Tomorrow we'll have an election for the only issue on the ballot, a school district tax increase for my Redville schools.
I won't be voting because, frankly 1) I haven't spent the time to investigate the issue and 2) I'm 100 percent positive it will pass.
Regardless, there are lot's of people in the district who put up signs telling me to "Vote for our Kids".
If you are inclined to put up one of these signs, I've got a couple of questions for you.
Let's assume this levy fails. Will you be sending a check to the schools for what the increase would have meant for you? For instance, let's assume this levy would have resulted in a tax increase of $100 annually. Are you going to send the schools that $100 if the levy fails?
If you don't send in the money are you "against the kids"?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if this levy fails, not one person in this school district will pony up one red cent to donate to the schools. In fact, I'd bet everything in my bank account.
It's a classic Joe Biden liberal take on generosity. I can only be generous for our kids if my neighbor is equally generous.
A while back, I attended a fund raiser for my collegiate track team and my former coach addressed the attendees by stating "I know there are lot's of good causes that need your resources, It's my hope that you see this cause as one worthy of your support and resources".
That really became a code I try to live by today. I can't be everything to everybody, but I try to pick 2-3 causes to fund to my max. In fact, I do crazy shit like actually cutting a check to the athletic department of my former high school. Since I believe that extracurricular athletic programs helped me get to where I am today, I give back in the hopes that maybe someone else could benefit.
So if the schools are something you feel is a good cause, I have a request of you.
How about sending them some money without me having to send them money.
4 comments:
Great point about "vote for our kids"
Politicians make emotional cases for extorting more money from taxpayers. Emotional decisions tend to be poor ones.
We need to call govt out on this. School levies are issues disguised as making education a priority. But by making it a tax issue the pols are saying no other part of govt is less important than education. We can't cut anything else to fund our kids. The only way it can get funded is a new tax. If the tax fails our kids won't be able to learn. But nothing else can be sacrificed if the tax fails. I.e. Schooling is last on the priorities.
At the national level we are being told that we need to increase funding or students will suffer. Yet the murtha airport seems to be off limits for cuts to help pay for other increases. So we are saying subsidized fat cat air travel is more important than johnny's reading score. That't why people reject this fake interest in "doing it for the children."
Well, you're my new hero.
That's one of the top 3 things I hate about government: How politicians sell new taxes. They usually pick an issue that is difficult to oppose and tie the tax to that. Examples include a new jail, schools, etc.
But the biggest expenditures in government are always entitlements. Politicians win votes on entitlements which are nothing more than a glorified vote buying programs.
But could one sell a new tax to fund an entitlement? Think about it. "Mr. Voter, we need you to pay a tax so we can give the money to someone else that we have deemed more worthy." That tax would be DOA.
If we really want fiscal reform we should make it a law for government to publish budget priorities, not just amounts. And those priorities would have teeth: the higher up on priorities, the more solid the funding should be. (I could buy the fact that education is right up there.) But the lowest priority items would be the first to be cut in a budget shortfall. This is what we do in our household budget.
So if the politicians want to increase a high priority item, they need to fund it with cuts in a lower priority item. If no programs at any level can be cut and a tax hike needed, that tax would need to be justified on the LOWEST priority item published in the budget, not the highest. Then see where it goes. Chances are you'd see a lot more cuts and less tax increases.
And this should not be a liberal vs. conservative philosophical battle. Liberals need to see things this way too. If education and social programs are really high value, then think of the billions and billions that have been pulled from these issues due to an unwillingness to prioritize budgets in this way. Education funds are always the first to get raided when politicians need to do a monetary "favor" in an election year.
Post a Comment