Over at the Concord Monitor, a Tom Shamberg (a flaming Progressive from his voting record in the NH Legislature and ratings), is all about having the State take on the responsibility and cost for all of NH’s Education (hey, that’s what Progressives do – take away control but make everyone else pay for it). From this proposition, he has a line on how NH Legislators should be acting to make his Utopia of freeing NH property taxpayers (which, when you think about it, is everyone). Problem is, it WILL require other taxes. The worst part is that even as he complains about the State interfering at the local level with unfunded mandates, his answer is not to strengthen the local communities but to continue the wrenching away of that local control and upshifting it to the State – further away away from those that should be in charge. So, take away local governance on local taxes and what will you get?
Yeah – New Jersey’s taxation without the goodness. My response was (a little editing here):
Keeping control local is the NH way – not upshifting the responsibility, the cost, and the control. Property taxes are local – don’t like them? Run for your selectboard, budget committee, or school board and make sure your local government lives within your means. Remember, you chose to (continue to) live or move there – how is it “fair” to impose your local community’s costs on others?
Short answer: it’s not. It is neither fair or moral. How is it moral to put a claim on someone else’s stuff (money, time, expertise, labor, things) for your benefit? Schamberg is doing exactly that – and it sounds like you are too.
Communitarianism – the forcing of participation in a community – is not the NH way. Voluntary participation is. Communitarianism has no part and parcel of “Live Free or Die” – that someone else has a mandatory claim on ME and my family is not living free.
Remember, once local control is lost under the rubric of “for the better good”, it will be hard to regain (if at all) and “the better good” will be someone else’s ideology as to what that will be and you will be in a much poorer condition to both complain – and fight it.
For Mr. Schamberg, try reading the NH Constitution as there is a little used clause that will be of good cheer:
[Art.] 28-a. [Mandated Programs.] The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.
All you have to do is invoke it and require your LOCAL town officials to both observe and push back on the State for ignoring it as well.
Do this as well – ask this very simple question of your School Board: what is your indirect to direct labor ratio (both headcount and cost)? A very simple question that will shock them – and they will push back with every obstinate reason under the sun as to how they can’t abide by it or can’t figure it out. Keep asking and asking it lot in public – eventually when you start pointing evidence that their ratio’s are out of whack, you’ll start seeing a diminution of the “waste, fraud, et al” by padding of bloated payrolls.
Indeed – instead of kvetching about the State imposing costs, nullify them. It IS in our Constitution, our foundational law. No, it will not be easy and it will not be a short time to accomplish. But it CAN be done – all it will take is political will. YOU seem to have the political will to simply give up (or, given your track record of putting the Public School systems ahead the citizenry’s Freedom to choose and for taking control from them, it seem you will need to grab ahold of yourself and <oh wait, I can’t use that word!> slap yourself for a while to knock some sense into your noggin – and your heart. For you see, taking that Freedom away from others is neither an act of charity, expediency, or politeness.
Freedom, or their stuff. For your benefit. Not cool.
*********************
His Op-Ed:
My Turn: It’s time for state to ease local education burden
By TOM SCHAMBERG
As communities around New Hampshire prepare to make important school funding decisions at town meetings this March, a familiar struggle is taking shape. The demands being placed on taxpayers to maintain high-quality education plays out with rising tension every year, as people worry about affordability. It is time for state lawmakers to alleviate that pressure.
Take the recent discussions at the deliberative session of the Kearsarge Regional School District. The proposed operating budget is roughly $40 million. Locals offered an amendment to reduce spending by $826,000, or 2 percent. The angst that arose from the parents, employees and taxpayers in the audience was palpable. Parents worried about cuts to academic and extracurricular programs. Senior citizens on fixed incomes and homeowners expressed that their backs are against the wall, and they simply cannot afford tax hikes of any kind. Both sides have legitimate concerns. This scene is playing out all across New Hampshire.
The Kearsarge Regional school board and the municipal budget committee understand the angst. Why are citizens facing ever-increasing tax rates for town residents and budgets? It’s because New Hampshire lawmakers are downshifting school operating costs through unfunded mandates. This is an impotent funding approach and a myopic vision of both political parties on how to use the state’s general fund money for public education.
In my town of Wilmot, the new real estate tax rate is $23.68 per thousand of assessed value. The school appropriation is $2,719,380, of which the state contributes a grant of only $256,129. The amount owed by Wilmot residents to Kearsarge Regional School District is 59 percent of the town budget, and that is largely just a maintenance budget plan. The state contributes no monies from the general fund to support Wilmot’s obligation to meet the statutory obligations of the school district. This is the same story for all of the 221 towns and 13 cities of New Hampshire.
This goes counter to the basic principles that the founders of New Hampshire established in 1788. Unfortunately, it took a New Hampshire Supreme Court decision to force state legislators to begin to uphold the public education obligation – but at only a minimum and with nothing coming from the state’s general fund for a town’s education obligations.
The backbone of economic viability in New Hampshire is K-12 public education. New Hampshire’s STEM curriculum will provide more skilled workers, develop more innovation and entrepreneur projects, health benefits, businesses and affect the New Hampshire demographics. There is a return on this worthy investment. However, the 96 School Administrative Units must meet the standards of an unfunded STEM curriculum. Affordability is a concern because costs are shifted to town real estate taxes.
To reduce the angst of the taxpayer in each town and city, to allow relief from these high education tax rates for operating budgets and to fund the quality education, state legislators should:
1) Eliminate the requirement of the state education tax on a town’s real estate bill and pay this from the state’s general fund;
2) All STEM K-12 personnel should be supervised and funded by the New Hampshire Department of Education from the general fund, with the local SAU districts doing the hiring and developing curriculum;
3) STEM school labs, supplies and equipment should be purchased and installed by the state;
4) Mobile advanced STEM labs should be developed by the state to bring innovative high-tech equipment to SAUs to allow students to undertake critical research experiments.
Instituting new tax policy with state funding will reinforce the importance of public education in developing a thriving economy and skilled workers, and will attract more young people, which will mean long-term benefits for all residents and businesses of New Hampshire.
By lowering local tax rates through the use of state funds, the angst among citizens can be reduced and towns can retain local control of basic education, while those who set the rules can start paying for them.
(Tom Schamberg is a member of the Wilmot Board of Selectmen and a former state representative who served on the House Ways and Means Committee.)
