Jim will be on 99.7 FM WNTK tomorrow morning at 7:10 a.m. Jim will be discussing education issues and education issues in Croydon.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Taxing issues.
As in many mother daughter relationship my mother and I drive each other crazy, but the one thing my mother taught me was never be ashamed of the work you do as long as you work hard. I will always be grateful for the strong work ethic taught to me by my mother. I started working when I was 14 and worked up until the time I got married, not too long after that along came my children. I put myself through college, over the years I often worked as many as three jobs at a time and did volunteer work as well. I know that all made me a better person.
I guess that same work ethic has lead to my dislike of labor unions. I understand there was a time and a place for unions but now with labor laws as they are, there is just not a need for them. Essentially the union leaders are a group of people who live off the hard work of others just another form of welfare as far as I am concerned.
That same work ethic has lead to my dislike for taxes and those who live off the hard work of others. I was on a homeschooling resource list, on the list was a discussion about socialized medicine and insurance someone pointed out that it appears it is the haves begrudging the have-nots. When reality it is the have-nots begrudging the haves of their hard earned dollars.
Don't get me wrong, I spent a number of years working with physically and mentally handicapped people and in the medical field I know there are people truly in need, I am not talking about those people. I am talking about the bums that live off of those who believe in earning through hard work.
One of my favorite quotes is "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." by Joseph Goebbels. One of those big lies is that the rich don't pay taxes and the poor carry the burden of paying taxes. That is not the truth and it is the so called "have-nots" perpetuating this lie.
Cathy
The following article appeared in the Union Leader.
Charles Arlinghaus: Who pays taxes, and how much, might surprise you
Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that fellow behind the tree. Everybody's favorite tax policy is to tax the guy behind the tree. I pay too much in taxes, and I'm willing to believe you do too. Maybe if we take the money of the guy behind the tree, we'll both become richer. This is the same philosophy, by the way, that undergirds the decision of the guy with no neck to take someone's lunch money in sixth grade.
Popular culture suggests to us that rich people take advantage of the dreaded loopholes to get off scot-free while hard-working Americans are forced to shoulder their burden. Or at least they probably aren't paying their fair share. Like Charlie Brown's little sister Sally, all we want is what's coming to us; all we want is our fair share.
To help Charlie Brown's sister figure out what exactly her fair share is, the IRS publishes data on tax liabilities each year. I think you might be surprised by who pays how much.
The most recent data are for 2006. Start by asking yourself how many Americans don't pay any income tax at all -- they either don't have to file or have every dime and sometimes more refunded to them. Maybe 10 or 15 percent?
It turns out that about 41 percent of us have no income tax liability whatsoever, the highest percentage in modern history. Around 32 percent of all tax returns filed have no liability, so they get back everything they paid. An additional group of people don't even have to file.
Of the people who file income taxes, including the third that has no liability, the bottom half pays 3 percent of all taxes and the top half pays 97 percent of all taxes. Narrowing even further, the richest 1 percent of all taxpayers account for 40 percent of taxes paid.
You are probably telling yourself, "they make more so they pay more, that's simple enough." In fact, the top 1 percent of American earners make 22 percent of the income and pay 40 percent of the taxes. That sounds like maybe they're paying their fair share and then some.
The bottom 50 percent of tax filers earn 12.5 percent of all income and pay just 3 percent of all income taxes. No one is suggesting they should pay more, but it seems clear that their burden is getting lighter. Twenty-five years ago, the bottom 50 percent paid 7.5 percent. Now it's down to 3 percent.
Another common accusation is that tax cuts have shifted the burden away from rich people. From 2002 (before the Bush tax cuts) to 2006, the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent went up from 33 percent to 40 percent.
Tax cuts in the Reagan years also increased the share of taxes paid by the rich. In 1981, the richest 1 percent paid 17 percent of the total tax burden. It had increased to 25 percent by the time Ronald Reagan went back to California.
In recent years, the share of the total income tax burden paid by the richest 1 percent has been increasing and the share paid by the bottom 50 percent has been decreasing. In addition, the number of taxpayers paying no taxes at all is increasing.
Because New Hampshire is one of the wealthier states by average income, many of us will assume that we have many more of the highest earners than average. It turns out that New Hampshire is a very middle-class state with fewer high earners than average and fewer low earners than average, but a big middle.
Our top 1 percent earned only 18 percent of the total for New Hampshire, and the cutoff to be in the top 1 percent was $360,000 instead of $390,000 nationally. At the other end, only 24 percent of New Hampshire filers had zero tax liability compared to 32 percent nationally. New Hampshire's median taxable income was $37,331 in 2006, about 15 percent higher than the national average.
