If you were able to attend (and even better yet, testify!) at the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Governor Lynch's constitutional amendment, CACR18, last week - thank you.
This Thursday at 10:00am, the NH Senate will vote on this in executive session. The senate gallery holds about 30 people and I'd like to fill it with opponents of this Constitutional amendment. To do that, I need your help.
Please join me in opposition of what will surely be yet another step towards an income tax, a step away from local control of our schools, and a giant leap towards the end of the New Hampshire Advantage.
We'll be meeting in the cafeteria at 9:00 and going upstairs early to insure we get those 30 seats!! Please email me or call me to let me know that you will be there.
Thank you in advance for all of your help!
Tammy Simmons
Executive Director
New Hampshire Advantage Coalition
(603) 235-9998
tsimmons@theNHadvantage.com
www.theNHadvantage.com
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Charlie Arlinghaus: House revolution is a threat to fiscal sanity not just balloon freedom
We have been busy unpacking and have not had time to post since April 4th. I will be updating and backdating the BLOG. Most of the posts will be articles related to taxes and schools and editorials that share our point of view.
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader.
Charlie Arlinghaus: House revolution is a threat to fiscal sanity not just balloon freedom
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
WHEN THE revolution comes, there will be no balloons. The Legislature has acted swiftly and decisively to mete out severe punishment against the lawless scofflaws threatening the foundation of western civilization by releasing balloons. Consider the threat to a free society posed by a random mylar smiley face released and coming down willy nilly wherever it pleases.
Smiley will threaten us no more. The release of a balloon will cost you a cool $250 fine. Speeding in a two-ton motor vehicle is much cheaper at less than half the price, so let me be the first to urge would be smiley face hooligans to abandon their nefarious mylar mayhem and turn instead to fast cars.
Obviously this one ridiculous act of legislative exuberance is hardly representative and will almost certainly be killed by the sensible Senate, but it is something of a metaphor for the efforts of a House of Representatives that is finishing up its initial work and passing it over to the Senate. Like the balloon fine, much of the work of the House is well meaning and passionate but will have to be corrected, toned down, or set aside by the state Senate.
If all its work were just silly things like the balloon fine, we'd enjoy a nice chortle and be on our way. But the revolution has come and it's not balloons that are threatened.
The real mess that the Senate will be forced to clean up is the state's fiscal stability, both on the spending and the revenue side. The House takes the first crack at the budget process and its crack is a doozy that should leave us all reeling.
The governor had proposed the largest budget increase in more than a decade, about 14 percent, much higher than the rate of inflation. The House of Representatives looked upon that as something of an opening bid and decided to ratchet up spending by an additional $178 million above that already high number.
To make matters much worse, the budget House members will adopt today takes $60 million ordinarily paid for in annual revenues and borrows the money instead. By bonding millions in operating costs, the state is doing the equivalent of you using a credit card to make your mortgage payment. For the sake of your own finances, please don't follow this example.
The last four budget years, including budgets by Governors Craig Benson and John Lynch, had been quite frugal to get spending back on track to sustainable levels. In one fell swoop, the exuberant House of Representatives decided to spend every dime available during a boom in business revenues and raise bunches of taxes and fees to boot.
There has been a significant shift in approach on the tax and revenue side of the picture. Traditionally, we assess fees to cover the cost of some basic regulatory efforts. A fee might cover the cost of filing paperwork or processing an application. For the general operations of government we use regular taxes, not inflated fees.
However, in the rush to find more and more revenue to fuel one of the largest spending increases in history, fees are being manipulated to fuel the general budget. One of the more honest bills, raising a permit fee by 50 percent, actually deleted the language beginning "the amount of the fee shall reflect the relative effort necessary for review of the application." That way we can use the fee as a pseudo-tax. For example, we're raising car registration fees another $6 not to cover the cost of registration but as a tax to fund the general operation of government.
The increase in the tobacco tax will cost small businesses in New Hampshire about $140 million in revenue. But instead of worrying about tax policy hurting businesses, the rush for revenue causes a typical legislator to say "I feel bad but we need the money."
Taxes and fees hurt businesses and taxpayers. We limit fees to recovering the cost of the regulation to keep them from being raised every time the state government wants another $178 million. Considering the damage caused by tax policy helps balance the pressure created with the budget process with sensitivity to the needs of the citizens that budget serves.
The revolutionary exuberance of the House needs to be popped like a balloon by a careful and sensible Senate.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader.
Charlie Arlinghaus: House revolution is a threat to fiscal sanity not just balloon freedom
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
WHEN THE revolution comes, there will be no balloons. The Legislature has acted swiftly and decisively to mete out severe punishment against the lawless scofflaws threatening the foundation of western civilization by releasing balloons. Consider the threat to a free society posed by a random mylar smiley face released and coming down willy nilly wherever it pleases.
Smiley will threaten us no more. The release of a balloon will cost you a cool $250 fine. Speeding in a two-ton motor vehicle is much cheaper at less than half the price, so let me be the first to urge would be smiley face hooligans to abandon their nefarious mylar mayhem and turn instead to fast cars.
