One of my superfans sent me a link to a conversation on WMUR between Fred Kocker and Brad Reynolds. The topic? “How New Hampshire ranks last in the U.S. for state support of public education with property taxpayers anteing up $7 of every $10 of cost.”
The headline really sells it, though. “The Granite State still ranks last in the nation state support of public education.”
I didn’t watch it. I couldn’t tell you if there was context, like how well NH scores compared to states with more state spending, or not. In fact, I have no idea, and I don’t need one.
There’s a perfectly good reason why the State of New Hampshire ranks last in this category. The funding it already extracts through your property tax bill is an unconstitutional taking.
New Hampshire should be last.
The number should be zero.
And while we’re telling inconvenient truths, taxing locals to fund education in New Hampshire isn’t constitutional either. There isn’t a constitutional mechanism left to do it.
The conversation they should have had was about why NH can’t tax you to fund education and how history deprived the towns of that right as well.
Instead, and I’m just flexing off the headline, WMUR sells the idea that we’re last and that this actually means something other than a truth they probably didn’t share. Again, I didn’t watch (I don’t have time); I’m speculating. I don’t get days off, so feel free to check it out and fill in any blanks below in comments.
Democrats are running around insisting the state needs to pay for local education. It can’t, but that’s not what they mean. They want to control local education at the state level. If the state funds education, they get complete control over curriculum and get to build a taxing authority they can expand to milk you to pay for their other priorities, none of which are teaching children, by the way.
WMUR’s headline, subhead, and description are flowers, candles, and wine at a narrative table the left has already set, so I’d be surprised if the actual content contradicted that effort. Maybe it did, but here’s the thing. Most people will be like me. They won’t watch it, and WMUR knows that.
All they take away is the headline, subhead, and description. That leaves them with two false impressions. That NH has any obligation when the Constitution prohibits this. Cherish never meant money because if it did, we’d be taxed to fund…
the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people:
The bit after the colon pops up as this: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination,” but the original actually reads like this: Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination.
The State archivist confirmed the error. NH can’t tax anyone to pay for schools. Article 83 is an admonition to favor or encourage private interest (and money) in all the things listed, including seminaries.
There is ample historical evidence to support that position, as well as this yummy nugget from Ian Underwood.
[T]he 2nd Amendment isn’t about a duty that a free State owes its citizens. Rather, it’s about what citizens need to do (arm themselves) if they want to keep a free State.
That is, it’s not the responsibility of a free State to provide citizens with guns and ammunition and training. It’s the responsibility of citizens to arm and train themselves.
In exactly the same way, Article 83 isn’t about a duty that a free government owes its citizens. Rather, it’s about what citizens need to do (educate themselves) if they want to keep a free government.
That is, it’s not the responsibility of a free government to provide citizens with teachers and books (to say nothing of transportation and therapy and meals and day care and support for hobbies and everything else that has been shoved under the umbrella of ‘school’). It’s the responsibility of citizens to educate themselves.
WMUR could have Dan Richard, Tom Murray, and Ian Underwood on to discuss all sorts of things people need to know, especially if, as I’m suggesting, the flowers, candles, and wine on the table are there to help Democrats defeat HB1300 in as many towns as possible this November. It’s the education tax cap bill. If your town passes it, it slows the rising cost of the government jobs program doing business as your local “school.”
Deck chairs on the Education Titanic, in real terms, but you’ll have a nicer view while the government school fiscally sinks your town.
