It is funny this article came to my attention after yesterday's town meeting. There is no doubt in my mind that those who put forth the 5000 dollar amendment and supported the amendment and budget would probably sign a petition to ban dihydroxymonoxide. After last year's budget savings the educrats and their mindless supporters packed the Town Hall yesterday to ensure the tax and spend crowd would dominate the meeting. Costs are going up 23% and surely there was not a 23% increase in student to performance.
What I found most appalling is the reckless way the tax and spend crowd is willing to spend other people's extremely hard earned money but are so unwilling to donate funds that are beyond the basic educational needs. The entitlement mentally of this group is appalling in my book.
The following piece appeared in the Washington Examiner.
Oh and kudos to our Selectman for keeping town spending in check. I could only imagine if the selectmen had as much control over school spending as they do city spending, educational costs would be much lower and student performance would greatly improve.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
"Forcing one person to bear the burden of educational costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. " -- Cathy Peschke, Mom, Tax Fighter and Education Reformist
“One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.”
Thomas Sowell
“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help."
Thomas Sowell
Having someone else pay for your child's education virtually guarantees inflated educational costs. . Nothing would lower costs more quickly than having parents pay for their own children's education. And nothing is less likely to happen." Cathy Peschke a twist to one of Thomas Sowell's quotes
Thomas Sowell: Artificial stupidity
By: THOMAS SOWELL
Examiner Columnist
March 8, 2010
A woman with a petition went among the crowds attending a state fair, asking people to sign her petition demanding the banning of dihydroxymonoxide. She said it was in our lakes and streams, and now it was in our sweat and urine and tears.
She collected hundreds of signatures to ban dihydroxymonoxide — a fancy chemical name for water. A couple of comedians were behind this ploy. But there is nothing funny about its implications. It is one of the grim and dangerous signs of our times.
This little episode revealed how conditioned we have become, responding like Pavlov's dog when we hear a certain sound— in this case, the sound of some politically correct crusade.
People are all born ignorant but they are not born stupid. Much of the stupidity we see today is induced by our educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities. In a high-tech age that has seen the creation of artificial intelligence by computers, we are also seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by people who call themselves educators.
Educational institutions created to pass on to the next generation the knowledge, experience and culture of the generations that went before them have instead been turned into indoctrination centers to promote whatever notions, fashions or ideologies happen to be in vogue among today's intelligentsia.
Many conservatives have protested against the specifics of the things with which students are being indoctrinated. But that is not where the most lasting harm is done. Many, if not most, of the leading conservatives of our times were on the left in their youth. These have included Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and the whole neoconservative movement.
The experiences of life can help people outgrow whatever they were indoctrinated with. What may persist, however, is the lazy habit of hearing one side of an issue and being galvanized into action without hearing the other side— and, more fundamentally, not having developed any mental skills that would enable you to systematically test one set of beliefs against another.
It was once the proud declaration of many educators that "We are here to teach you how to think, not what to think." But far too many of our teachers and professors today are teaching their students what to think, about everything from global warming to the new trinity of "race, class and gender."
Even if all the conclusions with which they indoctrinate their students were 100 percent correct, that would still not be equipping students with the mental skills to weigh opposing views for themselves, in order to be prepared for new and unforeseeable issues that will arise over their lifetimes, after they leave the schools and colleges.
Many of today's "educators" not only supply students with conclusions, they promote the idea that students should spring into action because of these prepackaged conclusions— in other words, vent their feelings and go galloping off on crusades, without either a knowledge of what is said by those on the other side or the intellectual discipline to know how to analyze opposing arguments.
When we see children in elementary schools out carrying signs in demonstrations, we are seeing the kind of mindless groupthink that causes adults to sign petitions they don't understand or— worse yet— follow leaders they don't understand, whether to the White House, the Kremlin or Jonestown.
A philosopher once said that the most important knowledge is knowledge of one's own ignorance. That is the knowledge that too many of our schools and colleges are failing to teach our young people.
It takes a certain amount of knowledge just to understand the extent of one's own ignorance. But our "educators" have given assignments to children who are not yet a decade old to write letters to members of Congress, or to Presidents, spouting off on issues ranging from nuclear weapons to medical care.
Will Rogers once said that it was not ignorance that was so bad but "all the things we know that ain't so." But our classroom indoctrinators are getting students to think that they know after hearing only one side of an issue. It is artificial stupidity.
Examiner Columnist Thomas Sowell is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.
Showing posts with label Tax Warrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax Warrants. Show all posts
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Yes Taxes Are Immoral
The following piece appears on Townhall.com. I totally agree that taxes are immoral, I have found that most people who support taxes either live off them via wages or welfare.
Quote of the Day - “There is no such thing as a good tax.” - Winston Churchill
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The Left Is Right -- Taxes Are a Moral Issue
by Dennis Prager
One principle that all those on the left hold is that taxes constitute more than an economic issue; they are, first and foremost, a moral one. Economists on the left may argue for higher taxes on economic grounds but they and we know that at bottom, higher taxes, especially "taxing the rich," is what they believe morality demands.
For example, there are obviously only two possible ways to reduce government deficits: reduce spending or increase taxes (or some combination of both). The left advocates the later; the right advocates the former. Left-wing spokesmen, such as New York Times economics columnist and Princeton University professor of economics Paul Krugman, may offer economic arguments for raising taxes in order to lower government deficits, but their real motivations are moral: reducing economic inequality (by redistributing income) and expanding government (because government is the most effective way to help all citizens).
