It is no wonder that our children our failing when compared to other countries. We are spending more time indoctrinating our students and social engineering our students than we are actually educating our students in core studies. The following two articles highlight what is exactly wrong with our public education system.
Before I receive hate mail this is not about my stand for or against any life style choices this is about our public education system being more concerned about diversity than it is about actually educating our children.
Cathy
School Field Trip to Teacher's Lesbian Wedding Sparks Controversy
First-graders in San Francisco took a field trip to City Hall to celebrate the marriage of their lesbian teacher on Friday, but opponents of same-sex marriage in the state say the field trip was an attempt to “indoctrinate” the students, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The field trip was suggested by a parent at the Creative Arts Charter School, and the school said the trip, where students tossed rose petals on their teacher and her wife as they left City Hall, was academically relevant.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," said Liz Jaroslow, the school’s interim director, according to the newspaper. She said same-sex marriage had historic significance. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
California will vote on Nov. 4 on Proposition 8 which seeks to ban same-sex marriage in the state, and supporters of the measure say the field trip shows that allowing same-sex marriage will mean it’s taught to school children, the newspaper said.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign, told the Chronicle. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
Obama Pushed on Our Kids in Lit Textbook
Obama Pushed on Our Kids in Lit Textbook
By Warner Todd Huston
Created 2008-10-14 03:04
Over at RealDebateWisconsin [1] Fred Dooley was contacted by the mother of a Racine Unified School District 8th grade student in Wisconsin public schools about an outrageous thing she found in her son's school textbook. Apparently, in this textbook supposedly teaching about literature, one of the books being pushed as a perfect example of that subject is Barack Obama's memoir Dreams from my Father. That's right, a book by a current political candidate for president is being pushed on our children as "literature." It also seems probable from campaign donation records that a principle member of the publishing company is a large Obama donor.
One would think that focusing on the ideology of a politician currently running for president would be a bit over-the-top even for our extreme left leaning system of education in this country. But there it is anyway. The book even presents a photo of the Senator at a campaign rally with signs advertising his campaign website address to help better indoctrinate the kids.
Of course, the very first question that comes to mind is this: how wide spread would this story have become if it were a Republican featured in a kid's textbook? Would the left-o-sphere stand silent as John McCain appeared in school textbooks? Would the Old Media ignore such a story? Somehow, I doubt it. Who can doubt that the story would be such big news that the school district would have been shamed into taking such propaganda out of their school rooms apologizing for their lack of judgment as they do so. A book like this with McCain included would never even have made it out of the publishing house before stories would have been leaked to the press. Certainly it would be national news. But, in this case, the textbook is manufactured without opposition and is passed out to kids without a peep from the usual suspects.
The mother and her child have asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal from the school. So, their names are withheld to protect the innocent family from any possible harm that might come to this boy or his grades in an apparently ideologically extreme school system. However, we have plenty of scans of the book to prove the case isn't just unsubstantiated claims.
On one page, for instance, the kids are urged to discuss what makes them "proud" before they read Dreams from my Father. The message here is that an Obama candidacy is supposed to make everyone "proud" apparently. If you stand against Obama, I guess you stand against pride, huh?
A few photos from Obama's childhood are also included, showing that a simple discussion of the literary worth of Obama's book is not all the textbook is interested in.
The Wisconsin Mother wrote the following:
My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son's new (copyright 2008) Wisconsin - McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.
I was shocked - No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush - Just Barack Obama. I'm wondering how it is that Obama's story gets put into an 8th grade literature book? It would be one thing, if it was just the tidbit about his boyhood days, but 15 pages, and they talk about his "Life of Service". Honestly, what has Obama really done to be included in this book? Not only that, but on page 847 there is a photo of Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention with at least 8 Obama signs in the background! Front & center is an www.obama2004.com sign.
Now I understand that many teachers are liberals, but does the school have the right to shove Obama down our kid's throats? All the kids grouped together and read the story. After that, they discussed it... I guess it appears that Obama is planning ahead. If he doesn't get his coveted Presidency, Obama is going to make sure, that the younger generations know all about him, and his "life of service".
If you would like to see the 15 page story on Obama, it appears that you can order this book online. There is a note in the book that says, For more on Barack Obama, visit the Literature Center at www.ClassZone.com [2] The book is: Wisconsin - 8th grade - McDougal Littell Literature - copyright 2008. The Obama story starts on page 830. I hope you will take the time to look at this book. I'm really angry about this - In fact, I would love to rip the pages right out of this book.
