States face deeper and deeper cuts to balance budgets

The following piece appeared in the International Herald Tribune. Of course this is no surprise to me for years we have been saying that government entities and programs from public schools to the federal government have a spending problem and not a funding problem. The employees of these governments services gain more from said services than the people they are to serve. For years said services have spent irresponsibly and passed budgets with excessive salaries, benefits and pensions. All on the backs of taxpayers and the taxpayers' children for generations to come. This was all done in the name of greed and not in the name of accountability to the people said services are to serve. The taxpayers of public schools, cities, counties, states and the federal government now live to serve said governments instead of vice-versa. We are under constant threat of the cutting of said services unless we pass taxes to fund their demand for excessive salaries, benefits and pensions.

Was the revolution from England for naught as our government bodies have become exactly what we fought against, self-serving bloated bureaucracies.



Cathy

States face deeper and deeper cuts to balance budgets
By Jennifer Steinhauer
Monday, November 17, 2008
LOS ANGELES: Two short months ago, lawmakers in California struggled to close a $15 billion hole in the state budget. It was among the biggest deficits in state history. Now the state faces an additional $11 billion shortfall and may be unable to pay its bills this spring.

The astonishing decline in revenues is without modern precedent here, but California is hardly alone. A majority of U.S. states - many with budgets already full of deep cuts and dependent on raiding rainy-day funds or tax increases - are scrambling to find ways to get through the rest of the year without hacking apart vital services or raising taxes.

Some governors, including Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and David Paterson in New York, have called special legislative sessions to deal with the crisis. Others are demanding hiring freezes and across-the-board cuts. A few states are finding their unemployment insurance funds running dry, just as the ranks of out-of-work residents spike.

The plunging revenues - the result of an unusual assemblage of personal, sales, capital gains and corporate taxes falling significantly - have poked holes in budgets that are just weeks and months old and that came about only after difficult legislative sessions.

"The fiscal landscape," said H.D. Palmer at the California Department of Finance, "is fundamentally altered from where it was six weeks ago."

In Michigan, to reduce overtime costs, fewer streets will be salted this winter. In Ohio, where the unemployment rate is more than 7 percent, the state may need a federal loan for the first time in 26 years to cover unemployment costs. In Nevada, which is almost totally dependent on sales taxes and gambling revenue, a health administrator said the state may be unable to pay claims in a few months.

In California, Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and state legislators are preparing to do battle over a proposed 1.5-cent sales tax increase, while in New York, Paterson, a Democrat, has proposed $5.2 billion worth of cuts, principally to Medicaid and education.

Even states where until recent months natural resource production has provided a buffer - and fat surpluses - are experiencing a sudden reversal of fortune as oil prices have declined.

"Frankly, I thought 2001 was really awful," said Scott Pattison, the executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. "It is even worse now."

He added, "This fiscal year will be really bad, and what is unfortunate is that I can't see how 2010 won't be bad too."

In keeping with recent economic trends, the states with the worst budget problems are those where large housing booms morphed into a large-scale mortgage crisis over the past two years.

The current-year budget gap in Rhode Island represents more than 11 percent of the state's entire general fund, in large part because of the high number of subprime loans. The story is similar in Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada.

In addition, the crisis in the financial markets had immediate and widespread impact on state budgets. States have lost revenues from capital gains taxes and bonuses that have evaporated, and growing job losses have reduced state income taxes while draining unemployment funds.

"What we are seeing is when fewer people are working there is less income tax and less spending," said Keith Dailey, a spokesman for Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, a Democrat.

Americans have also stopped shopping, which has hurt states that are heavily reliant on sales taxes, like Florida and Arizona. States that rely on tourism, like Nevada and Hawaii, have also been hurt by less consumer spending.

Further, the national credit crunch makes it harder for businesses to get loans, which trickles back into losses to states. When California was temporarily unable to gain access to the credit markets in the days leading up to the federal bailout package, state budget directors across the country noted the moment with horror.

The state's brief inability to pay bills because it could not get credit - California, like many states, regularly borrows when it is short of cash in anticipation of revenue later - has since been largely interpreted as an outgrowth of the much larger national and international credit crisis. Still, some budget experts said the problem could be a harbinger: Cities and counties with poor credit ratings could be cut off in the coming year, and there could be higher costs for issuing bonds.

