposal passed committee review on a 3-2 vote.
Gov. John Lynch, members of both parties and several spokesmen for business told the Senate Judiciary Committee that an amendment sponsored by Senate leaders is the right move for education funding.
Critics said the state should forget constitutional amendments, end a decade of delay and fund education fairly.
The amendment will give the Legislature more flexibility to target aid than it has now. The Supreme Court's rulings in lawsuits by Claremont and Londonderry have said the state is responsible for every dollar it costs to provide an adequate education for each public school student.
Lynch argues that mandated level funding is the wrong approach. He wants to be able to target aid to poorer school districts.
"An education plan that obligates us to send the same amount to every child before we help communities with greater needs does not reduce the inequity that exists between schools. Rather, it widens the disparities and maintains the status quo," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Joseph Foster, D-Nashua, prime sponsor of CACR 34, said the bill simply provides "the flexibility to distribute state education aid to the communities that need it the most." Senate Minority Leader Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, is co-sponsor.
The amendment states that lawmakers have to make a reasonable effort to define an adequate education, and find a reasonable funding method to "alleviate local disparities" among school districts.
The state School Administrators Association and the state School Board Association, NEA-NH, the state's largest teacher's union, as well as several House members, opposed the bill. They argue it is unnecessary, since the state can already target aid, once it covers the basic cost of education for each child.
Others warned that by using the word "reasonable" twice, it will allow the state to shirk its current responsibilities, and leave the court little power to intervene.
Attorney William Chapman, who represented Londonderry in a school funding suit, said the changes will push up property taxes.
"Every dollar the state does not raise to fund adequate education falls on the local property taxpayer. Is that what your constituents really want?" Chapman asked.
Londonderry School Superintendent Nathan Greenberg criticized the amendment, saying it leaves too many questions unanswered. There is no telling how the bill will affect school district aid, he said. Calling it "an open-ended scenario, he complained, "You're asking us to vote on something we know nothing about."
The amendment comes forward at the same time a joint House-Senate committee is finishing work on a new school funding formula that will spend about $900 million. The plan sends enhanced funding to schools with higher populations of low-income, special education and English language learners.
Portsmouth Mayor Tom Ferrini said the amendment will bring stability to school budgets, and "stop cities and towns from being fearful of a yearly game of Russian roulette with risk for all and certainty for none."
A total of four Republican senators are co-sponsors on the amendment. Foster said he does not think all Senate Democrats will vote for the bill, but support from GOP sponsors and others will make up for the defections.
The amendment needs 60 percent approval in both the Senate and House to advance to voters in November. That would mean 15 senators and 239 of the current members of the House. Voters have to approve any amendment to the constitution by a two-thirds majority.
Lynch and other witnesses who favor the amendment said it's time voters had a say in education funding matters.
"Let's give the people of New Hampshire a say," Lynch said.
Rep. David Scannell, D-Manchester, echoed Lynch, saying, "Move this question to the people and give them an opportunity to give some finality to this."
Not all agreed.
"Suddenly we have this interest in a referendum €¦ We are not a referendum state," Rep. Christine Hamm, D-Hopkinton, said. Lawmakers are obligated to give the amendment their best consideration before sending it to voters, she said.
The Senate passed a school funding amendment last year by a 15-9 vote. The measure saw several wording changes before it went to the full House, where it was defeated by a two-to-one margin. Only 108 Democrats voted for the measure. Republicans were to join with them, but the deal fell apart on the first vote and the two sides were unable to reach a compromise.
Besides defeating the bill, the House took parliamentary steps that will make it more difficult for the House to take up the measure again this year.
Yesterday, Sens. Robert Letourneau, R-Derry, and Robert Clegg, R-Hudson, voted against the Foster-Gatsas amendment. Foster, Sen. David Gottesman, D-Nashua, and Sen. Deborah Reynolds, D-Plymouth, voted for it.
The committee voted 4-1 to reject CACR32, an amendment by Sen. Joseph Kenney, R-Wakefield. It would return all control over education to local communities, and says the state "may provide supplemental funding." Clegg's was the only voice supporting the bill.
Amendment:
"[Art.] 83-a [Funding Public Education.] In fulfillment of the state's duties set forth in the preceding article, the general court shall have the authority and responsibility to reasonably define the content of an adequate public education and to distribute state funds for public education in the manner that it reasonably determines to alleviate local disparities."
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Charlie Arlinghaus: House revolution is a threat to fiscal sanity not just balloon freedom
We have been busy unpacking and have not had time to post since April 4th. I will be updating and backdating the BLOG. Most of the posts will be articles related to taxes and schools and editorials that share our point of view.