Now, as it happens, not only is there is nothing wrong with being animated by moral concerns -- we should all be. The problem with the left's advocacy of higher taxes is not that it is rooted in moral concerns. The problem -- actually the two problems -- are these:
First, higher taxes are rarely morally defensible. In fact, on purely moral grounds -- in other words, even if they did effectively reduce the deficit without paying an economic price for doing so -- they are usually not moral. More on this below.
Second, higher taxes are usually economically counterproductive. This does not matter to the left, however, because economic growth is not what most interests the left. Since Karl Marx, the left has always been far more interested in economic equality than in economic growth. It is true that liberals such as John F. Kennedy were more concerned with economic growth than with economic equality -- which is why he advocated lowering taxes -- but for much of the last century, unlike today, there was a major difference between liberal and left.
Now to return to the moral arguments, my difference with the left is not that I oppose morality dictating economic policy. I believe, in fact, that virtually all social policies should be rooted in moral concerns. My difference with the left is that I am convinced that moral considerations dictate lower, not higher, taxes.
It is too bad that libertarians and conservatives rarely take on the left on moral grounds because the left's moral foundations are as weak as their economic foundations.
The very notion of an income tax is morally debatable. On what moral grounds can the state force a citizen essentially at gunpoint to give away his legally and morally earned money? Why isn't taxation a form of legalized stealing? The obvious answer is that common sense dictates that citizens have the moral right, even the moral obligation, to vote to give money to, at the very least, enable a government to fund a police force, sustain a national defense, and help those incapable of helping themselves or of being helped by others.
But at some point beyond that, taxation becomes nothing more than legalized stealing. Obviously, people will differ over where exactly that point is, but no rational person disputes that such a point exists. No one could argue that a 100 percent tax -- even if it paid for every need every member of the society had -- was moral and not simply a form of theft.
So moral problem No.1 with taxation is the morality of forcing other people -- under threat of violence -- to give their money away.
A second moral problem is having some people give at a greater percentage rate than others. The biblical notion of tithing, for example, is entirely universal -- everyone gave a tenth what he had. No one was forced to give half while others gave a tenth.
A third moral problem is allowing those who pay no tax (such as the federal income tax) to vote on how much others will be forced to pay. It is quite difficult to morally defend the fact that about half of Americans pay no federal income tax, yet they determine how much the other half will be forced to pay.
A fourth moral problem is that the higher the taxes, the more decent people become cheaters. One of the leading religious ethicists of our time, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, author of two volumes of Jewish ethical law, told me years ago when he lived in Israel during the height of its socialism with its correspondingly high taxes that he witnessed the finest citizens, religious and secular alike, having to cheat on taxes or be rendered impoverished. I have never forgotten that.
I know no one in America today -- and I know extraordinarily honest and generous people, liberal and conservative -- who does not in some way "cheat" on taxes -- as, for example, reporting expenses as business expenses that are not really so. I place the word cheat within quotation marks because not all cheating is illegal. Some people figure out how to avoid paying what the law demands through completely legal, but ethically questionable, means.
At a certain level of taxation, virtually every honest person is reduced to cheating either legally or illegally.
A fifth moral problem is that the higher the tax rate, the lower the charity rate. This is universally true. The more people give to the state, the less they give to their neighbor -- and even to members of their family -- in need.
And sixth and only finally because of the limitations in size of a single column, the higher the taxes, the less people are inclined to work hard. Why should they? At a given point, people just conclude that work is for suckers.
And I haven't even begun to discuss the economic failings of higher taxes.
So, next time someone on the left advocates higher taxes, remember two things: He or she is coming from a moral, not an economic, position. And the moral case against higher taxes is far more powerful than the moral case for them.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Rejection of More Education Tax Dollars is not a Rejection of Education.
The following LTE appeared in the Eagle Times. Another thoughtful taxpayer points out that a rejection in the increase of education spending does not mean that the taxpayer does not cherish education. The writer appears to be familiar with the educrat game "we will cut so it hurts the students, we will not cut the waste." This is a spiteful game that is played by educrats when taxpayers reject a tax increase.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Monday, April 06, 2009 10:56 AM
To the Editor:
It is amazing what comes out of our educational system when the system is faced with a reduced budget. Political blackmail. The recent article in the Eagle Times on the Springfield school board and administration cutting 60 teacher and staff positions is just such an example of, "If you don't give us what we want, we'll show you."
School improvements were sold to us as a means for enhancing the Springfield students' education.
The education still seems to be lacking, according to test score results from state standards. How is it that money spending is being equated to good education rather [than] quality teaching and educating? Maybe it is the items we have been reading in the paper? It is only costing the taxpayers of Springfield "X dollars" Someone, somewhere still has to pay the bill.
How many programs in our educational system could be cut, consolidated, taught every other year, or need to really be looked at as a benefit to our town, state and national needs?
It comes down to a simple question: Do I want or do I need? Do we need to pay $5,000 for someone to come up with a mission statement for our school? Do we need to spend $50,000 on 50 laptop computers, when laptops can be bought for under $500 and taking the funds from capital improvements? What is justifiable expense?