By the way, you might find this interesting: I did a little checking on McDougal Littell, and it appears that MCDOUGAL, ALFRED L CHICAGO , IL 60611 - N/A/RETIRED has been making contributions to Barack Obama's campaign!
I found that information on this website.
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=IL&last=MCDOUGAL&first=ALFRED [3]
Now I'm not an expert at these things (just a PTA mom), but It looks to me like Alfred McDougal is connected to McDougal Littell the same company that publishes the 8th grade textbook that has 15 pages on Obama. Like I said, I'm not an expert, but I'm sure you have someone who can delve into the dirty little details.
I guess my question is: Is it ethical for an Obama supporter to publish an educational book which has a 15 page Barrack Obama story in it? If the tax payers are paying for these books, why is it okay for McDougal Littell to promote Obama? This really bothers me. I would have no problem with it, if Obama had actually done something important. Why is Obama being put up on a pedestal, before he actually wins the pedestal? All I can say, is we can thank the liberal media, and now the liberal book publishers. Thanks to them, I'm sure there are probably thousands of these books all across the United States.
That's quite an upset mother... and rightfully so. This sort of partisanship on the part of the textbook publisher is amazing, to say the least.
Far from simply discussing the supposed literary value of Obama's book, there's all sort of things about Obama in this textbook.
One page also urges the kids to go on-line and look up more info about Barack Obama.
It's all pretty amazing to see a current candidate for high office pushed in our schools like this, isn't it? Can you imagine the schools having John McCain's campaign biography in them? And, what exactly is it that makes this particular tome great literature? Oh, sure, it's an acclaimed book, though one that suspicions of ghostwriting are beginning to emerge [4]. But, is it of high enough caliber to be considered fodder for a literature class?
Of all the great books in history, is this one so exemplar that it should be a subject in an 8th grader's class? Have we by 8th grade already familiarized a student with the full cannon of great American literature that we can lower ourselves to campaign biographies? Did this school balance this lesson with a section on Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative? Why not? After all, Goldwater's campaign book inspired pride in several generations of conservatives and helped lead to the election of one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Wilson Reagan.
And let's not even mention the fact that these textbooks are wholly empty of the great religious works of literature in the history of the western world. In fact, the entire American religious tradition has been excised from our schools.
Yet we do see Barack Obama pushed on our children in their textbooks. The indoctrination of our children by issuing paeans to the messiah is now complete. Even in 8th grade, the kids are now told for whom to vote.
So, form here we have to wonder... will the national media establishment notice this story at all?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Residency to be checked in Croydon.
The Croydon School Board met October 8th. At that meeting the school board reported that parents were required to sign papers affirming students residency in Croydon. Patti L. and her friend will be confirming residency for all students whose tuition is being paid by the Croydon school district. These steps are being taken to avoid non-Croydon residents tuition being paid for by Croydon residents as it was in the past.
Gayle H. expressed concern that a number of students lived outside of the district yet Croydon residents were paying tuition for these students for a number of years. Gayle H. wonder if Croydon residents could recover these tax dollars. George Caccavaro stated that recovering said tax dollars could be costly to Croydon residence. The residence need to decide if they want to risk a lawsuit, the cost and possibly never recovering said dollars. Croydon taxpayers may have to eat the loss of their tax dollars. However the school board should be making every effort to avoid wasting Croydon's residents hard earned tax dollars in the future.
Cathy
Gayle H. expressed concern that a number of students lived outside of the district yet Croydon residents were paying tuition for these students for a number of years. Gayle H. wonder if Croydon residents could recover these tax dollars. George Caccavaro stated that recovering said tax dollars could be costly to Croydon residence. The residence need to decide if they want to risk a lawsuit, the cost and possibly never recovering said dollars. Croydon taxpayers may have to eat the loss of their tax dollars. However the school board should be making every effort to avoid wasting Croydon's residents hard earned tax dollars in the future.
Cathy
Newport's home owner's pocket books hit hard.