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader.
Charlie Arlinghaus: House revolution is a threat to fiscal sanity not just balloon freedom
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
WHEN THE revolution comes, there will be no balloons. The Legislature has acted swiftly and decisively to mete out severe punishment against the lawless scofflaws threatening the foundation of western civilization by releasing balloons. Consider the threat to a free society posed by a random mylar smiley face released and coming down willy nilly wherever it pleases.
Smiley will threaten us no more. The release of a balloon will cost you a cool $250 fine. Speeding in a two-ton motor vehicle is much cheaper at less than half the price, so let me be the first to urge would be smiley face hooligans to abandon their nefarious mylar mayhem and turn instead to fast cars.
Obviously this one ridiculous act of legislative exuberance is hardly representative and will almost certainly be killed by the sensible Senate, but it is something of a metaphor for the efforts of a House of Representatives that is finishing up its initial work and passing it over to the Senate. Like the balloon fine, much of the work of the House is well meaning and passionate but will have to be corrected, toned down, or set aside by the state Senate.
If all its work were just silly things like the balloon fine, we'd enjoy a nice chortle and be on our way. But the revolution has come and it's not balloons that are threatened.
The real mess that the Senate will be forced to clean up is the state's fiscal stability, both on the spending and the revenue side. The House takes the first crack at the budget process and its crack is a doozy that should leave us all reeling.
The governor had proposed the largest budget increase in more than a decade, about 14 percent, much higher than the rate of inflation. The House of Representatives looked upon that as something of an opening bid and decided to ratchet up spending by an additional $178 million above that already high number.
To make matters much worse, the budget House members will adopt today takes $60 million ordinarily paid for in annual revenues and borrows the money instead. By bonding millions in operating costs, the state is doing the equivalent of you using a credit card to make your mortgage payment. For the sake of your own finances, please don't follow this example.
The last four budget years, including budgets by Governors Craig Benson and John Lynch, had been quite frugal to get spending back on track to sustainable levels. In one fell swoop, the exuberant House of Representatives decided to spend every dime available during a boom in business revenues and raise bunches of taxes and fees to boot.
There has been a significant shift in approach on the tax and revenue side of the picture. Traditionally, we assess fees to cover the cost of some basic regulatory efforts. A fee might cover the cost of filing paperwork or processing an application. For the general operations of government we use regular taxes, not inflated fees.
However, in the rush to find more and more revenue to fuel one of the largest spending increases in history, fees are being manipulated to fuel the general budget. One of the more honest bills, raising a permit fee by 50 percent, actually deleted the language beginning "the amount of the fee shall reflect the relative effort necessary for review of the application." That way we can use the fee as a pseudo-tax. For example, we're raising car registration fees another $6 not to cover the cost of registration but as a tax to fund the general operation of government.
The increase in the tobacco tax will cost small businesses in New Hampshire about $140 million in revenue. But instead of worrying about tax policy hurting businesses, the rush for revenue causes a typical legislator to say "I feel bad but we need the money."
Taxes and fees hurt businesses and taxpayers. We limit fees to recovering the cost of the regulation to keep them from being raised every time the state government wants another $178 million. Considering the damage caused by tax policy helps balance the pressure created with the budget process with sensitivity to the needs of the citizens that budget serves.
The revolutionary exuberance of the House needs to be popped like a balloon by a careful and sensible Senate.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader.
Charlie Arlinghaus: House revolution is a threat to fiscal sanity not just balloon freedom
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
WHEN THE revolution comes, there will be no balloons. The Legislature has acted swiftly and decisively to mete out severe punishment against the lawless scofflaws threatening the foundation of western civilization by releasing balloons. Consider the threat to a free society posed by a random mylar smiley face released and coming down willy nilly wherever it pleases.
Smiley will threaten us no more. The release of a balloon will cost you a cool $250 fine. Speeding in a two-ton motor vehicle is much cheaper at less than half the price, so let me be the first to urge would be smiley face hooligans to abandon their nefarious mylar mayhem and turn instead to fast cars.
Obviously this one ridiculous act of legislative exuberance is hardly representative and will almost certainly be killed by the sensible Senate, but it is something of a metaphor for the efforts of a House of Representatives that is finishing up its initial work and passing it over to the Senate. Like the balloon fine, much of the work of the House is well meaning and passionate but will have to be corrected, toned down, or set aside by the state Senate.