If I, as many other Springfield property taxpayers, sound like we are not supporting our students' education, it is far from it. We want good, sound and responsible spending of our tax dollars for the education our students should be receiving.
When your money is limited you don't eat caviar or pad your grocery bill with cheese doodles. We have been eating crow far too long from an overstuffed administration of education. With many of the latest statements in the papers it is a self-serving attempt to hold the taxpayer hostage if we do not succumb to their demands. The figures we have received just do not add up. We do not have an itemized budget of school expenditures to make sound choices. Can I support the current proposed school budget, no, and neither should you.
C. William Mattoon
Springfield
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Monday, April 06, 2009 10:56 AM
To the Editor:
It is amazing what comes out of our educational system when the system is faced with a reduced budget. Political blackmail. The recent article in the Eagle Times on the Springfield school board and administration cutting 60 teacher and staff positions is just such an example of, "If you don't give us what we want, we'll show you."
School improvements were sold to us as a means for enhancing the Springfield students' education.
The education still seems to be lacking, according to test score results from state standards. How is it that money spending is being equated to good education rather [than] quality teaching and educating? Maybe it is the items we have been reading in the paper? It is only costing the taxpayers of Springfield "X dollars" Someone, somewhere still has to pay the bill.
How many programs in our educational system could be cut, consolidated, taught every other year, or need to really be looked at as a benefit to our town, state and national needs?
It comes down to a simple question: Do I want or do I need? Do we need to pay $5,000 for someone to come up with a mission statement for our school? Do we need to spend $50,000 on 50 laptop computers, when laptops can be bought for under $500 and taking the funds from capital improvements? What is justifiable expense?
If I, as many other Springfield property taxpayers, sound like we are not supporting our students' education, it is far from it. We want good, sound and responsible spending of our tax dollars for the education our students should be receiving.
When your money is limited you don't eat caviar or pad your grocery bill with cheese doodles. We have been eating crow far too long from an overstuffed administration of education. With many of the latest statements in the papers it is a self-serving attempt to hold the taxpayer hostage if we do not succumb to their demands. The figures we have received just do not add up. We do not have an itemized budget of school expenditures to make sound choices. Can I support the current proposed school budget, no, and neither should you.
C. William Mattoon
Springfield
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Cathy's Town Hall Meeting Speech
Below is the speech I intended to give at today's town meeting. I gave parts of the speech throughout the meeting.
Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Cathy Peschke I live at 239 Barton Road. I am the mother of two young children. I am asking that we reject the proposed school board budget and accept Jim Peschke's reduced budget proposal.
I want to remind the people of Croydon that our schools exist to serve the people of Croydon. The taxpayers of Croydon are not here to serve the Croydon or Newport School employees. The purpose of schools is not to ensure employment of our residents but to educate our children. Our schools are not an entitlement program for the school employees. Too many of the school employees have taken advantage of the taxpayers for far too long and have failed to adequately educate too many of our children for too long. The education system here in Croydon has become a far cry from what happened in our school house 100 years ago. It is time we return to those principles once again.
Every taxpayer dollar you spend I want to remind you that it is food off of someone's plate, it is someone's fuel, health care or retirement funds. Every tax dollar from our home is a dollar that is removed from my children's college accounts.
I am asking the school board to ask themselves with every dollar they spend "Am I wasting someone's hard earned money, will this money truly benefit the children of Croydon or is it just fulfilling a plea of a special interest group?
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” Sam Adams
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.
Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Cathy Peschke I live at 239 Barton Road. I am the mother of two young children. I am asking that we reject the proposed school board budget and accept Jim Peschke's reduced budget proposal.
I want to remind the people of Croydon that our schools exist to serve the people of Croydon. The taxpayers of Croydon are not here to serve the Croydon or Newport School employees. The purpose of schools is not to ensure employment of our residents but to educate our children. Our schools are not an entitlement program for the school employees. Too many of the school employees have taken advantage of the taxpayers for far too long and have failed to adequately educate too many of our children for too long. The education system here in Croydon has become a far cry from what happened in our school house 100 years ago. It is time we return to those principles once again.
Every taxpayer dollar you spend I want to remind you that it is food off of someone's plate, it is someone's fuel, health care or retirement funds. Every tax dollar from our home is a dollar that is removed from my children's college accounts.
I am asking the school board to ask themselves with every dollar they spend "Am I wasting someone's hard earned money, will this money truly benefit the children of Croydon or is it just fulfilling a plea of a special interest group?
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” Sam Adams
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Property taxes to go up in 2009 for Croydon's Residents
If you do not subscribe to the Eagle Times you may not know that your property taxes in Croydon will increase 66 dollars per 100,000 dollars of assessment in 2009. This is a 25% increase in taxes. Has anyone's salary increased 25%? The story is not on-line so you will have to view the story at the library if you do not subscribe to the Eagle Times. The story is titled "Sullivan County releases estimated 2009 tax rates" by Ben Bulkeley.
With heating fuels expected to soar this winter I hope our school board members and selectmen take this into consideration when planning next years budget. During the Town Meeting next March I hope the residents of Croydon do not forget about this tax increase when voting on other tax warrants.
Cathy
With heating fuels expected to soar this winter I hope our school board members and selectmen take this into consideration when planning next years budget. During the Town Meeting next March I hope the residents of Croydon do not forget about this tax increase when voting on other tax warrants.