Obviously this one ridiculous act of legislative exuberance is hardly representative and will almost certainly be killed by the sensible Senate, but it is something of a metaphor for the efforts of a House of Representatives that is finishing up its initial work and passing it over to the Senate. Like the balloon fine, much of the work of the House is well meaning and passionate but will have to be corrected, toned down, or set aside by the state Senate.
If all its work were just silly things like the balloon fine, we'd enjoy a nice chortle and be on our way. But the revolution has come and it's not balloons that are threatened.
The real mess that the Senate will be forced to clean up is the state's fiscal stability, both on the spending and the revenue side. The House takes the first crack at the budget process and its crack is a doozy that should leave us all reeling.
The governor had proposed the largest budget increase in more than a decade, about 14 percent, much higher than the rate of inflation. The House of Representatives looked upon that as something of an opening bid and decided to ratchet up spending by an additional $178 million above that already high number.
To make matters much worse, the budget House members will adopt today takes $60 million ordinarily paid for in annual revenues and borrows the money instead. By bonding millions in operating costs, the state is doing the equivalent of you using a credit card to make your mortgage payment. For the sake of your own finances, please don't follow this example.
The last four budget years, including budgets by Governors Craig Benson and John Lynch, had been quite frugal to get spending back on track to sustainable levels. In one fell swoop, the exuberant House of Representatives decided to spend every dime available during a boom in business revenues and raise bunches of taxes and fees to boot.
There has been a significant shift in approach on the tax and revenue side of the picture. Traditionally, we assess fees to cover the cost of some basic regulatory efforts. A fee might cover the cost of filing paperwork or processing an application. For the general operations of government we use regular taxes, not inflated fees.
However, in the rush to find more and more revenue to fuel one of the largest spending increases in history, fees are being manipulated to fuel the general budget. One of the more honest bills, raising a permit fee by 50 percent, actually deleted the language beginning "the amount of the fee shall reflect the relative effort necessary for review of the application." That way we can use the fee as a pseudo-tax. For example, we're raising car registration fees another $6 not to cover the cost of registration but as a tax to fund the general operation of government.
The increase in the tobacco tax will cost small businesses in New Hampshire about $140 million in revenue. But instead of worrying about tax policy hurting businesses, the rush for revenue causes a typical legislator to say "I feel bad but we need the money."
Taxes and fees hurt businesses and taxpayers. We limit fees to recovering the cost of the regulation to keep them from being raised every time the state government wants another $178 million. Considering the damage caused by tax policy helps balance the pressure created with the budget process with sensitivity to the needs of the citizens that budget serves.
The revolutionary exuberance of the House needs to be popped like a balloon by a careful and sensible Senate.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
House party: When state reps. go wild
The following editorial appeared in the Union Leader.
House party: When state reps. go wild
THE HOUSE votes today on a $10.4 billion budget that raises spending nearly $180 million above the level Gov. John Lynch proposed in his inflated, record-setting $10.2 billion budget. And the House Finance Committee chairman has the audacity to call it a "conservative" budget.
Gov. Lynch's budget would have been the first state budget in history to break the $10 billion mark. It raised taxes and fees by nearly $111 million. But even at this record level, House Democrats were not satisfied.
We wrote on Feb. 18 that state spending would be higher this year than Gov. Lynch proposed because he has "a Legislature even more eager than he is to tax and spend." Lo and behold, the House's proposed budget is a whole $178 million higher than Lynch's.
Who is fighting all of this spending? Not the governor, at least not in public, anyway. He has expressed some "concerns" about the House proposal, but he has not fought a public fight to keep spending under any sort of control.
Nor have House Republicans made a real effort to trim spending. Their grand scheme is to make a political issue of the tax and fee increases. But they have no plans to burn any energy trying to actually restrain spending.
So the taxpayers are left with no active advocate in Concord, unless the Senate suddenly gets religion and decides to break out a paring knife at the last minute.
Gov. Lynch might have been able to impose some restraint on legislators had he made clear, as Gov. Craig Benson did, that he would not tolerate spending or tax hikes above a certain level. But Lynch is not that kind of leader.
Now just about all taxpayers can do, besides complaining to their legislators and the governor, is hope that legislators don't view easy tax and fee hikes this year as an invitation to go for even more next year.
House party: When state reps. go wild
THE HOUSE votes today on a $10.4 billion budget that raises spending nearly $180 million above the level Gov. John Lynch proposed in his inflated, record-setting $10.2 billion budget. And the House Finance Committee chairman has the audacity to call it a "conservative" budget.
Gov. Lynch's budget would have been the first state budget in history to break the $10 billion mark. It raised taxes and fees by nearly $111 million. But even at this record level, House Democrats were not satisfied.
We wrote on Feb. 18 that state spending would be higher this year than Gov. Lynch proposed because he has "a Legislature even more eager than he is to tax and spend." Lo and behold, the House's proposed budget is a whole $178 million higher than Lynch's.