If all its work were just silly things like the balloon fine, we'd enjoy a nice chortle and be on our way. But the revolution has come and it's not balloons that are threatened.
The real mess that the Senate will be forced to clean up is the state's fiscal stability, both on the spending and the revenue side. The House takes the first crack at the budget process and its crack is a doozy that should leave us all reeling.
The governor had proposed the largest budget increase in more than a decade, about 14 percent, much higher than the rate of inflation. The House of Representatives looked upon that as something of an opening bid and decided to ratchet up spending by an additional $178 million above that already high number.
To make matters much worse, the budget House members will adopt today takes $60 million ordinarily paid for in annual revenues and borrows the money instead. By bonding millions in operating costs, the state is doing the equivalent of you using a credit card to make your mortgage payment. For the sake of your own finances, please don't follow this example.
The last four budget years, including budgets by Governors Craig Benson and John Lynch, had been quite frugal to get spending back on track to sustainable levels. In one fell swoop, the exuberant House of Representatives decided to spend every dime available during a boom in business revenues and raise bunches of taxes and fees to boot.
There has been a significant shift in approach on the tax and revenue side of the picture. Traditionally, we assess fees to cover the cost of some basic regulatory efforts. A fee might cover the cost of filing paperwork or processing an application. For the general operations of government we use regular taxes, not inflated fees.
However, in the rush to find more and more revenue to fuel one of the largest spending increases in history, fees are being manipulated to fuel the general budget. One of the more honest bills, raising a permit fee by 50 percent, actually deleted the language beginning "the amount of the fee shall reflect the relative effort necessary for review of the application." That way we can use the fee as a pseudo-tax. For example, we're raising car registration fees another $6 not to cover the cost of registration but as a tax to fund the general operation of government.
The increase in the tobacco tax will cost small businesses in New Hampshire about $140 million in revenue. But instead of worrying about tax policy hurting businesses, the rush for revenue causes a typical legislator to say "I feel bad but we need the money."
Taxes and fees hurt businesses and taxpayers. We limit fees to recovering the cost of the regulation to keep them from being raised every time the state government wants another $178 million. Considering the damage caused by tax policy helps balance the pressure created with the budget process with sensitivity to the needs of the citizens that budget serves.
The revolutionary exuberance of the House needs to be popped like a balloon by a careful and sensible Senate.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
House party: When state reps. go wild
The following editorial appeared in the Union Leader.
House party: When state reps. go wild
THE HOUSE votes today on a $10.4 billion budget that raises spending nearly $180 million above the level Gov. John Lynch proposed in his inflated, record-setting $10.2 billion budget. And the House Finance Committee chairman has the audacity to call it a "conservative" budget.
Gov. Lynch's budget would have been the first state budget in history to break the $10 billion mark. It raised taxes and fees by nearly $111 million. But even at this record level, House Democrats were not satisfied.
We wrote on Feb. 18 that state spending would be higher this year than Gov. Lynch proposed because he has "a Legislature even more eager than he is to tax and spend." Lo and behold, the House's proposed budget is a whole $178 million higher than Lynch's.
Who is fighting all of this spending? Not the governor, at least not in public, anyway. He has expressed some "concerns" about the House proposal, but he has not fought a public fight to keep spending under any sort of control.
Nor have House Republicans made a real effort to trim spending. Their grand scheme is to make a political issue of the tax and fee increases. But they have no plans to burn any energy trying to actually restrain spending.
So the taxpayers are left with no active advocate in Concord, unless the Senate suddenly gets religion and decides to break out a paring knife at the last minute.
Gov. Lynch might have been able to impose some restraint on legislators had he made clear, as Gov. Craig Benson did, that he would not tolerate spending or tax hikes above a certain level. But Lynch is not that kind of leader.
Now just about all taxpayers can do, besides complaining to their legislators and the governor, is hope that legislators don't view easy tax and fee hikes this year as an invitation to go for even more next year.
House party: When state reps. go wild
THE HOUSE votes today on a $10.4 billion budget that raises spending nearly $180 million above the level Gov. John Lynch proposed in his inflated, record-setting $10.2 billion budget. And the House Finance Committee chairman has the audacity to call it a "conservative" budget.
Gov. Lynch's budget would have been the first state budget in history to break the $10 billion mark. It raised taxes and fees by nearly $111 million. But even at this record level, House Democrats were not satisfied.
We wrote on Feb. 18 that state spending would be higher this year than Gov. Lynch proposed because he has "a Legislature even more eager than he is to tax and spend." Lo and behold, the House's proposed budget is a whole $178 million higher than Lynch's.