"Just the fact that this was an issue at all is a big concern for every state," Pattison said. "Long-term bonds may be at risk. And I think states are going to have to accept that cost of debt is going to be higher."

In most states, budget directors and legislators have said that tax increases are not likely. A notable exception is California, where Schwarzenegger is seeking a 1.5-point increase in the state's sales tax, although he is unlikely to get the necessary approval of Republican legislators.

In Oregon, moreover, Governor Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, has proposed a $1 billion economic stimulus plan centered on infrastructure improvements, which he envisions would be paid for by raising the state's gasoline tax by 2 cents per gallon and increasing a host of vehicle fees.

When many regular legislative sessions resume in January, some states will be more likely to look to rainy-day funds, when they are available, and deeper cuts to services, most notably to K-12 education - kindergarten through 12th grade - which is generally a last-resort option among lawmakers.

Fewer than a dozen states have remained in the black this fiscal year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning economic research group in Washington that tracks state budgets, and they are largely those in the West with oil and mineral resources at the ready.

"The oil-producing states were doing very well with oil at $120 a barrel," said Iris Lav, the deputy director of the center. "They may not do as well now."

More generally, Lav said, state budgets are "moving from the damaged to the devastated."

I know it was too good to be true.

I should have known it was too good to be true. We received our property tax bill and our taxes went up 500 dollars. We figured with the cut in the education tax rate we would be paying less taxes. But no.... our assessment went up 160%. Absolutely amazing! The explanation we received is as follows.

"Their explanation to us was that they have changed the building lot valuation from $55,000 to $110,000. per lot, for the area that includes Winter, Pinnacle, Glidden, Barton, Croydon TP from Winter to the 4 Corners and Lovering Hill Roads. Also they have raised the land valuations on Old Springfield Rd.. I'm told that the land/building lot valuations in those areas were $55,000 for first acre and $2,000 for each additional acre in the building lots. Large tracts are handled a bit differently.

So apparently the new formula is now $110,000 up from $55,000. Their explanation to us was that this change occurred due to several recent high priced land sales that have occurred in the area described above. Some of these were land exchanges involved in settling the Ruger Estate, sold by the Ruger Company and land sold by the Ruger et al to abutters."


So look out Croydon. They were told to expect appeals....you would think that appeals would not be expected if something fishy were not going on. Also those assessed first get to pay two years higher taxes before everyone else. It is amazing that the assessors and the various governments in their infinite wisdom thought raising taxes in the current state of the economy was a good idea. What a bunch of greedy socialist schmucks.

To fight your assessment

Go on line to the State of NH Board of Tax and Land Appeals

www.state.nh.us/btla

Once on the site click Forms then click " Abatement Application to Municipality" and follow the instructions.

After the review by the Board of Selectmen and their decision, if you are still dissatisfied with the decision you can down load the form " Appeal Form to BTLA"

Cathy

My Favorite Quote

I think the state of education in America would have been a better place if Bob Dole had been elected president. The following is a quote from Bob Dole when he ran for President.

"I say this not to the teachers, but to their unions: If education were a war, you would be losing it. If it were a business, you would be driving it into bankruptcy. If it were a patient, it would be dying. To the teachers unions I say: When I am president, I will disregard your political power for the sake of the children, the schools and the nation. I plan to enrich your vocabulary with those words you fear -- school choice, competition and opportunity scholarships -- so that you will join the rest of us in accountability, while others compete with you for the commendable privilege of giving our children a real education."

Teachers and their unions refuse accountability and deny students and parents the civil right to school choice. They care about two things more money and denying parents the right to direct their child's education. We see it right here in Croydon with some of the Newport School employees. Unions and educrats have highjacked the education system. They are rich, powerful and connected they have the funds to manipulate all legislation to their benefit.

Cathy

The Obamas can choose to put their children first and send them to private school, a choice denied to many other Americans

The following piece appeared at World Mag.com. School choice should be a civil right for all not only the rich and politicians. I must say I totally agree with Rudy Giuliani that school choice "is one of the great civil rights issues of our time."

Cathy


Practicing school choice
OPINION: The Obamas can choose to put their children first and send them to private school, a choice denied to many other Americans | Cal Thomas

President-elect Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, came to town and did what people with young children usually do before moving. They looked at their new house and then Mrs. Obama checked out the school choices for their two young daughters.