Who is fighting all of this spending? Not the governor, at least not in public, anyway. He has expressed some "concerns" about the House proposal, but he has not fought a public fight to keep spending under any sort of control.
Nor have House Republicans made a real effort to trim spending. Their grand scheme is to make a political issue of the tax and fee increases. But they have no plans to burn any energy trying to actually restrain spending.
So the taxpayers are left with no active advocate in Concord, unless the Senate suddenly gets religion and decides to break out a paring knife at the last minute.
Gov. Lynch might have been able to impose some restraint on legislators had he made clear, as Gov. Craig Benson did, that he would not tolerate spending or tax hikes above a certain level. But Lynch is not that kind of leader.
Now just about all taxpayers can do, besides complaining to their legislators and the governor, is hope that legislators don't view easy tax and fee hikes this year as an invitation to go for even more next year.
Monday, April 9, 2007
NH still low-tax: For now, at least
The following editorial appeared in the Union Leader. To learn more about keeping the New Hampshire Advantage visit the The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition
website.
NH still low-tax: For now, at least
IN ITS LATEST ranking of state and local tax burdens, the non-profit Tax Foundation again ranked New Hampshire as having the second-lowest tax burden in the nation. But that favorable tax climate is in jeopardy.
Only Alaska has a lower tax burden than New Hampshire, but that is because Alaska gets proceeds from oil exploration. New Hampshire stands alone as the only state in the nation to keep its tax burden low purely through frugality. (And it stands, incidentally, between the two highest-tax states in the nation: Vermont and Maine.)
New Hampshire's frugality, however, is being challenged. The newly elected Democratic majority in the Legislature, along with the governor, is pushing huge tax and fee hikes this session despite sitting on a $46 million budget surplus.
Even worse, the Legislature does not seem interested in standing up to the state Supreme Court to avoid the broadbased tax that its education funding mandates will impose. On the contrary, legislators seem eager to have that revenue.
The Tax Foundation's study shows that the average state and local tax burden climbed to 11 percent of personal income this year, its highest point in 25 years. Granite Staters pay only 8 percent of their income in state and local taxes. That is a huge advantage, particularly over our high-tax neighbors. It not only encourages economic growth, but it leaves residents free to decide on their own how to spend more of the money they earn.
That freedom is the real New Hampshire Advantage. The current Legislature is quickly working to erase it.
website.
NH still low-tax: For now, at least
IN ITS LATEST ranking of state and local tax burdens, the non-profit Tax Foundation again ranked New Hampshire as having the second-lowest tax burden in the nation. But that favorable tax climate is in jeopardy.
Only Alaska has a lower tax burden than New Hampshire, but that is because Alaska gets proceeds from oil exploration. New Hampshire stands alone as the only state in the nation to keep its tax burden low purely through frugality. (And it stands, incidentally, between the two highest-tax states in the nation: Vermont and Maine.)
New Hampshire's frugality, however, is being challenged. The newly elected Democratic majority in the Legislature, along with the governor, is pushing huge tax and fee hikes this session despite sitting on a $46 million budget surplus.
Even worse, the Legislature does not seem interested in standing up to the state Supreme Court to avoid the broadbased tax that its education funding mandates will impose. On the contrary, legislators seem eager to have that revenue.
The Tax Foundation's study shows that the average state and local tax burden climbed to 11 percent of personal income this year, its highest point in 25 years. Granite Staters pay only 8 percent of their income in state and local taxes. That is a huge advantage, particularly over our high-tax neighbors. It not only encourages economic growth, but it leaves residents free to decide on their own how to spend more of the money they earn.
That freedom is the real New Hampshire Advantage. The current Legislature is quickly working to erase it.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Irena Goddard, opposing CACR18
Irena Goddard, opposing CACR18
Honorable members of the Committee,
As you can tell from my accent, I was not born in the United States. I was born in Communist Czechoslovakia. I went to school in a little town of Ostrava. Ostrava is located in the northeasten part of Czechoslovakia, very close to the Polish and German borders. We would address all of our teachers by Soudruska Ucitelka (which translates into Comrade Teacher). Differentiation and creativity of any kind was discouraged. Economic classlessness and receiving based on “need” was preached. The curriculum that I was taught, in the Czechoslovakian elementary school was centrally controlled from Moscow.
The Soviet Union wanted to ensure that every child in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other satellite counties was getting equal and adequate education. This communist flavor education was dictated from Moscow, and since there was little local control, everyone had to adhere to the powerful bureaucrats in power. We know now the terror that was applied to those to were brave enough to question the Communist Party and we all know why the Communist Soviet Union fell – because the central planners, the bureaucrats in power could not “plan” everything. Central planning and central funding and thus “redistribution of wealth” does not work.
The only proven economic political system that works is Capitalistic-democracy. THAT is the reason I ask you to oppose this “seemingly noble” but “extremely dangerous” amendment!