In election years, it has become popular for politicians to seek your vote by turning you against the other guy. He's going to lower your taxes by sticking it to the guy behind the tree. You can vote for me because we both have a common enemy.
Remember, the richest 1 percent of Americans earn 22 percent of the income, but pay 40 percent of the taxes. They didn't get tax rebate "stimulus" checks this year, but they paid for mine.
Tax cuts for everyone who pays taxes, like the Reagan, Bush, and Kennedy tax cuts, are fair. Pitting you and me against the guy behind the tree is not a good recipe for unity or fairness.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
I guess that same work ethic has lead to my dislike of labor unions. I understand there was a time and a place for unions but now with labor laws as they are, there is just not a need for them. Essentially the union leaders are a group of people who live off the hard work of others just another form of welfare as far as I am concerned.
That same work ethic has lead to my dislike for taxes and those who live off the hard work of others. I was on a homeschooling resource list, on the list was a discussion about socialized medicine and insurance someone pointed out that it appears it is the haves begrudging the have-nots. When reality it is the have-nots begrudging the haves of their hard earned dollars.
Don't get me wrong, I spent a number of years working with physically and mentally handicapped people and in the medical field I know there are people truly in need, I am not talking about those people. I am talking about the bums that live off of those who believe in earning through hard work.
One of my favorite quotes is "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." by Joseph Goebbels. One of those big lies is that the rich don't pay taxes and the poor carry the burden of paying taxes. That is not the truth and it is the so called "have-nots" perpetuating this lie.
Cathy
The following article appeared in the Union Leader.
Charles Arlinghaus: Who pays taxes, and how much, might surprise you
Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that fellow behind the tree. Everybody's favorite tax policy is to tax the guy behind the tree. I pay too much in taxes, and I'm willing to believe you do too. Maybe if we take the money of the guy behind the tree, we'll both become richer. This is the same philosophy, by the way, that undergirds the decision of the guy with no neck to take someone's lunch money in sixth grade.
Popular culture suggests to us that rich people take advantage of the dreaded loopholes to get off scot-free while hard-working Americans are forced to shoulder their burden. Or at least they probably aren't paying their fair share. Like Charlie Brown's little sister Sally, all we want is what's coming to us; all we want is our fair share.
To help Charlie Brown's sister figure out what exactly her fair share is, the IRS publishes data on tax liabilities each year. I think you might be surprised by who pays how much.
The most recent data are for 2006. Start by asking yourself how many Americans don't pay any income tax at all -- they either don't have to file or have every dime and sometimes more refunded to them. Maybe 10 or 15 percent?
It turns out that about 41 percent of us have no income tax liability whatsoever, the highest percentage in modern history. Around 32 percent of all tax returns filed have no liability, so they get back everything they paid. An additional group of people don't even have to file.
Of the people who file income taxes, including the third that has no liability, the bottom half pays 3 percent of all taxes and the top half pays 97 percent of all taxes. Narrowing even further, the richest 1 percent of all taxpayers account for 40 percent of taxes paid.
You are probably telling yourself, "they make more so they pay more, that's simple enough." In fact, the top 1 percent of American earners make 22 percent of the income and pay 40 percent of the taxes. That sounds like maybe they're paying their fair share and then some.
The bottom 50 percent of tax filers earn 12.5 percent of all income and pay just 3 percent of all income taxes. No one is suggesting they should pay more, but it seems clear that their burden is getting lighter. Twenty-five years ago, the bottom 50 percent paid 7.5 percent. Now it's down to 3 percent.
Another common accusation is that tax cuts have shifted the burden away from rich people. From 2002 (before the Bush tax cuts) to 2006, the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent went up from 33 percent to 40 percent.
Tax cuts in the Reagan years also increased the share of taxes paid by the rich. In 1981, the richest 1 percent paid 17 percent of the total tax burden. It had increased to 25 percent by the time Ronald Reagan went back to California.
In recent years, the share of the total income tax burden paid by the richest 1 percent has been increasing and the share paid by the bottom 50 percent has been decreasing. In addition, the number of taxpayers paying no taxes at all is increasing.
Because New Hampshire is one of the wealthier states by average income, many of us will assume that we have many more of the highest earners than average. It turns out that New Hampshire is a very middle-class state with fewer high earners than average and fewer low earners than average, but a big middle.