Who is fighting all of this spending? Not the governor, at least not in public, anyway. He has expressed some "concerns" about the House proposal, but he has not fought a public fight to keep spending under any sort of control.
Nor have House Republicans made a real effort to trim spending. Their grand scheme is to make a political issue of the tax and fee increases. But they have no plans to burn any energy trying to actually restrain spending.
So the taxpayers are left with no active advocate in Concord, unless the Senate suddenly gets religion and decides to break out a paring knife at the last minute.
Gov. Lynch might have been able to impose some restraint on legislators had he made clear, as Gov. Craig Benson did, that he would not tolerate spending or tax hikes above a certain level. But Lynch is not that kind of leader.
Now just about all taxpayers can do, besides complaining to their legislators and the governor, is hope that legislators don't view easy tax and fee hikes this year as an invitation to go for even more next year.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
All quiet before the vote $10M school renovation on warrant Tuesday
The following piece appeared in the Eagle Times. Take note of the following line from the article below "Establishment of a land purchase capital reserve fund." What the most likely means is that they are going to eventually ask the voters for more money to purchase land, than they will ask for more money to purchase a school, than they will ask for more money to staff the schools. When will the cycle end? If the district is concerned about growth impacting the need for the new schools. The district needs to work with the City of Newport. New developments should not be approved unless the new developments pay for future schools that need to be built. Current residents should not be responsible for the building of new schools that should be the responsibility of the developers of new homes. The city of Newport needs to grow responsibly.
All quiet before the vote
$10M school renovation on warrant Tuesday
Aaron Aldridge
Staff Writer
NEWPORT - Although the public was invited to attend a forum Thursday night on next Tuesday's vote on a $10 million school renovation plan, no residents arrived to discuss the proposal or the budget with board members.
School Board Chairperson Anthony McConnell gave a presentation on the proposed $10.5 million warrant article for an addition at Richards School and renovations at Towle School and the middle high school.
The proposed project includes moving the sixth grade back to Towle School, moving the fourth grade to Richards School, building a large addition at Richards and renovating all three schools in the district to bring them up to health and safety code standards.
A 60 percent majority is needed to pass the bond issue which will have a tax impact of $1.23 per thousand dollars of property value the first year, $2.95 the second year and about 10 cents less each of the following years until the bond is paid off in 2027.
The original proposal before the school board had included a two-story addition at the high school which would have housed all of the middle school students. That proposal was in excess of $15 million and was deemed too expensive by the school board.
The budget plan was also reviewed
"We've kept the budget within a very tight limit this year," board member Kathy Sarles said.
The proposed budget of $14.4 million represents a 3.6 percent increase over this year's budget.
"The budget has no extras that aren't important to our kids' education," board member Holly Harrison said.
"We want folks to understand it is intrinsic to pass this budget," board member Patricia DiPadova said. "I think our budget reflects keeping things pretty much the way they are now."
Reasons for the increase in the budget this year include special education costs, retirement contributions and a possible decline in federal grant revenue, DiPadova said.
If the school budget is approved, the estimated tax impact is $3.21 per thousand dollars of property value. The current local school tax rate is $14.62 per thousand dollars of property value.
"There is the possibility the tax impact could be a lot less," DiPadova said.
Other articles to be voted upon are:
• Withdrawal of $100,000 from the school building capital reserve fund to replace part of the roof at the high school.
• Establishment of a fund for out-of-district placement.
• Add an additional $50,000 to the school renovation capital reserve fund.
• $20,000 for continued planning should the $10.5 million bond fail.
• Establishment of a land purchase capital reserve fund.
Residents will cast their votes 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Tuesday at the Newport Opera House.
All quiet before the vote
$10M school renovation on warrant Tuesday
Aaron Aldridge
Staff Writer
NEWPORT - Although the public was invited to attend a forum Thursday night on next Tuesday's vote on a $10 million school renovation plan, no residents arrived to discuss the proposal or the budget with board members.
School Board Chairperson Anthony McConnell gave a presentation on the proposed $10.5 million warrant article for an addition at Richards School and renovations at Towle School and the middle high school.
The proposed project includes moving the sixth grade back to Towle School, moving the fourth grade to Richards School, building a large addition at Richards and renovating all three schools in the district to bring them up to health and safety code standards.
A 60 percent majority is needed to pass the bond issue which will have a tax impact of $1.23 per thousand dollars of property value the first year, $2.95 the second year and about 10 cents less each of the following years until the bond is paid off in 2027.