If you think that we are long off from communism or we are doing this for the children or you are thinking that the State needs to fund education somehow. I have this to say back to you:
1) Gaining central state control of the schools is one of the 45 Planks in the Communist Platform that was issued in 1958. Other goals on that platform included: central standardization and control of the curriculum and getting state control of teachers' associations.
2) If you are thinking that this amendment is needed because it is “for the children”. I answer back to you: Parents have the biggest stake, interest and motivation in their children's education. Parents need to have direct voice in schools. If current local control continues, then the “children will continue to benefit”. If you are going to support this amendment, then you are removing parent and local community control and you are hurting the children. Make no mistake: 50% central funding will take away 100% local parental and community control.
3) If you are thinking that “we need to fund education somehow”, then I answer back. There is no mandate to change how schools are funded. Bringing in centrally distributed money will only enlarge the “education machine” just like we had in Czechoslovakia, meaning everything BUT student performance.
I believe by supporting this amendment, that you will be putting into place the infrastructure that will slowly start controlling all aspects of education by one bureaucratic source. Carefully consider how other elected or non-elected officials 5, 10, 20 years from now, can use this amendment, (who may or may not be of different political mindset than yourselves).
I know you intend only the best things, I know that you make think that I am making preposterous comparisons. I ask you: Have you ever lived in a Communist state? Well, I have. And I can see a mile away what you may not recognize right under your nose.
Honorable members of the Committee,
As you can tell from my accent, I was not born in the United States. I was born in Communist Czechoslovakia. I went to school in a little town of Ostrava. Ostrava is located in the northeasten part of Czechoslovakia, very close to the Polish and German borders. We would address all of our teachers by Soudruska Ucitelka (which translates into Comrade Teacher). Differentiation and creativity of any kind was discouraged. Economic classlessness and receiving based on “need” was preached. The curriculum that I was taught, in the Czechoslovakian elementary school was centrally controlled from Moscow.
The Soviet Union wanted to ensure that every child in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other satellite counties was getting equal and adequate education. This communist flavor education was dictated from Moscow, and since there was little local control, everyone had to adhere to the powerful bureaucrats in power. We know now the terror that was applied to those to were brave enough to question the Communist Party and we all know why the Communist Soviet Union fell – because the central planners, the bureaucrats in power could not “plan” everything. Central planning and central funding and thus “redistribution of wealth” does not work.
The only proven economic political system that works is Capitalistic-democracy. THAT is the reason I ask you to oppose this “seemingly noble” but “extremely dangerous” amendment!
If you think that we are long off from communism or we are doing this for the children or you are thinking that the State needs to fund education somehow. I have this to say back to you:
1) Gaining central state control of the schools is one of the 45 Planks in the Communist Platform that was issued in 1958. Other goals on that platform included: central standardization and control of the curriculum and getting state control of teachers' associations.
2) If you are thinking that this amendment is needed because it is “for the children”. I answer back to you: Parents have the biggest stake, interest and motivation in their children's education. Parents need to have direct voice in schools. If current local control continues, then the “children will continue to benefit”. If you are going to support this amendment, then you are removing parent and local community control and you are hurting the children. Make no mistake: 50% central funding will take away 100% local parental and community control.
3) If you are thinking that “we need to fund education somehow”, then I answer back. There is no mandate to change how schools are funded. Bringing in centrally distributed money will only enlarge the “education machine” just like we had in Czechoslovakia, meaning everything BUT student performance.
I believe by supporting this amendment, that you will be putting into place the infrastructure that will slowly start controlling all aspects of education by one bureaucratic source. Carefully consider how other elected or non-elected officials 5, 10, 20 years from now, can use this amendment, (who may or may not be of different political mindset than yourselves).
I know you intend only the best things, I know that you make think that I am making preposterous comparisons. I ask you: Have you ever lived in a Communist state? Well, I have. And I can see a mile away what you may not recognize right under your nose.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
The following was a speech presented at the CACR 18 hearing as to why it should not pass.
CACR 18 SHOULD BE OPPOSED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO STOP STATE TAKE OVER OF EDUCATION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
CACR 18 FAILS TO PREVENT THE END OF LOCAL CONTROL.
In its December 30, 1993 Claremont I decision, the N.H. Supreme court decided to change N.H.’s historic education formula when it ruled, “ ... that [the] encouragement of literature clause of [the] State Constitution imposes duty on [the] state to provide constitutionally adequate education to every educable child in public schools in [the] state and to guarantee adequate funding.” (Emphasis mine).
On December 17, 1997, the Court ruled that local property taxes can’t be used to fund the state’s obligation to pay for adequate education for every educable child. In other words, state funding for adequate education must come from state tax resources and not local tax resources.
When the Court ruled that the state must provide a constitutionally adequate education to every educable child, it asserted, just as it did with funding, that the State of New Hampshire and not the state’s towns, cities or local school districts must provide for all of what comprises an adequate education and that means directing all the physical and human resources required to do the job. The state can’t delegate its administrative, managerial or teaching responsibilities any more than it can delegate its constitutional obligation to guarantee funding so whatever education is provided locally from here on will be under the complete direction and authority of Concord educators and not local school boards.