Cathy
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Rapid Referendum Response - Part 2
The Rapid Response Referendum booklet has "Examples of what the opposition can be like." Granted they may not be specifically talking about CRAFT but we will make it clear what we do and do not condone.
They include the following in bold with our responses not in bold.
Attempts to overwhelm superintendent/staff with information requests:
* Contracts with attorneys, financial advisors, construction managers, architects
* Contracts with administrators; salary settlements
* Audits and budgets
* Enrollment projections
We at CRAFT never suggest that people overwhelm superintendent or staff with requests. We suggest people get school contracts whether or not a tax increase is on a ballot. All of the above information should be posted on school websites as to show their financial transparency and not to hide anything from both taxpayers and parents.
Its quite telling that school districts consider fulfilling information and transparency requests as a nuisance. We consider answering taxpayers questions a fundamental responsibility of any government agency, not an auxiliary activity.
Implies impropriety by district staff (received bribes, gifts)
CRAFT has never implied impropriety by district staff. However we know groups who have uncovered impropriety by doing thorough investigations of their school district. Ex-principal charged with stealing funds
Becomes watchdog for inappropriate employee campaign activities
History shows that school districts cannot be trusted to self-regulate and campaign fairly. There is nothing wrong with every parent and taxpayer making sure this happens and pointing out infractions when they do occur.
Challenges use of school attorney - misuse of funds
We have never done this.
Opposition group uses a name that sounds supportive, and often plays of district logo
Hmm. Citizens for Reasonable And Fair Taxes....we think not. If this were applied as the criteria to discern a group's motives, one could just as easily find a referendum support group.
Uses email for speed and ease of sharing
Yep and we suggest everyone do this. Its fast, effective, and inexpensive.
Challenges data accuracy and hires own "experts"
We at CRAFT have never hired "experts", although we won't hesitate to challenge the accuracy of data when appropriate.
Disrupts election process:
* Questions judges' relationships to districts
* Non-homestead property owners show up at polls and get angry when they're told they can't vote
* Examines and challenges absentee ballots.
We at CRAFT have never done this, nor have we found it necessary. The point of non-homestead property owners is however valid. Turning away ANY property owner constitutes taxation without representation.
Goes for "sticker shock" on total tax costs entire life of the bond
Schools should be honest and tell taxpayers the total cost as well as the annual cost, taking inflation and assessment increases into account. Anything less is dishonesty on the part of the school district.
We at CRAFT plead guilty. When homeowners discover the total cost of a tax increase proposal, they frequently turn against it.
Attacks district's Achilles Heel (statutory operating debt, open enrollment issues, large, retirement packages, poor test scores, unhappy residents due to consolidations)
Much of this "Achilles Heel" list consists of unacceptable failures on the part of school management. We have no sympathy for "large retirement packages", "poor test scores", or unhappy residents. Such failures are squarely the responsibility of the district. They strengthen the argument against empowering ineffective management with more tax dollars.
Bundles misinformation within accurate information - plants a "seed of doubt"
Districts frequently make this accusation but invariably never provide specific examples. Be wary when a district accuses a taxpayer advocacy group of "spreading misinformation" without providing specific examples.
We actively encourage taxpayers to check facts and if you make an error correct it as soon as possible.
Uses multiple pieces and phone calls to voters in last few days (automated calls, flyers, on cars, last minute lies)
We at CRAFT have never used automated calls. Other groups have used automated calls and referred people to our website. We never tell lies but school districts frequently accuse groups of lying, never willing to point out any actual lies.
Greatly increases "no" vote
Guilty! Informing the citizens of the truth increases no votes.
Can be anti-public schools-religious basis, home school bias
This is completely untrue and is an ad-hominem attack used time and time again by school district employees and officials.
Steals lawn signs
We have never done this and never condone this. "Yes" signs only remind people to get out and vote. Yes signs remind people to vote no. No signs have been so frequently stolen that we encourage people to place the signs as close as possible to their homes. We had one person spot a school employee sticking vote no signs in a truck.
Misuses mail/Newspaper boxes
We have specifically told people not to put information on mailboxes. People have put our materials on mailboxes but we have asked them not to do it because it is illegal. We never condone doing anything illegal.
They include the following in bold with our responses not in bold.
Attempts to overwhelm superintendent/staff with information requests:
* Contracts with attorneys, financial advisors, construction managers, architects
* Contracts with administrators; salary settlements
* Audits and budgets
* Enrollment projections
We at CRAFT never suggest that people overwhelm superintendent or staff with requests. We suggest people get school contracts whether or not a tax increase is on a ballot. All of the above information should be posted on school websites as to show their financial transparency and not to hide anything from both taxpayers and parents.
Its quite telling that school districts consider fulfilling information and transparency requests as a nuisance. We consider answering taxpayers questions a fundamental responsibility of any government agency, not an auxiliary activity.
Implies impropriety by district staff (received bribes, gifts)
CRAFT has never implied impropriety by district staff. However we know groups who have uncovered impropriety by doing thorough investigations of their school district. Ex-principal charged with stealing funds
Becomes watchdog for inappropriate employee campaign activities
History shows that school districts cannot be trusted to self-regulate and campaign fairly. There is nothing wrong with every parent and taxpayer making sure this happens and pointing out infractions when they do occur.
Challenges use of school attorney - misuse of funds
We have never done this.