The original proposal before the school board had included a two-story addition at the high school which would have housed all of the middle school students. That proposal was in excess of $15 million and was deemed too expensive by the school board.
The budget plan was also reviewed
"We've kept the budget within a very tight limit this year," board member Kathy Sarles said.
The proposed budget of $14.4 million represents a 3.6 percent increase over this year's budget.
"The budget has no extras that aren't important to our kids' education," board member Holly Harrison said.
"We want folks to understand it is intrinsic to pass this budget," board member Patricia DiPadova said. "I think our budget reflects keeping things pretty much the way they are now."
Reasons for the increase in the budget this year include special education costs, retirement contributions and a possible decline in federal grant revenue, DiPadova said.
If the school budget is approved, the estimated tax impact is $3.21 per thousand dollars of property value. The current local school tax rate is $14.62 per thousand dollars of property value.
"There is the possibility the tax impact could be a lot less," DiPadova said.
Other articles to be voted upon are:
• Withdrawal of $100,000 from the school building capital reserve fund to replace part of the roof at the high school.
• Establishment of a fund for out-of-district placement.
• Add an additional $50,000 to the school renovation capital reserve fund.
• $20,000 for continued planning should the $10.5 million bond fail.
• Establishment of a land purchase capital reserve fund.
Residents will cast their votes 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Tuesday at the Newport Opera House.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Lynch's big budget: More spending, more taxes
Our government and schools having a spending problem and not a funding problem. The more taxes/fees that get poured into the system the more difficult it will be in the future to fight tax and fee increases because more individuals will be feeding off the public trough. At the current rate of spending perpetual tax increases will be needed unless spending is controlled. It is time to contact your legislators and tell them to curb spending before we reach a point of no return.
The following editorial appeared in Sunday's Union Leader.
Lynch's big budget: More spending, more taxes
Announcing his record $10.2 billion budget last week, Gov. John Lynch said it "uses taxpayer dollars wisely to meet state government's most fundamental responsibilities."
If it did that, he wouldn't need to raise taxes and fees by roughly $111 million and raise millions more by expanding state lottery games, hiring more tax auditors and auctioning off moose hunting permits.
And whom does the governor tax? The poor!
He would raise $92 million by again hiking the cigarette tax, which falls mostly on low-income families. He'd raise another $4 million by creating a $30 scratch ticket for the state lottery, again taking money from low-income residents.
Gov. Lynch needs this revenue not to maintain state services, but to increase spending. He hikes general fund spending -- that's the portion paid for out of your state taxes -- by 15 percent. The total budget, including federal spending, grows by 9 percent, well above the rate of inflation.
And although he says he does this "to meet state government's most fundamental responsibilities," he does not. He puts $12 million into LCHIP, fully funding the popular land and historic conservation program (which we also like very much), while only partially funding the waiting list for people needing developmental disabilities services.
By contrast, Health and Human Services Commissioner John Stephen's proposed budget would eliminate the developmental disabilities wait list in two years, ensuring that everyone who needs those services gets them. Lynch opts to spend some of that money elsewhere and cut the wait list only by half. No doubt parents of children with developmental disabilities will be interested to find that Gov. Lynch would rather fund tourism advertising and land purchases than fully fund services for the disabled.
Gov. Lynch has always said that he would run a frugal and efficient state government. Instead, he's proposed four straight years of tax hikes and spending increases.
The worst part? This time around, he's got a Legislature even more eager than he is to tax and spend.
Quote of the day
"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery." Calvin Coolidge
The following editorial appeared in Sunday's Union Leader.
Lynch's big budget: More spending, more taxes
Announcing his record $10.2 billion budget last week, Gov. John Lynch said it "uses taxpayer dollars wisely to meet state government's most fundamental responsibilities."
If it did that, he wouldn't need to raise taxes and fees by roughly $111 million and raise millions more by expanding state lottery games, hiring more tax auditors and auctioning off moose hunting permits.
And whom does the governor tax? The poor!
He would raise $92 million by again hiking the cigarette tax, which falls mostly on low-income families. He'd raise another $4 million by creating a $30 scratch ticket for the state lottery, again taking money from low-income residents.
Gov. Lynch needs this revenue not to maintain state services, but to increase spending. He hikes general fund spending -- that's the portion paid for out of your state taxes -- by 15 percent. The total budget, including federal spending, grows by 9 percent, well above the rate of inflation.
