Hello, Mr. Broadbase: Education chairmen prep for tax hike

[CNHT]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=38c6fa2e-1884-437b-b5b3-fd5dbc357b88&headline=Hello%2c+Mr.+Broadbase%3a+Education+chairmen+prep+for+tax+hike

Hello, Mr. Broadbase: Education chairmen prep for tax hike
LOOK OUT, New Hampshire, a broadbased tax is coming.

That was the message Sen. Iris Estabrook and Rep. Emma Rous, chairmen of the Senate and House education committees respectively, sent last Friday.

Writing in this newspaper, they stated:

"Past practice has been to count the money the state had available and find a formula that distributed those dollars. This time we are committed to doing it differently.

". . . We are committed to providing an equal opportunity for an adequate education to all New Hampshire youth regardless of where they live.

"Along with the court, we recognize that the cost of adequacy will not be the same in every community. Whatever we accept as our definition of adequacy, the state is constitutionally obliged to pay for."

That's the exact opposite of Gov. John Lynch's position, which is that the state should supplement local school funding by targeting aid to districts where it is needed.

So while Gov. Lynch is drumming up support for a constitutional amendment that would undo the core of the Claremont rulings and allow the state to continue targeting school aid, the chairmen of the Legislature's two education committees have committed to upholding Claremont and turning the state into the primary funder of public schools.

The question is: Which side wins enough legislators to get its way?

Taxpayers had better hope Gov. Lynch comes out on top. If he fails, it's hello broadbased tax, goodbye local control of schools.

[KBCraig]

You beat me to it, Jane. The audacity of the new majority is amazing. They're conducting their own "shock and awe" campaign, trying to force through horrendous legislation while people are busy fighting other stuff.

Kevin

[Tyler Stearns]

If we don't count the money when we dole it out then where does it stop?  We could get up to $50k per student and that won't help scores.  Besides the usual arguments of inefficiencies and what not I think there is some kind of diminishing returns on education funding; there is a certain amount we can spend and then after that point the more we spend, the less increase in educational performance there is.

[Lex]

If we don't count the money when we dole it out then where does it stop?  We could get up to $50k per student and that won't help scores.  Besides the usual arguments of inefficiencies and what not I think there is some kind of diminishing returns on education funding; there is a certain amount we can spend and then after that point the more we spend, the less increase in educational performance there is.

Hmm... $50k X 12 = $600k

So instead of education:

Starting at 6 years of age invest $50k into a high interest savings account. When the kid turns 18 (12 years later) they will have enough money to purchase a house and probably live off the rest of the money for the rest of their lives. If you factor in marriage with the combined total of $1.2 million invested over the 12 years, we're talking a lot of money here.

Granted, there would be a 100% shortage of employees since nobody would have to work, but that just shows the absurdity of the system. If the money spent educating kids is more than the kids make their entire lives after graduating than maybe it would have been better to just give the kids the money in the first place instead of educating them...

[FrankChodorov]

If we don't count the money when we dole it out then where does it stop?  We could get up to $50k per student and that won't help scores.  Besides the usual arguments of inefficiencies and what not I think there is some kind of diminishing returns on education funding; there is a certain amount we can spend and then after that point the more we spend, the less increase in educational performance there is.

Hmm... $50k X 12 = $600k

So instead of education:

Starting at 6 years of age invest $50k into a high interest savings account. When the kid turns 18 (12 years later) they will have enough money to purchase a house and probably live off the rest of the money for the rest of their lives. If you factor in marriage with the combined total of $1.2 million invested over the 12 years, we're talking a lot of money here.

Granted, there would be a 100% shortage of employees since nobody would have to work, but that just shows the absurdity of the system. If the money spent educating kids is more than the kids make their entire lives after graduating than maybe it would have been better to just give the kids the money in the first place instead of educating them...

this is the difference between civic republicanism's vision of individual freedom vs. libertarianism's.

an educated citizenry is essential for a limited, constitutional, democratic representative republic to properly function.

it has nothing to do with earning a living...

[Lex]

this is the difference between civic republicanism's vision of individual freedom vs. libertarianism's.

an educated citizenry is essential for a limited, constitutional, democratic representative republic to properly function.

it has nothing to do with earning a living...

I can just pictures this:

Government Educator:

We are from the government and we are here to teach you about limited and constitutional government. You have to listen to us or else...

The general impression that we want you to come away with is that you should take what we say with a grain of salt, even if we put you in jail for it and/or kill you. It may be easier to always do what you are told thus avoiding jail and death but we actually want you to do those things because that's the only way to preserve liberty. We call this tough love because we really do love you guys it's just that our job involves hurting you folks, we have no choice.

I know you are all thinking to yourselves why don't we just get rid of all of this government... But if you get rid of all of this extra government who will come and tell you that you should get rid of government? You see, it is not that easy.

You need government because otherwise you will have nobody to teach you about how government is bad.

[CNHT]

You beat me to it, Jane. The audacity of the new majority is amazing. They're conducting their own "shock and awe" campaign, trying to force through horrendous legislation while people are busy fighting other stuff.

Kevin

I just hope this will teach a lesson about voting for Democrats...

[FrankChodorov]

You need government because...

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

~ Tom Paine

"The government and state are so different in theory that drawing a sharp distinction between them is now probably the most important duty that civilization owes to its own safety."

~ Albert J. Nock

[Quantrill]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=38c6fa2e-1884-437b-b5b3-fd5dbc357b88&headline=Hello%2c+Mr.+Broadbase%3a+Education+chairmen+prep+for+tax+hike

Hello, Mr. Broadbase: Education chairmen prep for tax hike
LOOK OUT, New Hampshire, a broadbased tax is coming.

That was the message Sen. Iris Estabrook and Rep. Emma Rous, chairmen of the Senate and House education committees respectively, sent last Friday.

Writing in this newspaper, they stated:

"Past practice has been to count the money the state had available and find a formula that distributed those dollars. This time we are committed to doing it differently.

". . . We are committed to providing an equal opportunity for an adequate education to all New Hampshire youth regardless of where they live.

"Along with the court, we recognize that the cost of adequacy will not be the same in every community. Whatever we accept as our definition of adequacy, the state is constitutionally obliged to pay for."

That's the exact opposite of Gov. John Lynch's position, which is that the state should supplement local school funding by targeting aid to districts where it is needed.

So while Gov. Lynch is drumming up support for a constitutional amendment that would undo the core of the Claremont rulings and allow the state to continue targeting school aid, the chairmen of the Legislature's two education committees have committed to upholding Claremont and turning the state into the primary funder of public schools.

The question is: Which side wins enough legislators to get its way?

Taxpayers had better hope Gov. Lynch comes out on top. If he fails, it's hello broadbased tax, goodbye local control of schools.



BOOOOOO!!!