The schools Mrs. Obama visited were private, not public. While no decision has yet been made, it seems obvious the girls enjoy their private school in Chicago and have flourished in it. Would the Obamas, in order to pander to the teachers unions, place their daughters in one of Washington, D.C.'s miserable public schools? Let's hope not. That would be a form of intellectual and social child abuse.

Should they choose either Sidwell Friends School (where Chelsea Clinton attended) or Georgetown Day School—Mrs. Obama visited both—or a public school, the Obamas have the ability to make a choice for their children, a choice the president-elect would deny to every other American who cannot afford to pay private school tuition. This is not the vaunted fairness for which Obama campaigned. This is not spreading the educational and intellectual wealth around.

During the campaign, Obama praised D.C. School Superintendent Michelle Rhee for her commendable attempts to improve the Washington public school system, but the schools still have a long way to go and continue to underperform the rest of the country. Surely the Obamas care more about their daughters than the teachers unions and will place them in private schools.

Parents who put their children first are to be admired and emulated. Politicians who are parents and who have the power to let others make the choices they can make, but refuse to do so, are inconsistent at best and hypocrites at worst.

Throughout the campaign, Obama presented himself as a champion of the poor and middle class. Poor and middle-class parents do not love their children any less than the Obamas love their daughters. They want their kids to have a good education, realizing it is their ticket to a better life. But liberal politicians deny them that right. Is that fair?

This year, 1,900 D.C. schoolchildren were allowed to attend private schools, thanks to congressional vouchers. With Democrats about to be in charge of all three branches of government, will Obama and his fellow Democrats send them back to failed schools? D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has suggested as much. Parents interviewed by Washington TV stations overwhelmingly want their children to remain where they are. Is it not cruel to force them back into a broken system?

Many Members of Congress choose private schools for their children. Sens. Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton have been outspoken opponents of school choice yet have sent their children to private schools. According to a 2007 Heritage Foundation survey, "... 37 percent of representatives and 45 percent of senators in the 110th Congress sent their children to private schools—almost four times the rate of the general population." Yet many of them vote against letting the rest of us have the same choice.

In its recently released annual report, the privately underwritten Children's Scholarship Fund outlines the assistance it is offering parents of disadvantaged poor and minority students. It isn't welfare, because parents contribute to the cost of their child's education. As the annual report states, after 10 years "the lives of 96,000 children across the United States have been changed for the better by CSF scholarships worth $315 million."

What do the children think? Fatouma D., a CSF sixth-grader says, "I love my school so much. We have so many programs. The best part is the fun never stops until 6 o'clock." Here's Jonathan C., a second-grader: "When I grow up I want to be a Marine so I can save people trapped in water." And Madysen D., a first-grader, "I can't wait to start working on fractions."

If Obama and his fellow Democrats won't "let our people go," the rest of us have options. We can send our children and grandchildren to private schools—or home school them—and act compassionately toward the less fortunate by contributing to the Children's Scholarship Fund (8 West 38th Street, 9th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10018).

This will offer children trapped in bad schools the brighter future they deserve and the country will get the better educated citizenry it desperately needs.

© 2008 Tribune Media Services Inc.

Will Homeschooling Continue to be Legal Under the Obama Administration?

One of my biggest fears about having Obama elected president is that he would take away Americans right to homeschool. Obama's politics are socialist in nature and socialist do not like homeschoolers. You can not indoctrinate people into the socialist mindset if parents homeschool. I received the following from the Home School Legal Defense Association. The email below is their take on Obama's mindset regarding homeschooling.

Cathy

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends of Homeschooling:

Since the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president, HSLDA has received more than a few calls from both members and nonmembers. Some are quite concerned about the future of homeschooling under an Obama presidency.

First of all, let us always remember that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7). He also instructs us to be wise, plan, and be prepared in everything we do.

Despite HSLDA’s efforts prior to the election to get an official statement from the Obama campaign regarding their position on homeschooling, we received no response.

So where does that leave us?

We do know that the Democratic Party has an official position of supporting public education. The National Education Association (NEA), which is the national teachers union, is a major supporter of the Democratic Party. We know that the NEA’s position is that every child should be either taught by a certified teacher or supervised by one. Additionally, their position is that the curriculum used by all homeschoolers should be approved by the state, and children should only be able to continue to be homeschooled based upon systematic evaluation by the state.

It is important to remember that under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority over private and home education. This is not to say that they will not attempt to exercise authority in these areas. And whenever private educators accept grants and benefits, there are conditions to receiving those benefits, including being subject to regulation.