Opposition group uses a name that sounds supportive, and often plays of district logo
Hmm. Citizens for Reasonable And Fair Taxes....we think not. If this were applied as the criteria to discern a group's motives, one could just as easily find a referendum support group.
Uses email for speed and ease of sharing
Yep and we suggest everyone do this. Its fast, effective, and inexpensive.
Challenges data accuracy and hires own "experts"
We at CRAFT have never hired "experts", although we won't hesitate to challenge the accuracy of data when appropriate.
Disrupts election process:
* Questions judges' relationships to districts
* Non-homestead property owners show up at polls and get angry when they're told they can't vote
* Examines and challenges absentee ballots.
We at CRAFT have never done this, nor have we found it necessary. The point of non-homestead property owners is however valid. Turning away ANY property owner constitutes taxation without representation.
Goes for "sticker shock" on total tax costs entire life of the bond
Schools should be honest and tell taxpayers the total cost as well as the annual cost, taking inflation and assessment increases into account. Anything less is dishonesty on the part of the school district.
We at CRAFT plead guilty. When homeowners discover the total cost of a tax increase proposal, they frequently turn against it.
Attacks district's Achilles Heel (statutory operating debt, open enrollment issues, large, retirement packages, poor test scores, unhappy residents due to consolidations)
Much of this "Achilles Heel" list consists of unacceptable failures on the part of school management. We have no sympathy for "large retirement packages", "poor test scores", or unhappy residents. Such failures are squarely the responsibility of the district. They strengthen the argument against empowering ineffective management with more tax dollars.
Bundles misinformation within accurate information - plants a "seed of doubt"
Districts frequently make this accusation but invariably never provide specific examples. Be wary when a district accuses a taxpayer advocacy group of "spreading misinformation" without providing specific examples.
We actively encourage taxpayers to check facts and if you make an error correct it as soon as possible.
Uses multiple pieces and phone calls to voters in last few days (automated calls, flyers, on cars, last minute lies)
We at CRAFT have never used automated calls. Other groups have used automated calls and referred people to our website. We never tell lies but school districts frequently accuse groups of lying, never willing to point out any actual lies.
Greatly increases "no" vote
Guilty! Informing the citizens of the truth increases no votes.
Can be anti-public schools-religious basis, home school bias
This is completely untrue and is an ad-hominem attack used time and time again by school district employees and officials.
Steals lawn signs
We have never done this and never condone this. "Yes" signs only remind people to get out and vote. Yes signs remind people to vote no. No signs have been so frequently stolen that we encourage people to place the signs as close as possible to their homes. We had one person spot a school employee sticking vote no signs in a truck.
Misuses mail/Newspaper boxes
We have specifically told people not to put information on mailboxes. People have put our materials on mailboxes but we have asked them not to do it because it is illegal. We never condone doing anything illegal.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Town Meeting
Jim and I both had pieces of information to handout at the Townhall Meeting. Neither one of us did and we probably should have handed out our information. We have attached the information for people's reference. If you know anyone who would like a copy we have some here and would be glad to send it to them via snail mail.
Jim's Pieces
Motion for Town Meeting 2008
I motion that we pass a reduced version of the school budget, replacing the proposed Article 2 in the amount of $1,249,081 and that the vote for this via secret ballot.
Information regarding motion:
1. This is $25,000 less than the board’s proposal. Estimated tax impact is -$0.07 per $1,000
2. The board’s proposal represents a 6.71% increase. This proposal represents a 4.6% increase.
3. With inflation for 2007 at 2.85% (www.inflationdata.com), the increases represent 2.35x and 1.61x the rate of inflation respectively.
4. The rationale behind the $25,000 reduction is based on these reductions:
a.)Eliminate the position of Principal: $3,500. Previous budgets had $0 allocated for this purpose.
b.)Eliminate pay for the school board: $1,500. Large districts throughout the U.S. rely on volunteer school boards. Any board member wishing to resign in light of the loss may yield his/her position to me.
c.)Reduce the Special Education budget: $20,000. The board’s budget proposes a 39% increase in Special Education spending. A $20,000 reduction would still leave the District with a 29% increase.
I motion that the vote for Article 4 be conducted by secret ballot.
This warrant should be defeated because:
1.)It is 100% larger than last year’s Special Ed capital reserve warrant.
2.)Combined with Article 5, the district budget calls for $30,000 to be added to the Special Ed Capital Reserve Fund, six times the amount added to the Building Capital Reserve Fund.
3.)The Building and Transportation funds are transparent and easy to understand. What is the function of the Special Ed Capital Fund? Why do we need one?
To the people of Croydon,
I urge the people of Croydon to reject Croydon School District Article 2, the request for appropriation of $1,274,081 for the operation of the District. This budget represents an increase of 6.71% over the 2007 budget. In 2007 we saw our education tax rate climb by 87 cents (93 cents if you include the increase in state property tax) per $1,000 in spite of over $2.5 million in added property valuation. This year, the proposal for Article 2 alone is expected to add 25 cents to our education tax rate. All education warrants taken together would add 63 cents to our already high education property tax rate.
Some items, like $25,000 of the $80,000 cost of a school bus do not appear on the 2008 warrants. One might expect the absence of large one-time costs to erase much of the proposed increase. Yet this is not the case.