Times are tough but they are even a little more tougher for Newport Residents, taxes are up, way up in Newport. Taxes for the year on a 150,000 dollar house are up 375 dollars for a total of 3661 dollars. Those living in a 300,000 dollar home will be paying 7322 dollars in property taxes. This money will be hard to come up with for those on fixed incomes and living paycheck to paycheck. New Hampshire is facing a possible income tax, a possible Obama presdency will mean increased income taxes for those making more than 50,000 a year and rising heating costs are bound to hurt residents.
If you rent don't think you are some how protected, you should expect your landlord to pass on the increased taxes through an increase in your rent.
How will you vote to protect your pocket book?
Cathy
The following piece appeared in the Eagle Times.
TAX RATE INCREASE PEGGED AT $2.50
By AARON ALDRIDGE
Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:07 PM
NEWPORT - The preliminary numbers for the property tax rate in Newport have been released and according to town officials, taxpayers may see an increase of 11 percent compared to the current fiscal year.
"The Department of Revenue Administration must review everything before it is finalized," town manager Dan O'Neill said Wednesday.
The current property tax rate is $21.91 per thousand dollars of property value. The newly calculated tax rate is up $2.50 to $24.41 per thousand dollars of property value.
For a home valued at $150,000, the total amount of taxes due for the year would be $3,661, an increase of $375.
Although the town portion of the tax rate is expected to drop 10 cents to $8.76 and the state school portion decreased 2 cents to $2.14 compared to the 2007-2008 rate, it was not enough to offset increases in the local school and county portion of the tax rate.
The local school property tax will most likely increase $2.06 to $10.93 per thousand dollars of property value. The increase can be attributed to the first payment on an $8 million bond for the renovations at Richards School and improvements to Towle School and the high school.
At the county level, taxes increased by 55 cents due to a increase in the county budget of about 25 percent. The new county portion of tax rate is projected at $2.57 per thousand dollars of property value.
O'Neill said the town portion went down because voters defeated the proposed budget in May forcing the town to operate under a default budget.
"Typically you'll have level funding when there is a default budget," O'Neill said. "I hope people keep that in mind next May when they vote. We've had default budgets two years in a row."
The net valuation of the town showed a slight increase compared to last year rising from $483 million to $487 million.
O'Neill said that once the town finalizes the tax rate with the DRA, the property tax bills will be mailed out.
"My goal is to have them due in early December," O'Neill said.
Aaron Aldridge can be reached at (800) 545-0347 ext. 139, or by e-mail at aaldridge@eagletimes.com.
If you rent don't think you are some how protected, you should expect your landlord to pass on the increased taxes through an increase in your rent.
How will you vote to protect your pocket book?
Cathy
The following piece appeared in the Eagle Times.
TAX RATE INCREASE PEGGED AT $2.50
By AARON ALDRIDGE
Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:07 PM
NEWPORT - The preliminary numbers for the property tax rate in Newport have been released and according to town officials, taxpayers may see an increase of 11 percent compared to the current fiscal year.
"The Department of Revenue Administration must review everything before it is finalized," town manager Dan O'Neill said Wednesday.
The current property tax rate is $21.91 per thousand dollars of property value. The newly calculated tax rate is up $2.50 to $24.41 per thousand dollars of property value.
For a home valued at $150,000, the total amount of taxes due for the year would be $3,661, an increase of $375.
Although the town portion of the tax rate is expected to drop 10 cents to $8.76 and the state school portion decreased 2 cents to $2.14 compared to the 2007-2008 rate, it was not enough to offset increases in the local school and county portion of the tax rate.
The local school property tax will most likely increase $2.06 to $10.93 per thousand dollars of property value. The increase can be attributed to the first payment on an $8 million bond for the renovations at Richards School and improvements to Towle School and the high school.
At the county level, taxes increased by 55 cents due to a increase in the county budget of about 25 percent. The new county portion of tax rate is projected at $2.57 per thousand dollars of property value.
O'Neill said the town portion went down because voters defeated the proposed budget in May forcing the town to operate under a default budget.
"Typically you'll have level funding when there is a default budget," O'Neill said. "I hope people keep that in mind next May when they vote. We've had default budgets two years in a row."
The net valuation of the town showed a slight increase compared to last year rising from $483 million to $487 million.
O'Neill said that once the town finalizes the tax rate with the DRA, the property tax bills will be mailed out.
"My goal is to have them due in early December," O'Neill said.