Just because the federal government has no constitutional authority over home education, however, doesn’t mean that federal bureaucrats or legislators might not attempt to impose some form of regulation over private and home education. We saw this back in 1994, when the reauthorization of the Secondary and Elementary Act (H.R. 6) contained an amendment which would have conditioned funding to the states for public education to require that all teachers be certified in every subject area they teach. The homeschool community rose up; over a million phone calls were made to the U.S. Congress, and the amendment was defeated. During that process, Representative Dick Armey from Texas introduced an amendment which stated that the federal government and Congress have no authority over private and home education. This protective language was passed by the House of Representatives.

With your help and the help of homeschoolers all across America, we will vigorously resist any effort on the part of the federal government to regulate home education. Obviously, this will take resources—which come from our membership—and we would encourage our current members to continue standing with us, and encourage others to join us.

An immediate concern to watch is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although we do not know what Barack Obama’s specific position on the treaty is, we know that future Vice President Joe Biden has publicly indicated that this UN Convention should be ratified by the United States.

It does appear that we will soon have the challenge of keeping the UN Convention from being ratified by the U.S. Senate, ratification requiring a two-thirds majority to pass.

Should the UN Convention be ratified, it would impose the United Nation’s view of children’s rights on America. Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties become the Supreme Law of the land, taking precedent over state laws and state supreme court decisions.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not in the best interest of parents or children, as it would undermine the parental authority that our laws currently recognize. For further information on the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child visit ParentalRights.org.

To summarize, homeschoolers should not live in fear, but we do need to be wise, and we will need to be vigilant to protect parental rights and homeschooling freedoms in the future. We stand prepared, with your help, to do that as we’ve done for 25 years.

Michael Smith
HSLDA President

SWEET SILVER LININGS TO OUR BALLOT INITIATIVE

The following email was sent to me by Small Government News. When reading the story below keep in mind that the 7,258,816 million dollars is tax money from homeowners that was sent to schools used to educate our children. But instead it ends up in union hands to be used against the taxpayer.

Cathy


Small Government News*
Thursday, November 13, 2008

Publisher: Carla Howell
Editor: Michael Cloud

===========================================================
SWEET SILVER LININGS TO OUR BALLOT INITIATIVE
TO END THE MASSACHUSETTS INCOME TAX
By Michael Cloud
===========================================================

Teachers Unions and their allies spent $7,268,816* to defeat our Ballot Question 1 to END the state income tax.

They won the vote.

That’s supposed to be the end of the story.

But it’s not. The Teachers Unions and their tax-profiteering allies have already gotten more than they bargained for.

Teachers Unions and their allies have incurred huge costs – immediate and long-term - from their campaign against ENDing the state income tax.

Taxpayers have lost nothing and gained much from the Teachers Unions’ NO on 1 campaign.

Massachusetts state income taxes are the same today as they were the day before the vote. Taxpayers didn’t lose a dime. Government didn’t gain a dime.

Taxpayers are no worse off than before the vote. Teachers Unions and their tax-benefiting allies are no better off.

The $7,268,816 we forced the Teachers Unions to spend to keep the state income tax is $7,268,816 they could NOT spend elsewhere to raise property taxes and other taxes.**

This year, the Massachusetts state legislature and Governor postponed government spending increases, announced spending cuts – and did NOT increase taxes. Our Ballot Initiative and our campaign for it are a key reason why.

The Teachers Unions regularly and repeatedly campaigned against ENDing the income tax on the grounds that it would raise property taxes. So did their allies. So did newspaper articles and editorials.

Hundreds and hundreds of advertisements by the Teachers Unions claimed:“YES on Question 1 = Raising Property Taxes.”

These ads aroused and reinforced opposition to raising property taxes.

The Teachers Unions campaign against our tax cut just might stop their 2009 campaigns for property tax increases.

Unintended consequences. Sweet silver linings.

***

* As of 11-1-08 Campaign Report.

** See Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt or “What is Seen and What is Not Seen (The Broken Window Fallacy)” by Frederic Bastiat.

School Board Meeting Tonight

Just a reminder the Croydon School Board meeting is tonight. Jim will present the recommendations to the school board from the long term planning committee.


Will the students, parents and taxpayers of Croydon interests be placed ahead of the school district and SAU's employees? Or will job security of Newport teachers and the SAU be the first priority of the school board?

Cathy