To the board’s credit, they have done quite well in some areas controlling costs. It is also more than fair to say that some of the most egregious spending increases come from our neighbor to the south. Case in point is the 81.5% budget increase in “SAU Services”. This is a complete waste of money that provides no education whatsoever. It is a direct result of Newport’s failure to make sufficient cutbacks in the wake of Sunapee’s departure. Look at SAU 43’s website and check the staff listing. You’ll see eighteen names, eighteen! This doesn’t even include school administrative staff, its only the SAU!!
But not all questionable expenditures can be laid at Newport’s doorstep. Croydon is planning to hire a Principal for our one-room schoolhouse of 23 students. And there is the ever upward-creeping poorly monitored “Special ed” expenditures, budgeted to increase by 39% this year alone. Warrant Article 4 doubles last year’s Special Ed appropriation and should also be rejected. These are areas in which Croydon can and must make budget cuts.
As increasing property values provide increased revenue at a fixed tax rate, I propose that we draw a line in the sand regarding the tax rate. Reject these two warrant articles and demand that all future budgets remain tax rate neutral.
Jim Peschke
Croydon, NH
jimpeschke@joltmail.com
Cathy's Piece
Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Cathy Peschke I live on Barton Road. I am the mother of two young children. I am asking that we reject this budget for a number of reasons.
1. Depending on which economist you follow we have either been in a recession for four months or about to enter a recession. This means we face tough times ahead the budget should be cut to reflect at minimum an increase no greater that than the CPI.
2. Gas prices and heating prices are on the rise. A tax increase this large is difficult enough for our friends and neighbors on fixed incomes but they are also facing increased gas and heating prices.
3. Food prices are on the rise. Our school board is elected to primarily to represent the taxpayers. Budget increases beyond the CPI are not in the best interest of taxpayers when faced with rising food prices.
4. Besides increased property taxes it is very likely that working residents are going to be faced with an income tax in the next year or two. Many towns have passed warrant articles rejecting the anti-tax pledge. The actions of the Claremont attorneys lawsuit against the state regarding an "adequate education" is about to come to fruition. Despite our legislators bowing to the court decision bought on by this lawsuit, the attorneys have already said they will sue again because it is not enough money. If an income tax is imposed we will not see a proportional decrease in property taxes. A historical analysis of all 50 states have seen this to be true.
5. The housing market has hit a wall. Those who work in the housing industry suffer as well as those with retirement accounts invested in the housing industry.
6. Year after year we have seen education costs rise much faster than the rate of inflation. This is not being fiscally responsible with Croydon taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Yet with the increases in education spending we do not see any proportional increases in performance of our students here in Croydon or in Newport. I believe it is wrong to constantly ask the people of Croydon to pay larger and larger taxes and not be fiscally responsible with our tax dollars. The school boards job is not to make sure school employees keep their jobs. When times are tough jobs may need to be cut back just like in the private sector. These people are not entitled to a job. We as taxpayers must reduce areas of our budget when you take more of our dollars we in turn can not go to our employees to demand more money to cover those increases. It is time for the school board to be more frugal with our dollars. Providing services to children at the expense of impoverishing their parents and grandparents is NOT "caring", it is selfish.
7. The taxpayers of Croydon have seen cuts in benefits, health care and retirement from their employees yet we the taxpayers are paying for benefits for the school employees that far exceed our very own. We also do not have the luxury of having a constitutionally backed pension. It is time for us to ask our employees to take on a greater burden of said benefits instead of putting the burden on the taxpayers shoulders.
8. Lastly I believe we need to have a way for those who believe that the schools need money to donate money to our schools.
Jim's Pieces
Motion for Town Meeting 2008
I motion that we pass a reduced version of the school budget, replacing the proposed Article 2 in the amount of $1,249,081 and that the vote for this via secret ballot.
Information regarding motion:
1. This is $25,000 less than the board’s proposal. Estimated tax impact is -$0.07 per $1,000
2. The board’s proposal represents a 6.71% increase. This proposal represents a 4.6% increase.
3. With inflation for 2007 at 2.85% (www.inflationdata.com), the increases represent 2.35x and 1.61x the rate of inflation respectively.
4. The rationale behind the $25,000 reduction is based on these reductions:
a.)Eliminate the position of Principal: $3,500. Previous budgets had $0 allocated for this purpose.
b.)Eliminate pay for the school board: $1,500. Large districts throughout the U.S. rely on volunteer school boards. Any board member wishing to resign in light of the loss may yield his/her position to me.
c.)Reduce the Special Education budget: $20,000. The board’s budget proposes a 39% increase in Special Education spending. A $20,000 reduction would still leave the District with a 29% increase.
I motion that the vote for Article 4 be conducted by secret ballot.
This warrant should be defeated because:
1.)It is 100% larger than last year’s Special Ed capital reserve warrant.
2.)Combined with Article 5, the district budget calls for $30,000 to be added to the Special Ed Capital Reserve Fund, six times the amount added to the Building Capital Reserve Fund.
3.)The Building and Transportation funds are transparent and easy to understand. What is the function of the Special Ed Capital Fund? Why do we need one?