Our top 1 percent earned only 18 percent of the total for New Hampshire, and the cutoff to be in the top 1 percent was $360,000 instead of $390,000 nationally. At the other end, only 24 percent of New Hampshire filers had zero tax liability compared to 32 percent nationally. New Hampshire's median taxable income was $37,331 in 2006, about 15 percent higher than the national average.
In election years, it has become popular for politicians to seek your vote by turning you against the other guy. He's going to lower your taxes by sticking it to the guy behind the tree. You can vote for me because we both have a common enemy.
Remember, the richest 1 percent of Americans earn 22 percent of the income, but pay 40 percent of the taxes. They didn't get tax rebate "stimulus" checks this year, but they paid for mine.
Tax cuts for everyone who pays taxes, like the Reagan, Bush, and Kennedy tax cuts, are fair. Pitting you and me against the guy behind the tree is not a good recipe for unity or fairness.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Homeschooling Mom Running for Senate.
As a mom of two and a person who believes in educational freedom and personal responsibility I was thrilled to find a homeschooling Mom running for Senate. The following article appeared in Foster's Daily Democrat. Senators and Representatives should represent the people of New Hampshire not special interests groups who benefit from New Hampshire's taxpayer dollars. I wish only the best of luck to Kelly Halldorson.
Cathy
New candidate makes it a two-woman race for District 21 Senate
By ADAM D. KRAUSS
akrauss@fosters.com
Article Date: Thursday, June 12, 2008
Kelly Halldorson, Republican candidate for state Senate
DOVER - Her brand of political activism saw her walk from her home to Concord to support a presidential candidate. Now Kelly Halldorson is looking to join the state Senate.
The Dover native plans to file this week as a Republican for the District 21 seat being vacated by three-term Sen. Iris Estabrook, making it a two-woman race with Democrat Amanda Merrill, a former lawmaker who's been working on policy in the House majority office in Concord. The district covers Dover, Durham, Epping, Lee and Rollinsford.
Halldorson wanted to run as an independent, but she learned that left the door open for a Democrat, without a Republican opponent, to find a spot on the ballot under both major parties.
"I'm not a big Washington Republican by any stretch," the 35-year-old mother of three said Monday. "I'm not real thrilled with Bush. I'm anti-war" and she doesn't like it when ex-presidential candidates bash the libertarian Republican movement.
Halldorson gained widespread notoriety after she walked 38 miles from her Silver Street home to Concord to protest the media's treatment of Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who built an unexpected nationwide following.
But she says the experience didn't inspire her to get more involved.
In fact, she "can't stand politics" - just like she can't stand overregulation or lawmakers not returning a message.
"I really want to get people who want to have that much control over our lives out" of office, she said. "I certainly don't think that's the New Hampshire way. I'm about living free."
Halldorson, who home schools her children, said the Legislature's treatment this year of a home-school bill sponsored by Estabrook caught her attention - first because of attempts to further regulate the industry, second because of the lack of response from legislators. The bill ended "watered down," with a commission set up to examine the state's home-school laws, she said.
"I plan on being one of the most accessible legislators this district has seen," she said. "I will post my cell phone number on my website and promise to respond to every single email I receive from my constituents."
Halldorson said she's not anti-public education, but pro-educational choice. She said she's for local control of schools - not laws like No Child Left Behind that allow schools to be regulated from afar.
Halldorson said her family's struggle to pay heating and medical bills reinforced the need for lawmakers to lower spending. She's also "terrified" at the notion of a sales or income tax.
Halldorson comes to the race with a story rooted in the community. She was raised in a public housing complex primarily by her mother, Ann Grenier, who worked at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. She entered Dover High School an honors student, but dropped out her junior year feeling "failed" by the system. She returned and graduated the next year, in 1992, before spending the next few years traveling the country. When she got back to New Hampshire, she lived in Somersworth for eight years before returning to Dover in 2004.
A freelance web designer, Halldorson never went to college despite an art scholarship. Throughout the years, she's taken courses in metaphysics, world religions and psychology.
She and her husband, Jeff, a Durham native and self-employed contractor, have three children, Wolf, 13, Griffin, 11, and Zoe, 10.
Cathy
New candidate makes it a two-woman race for District 21 Senate
By ADAM D. KRAUSS
akrauss@fosters.com
Article Date: Thursday, June 12, 2008
Kelly Halldorson, Republican candidate for state Senate
DOVER - Her brand of political activism saw her walk from her home to Concord to support a presidential candidate. Now Kelly Halldorson is looking to join the state Senate.