Aaron Aldridge can be reached at (800) 545-0347 ext. 139, or by e-mail at aaldridge@eagletimes.com.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Under Obama, Unions Could Do To Rest of Economy What They Did to GM: Will MSM Notice.
Regular readers of our BLOG are familiar with my distaste for the unions. The following piece appeared on News Busters.
For those unfamiliar with MSM it is short for Mainstream Media.
Cathy
Under Obama, Unions Could Do To Rest of Economy What They Did to GM: Will MSM Notice?
By Mark Finkelstein
Labor costs the Detroit Three substantially more per vehicle than it does the Japanese. Health care is the biggest chunk. GM, for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones . . . Contract issues like work rules, line relief and holiday pay amount to $630 per vehicle - costs that the Japanese don't have. And paying UAW members for not working when plants are shut costs another $350 per vehicle. -- Fortune magazine, January 26, 2007
Obama and Biden will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama and Biden will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. -- Official Obama website statement on labor [emphasis added].
Lost amidst the mutual finger-pointing over responsibility for the financial crisis is one incontrovertible fact. Under a President Obama, the unionization of America's economy could soar, thanks to the combined effect of the legislation he would sign into law and those labor-friendly appointees he would name to oversee union elections and other matters. And while the blame for the possible demise of GM and other American automakers rests partly with feckless, uninspired management, a good measure is rightly laid at the feet of American unions who pushed a variety of contract provisions that have left the domestic industry uncompetitive with foreign manufacturers.
Let's talk for a moment about that "Employee Free Choice Act" whose passage Obama promotes and that, with a compliant Congress, would almost surely be passed into law. As I wrote last month, its very name is "double-speak that would make the commissars at Orwell's Ministry of Truth blush." Far from promoting free choice, it would go a long way to destroying it. The law would end a worker's right to a secret ballot in unionization elections, to be replaced by a "card check" system in which the vote of each individual would be published.
As that unforgettable ad [click YouTube at right] suggests, it would be the Johnny Sacks of the world standing over the shoulders of workers as they cast their unionization ballots.
Almost two years ago, that same Fortune article cited above questioned "the continued survival of the U.S. [auto] companies." Now Obama wants to let unions do for the rest of the economy what they did for GM. Will the MSM take note? What are the odds Bob Schieffer quizzes Obama on the "Employee Free Choice Act" at next Wednesday's debate?
PS: Guess who announced this week that they're launching a $3 million ad campaign on behalf of Obama?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
For those unfamiliar with MSM it is short for Mainstream Media.
Cathy
Under Obama, Unions Could Do To Rest of Economy What They Did to GM: Will MSM Notice?
By Mark Finkelstein
Labor costs the Detroit Three substantially more per vehicle than it does the Japanese. Health care is the biggest chunk. GM, for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones . . . Contract issues like work rules, line relief and holiday pay amount to $630 per vehicle - costs that the Japanese don't have. And paying UAW members for not working when plants are shut costs another $350 per vehicle. -- Fortune magazine, January 26, 2007
Obama and Biden will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama and Biden will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. -- Official Obama website statement on labor [emphasis added].
Lost amidst the mutual finger-pointing over responsibility for the financial crisis is one incontrovertible fact. Under a President Obama, the unionization of America's economy could soar, thanks to the combined effect of the legislation he would sign into law and those labor-friendly appointees he would name to oversee union elections and other matters. And while the blame for the possible demise of GM and other American automakers rests partly with feckless, uninspired management, a good measure is rightly laid at the feet of American unions who pushed a variety of contract provisions that have left the domestic industry uncompetitive with foreign manufacturers.
Let's talk for a moment about that "Employee Free Choice Act" whose passage Obama promotes and that, with a compliant Congress, would almost surely be passed into law. As I wrote last month, its very name is "double-speak that would make the commissars at Orwell's Ministry of Truth blush." Far from promoting free choice, it would go a long way to destroying it. The law would end a worker's right to a secret ballot in unionization elections, to be replaced by a "card check" system in which the vote of each individual would be published.
As that unforgettable ad [click YouTube at right] suggests, it would be the Johnny Sacks of the world standing over the shoulders of workers as they cast their unionization ballots.
Almost two years ago, that same Fortune article cited above questioned "the continued survival of the U.S. [auto] companies." Now Obama wants to let unions do for the rest of the economy what they did for GM. Will the MSM take note? What are the odds Bob Schieffer quizzes Obama on the "Employee Free Choice Act" at next Wednesday's debate?
