I recently participated in a class on the yearly budget process that my town will be going through in the near future. And I was astonished to learn that in New Hampshire, individual towns are responsible for providing welfare to residents who need it… and that there are apparently no budgetary limits to the amount that may need to be provided. That last part sounded disturbingly familiar.
And it raises a crucial question that no one seems to be asking: If towns are already on the hook for providing assistance for people who can’t afford food, clothing, housing, heat, therapy, burial expenses, transportation, daycare, and any number of other things, then why are any of these being provided through schools?
That is, if schools provided only education, and not dozens of other supporting services, it wouldn’t mean that any students, or their families, would have to do without anything they’re getting now. It would only mean that the money would come out of a different pocket, funded by a different tax, and called by its proper name.
Which means that these services would be provided only to people who need to have them provided by people who are better off than they are — and not to people who don’t need to have them provided by people who are worse off than they are, which is the case now.
A good first step towards correcting this perverse situation would be the Welfare Isn’t Education Act, which would specify that school taxes can be used only for education, and that any services that address a child’s inability to get to a school, or make effective use of the classes taught there, or take care of himself after classes have ended, would have to be funded through the town welfare system that already exists for that very purpose.
Which is to say, parents would pay for what they can, and get help only with what they can show that they can’t pay for.
You want to drastically cut property taxes without taking anything away from anyone who needs it? This is how. You’re welcome.