The Dover native plans to file this week as a Republican for the District 21 seat being vacated by three-term Sen. Iris Estabrook, making it a two-woman race with Democrat Amanda Merrill, a former lawmaker who's been working on policy in the House majority office in Concord. The district covers Dover, Durham, Epping, Lee and Rollinsford.
Halldorson wanted to run as an independent, but she learned that left the door open for a Democrat, without a Republican opponent, to find a spot on the ballot under both major parties.
"I'm not a big Washington Republican by any stretch," the 35-year-old mother of three said Monday. "I'm not real thrilled with Bush. I'm anti-war" and she doesn't like it when ex-presidential candidates bash the libertarian Republican movement.
Halldorson gained widespread notoriety after she walked 38 miles from her Silver Street home to Concord to protest the media's treatment of Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who built an unexpected nationwide following.
But she says the experience didn't inspire her to get more involved.
In fact, she "can't stand politics" - just like she can't stand overregulation or lawmakers not returning a message.
"I really want to get people who want to have that much control over our lives out" of office, she said. "I certainly don't think that's the New Hampshire way. I'm about living free."
Halldorson, who home schools her children, said the Legislature's treatment this year of a home-school bill sponsored by Estabrook caught her attention - first because of attempts to further regulate the industry, second because of the lack of response from legislators. The bill ended "watered down," with a commission set up to examine the state's home-school laws, she said.
"I plan on being one of the most accessible legislators this district has seen," she said. "I will post my cell phone number on my website and promise to respond to every single email I receive from my constituents."
Halldorson said she's not anti-public education, but pro-educational choice. She said she's for local control of schools - not laws like No Child Left Behind that allow schools to be regulated from afar.
Halldorson said her family's struggle to pay heating and medical bills reinforced the need for lawmakers to lower spending. She's also "terrified" at the notion of a sales or income tax.
Halldorson comes to the race with a story rooted in the community. She was raised in a public housing complex primarily by her mother, Ann Grenier, who worked at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. She entered Dover High School an honors student, but dropped out her junior year feeling "failed" by the system. She returned and graduated the next year, in 1992, before spending the next few years traveling the country. When she got back to New Hampshire, she lived in Somersworth for eight years before returning to Dover in 2004.
A freelance web designer, Halldorson never went to college despite an art scholarship. Throughout the years, she's taken courses in metaphysics, world religions and psychology.
She and her husband, Jeff, a Durham native and self-employed contractor, have three children, Wolf, 13, Griffin, 11, and Zoe, 10.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Commentary: McCain right, Obama wrong on school vouchers
The following piece appeared on CNN and can also be found on Roland S. Martin's website.
Vouchers give parents a choice and choice is exactly what the people of Croydon want. The 2008 Croydon Survey results reveal that 43 of the 70 respondents want a choice as to where to send their children. If schools have to vie for Croydon's education tax dollars they will perform better to try to keep those children in their school districts.
Cathy
Commentary: McCain right, Obama wrong on school vouchers
By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor
Roland Martin says school vouchers should be an option for families with kids in dead-end schools.
ACCRA, Ghana (CNN) -- "All I want is for my children to get the best education they can."
That statement, along with so many others, has been a consistent one that I've heard on my radio show and in discussions with parents for years, especially those whose children are stuck in inner-city schools with decrepit buildings and a lack of critical resources.
And for the past 20 years, one of the most talked-about solutions for parents stuck in dead-end, failing schools is to give them the option to use vouchers to send their children someplace where they could get a quality education.
Republicans have made vouchers a linchpin of their education overhaul initiatives. Democrats have steadfastly refused, saying it would take vital dollars out of the public school system.
This year's presidential candidates are lining up right along with their parties. Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee, says vouchers are the right way to go to give parents an option for a better education, while Sen. Barack Obama says the GOP has talked and talked about vouchers, and it hasn't amounted to much more.
But part of the reason why vouchers have been denounced and dismissed is because Democrats have been far too obstinate on the issue, and have not listened to their constituents, especially African-Americans, who overwhelmingly support vouchers.
There is no doubt that on this issue, McCain has it right and Obama has it wrong.
The fundamental problem with the voucher debate is that it is always seen as an either/or proposition. For Republicans, it is the panacea to all the educational woes, and that is nonsensical. For Democrats, it is something that will destroy public education, and that too is a bunch of crap.
I fundamentally believe that vouchers are simply one part of the entire educational pie. There simply is no one sure-fire way to educate a child. We've seen public schools do a helluva job -- I went to them from K through college -- and so have private schools, home schooling, charter schools and even online initiatives. This is the kind of innovation we need, not more efforts to prevent a worthy idea from moving forward.