PS: Guess who announced this week that they're launching a $3 million ad campaign on behalf of Obama?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The state budget is in trouble
The State budget is in trouble and that means you and I are in trouble. Are you going to re-elect the same people who got us in trouble or will you elect individuals who will be fiscally responsible with our money. Your 401K is down, can you afford an income tax? An income tax will serve school employees and State employees but it will not serve you. State employees are guaranteed, their pensions. The only one who can look out for you and your family is you. Vote wisely.
Cathy
The following cartoon appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and can be found in a number of other places as well.
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader.
The state budget is in trouble
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
If politicians are to be believed, the state is running both a surplus and a deficit at the same time. In the same week, Gov. John Lynch asked his department heads to cut millions of dollars from the budget, and the Senate president said on the radio that we're running a surplus. They can't both be right, can they? Well, actually they are, which is a good symbol of how difficult the budget is to understand.
The current two-year budget has a problem, but some of its individual components are fine. The first half of the budget turned out OK, but the second half is a disaster.
Overly optimistic revenue estimates created a large deficit. At the time, Republican revenue expert Rep. Norm Major warned that the revenue estimates used to balance this spending were at least $100 million too high. He was dismissed as a pessimist. Interestingly, time has proved him to be something of an optimist. First-year revenues ended up $71 million below budget projections. Second-year revenues are on track to be more than $200 million below projections.
So the budget problem is a tale of two years. The problem in the first year is much smaller, with most of the pain delayed until the second year. In addition, we started the budget with $61 million that should have been put in the state's savings account, the rainy day fund, but was kept available as a cushion in the budget.
Because we start the budget cycle with the cushion, the first budget year, which ended in June, ends up looking pretty good. Between the $61 million extra and some modest spending cuts, the state was able to spend $44 million more than it raised, leaving what counts as a surplus under state rules of about $17 million. So, fiscal year 2008 had a $44 million deficit, but because we had extra money for a cushion, it counts as a surplus.
For the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the one we're currently in, the situation is much worse. First, the budget called for spending $12 million more than it hoped to raise. Second, revenues are on track to be at least an additional $200 million below what the budget expected and needed. The governor had proposed $30 million of cuts and an additional $40 million of bonding to erase the deficit. He'll need to find an additional $140 million to $160 million.
The obvious place to turn is to the massive spending increase that had been described as mandatory. The budget increased general funding spending over the previous two-year budget by 17.5 percent, the largest spending increase in the last 20 years. Supporters of the budget agree that the increase was that high but insist that much of it was nondiscretionary spending. They say they could control only a little more than 3 percent a year, or 7 percent of the 17.5 percent two-year increase.
Yet every budget of the last 20 years faced similar decisions. If spending goes up here, something has to give there. Each of the previous budgets for two decades and six different governors made those decisions and came in with a smaller spending increase. Clearly the increases were never mandatory, as the governor is asking his department heads to cut those very same expenditures.
As bad as the current budget problem is, it looks easy compared to the next budget due after the election. Because each budget builds on the spending and revenue of the one that went before it, problems tend to grow exponentially. Weak revenue growth and an uncertain economy mean money will not be available to sustain normal levels of spending growth.
Next year, if spending were to grow at historical rates, likely revenues would be at least $500 million short. In an election cycle, politicians are most responsive to the people they hope will elect them. Each candidate should be asked if he or she will consider or rule out an income tax. In addition, candidates should be asked whether they would consider increasing other taxes or look to balance the budget during difficult economic times without any tax increases.
We know today that the problem will be as large as it has ever been. Some politicians will want to avoid all tax increases during difficult times. Others will rule out an income or sales tax but be open to other tax increases. Others, concerned about cutting spending levels, will want to consider an income tax. We need to know today what approach our would-be leaders will take. There's no need for a post-election surprise.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Cathy
The following cartoon appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and can be found in a number of other places as well.
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader.
The state budget is in trouble
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
If politicians are to be believed, the state is running both a surplus and a deficit at the same time. In the same week, Gov. John Lynch asked his department heads to cut millions of dollars from the budget, and the Senate president said on the radio that we're running a surplus. They can't both be right, can they? Well, actually they are, which is a good symbol of how difficult the budget is to understand.