Since CACR 18 does nothing to interdict the transition from a fundamentally locally driven system of education to one of total state control, the governor should soon arrange to meet with New Hampshire’s mayors, councilmen and selectmen to discuss the implications for all local school districts and for all voters as we transition to what will become a single, state school district. Future school board members will be elected to do the state’s bidding rather implementing and directing educational programs important to local parents.
It’s clear, from two just released studies, that the educational model which the court insists the state adopt will have undeniably and irretrievably grave consequences for the educational future of our children, consequences which no responsible parent or guardian could possibly approve. Any proposed amendment - and particularly, the governor’s amendment - should stop state takeover.
At present, education in New Hampshire is still a local function, driven by parent input and administered through local school boards. The Courts edict has not yet been implemented. The cost is still primarily paid for through local property taxes. Stakeholders are still within shouting distance of those who administer their schools.
This March, the United States Chamber of Commerce issued the results of a comprehensive study of education in the United States. It should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with our locally driven, locally funded system of education that NH scored #3, of all the states, following Massachusetts and Minnesota. Massachusetts and Minnesota also sport locally driven systems. The Claremont decisions demand that we abandon this exceptionally effective education model.
Where did the court find the its inspiration for top-down education? It found the aspirational language in the 1895 Kentucky constitution. Kentucky scored #38 in the United States Chamber of Commerce study.
What does the language of the Claremont decisions actually require? The answer is a top-down system similar to that of California - with the ideal being Hawaii. California scored #43 in the United States Chamber of Commerce study. Hawaii, an entirely top down and entirely state funded system scored #46. So, where would we be heading with adoption of CACR18? Clearly, there’s no chance of either remaining #3, or of overtaking Minnesota or Massachusetts. We appear headed somewhere between Kentucky and Hawaii - if we’re lucky. If not, the result could be worse. And just how worse?
Another, just issued, March 2007 report, summarized by Vicki Murray of the Pacific Research Institute [summary attached herewith] suggests just how bad complying with the courts vision of education for New Hampshire could get. The $2.6 million report, funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation and the Stuart Foundation placed California #48 among states - Lower than the United States Chamber of Commerce study. If we remain on the justice’s education bandwagon, the future for educating New Hampshire’s kids looks terribly grim.
And what of the cost to implement this pending decline? Recently the governor embraced the New Hampshire Department of Education’s specifications for defining adequacy. The NH House recently passed HB927, a holistic model including kindergarten. Estimates of cost per pupil are various at the moment but it seems that the minimum sum necessary to provide for the curriculum and administrative structure we’re creeping up on will be in the neighborhood of $9,000 to $10,000 per student. Given approximately 220,000 students in New Hampshire schools, this means that the state will soon have to annually raise between $2.0 and $2.2 billion in school funds or, in other words, around $1.2 to $1.4 billion dollars more than we’re currently providing schools. The tax implications are enormous and the implications for the state’s economic future are grave.
CACR 18 proposes to target state aid. Targeting has been opposed by House and Senate Democrats until now. Targeting state education funds toward property poor districts has always made sense because the sums involved historically did not comprise so large an amount as to threaten more healthy and wealthy school districts. If targeting however, as CACR 18 provides, applies to the total sum the state will distribute, now projected at billions of dollars - the political reality is that the formula for distributing the entire funding pot will be determined by political coalitions in the House and Senate and not through application of a rational education funding formula based upon need. Lousy education and endless litigation will result.
An example of how just this sort of legislative self-interest works occurred when the recent state wide property tax and distribution formula emerged several speakerships ago. The state wide property tax was eventually passed because it served particular political coalitions in the House and Senate. It was not passed because it was either rational or equitable. The votes were cynically assembled. The formula adopted caused enormous turmoil statewide. The lesson is ageless. Political considerations will always trump need when too much money is involved. The education and education funding plan now emerging from the governor and legislature for New Hampshire is our own bridge to nowhere.
CACR 18 will not prevent state takeover, it will not prevent incipient educational decline. it will not prevent financial hemorrhaging, it will not prevent gut-wrenching new taxes nor will it prevent vicious and contentious legislative wrangling over the distribution of state education funds. In the end, when this plays out, weak communities and constituencies will be forced to subsidize more powerful coalitions of towns and cities. All CACR 18 will do is help facilitate instituting this new, top down education model for which New Hampshire towns cities will be compelled to pay up to half the cost. The privilege for such extortion will be front row seats from which to watch a stellar and nationally admired education system go down the drain.
Every parent and every teacher in New Hampshire should be alarmed at what’s transpiring here and the effect it will have on our children. If you care about quality education for New Hampshire’s kids you should be fighting state takeover to your dying breath. We need to halt this transition. CACR 18 as written will do no more than facilitate a one way trip to the worst of education worlds.