Obama's opposition is right along the lines of the National Education Association, and the teachers union is a reliable and powerful Democratic ally. But this is one time where he should have opposed them and made it clear that vouchers can force school districts, administrators and teachers to shape up or see their students ship out.
It is unconscionable to ask a parent to watch as his child is stuck in a failing school or district, and ask him to bank on a politician coming up with more funds to improve the situation. Fine, call vouchers a short-term solution to a long-term problem, but I'd rather have a child getting the best education -- now -- rather than having to hope and pray down the line.
McCain and Obama have presented comprehensive education plans, and those are noble. But leaving out vouchers does a tremendous disservice to the parents who are fed up with deplorable schools, and allows school districts to operate with impunity and without any real competition.
Roland S. Martin is an award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith." Please visit his Web site at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/.
Quote of the Day "Leaving out vouchers does a tremendous disservice to the parents who are fed up with deplorable schools, and allows school districts to operate with impunity and without any real competition." Roland S. Martin
Vouchers give parents a choice and choice is exactly what the people of Croydon want. The 2008 Croydon Survey results reveal that 43 of the 70 respondents want a choice as to where to send their children. If schools have to vie for Croydon's education tax dollars they will perform better to try to keep those children in their school districts.
Cathy
Commentary: McCain right, Obama wrong on school vouchers
By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor
Roland Martin says school vouchers should be an option for families with kids in dead-end schools.
ACCRA, Ghana (CNN) -- "All I want is for my children to get the best education they can."
That statement, along with so many others, has been a consistent one that I've heard on my radio show and in discussions with parents for years, especially those whose children are stuck in inner-city schools with decrepit buildings and a lack of critical resources.
And for the past 20 years, one of the most talked-about solutions for parents stuck in dead-end, failing schools is to give them the option to use vouchers to send their children someplace where they could get a quality education.
Republicans have made vouchers a linchpin of their education overhaul initiatives. Democrats have steadfastly refused, saying it would take vital dollars out of the public school system.
This year's presidential candidates are lining up right along with their parties. Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee, says vouchers are the right way to go to give parents an option for a better education, while Sen. Barack Obama says the GOP has talked and talked about vouchers, and it hasn't amounted to much more.
But part of the reason why vouchers have been denounced and dismissed is because Democrats have been far too obstinate on the issue, and have not listened to their constituents, especially African-Americans, who overwhelmingly support vouchers.
There is no doubt that on this issue, McCain has it right and Obama has it wrong.
The fundamental problem with the voucher debate is that it is always seen as an either/or proposition. For Republicans, it is the panacea to all the educational woes, and that is nonsensical. For Democrats, it is something that will destroy public education, and that too is a bunch of crap.
I fundamentally believe that vouchers are simply one part of the entire educational pie. There simply is no one sure-fire way to educate a child. We've seen public schools do a helluva job -- I went to them from K through college -- and so have private schools, home schooling, charter schools and even online initiatives. This is the kind of innovation we need, not more efforts to prevent a worthy idea from moving forward.
Obama's opposition is right along the lines of the National Education Association, and the teachers union is a reliable and powerful Democratic ally. But this is one time where he should have opposed them and made it clear that vouchers can force school districts, administrators and teachers to shape up or see their students ship out.
It is unconscionable to ask a parent to watch as his child is stuck in a failing school or district, and ask him to bank on a politician coming up with more funds to improve the situation. Fine, call vouchers a short-term solution to a long-term problem, but I'd rather have a child getting the best education -- now -- rather than having to hope and pray down the line.
McCain and Obama have presented comprehensive education plans, and those are noble. But leaving out vouchers does a tremendous disservice to the parents who are fed up with deplorable schools, and allows school districts to operate with impunity and without any real competition.
Roland S. Martin is an award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith." Please visit his Web site at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/.
Quote of the Day "Leaving out vouchers does a tremendous disservice to the parents who are fed up with deplorable schools, and allows school districts to operate with impunity and without any real competition." Roland S. Martin
Long Term School Planning Meeting.
The school planning meeting was to be held last night at Croydon School. The meeting was posted in the paper. Gayle and Wendy felt it was not necessary to meet but Jim went to the meeting because it was posted in the Argus Champion, he wanted to be on hand incase anyone had question. Jim saw a couple leave as he was pulling into the parking lot. If anyone has questions they can contact Jim at george@joltmail.com.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
School Planning Meeting
The School Planning meeting will be held today at 6:30p.m. at the Croydon School.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)