The current two-year budget has a problem, but some of its individual components are fine. The first half of the budget turned out OK, but the second half is a disaster.
Overly optimistic revenue estimates created a large deficit. At the time, Republican revenue expert Rep. Norm Major warned that the revenue estimates used to balance this spending were at least $100 million too high. He was dismissed as a pessimist. Interestingly, time has proved him to be something of an optimist. First-year revenues ended up $71 million below budget projections. Second-year revenues are on track to be more than $200 million below projections.
So the budget problem is a tale of two years. The problem in the first year is much smaller, with most of the pain delayed until the second year. In addition, we started the budget with $61 million that should have been put in the state's savings account, the rainy day fund, but was kept available as a cushion in the budget.
Because we start the budget cycle with the cushion, the first budget year, which ended in June, ends up looking pretty good. Between the $61 million extra and some modest spending cuts, the state was able to spend $44 million more than it raised, leaving what counts as a surplus under state rules of about $17 million. So, fiscal year 2008 had a $44 million deficit, but because we had extra money for a cushion, it counts as a surplus.
For the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the one we're currently in, the situation is much worse. First, the budget called for spending $12 million more than it hoped to raise. Second, revenues are on track to be at least an additional $200 million below what the budget expected and needed. The governor had proposed $30 million of cuts and an additional $40 million of bonding to erase the deficit. He'll need to find an additional $140 million to $160 million.
The obvious place to turn is to the massive spending increase that had been described as mandatory. The budget increased general funding spending over the previous two-year budget by 17.5 percent, the largest spending increase in the last 20 years. Supporters of the budget agree that the increase was that high but insist that much of it was nondiscretionary spending. They say they could control only a little more than 3 percent a year, or 7 percent of the 17.5 percent two-year increase.
Yet every budget of the last 20 years faced similar decisions. If spending goes up here, something has to give there. Each of the previous budgets for two decades and six different governors made those decisions and came in with a smaller spending increase. Clearly the increases were never mandatory, as the governor is asking his department heads to cut those very same expenditures.
As bad as the current budget problem is, it looks easy compared to the next budget due after the election. Because each budget builds on the spending and revenue of the one that went before it, problems tend to grow exponentially. Weak revenue growth and an uncertain economy mean money will not be available to sustain normal levels of spending growth.
Next year, if spending were to grow at historical rates, likely revenues would be at least $500 million short. In an election cycle, politicians are most responsive to the people they hope will elect them. Each candidate should be asked if he or she will consider or rule out an income tax. In addition, candidates should be asked whether they would consider increasing other taxes or look to balance the budget during difficult economic times without any tax increases.
We know today that the problem will be as large as it has ever been. Some politicians will want to avoid all tax increases during difficult times. Others will rule out an income or sales tax but be open to other tax increases. Others, concerned about cutting spending levels, will want to consider an income tax. We need to know today what approach our would-be leaders will take. There's no need for a post-election surprise.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
School Board Meeting Tonight
Just a reminder the Croydon School Board meets tonight at 6:30 at the Croydon School House.
Last night a special education meeting was held in the Town Hall. An article about the meeting appears in the Valley News newspaper. The article does not appear on-line so you will have to pick up a hard copy at the store.
Cathy
Corrected for typo 6:36 p.m. 10/08/08
Last night a special education meeting was held in the Town Hall. An article about the meeting appears in the Valley News newspaper. The article does not appear on-line so you will have to pick up a hard copy at the store.
Cathy
Corrected for typo 6:36 p.m. 10/08/08
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
TEACHERS GET HIT ON THE BUTTON
No matter who you are voting for in the upcoming election I am sure you do not want your child's teacher promoting any presidential candidate. Considering dismal reading, math and science scores across the country teachers should be spending more time educating America's children instead of indoctrinating our children.
The following piece appeared in the New York Post.
TEACHERS GET HIT ON THE BUTTON
By YOAV GONEN, Education Reporter
Last updated: 10:49 am
October 2, 2008
The teachers union has been handing out thousands of Barack Obama campaign buttons to its members, sparking a clampdown by education brass.
The Department of Education - which has a long-standing policy barring teachers from wearing campaign buttons in schools - is set to send out an e-mail this week from Schools Chancellor Joel Klein laying down the law.