And although he says he does this "to meet state government's most fundamental responsibilities," he does not. He puts $12 million into LCHIP, fully funding the popular land and historic conservation program (which we also like very much), while only partially funding the waiting list for people needing developmental disabilities services.
By contrast, Health and Human Services Commissioner John Stephen's proposed budget would eliminate the developmental disabilities wait list in two years, ensuring that everyone who needs those services gets them. Lynch opts to spend some of that money elsewhere and cut the wait list only by half. No doubt parents of children with developmental disabilities will be interested to find that Gov. Lynch would rather fund tourism advertising and land purchases than fully fund services for the disabled.
Gov. Lynch has always said that he would run a frugal and efficient state government. Instead, he's proposed four straight years of tax hikes and spending increases.
The worst part? This time around, he's got a Legislature even more eager than he is to tax and spend.
Quote of the day
"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery." Calvin Coolidge
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Lynch's adequacy will require an income tax
The following article appeared in the Concord Monitor.
Now is the time for all readers to take heed to Mr. Mosca words below and contact your representatives and senators. Adequate education must be defined by parents and not legislators.
Lynch's adequacy will require an income tax
By Edward c. Mosca
For the Monitor
February 17. 2007 8:00AM
John Lynch claims he wants to define an adequate education first, and then have a discussion as to its cost. Don't believe him. He already has a good idea of what his definition will cost, and he knows how he wants to fund it.
The problem we face is that the cost is in excess of $2 billion, which means we're looking at an income tax if Lynch then doesn't get his targeted-aid constitutional amendment passed. To borrow a phrase from Al Gore, Lynch's approach to education funding is a risky scheme.
Lynch has proposed making the state's existing school approval standards and curriculum frameworks the starting point for defining an adequate education. The standards and frameworks are voluminous, covering in excruciating detail every aspect of the operation of the public schools from curriculum, class size and teacher qualifications to janitorial services.
This means that what it has cost us to pay for the public schools should give us a good idea of the minimum cost of Lynch's definition. In 2004-05, the most current school year for which data is available, the cost was about $2.2 billion.
No wonder Lynch wants to put off discussing the cost of his definition.
While Lynch doesn't want to talk about cost yet, his definition says that the resources needed to provide that education will vary from school to school based on students' needs, requiring more resources in districts with greater challenges. This signals that Lynch is going to bring back the funding scheme he proposed in 2005.
In a nutshell, that scheme was based on a per-pupil cost of an adequate education of $8,290. Each town was formulaically assigned a measure of risk, which was simply the percentage of the $8,290 that was to be funded by the state.
For example, Allenstown's measure of risk was .5733, which meant the state would have paid 57.33 percent, or about $4,753 per pupil in that town. The remainder of the per-pupil cost, $3,357, would have been paid for with local property taxes.
Londonderry, in contrast, was assigned a .1465 measure of risk, which meant it would have received only $1,215 of state funding per pupil. It would have had to pay for $7,075 of adequacy's per-pupil cost with local property taxes. Substitute an updated per-pupil cost of an adequate education, say between $9,000 and $10,000, and you'll have a pretty good idea of what Lynch's 2007 education funding scheme will look like.
This explains why Lynch intends to offer a narrow constitutional amendment to allow the state to target aid before he unveils his funding scheme. Towns like Londonderry would not support his amendment if they knew how poorly they would fare under his funding scheme compared with towns like Allenstown.
The problem with Lynch's approach is that it puts the cart before the horse. If his definition is passed but his targeted aid amendment fails either in the Legislature or at the ballot box, we will be forced to choose between increasing state taxes by more than $2 billion to comply with Claremont and confronting the Supreme Court.
The best course would be if the Legislature did not define an adequate education. Let the court be the one to tell the people of New Hampshire that their constitutional right to an adequate education comes with a $2 billion income tax string attached. Then we'll have a true idea of just how popular the right to an adequate education is with the voters.
Given that Democrats and Republicans-in-name-only make up a plurality of the Legislature, that obviously is not going to happen. What conservatives need to do is to make it clear that a vote for Lynch's definition of an adequate education is a vote for an income tax because there is no guarantee that Lynch's targeted aid amendment will pass.
Conservatives also should not allow themselves to be stampeded into voting for a constitutional amendment. They need to take a long, hard look at Lynch's targeted aid amendment and oppose any amendment that writes any aspect of the misbegotten Claremont decisions into the constitution. Such an amendment will make a bad situation worse.
(Edward C. Mosca is a Manchester lawyer.)