Respectfully,
Paul Mirski
CACR 18 FAILS TO PREVENT THE END OF LOCAL CONTROL.
In its December 30, 1993 Claremont I decision, the N.H. Supreme court decided to change N.H.’s historic education formula when it ruled, “ ... that [the] encouragement of literature clause of [the] State Constitution imposes duty on [the] state to provide constitutionally adequate education to every educable child in public schools in [the] state and to guarantee adequate funding.” (Emphasis mine).
On December 17, 1997, the Court ruled that local property taxes can’t be used to fund the state’s obligation to pay for adequate education for every educable child. In other words, state funding for adequate education must come from state tax resources and not local tax resources.
When the Court ruled that the state must provide a constitutionally adequate education to every educable child, it asserted, just as it did with funding, that the State of New Hampshire and not the state’s towns, cities or local school districts must provide for all of what comprises an adequate education and that means directing all the physical and human resources required to do the job. The state can’t delegate its administrative, managerial or teaching responsibilities any more than it can delegate its constitutional obligation to guarantee funding so whatever education is provided locally from here on will be under the complete direction and authority of Concord educators and not local school boards.
Since CACR 18 does nothing to interdict the transition from a fundamentally locally driven system of education to one of total state control, the governor should soon arrange to meet with New Hampshire’s mayors, councilmen and selectmen to discuss the implications for all local school districts and for all voters as we transition to what will become a single, state school district. Future school board members will be elected to do the state’s bidding rather implementing and directing educational programs important to local parents.
It’s clear, from two just released studies, that the educational model which the court insists the state adopt will have undeniably and irretrievably grave consequences for the educational future of our children, consequences which no responsible parent or guardian could possibly approve. Any proposed amendment - and particularly, the governor’s amendment - should stop state takeover.
At present, education in New Hampshire is still a local function, driven by parent input and administered through local school boards. The Courts edict has not yet been implemented. The cost is still primarily paid for through local property taxes. Stakeholders are still within shouting distance of those who administer their schools.
This March, the United States Chamber of Commerce issued the results of a comprehensive study of education in the United States. It should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with our locally driven, locally funded system of education that NH scored #3, of all the states, following Massachusetts and Minnesota. Massachusetts and Minnesota also sport locally driven systems. The Claremont decisions demand that we abandon this exceptionally effective education model.
Where did the court find the its inspiration for top-down education? It found the aspirational language in the 1895 Kentucky constitution. Kentucky scored #38 in the United States Chamber of Commerce study.
What does the language of the Claremont decisions actually require? The answer is a top-down system similar to that of California - with the ideal being Hawaii. California scored #43 in the United States Chamber of Commerce study. Hawaii, an entirely top down and entirely state funded system scored #46. So, where would we be heading with adoption of CACR18? Clearly, there’s no chance of either remaining #3, or of overtaking Minnesota or Massachusetts. We appear headed somewhere between Kentucky and Hawaii - if we’re lucky. If not, the result could be worse. And just how worse?
Another, just issued, March 2007 report, summarized by Vicki Murray of the Pacific Research Institute [summary attached herewith] suggests just how bad complying with the courts vision of education for New Hampshire could get. The $2.6 million report, funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation and the Stuart Foundation placed California #48 among states - Lower than the United States Chamber of Commerce study. If we remain on the justice’s education bandwagon, the future for educating New Hampshire’s kids looks terribly grim.
And what of the cost to implement this pending decline? Recently the governor embraced the New Hampshire Department of Education’s specifications for defining adequacy. The NH House recently passed HB927, a holistic model including kindergarten. Estimates of cost per pupil are various at the moment but it seems that the minimum sum necessary to provide for the curriculum and administrative structure we’re creeping up on will be in the neighborhood of $9,000 to $10,000 per student. Given approximately 220,000 students in New Hampshire schools, this means that the state will soon have to annually raise between $2.0 and $2.2 billion in school funds or, in other words, around $1.2 to $1.4 billion dollars more than we’re currently providing schools. The tax implications are enormous and the implications for the state’s economic future are grave.
CACR 18 proposes to target state aid. Targeting has been opposed by House and Senate Democrats until now. Targeting state education funds toward property poor districts has always made sense because the sums involved historically did not comprise so large an amount as to threaten more healthy and wealthy school districts. If targeting however, as CACR 18 provides, applies to the total sum the state will distribute, now projected at billions of dollars - the political reality is that the formula for distributing the entire funding pot will be determined by political coalitions in the House and Senate and not through application of a rational education funding formula based upon need. Lousy education and endless litigation will result.
An example of how just this sort of legislative self-interest works occurred when the recent state wide property tax and distribution formula emerged several speakerships ago. The state wide property tax was eventually passed because it served particular political coalitions in the House and Senate. It was not passed because it was either rational or equitable. The votes were cynically assembled. The formula adopted caused enormous turmoil statewide. The lesson is ageless. Political considerations will always trump need when too much money is involved. The education and education funding plan now emerging from the governor and legislature for New Hampshire is our own bridge to nowhere.