"Schools are not a place for politics and not a place for staff to wear political buttons," said department spokeswoman Ann Forte.
"We don't want a school or school staff advocating for any political position or candidate to students and we don't want students feeling intimidated because they might hold a different belief or support a different candidate than their teachers."
United Federation of Teachers official LeRoy Barr told his members in a recent e-mail that union chief Randi Weingarten is fighting the DOE decision.
Officials of the union - which has endorsed Obama - said they didn't know of any schools where button-wearing teachers were told to zip it, but they said they were exploring the matter "to ensure members' rights to free speech and expression."
While department officials said the courts are on their side in the matter, many city teachers say their right to wear partisan buttons is a matter of free speech.
Several cited a landmark 1969 Supreme Court ruling involving students who planned to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. It affirmed that constitutional rights don't get dropped "at the schoolhouse gate."
"It's not teaching kids to vote for Obama; rather, it's showing them the democratic process in action," said Patrick Compton, a social-studies teacher at Lafayette HS in Brooklyn, who said he has been wearing an Obama button handed out by the union.
"It is shocking to me, truly, that in this day and age, the school system wants to diminish, rather than increase, participation in our democratic system."
Other teachers said they were extremely careful not to let free speech morph into any kind of partisan preaching.
"As long as you don't preach to the children about who you should vote for, I don't see anything wrong with it," said Ellen Eisenger, a teacher at PS 35 in Queens. "It's still America."
Last week, employees at the University of Illinois received an e-mail forbidding them to wear partisan political buttons on campus, while teachers at a high school near Santa Cruz, Calif., agreed to remove their "Educators for Obama" buttons in class after complaints from a parent who supports John McCain.
yoav.gonen@nypost.com
Here are two more pieces on the same subject.
Virginia Teachers Union Sparks Outrage with "Obama Blue Day"
Obama Children Sing for Change for Dear Leader another story appears here. It kind of reminds me of the Hitler Youth.
The following piece appeared in the New York Post.
TEACHERS GET HIT ON THE BUTTON
By YOAV GONEN, Education Reporter
Last updated: 10:49 am
October 2, 2008
The teachers union has been handing out thousands of Barack Obama campaign buttons to its members, sparking a clampdown by education brass.
The Department of Education - which has a long-standing policy barring teachers from wearing campaign buttons in schools - is set to send out an e-mail this week from Schools Chancellor Joel Klein laying down the law.
"Schools are not a place for politics and not a place for staff to wear political buttons," said department spokeswoman Ann Forte.
"We don't want a school or school staff advocating for any political position or candidate to students and we don't want students feeling intimidated because they might hold a different belief or support a different candidate than their teachers."
United Federation of Teachers official LeRoy Barr told his members in a recent e-mail that union chief Randi Weingarten is fighting the DOE decision.
Officials of the union - which has endorsed Obama - said they didn't know of any schools where button-wearing teachers were told to zip it, but they said they were exploring the matter "to ensure members' rights to free speech and expression."
While department officials said the courts are on their side in the matter, many city teachers say their right to wear partisan buttons is a matter of free speech.
Several cited a landmark 1969 Supreme Court ruling involving students who planned to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. It affirmed that constitutional rights don't get dropped "at the schoolhouse gate."
"It's not teaching kids to vote for Obama; rather, it's showing them the democratic process in action," said Patrick Compton, a social-studies teacher at Lafayette HS in Brooklyn, who said he has been wearing an Obama button handed out by the union.
"It is shocking to me, truly, that in this day and age, the school system wants to diminish, rather than increase, participation in our democratic system."
Other teachers said they were extremely careful not to let free speech morph into any kind of partisan preaching.
"As long as you don't preach to the children about who you should vote for, I don't see anything wrong with it," said Ellen Eisenger, a teacher at PS 35 in Queens. "It's still America."
Last week, employees at the University of Illinois received an e-mail forbidding them to wear partisan political buttons on campus, while teachers at a high school near Santa Cruz, Calif., agreed to remove their "Educators for Obama" buttons in class after complaints from a parent who supports John McCain.
yoav.gonen@nypost.com
Here are two more pieces on the same subject.
Virginia Teachers Union Sparks Outrage with "Obama Blue Day"
Obama Children Sing for Change for Dear Leader another story appears here. It kind of reminds me of the Hitler Youth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)