By EDWARD C. MOSCA
New Hampshire is taking step backwards promoting an income tax. A recent article from the Wall Street Article titled Rich States Poor States reports how income taxes cost jobs and has a negative impact on the economy of the State.
Quote of the day.
" What conservatives need to do is to make it clear that a vote for Lynch's definition of an adequate education is a vote for an income tax because there is no guarantee that Lynch's targeted aid amendment will pass." Edward C. Mosca
Now is the time for all readers to take heed to Mr. Mosca words below and contact your representatives and senators. Adequate education must be defined by parents and not legislators.
Lynch's adequacy will require an income tax
By Edward c. Mosca
For the Monitor
February 17. 2007 8:00AM
John Lynch claims he wants to define an adequate education first, and then have a discussion as to its cost. Don't believe him. He already has a good idea of what his definition will cost, and he knows how he wants to fund it.
The problem we face is that the cost is in excess of $2 billion, which means we're looking at an income tax if Lynch then doesn't get his targeted-aid constitutional amendment passed. To borrow a phrase from Al Gore, Lynch's approach to education funding is a risky scheme.
Lynch has proposed making the state's existing school approval standards and curriculum frameworks the starting point for defining an adequate education. The standards and frameworks are voluminous, covering in excruciating detail every aspect of the operation of the public schools from curriculum, class size and teacher qualifications to janitorial services.
This means that what it has cost us to pay for the public schools should give us a good idea of the minimum cost of Lynch's definition. In 2004-05, the most current school year for which data is available, the cost was about $2.2 billion.
No wonder Lynch wants to put off discussing the cost of his definition.
While Lynch doesn't want to talk about cost yet, his definition says that the resources needed to provide that education will vary from school to school based on students' needs, requiring more resources in districts with greater challenges. This signals that Lynch is going to bring back the funding scheme he proposed in 2005.
In a nutshell, that scheme was based on a per-pupil cost of an adequate education of $8,290. Each town was formulaically assigned a measure of risk, which was simply the percentage of the $8,290 that was to be funded by the state.
For example, Allenstown's measure of risk was .5733, which meant the state would have paid 57.33 percent, or about $4,753 per pupil in that town. The remainder of the per-pupil cost, $3,357, would have been paid for with local property taxes.
Londonderry, in contrast, was assigned a .1465 measure of risk, which meant it would have received only $1,215 of state funding per pupil. It would have had to pay for $7,075 of adequacy's per-pupil cost with local property taxes. Substitute an updated per-pupil cost of an adequate education, say between $9,000 and $10,000, and you'll have a pretty good idea of what Lynch's 2007 education funding scheme will look like.
This explains why Lynch intends to offer a narrow constitutional amendment to allow the state to target aid before he unveils his funding scheme. Towns like Londonderry would not support his amendment if they knew how poorly they would fare under his funding scheme compared with towns like Allenstown.
The problem with Lynch's approach is that it puts the cart before the horse. If his definition is passed but his targeted aid amendment fails either in the Legislature or at the ballot box, we will be forced to choose between increasing state taxes by more than $2 billion to comply with Claremont and confronting the Supreme Court.
The best course would be if the Legislature did not define an adequate education. Let the court be the one to tell the people of New Hampshire that their constitutional right to an adequate education comes with a $2 billion income tax string attached. Then we'll have a true idea of just how popular the right to an adequate education is with the voters.
Given that Democrats and Republicans-in-name-only make up a plurality of the Legislature, that obviously is not going to happen. What conservatives need to do is to make it clear that a vote for Lynch's definition of an adequate education is a vote for an income tax because there is no guarantee that Lynch's targeted aid amendment will pass.
Conservatives also should not allow themselves to be stampeded into voting for a constitutional amendment. They need to take a long, hard look at Lynch's targeted aid amendment and oppose any amendment that writes any aspect of the misbegotten Claremont decisions into the constitution. Such an amendment will make a bad situation worse.
(Edward C. Mosca is a Manchester lawyer.)
By EDWARD C. MOSCA
New Hampshire is taking step backwards promoting an income tax. A recent article from the Wall Street Article titled Rich States Poor States reports how income taxes cost jobs and has a negative impact on the economy of the State.
Quote of the day.
" What conservatives need to do is to make it clear that a vote for Lynch's definition of an adequate education is a vote for an income tax because there is no guarantee that Lynch's targeted aid amendment will pass." Edward C. Mosca
Monday, January 22, 2007
Study finds education suits do little to improve schools
The following article appeared in the Union Leader on January 19, 2007. The article below is a must read in light of the Claremont decision and the need to define an "adequate education". More taxes, for example an increase in the income taxes for schools will only beget more taxes in the future. Public schools are government schools and like all forms of government there is waste, corruption and fraud. Public schools have a spending problem not a funding problem.