CACR 18 will not prevent state takeover, it will not prevent incipient educational decline. it will not prevent financial hemorrhaging, it will not prevent gut-wrenching new taxes nor will it prevent vicious and contentious legislative wrangling over the distribution of state education funds. In the end, when this plays out, weak communities and constituencies will be forced to subsidize more powerful coalitions of towns and cities. All CACR 18 will do is help facilitate instituting this new, top down education model for which New Hampshire towns cities will be compelled to pay up to half the cost. The privilege for such extortion will be front row seats from which to watch a stellar and nationally admired education system go down the drain.
Every parent and every teacher in New Hampshire should be alarmed at what’s transpiring here and the effect it will have on our children. If you care about quality education for New Hampshire’s kids you should be fighting state takeover to your dying breath. We need to halt this transition. CACR 18 as written will do no more than facilitate a one way trip to the worst of education worlds.
Respectfully,
Paul Mirski
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
What you can do to try to stop CACR 18
Your urgent help is needed!
Please attend the senate hearing on Lynch's constitutional amendment, CACR18, on Tuesday, April 3, 2007.
The hearing is at 1:15pm in Room 103 of the State House.
We will meet in the cafeteria at 12:30. We’ll have lapel stickers that will identify you as being opposed to CACR18. Please let me know if you will be able to attend.
See what the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition is doing to stop the loss of local control and stop an income tax. Visit our website at http://www.thenhadvantage.com and watch our newest TV commercial.
Why this Constitutional Amendment is a Bad Idea:
The Lynch amendment, CACR18, does nothing to get the courts out of education policy and funding. Unless the Governor is planning on handing out blank checks to the school districts, count on the lawsuits continuing. His amendment allows anyone so inclined to sue the State on the grounds it hasn’t properly defined an adequate education, determined the cost, created appropriate standards of accountability, or all three. Then some unelected judges who know next to nothing about public education will have the final say.
What’s even worse is that CACR18 writes the Claremont decisions into the Constitution. So forget about a future Supreme Court made up of judges that respect the difference between adjudicating and legislating overruling Claremont. And forget about a future Legislature that understands the separation of powers standing up to the Supreme Court’s brazen power grab. New Hampshire henceforth will be government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers.
- If the Lynch amendment passes, kiss local control goodbye.
- Lynch’s amendment also adds the requirement that the State pay for fifty percent of the cost of an adequate education.
- Lynch's definition of an adequate education costs around $2.5 billion dollars.
We are not limited to choosing between the lesser of two evils when it comes to public education. We need to tell the them that the choice between the income tax and the Lynch amendment is a false choice. The message should be that we are going to target aid for public education and we are going to pay for it without a broad-based tax. If the black-robed busybodies on the Supreme Court don’t like that, too bad. The targeted-aid money is going to be sent out anyway.
What you can do to help:
1. Email your senator and tell them that you do not support this constitutional amendment, that you do not want them to support this constitutional amendment, and that you will not vote for them in the November 2008 election if they do support any amendment that writes into law any part of the Claremont decision(s).
You can find out who your senator is here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/default.asp
Or, you could just email them all. Their email addresses are:
john.gallus@leg.state.nh.us; deb.Reynolds@leg.state.nh.us; joseph.kenney@leg.state.nh.us; kathleen.sgambati@leg.state.nh.us; peter.burling@leg.state.nh.us; jacalyn.cilley@leg.state.nh.us; harold.janeway@leg.state.nh.us; rpojr@aol.com; sheila.roberge@leg.state.nh.us; molly.kelly@leg.state.nh.us; peter.bragdon@leg.state.nh.us; david.gottesman@leg.state.nh.us; joseph.foster@leg.state.nh.us; senclegg@aol.com; sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us; Ted.Gatsas@leg.state.nh.us; jack.barnes@leg.state.nh.us; betsi.devries@leg.state.nh.us; robert.letourneau@leg.state.nh.us; dalas@leg.state.nh.us; iris.estabrook@leg.state.nh.us; michael.downing@leg.state.nh.us; maggie.hassan@leg.state.nh.us; martha.fullerclark@leg.state.nh.us
2. Attend the senate hearing on CACR18 on Tuesday, April 3, 2007, Room 103, State House, 1:15 pm. We will meet in the cafeteria at 12:30.
3. Call your senator and reiterate that you do not support CACR18. You can find their phone number here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/default.asp
4. If you are a Republican, contact the NHGOP Chair, Fergus Cullen, and tell him that the NHGOP needs to take a strong, vocal position against this amendment. His email address is fergus@nhgop.org and the NHGOP office number is 225-9341.
5. Write letters to the editor to your local newspaper explaining why a constitutional amendment is a bad idea. If you’re stuck on what to write, email me and let me know and I will send you some suggestions. I can also email you with a list of all of the email addresses for papers across the state – you don’t have to submit to just your local paper.