To the people of Croydon,
I urge the people of Croydon to reject Croydon School District Article 2, the request for appropriation of $1,274,081 for the operation of the District. This budget represents an increase of 6.71% over the 2007 budget. In 2007 we saw our education tax rate climb by 87 cents (93 cents if you include the increase in state property tax) per $1,000 in spite of over $2.5 million in added property valuation. This year, the proposal for Article 2 alone is expected to add 25 cents to our education tax rate. All education warrants taken together would add 63 cents to our already high education property tax rate.
Some items, like $25,000 of the $80,000 cost of a school bus do not appear on the 2008 warrants. One might expect the absence of large one-time costs to erase much of the proposed increase. Yet this is not the case.
To the board’s credit, they have done quite well in some areas controlling costs. It is also more than fair to say that some of the most egregious spending increases come from our neighbor to the south. Case in point is the 81.5% budget increase in “SAU Services”. This is a complete waste of money that provides no education whatsoever. It is a direct result of Newport’s failure to make sufficient cutbacks in the wake of Sunapee’s departure. Look at SAU 43’s website and check the staff listing. You’ll see eighteen names, eighteen! This doesn’t even include school administrative staff, its only the SAU!!
But not all questionable expenditures can be laid at Newport’s doorstep. Croydon is planning to hire a Principal for our one-room schoolhouse of 23 students. And there is the ever upward-creeping poorly monitored “Special ed” expenditures, budgeted to increase by 39% this year alone. Warrant Article 4 doubles last year’s Special Ed appropriation and should also be rejected. These are areas in which Croydon can and must make budget cuts.
As increasing property values provide increased revenue at a fixed tax rate, I propose that we draw a line in the sand regarding the tax rate. Reject these two warrant articles and demand that all future budgets remain tax rate neutral.
Jim Peschke
Croydon, NH
jimpeschke@joltmail.com
Cathy's Piece
Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Cathy Peschke I live on Barton Road. I am the mother of two young children. I am asking that we reject this budget for a number of reasons.
1. Depending on which economist you follow we have either been in a recession for four months or about to enter a recession. This means we face tough times ahead the budget should be cut to reflect at minimum an increase no greater that than the CPI.
2. Gas prices and heating prices are on the rise. A tax increase this large is difficult enough for our friends and neighbors on fixed incomes but they are also facing increased gas and heating prices.
3. Food prices are on the rise. Our school board is elected to primarily to represent the taxpayers. Budget increases beyond the CPI are not in the best interest of taxpayers when faced with rising food prices.
4. Besides increased property taxes it is very likely that working residents are going to be faced with an income tax in the next year or two. Many towns have passed warrant articles rejecting the anti-tax pledge. The actions of the Claremont attorneys lawsuit against the state regarding an "adequate education" is about to come to fruition. Despite our legislators bowing to the court decision bought on by this lawsuit, the attorneys have already said they will sue again because it is not enough money. If an income tax is imposed we will not see a proportional decrease in property taxes. A historical analysis of all 50 states have seen this to be true.
5. The housing market has hit a wall. Those who work in the housing industry suffer as well as those with retirement accounts invested in the housing industry.
6. Year after year we have seen education costs rise much faster than the rate of inflation. This is not being fiscally responsible with Croydon taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Yet with the increases in education spending we do not see any proportional increases in performance of our students here in Croydon or in Newport. I believe it is wrong to constantly ask the people of Croydon to pay larger and larger taxes and not be fiscally responsible with our tax dollars. The school boards job is not to make sure school employees keep their jobs. When times are tough jobs may need to be cut back just like in the private sector. These people are not entitled to a job. We as taxpayers must reduce areas of our budget when you take more of our dollars we in turn can not go to our employees to demand more money to cover those increases. It is time for the school board to be more frugal with our dollars. Providing services to children at the expense of impoverishing their parents and grandparents is NOT "caring", it is selfish.
7. The taxpayers of Croydon have seen cuts in benefits, health care and retirement from their employees yet we the taxpayers are paying for benefits for the school employees that far exceed our very own. We also do not have the luxury of having a constitutionally backed pension. It is time for us to ask our employees to take on a greater burden of said benefits instead of putting the burden on the taxpayers shoulders.
8. Lastly I believe we need to have a way for those who believe that the schools need money to donate money to our schools.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Let the Spending Begin! Croydon passes all five school warrants
Let the Spending Begin! Croydon passes all five school warrants
by Jim Peschke
Today's afternoon town hall meeting had a healthy degree of dialogue over the five Croydon School District warrant articles. Taken together, these five articles are estimated to raise our taxes by 63 cents per $1,000.
Initial budget clarifications from the District were quite disturbing. The budget book contained three significant accounting errors, even though it was apparently computer-generated. These are the same people that want to spend over $1.2 million of our money.
Discussion formally reserved for Article 2 (the school budget) quickly centered around concerns regarding "special education". Several members of the audience raised objections over the amount of special ed spending, the rate of increase, and the questionable practice of raising taxes to squirrel away money incase some new undefined six-figure expenditures arise.
The answers from the front table were woefully unsatisfactory. Superintendent Mealey explained that a special ed student can cost anywhere between $100,000 and $280,000 per year. These astonishingly high figures drew little criticism. More upsetting to the audience were the large transportation costs associated with a single student, drawing several "I'm in the wrong business!" type comments.
After yielding my time to permit the special ed discussion to run its course, I proposed an alternate budget based on a $25,000 (1.96%) reduction in the board's budget. To reduce the peer pressure routinely brought against voters seeking fiscal responsibility, I also proposed that the vote be taken by secret ballot.