Study finds education suits do little to improve schools
By JOHN WHITSON
Union Leader Staff
Friday, Jan. 19, 2007
A report released yesterday contends states that increased their share of spending on education in response to legal challenges throughout the 1990s did not see corresponding benefits such as tax relief and tax equity among communities.
Even the promise of more overall spending on education was not realized, according to the report, when a state's burden was increased.
The report by the Committee for Sensible School Funding, "State Education Finance Reforms: Fiscal Lessons for New Hampshire from Other States," was distributed yesterday to the governor's office and state lawmakers.
Rick Jenkinson, of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and a member of the committee comprised of a variety of New Hampshire businesses, said he hopes the report is used as a resource in the Legislature's looming debate on education funding.
"It shows there are unintended consequences, both on the expenditure side and tax side," said Jenkinson, to increasing school funding at the state level.
The state Supreme Court in October charged state lawmakers with devising a funding mechanism that provides each child with an "adequate" education. If that undefined standard isn't met by June 30, the court has threatened to impose its own funding plan.
New Hampshire is not alone. Education funding has faced legal challenges in 45 states since the 1970s. Education finance laws have been overturned in 27 states, but most that have adopted reforms continue to face litigation.
"It just never goes away," said Brian Gottlob, principal of PolEcon Research and author of the report, "so there's got to be some lessons to be learned from this."
Among the report's findings:
Overall state and local taxes per capita increased more in states that increased their share of education funding.
Local taxes drop at first in response to more state aid, but within three years that effect is eliminated and local property taxes return to rapid growth.
Increasing a state's share of education funding comes at the expense of funding other state programs and activities.
Within New Hampshire, Gottlob cited programs with bipartisan support, such as the Land and Community Heritage Investment Program and spending for the developmentally disabled, that have lost funding to the "super right" mandate of education funding.
Over the long term, per-pupil expenditures grow more slowly in states that provide a larger share of education funding.
In states that take a larger portion of education funding, local government spending grows more than in states that don't take on an increased education funding burden.
Lawsuit abuse is a major contributor to the increased costs of healthcare, goods and services to consumers.
Charles W. Pickering
Study finds education suits do little to improve schools
By JOHN WHITSON
Union Leader Staff
Friday, Jan. 19, 2007
A report released yesterday contends states that increased their share of spending on education in response to legal challenges throughout the 1990s did not see corresponding benefits such as tax relief and tax equity among communities.
Even the promise of more overall spending on education was not realized, according to the report, when a state's burden was increased.
The report by the Committee for Sensible School Funding, "State Education Finance Reforms: Fiscal Lessons for New Hampshire from Other States," was distributed yesterday to the governor's office and state lawmakers.
Rick Jenkinson, of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and a member of the committee comprised of a variety of New Hampshire businesses, said he hopes the report is used as a resource in the Legislature's looming debate on education funding.
"It shows there are unintended consequences, both on the expenditure side and tax side," said Jenkinson, to increasing school funding at the state level.
The state Supreme Court in October charged state lawmakers with devising a funding mechanism that provides each child with an "adequate" education. If that undefined standard isn't met by June 30, the court has threatened to impose its own funding plan.
New Hampshire is not alone. Education funding has faced legal challenges in 45 states since the 1970s. Education finance laws have been overturned in 27 states, but most that have adopted reforms continue to face litigation.
"It just never goes away," said Brian Gottlob, principal of PolEcon Research and author of the report, "so there's got to be some lessons to be learned from this."
Among the report's findings:
Overall state and local taxes per capita increased more in states that increased their share of education funding.
Local taxes drop at first in response to more state aid, but within three years that effect is eliminated and local property taxes return to rapid growth.
Increasing a state's share of education funding comes at the expense of funding other state programs and activities.
Within New Hampshire, Gottlob cited programs with bipartisan support, such as the Land and Community Heritage Investment Program and spending for the developmentally disabled, that have lost funding to the "super right" mandate of education funding.
Over the long term, per-pupil expenditures grow more slowly in states that provide a larger share of education funding.
In states that take a larger portion of education funding, local government spending grows more than in states that don't take on an increased education funding burden.
Lawsuit abuse is a major contributor to the increased costs of healthcare, goods and services to consumers.
Charles W. Pickering
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)