6. Contact Governor Lynch and tell him that you do not support this constitutional amendment and that you do not want him to support any amendment that writes into law any part of the Claremont decision(s). His office number is 271-2121.
7. Contact your senator again, and remind them that you do not support this constitutional amendment, that you do not want them to support this constitutional amendment, and that you will not vote for them in the November 2008 election if they do support any amendment that writes into law any part of the Claremont decision(s).
8. Become a NHAC supporter by visiting http://www.thenhadvantage.com/join.html and adding your information to our list. We can't do this alone!
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks for your help.
Tammy Simmons
Executive Director
Please attend the senate hearing on Lynch's constitutional amendment, CACR18, on Tuesday, April 3, 2007.
The hearing is at 1:15pm in Room 103 of the State House.
We will meet in the cafeteria at 12:30. We’ll have lapel stickers that will identify you as being opposed to CACR18. Please let me know if you will be able to attend.
See what the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition is doing to stop the loss of local control and stop an income tax. Visit our website at http://www.thenhadvantage.com and watch our newest TV commercial.
Why this Constitutional Amendment is a Bad Idea:
The Lynch amendment, CACR18, does nothing to get the courts out of education policy and funding. Unless the Governor is planning on handing out blank checks to the school districts, count on the lawsuits continuing. His amendment allows anyone so inclined to sue the State on the grounds it hasn’t properly defined an adequate education, determined the cost, created appropriate standards of accountability, or all three. Then some unelected judges who know next to nothing about public education will have the final say.
What’s even worse is that CACR18 writes the Claremont decisions into the Constitution. So forget about a future Supreme Court made up of judges that respect the difference between adjudicating and legislating overruling Claremont. And forget about a future Legislature that understands the separation of powers standing up to the Supreme Court’s brazen power grab. New Hampshire henceforth will be government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers.
- If the Lynch amendment passes, kiss local control goodbye.
- Lynch’s amendment also adds the requirement that the State pay for fifty percent of the cost of an adequate education.
- Lynch's definition of an adequate education costs around $2.5 billion dollars.
We are not limited to choosing between the lesser of two evils when it comes to public education. We need to tell the them that the choice between the income tax and the Lynch amendment is a false choice. The message should be that we are going to target aid for public education and we are going to pay for it without a broad-based tax. If the black-robed busybodies on the Supreme Court don’t like that, too bad. The targeted-aid money is going to be sent out anyway.
What you can do to help:
1. Email your senator and tell them that you do not support this constitutional amendment, that you do not want them to support this constitutional amendment, and that you will not vote for them in the November 2008 election if they do support any amendment that writes into law any part of the Claremont decision(s).
You can find out who your senator is here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/default.asp
Or, you could just email them all. Their email addresses are:
john.gallus@leg.state.nh.us; deb.Reynolds@leg.state.nh.us; joseph.kenney@leg.state.nh.us; kathleen.sgambati@leg.state.nh.us; peter.burling@leg.state.nh.us; jacalyn.cilley@leg.state.nh.us; harold.janeway@leg.state.nh.us; rpojr@aol.com; sheila.roberge@leg.state.nh.us; molly.kelly@leg.state.nh.us; peter.bragdon@leg.state.nh.us; david.gottesman@leg.state.nh.us; joseph.foster@leg.state.nh.us; senclegg@aol.com; sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us; Ted.Gatsas@leg.state.nh.us; jack.barnes@leg.state.nh.us; betsi.devries@leg.state.nh.us; robert.letourneau@leg.state.nh.us; dalas@leg.state.nh.us; iris.estabrook@leg.state.nh.us; michael.downing@leg.state.nh.us; maggie.hassan@leg.state.nh.us; martha.fullerclark@leg.state.nh.us
2. Attend the senate hearing on CACR18 on Tuesday, April 3, 2007, Room 103, State House, 1:15 pm. We will meet in the cafeteria at 12:30.
3. Call your senator and reiterate that you do not support CACR18. You can find their phone number here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/default.asp
4. If you are a Republican, contact the NHGOP Chair, Fergus Cullen, and tell him that the NHGOP needs to take a strong, vocal position against this amendment. His email address is fergus@nhgop.org and the NHGOP office number is 225-9341.
5. Write letters to the editor to your local newspaper explaining why a constitutional amendment is a bad idea. If you’re stuck on what to write, email me and let me know and I will send you some suggestions. I can also email you with a list of all of the email addresses for papers across the state – you don’t have to submit to just your local paper.
6. Contact Governor Lynch and tell him that you do not support this constitutional amendment and that you do not want him to support any amendment that writes into law any part of the Claremont decision(s). His office number is 271-2121.
7. Contact your senator again, and remind them that you do not support this constitutional amendment, that you do not want them to support this constitutional amendment, and that you will not vote for them in the November 2008 election if they do support any amendment that writes into law any part of the Claremont decision(s).
8. Become a NHAC supporter by visiting http://www.thenhadvantage.com/join.html and adding your information to our list. We can't do this alone!
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks for your help.
Tammy Simmons
Executive Director
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)