Responding to the inevitable question of where we might find this $25,000 cut, I listed three sources. I proposed eliminating the new principal position/stipend for $3,500, making the board members volunteers to save $1,500, and cutting the special-ed budget by $20,000.
Cutting the principal drew the ire of the teacher crowd, aided no doubt by an expectation as I had made this suggestion at a recent PTO meeting. Superintendent Mealey said we needed this because our SAU services would be cut after Sunapee's departure and that we needed to subsidize these services. Newport is adding 81.5% to our SAU fees and simultaneously cutting SAU services. Public education in a nutshell!
The secret ballot initiative received the necessary three signatures, and a secret ballot took place. During the vote, several of the education crowd whispered snide remarks about this being a waste of time. (I guess an extra 5 minutes is too much to ask when addressing $1.2 million).
The vote tally was 20 votes for, 28 votes against the reduced budget initiative. This seemed to be the closest vote, so perhaps the secret ballot helped some vote for it who might otherwise hesitate in an open vote.
After the defeat, the board's original budget passed on a yea/nay vote. Article 3 received much less attention.
Article 4, the appropriation of $20,000 more for the special-ed capital fund revitalized the earlier discussion about waste in special education. Residents not among the teacher crowd expressed strong resistance to this warrant article and the idea of putting tax dollars into a fund, hoping it won't get spent.
In spite of this vocal resistance, the issue passed, as did Article 5.
After the final vote, some parents complained of Newport students not being fed (or well fed) when short on their lunch money. No formal action was taken on this topic.
Even the most modest attempts at spending control lost the day to a contingent of public school employees. The most enlightening aspect of the meeting was the abusive manner in which school districts pour taxpayer dollars into the special-ed fund through any means possible. (Three separate techniques used in this meeting alone.)
Today our district voted for bloated administration, uncontrolled spending, and a black hole of taxpayer dollars in "special ed" funds with no clearly defined purpose. The district even refused to provide answers under direct questioning as to where this "special ed" money was going. (I thought Enron was out of business.)
It must be all "for the kids".
by Jim Peschke
Today's afternoon town hall meeting had a healthy degree of dialogue over the five Croydon School District warrant articles. Taken together, these five articles are estimated to raise our taxes by 63 cents per $1,000.
Initial budget clarifications from the District were quite disturbing. The budget book contained three significant accounting errors, even though it was apparently computer-generated. These are the same people that want to spend over $1.2 million of our money.
Discussion formally reserved for Article 2 (the school budget) quickly centered around concerns regarding "special education". Several members of the audience raised objections over the amount of special ed spending, the rate of increase, and the questionable practice of raising taxes to squirrel away money incase some new undefined six-figure expenditures arise.
The answers from the front table were woefully unsatisfactory. Superintendent Mealey explained that a special ed student can cost anywhere between $100,000 and $280,000 per year. These astonishingly high figures drew little criticism. More upsetting to the audience were the large transportation costs associated with a single student, drawing several "I'm in the wrong business!" type comments.
After yielding my time to permit the special ed discussion to run its course, I proposed an alternate budget based on a $25,000 (1.96%) reduction in the board's budget. To reduce the peer pressure routinely brought against voters seeking fiscal responsibility, I also proposed that the vote be taken by secret ballot.
Responding to the inevitable question of where we might find this $25,000 cut, I listed three sources. I proposed eliminating the new principal position/stipend for $3,500, making the board members volunteers to save $1,500, and cutting the special-ed budget by $20,000.
Cutting the principal drew the ire of the teacher crowd, aided no doubt by an expectation as I had made this suggestion at a recent PTO meeting. Superintendent Mealey said we needed this because our SAU services would be cut after Sunapee's departure and that we needed to subsidize these services. Newport is adding 81.5% to our SAU fees and simultaneously cutting SAU services. Public education in a nutshell!
The secret ballot initiative received the necessary three signatures, and a secret ballot took place. During the vote, several of the education crowd whispered snide remarks about this being a waste of time. (I guess an extra 5 minutes is too much to ask when addressing $1.2 million).
The vote tally was 20 votes for, 28 votes against the reduced budget initiative. This seemed to be the closest vote, so perhaps the secret ballot helped some vote for it who might otherwise hesitate in an open vote.
After the defeat, the board's original budget passed on a yea/nay vote. Article 3 received much less attention.
Article 4, the appropriation of $20,000 more for the special-ed capital fund revitalized the earlier discussion about waste in special education. Residents not among the teacher crowd expressed strong resistance to this warrant article and the idea of putting tax dollars into a fund, hoping it won't get spent.
In spite of this vocal resistance, the issue passed, as did Article 5.
After the final vote, some parents complained of Newport students not being fed (or well fed) when short on their lunch money. No formal action was taken on this topic.
Even the most modest attempts at spending control lost the day to a contingent of public school employees. The most enlightening aspect of the meeting was the abusive manner in which school districts pour taxpayer dollars into the special-ed fund through any means possible. (Three separate techniques used in this meeting alone.)
Today our district voted for bloated administration, uncontrolled spending, and a black hole of taxpayer dollars in "special ed" funds with no clearly defined purpose. The district even refused to provide answers under direct questioning as to where this "special ed" money was going. (I thought Enron was out of business.)
It must be all "for the kids".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)