Study This

 

A Think Tank I Don't Think Much Of

Our good friends at The Center for Public Policy Studies are making the “news” with another fanciful article by Colin “manning the spin machine” Manning of Fosters Daily Democrat.

This anti-Senate Bill # 2 group, NHCPPS, has for years drifted in and out of areas we at CNHT hold dear such as secret ballot voting through RSA 40:13 also known as SB2.

SB2 has saved the taxpayer's bacon over and over again since 1996 by stopping wild spending sprees at the traditional Town Meetings liberals and their public employee partners have taken over in many towns.

What really caught my attention in the most recent bit of fiction Manning has come up with is this:

“Norton (new Director) said the center was established as a non-partisan think tank charged with gathering data on specific topics facing the state.

"My goal is to be non-partisan. My job is to provide data to policy-makers to help them make an informed decision," Norton said.

The only time the center takes a position is when it advocates for greater access to public information.

"As an organization, we advocate for one thing and that's enhanced access to information," said Norton.

One example of the center's success in that advocacy was the implementation of a new tracking system within the state Department of Education, giving educators and lawmakers the ability to keep better track of the drop-out rate.”

Greater access to public information?

I do not recall this “think tank” noticing what HB 626 would have done to our Right to Know Law had it passed in the last session. CNHT was first in that field of thinking. We were the ones who went public about secret meetings and telephone meetings becoming legal under this pathetic piece of legislation.

Where was NHCPPS? What no study?

Is it because they already get any information they want that they seemed not to care about the gutting of RSA 91-A?

I always wondered how NHCPPS gets all their data on dropout rates etc. when CNHT can hardly get the average daily attendance numbers required by law each October 1 until well after school district meetings in March of the next year? Most of the time our taxpayers have to file suit in Superior Court to get the most basic public information on anything.

Here are some titles of NHCPPS's quest to steer people away from SB2 before it became apparent it was one of the most popular pieces of enabling legislation ever. It looks like they gave up trying to sell their town charters to voters after four studies.

SB2 Adoption and Rescission Votes, 1996-2003 - February 2004

SB2 at 5: Bonds, Ballots, and the "Deliberative Session" - March 2002

Bonds and Ballots: Four Years Experience with 'SB2" in New Hampshire - March 2001

The Effect of the Official Ballot Referendum Form of Meeting on the Towns and School Districts of New Hampshire - February 2000

NHCPPS also has noticed that the elderly exemptions voters can adopt at town meetings as a defense against the organized school and town employee lobby. NHCPPS generated a study about that as well, claiming it shifts the burden of taxes onto one group.

No way! Really? Doesn't seem to bother the tax and spend crowd that fixed income people have to sell their homes because portfolio voters are cleansing the community of non-yuppies. But you place more of the spending on them and watch'em howl.

Here is an example of a “study” in response to our very successful Elderly Exemption campaign:

Shifting the Load: Cost, Effects, and the Potential Impact of Property-Tax Relief for New Hampshire's Seniors - February 2005

This report examines programs, implemented locally, to reduce property taxes on low-to-moderate income senior citizens. Statewide, more than 11,000 households received these tax exemptions in 2003 at a cost of more than $16 million—a cost shifted onto the other property-tax payers in the state. The cost for the 2004 tax year is likely to be at least $17.6 million. State law requires towns to provide small exemptions, and most towns have voted to extend much more generous tax breaks. The paper includes a table showing each town’s exemption levels, the number of exemptions claimed in each town, and the impact on each town’s property tax. The paper concludes that intergenerational tax equity issues are likely to grow more contentious as the size of the state’s senior population grows by 91 percent in the next 10 years.

That's right. Demographics are finally shifting in favor of the people most effected by over-spending and the “non-partisan” NHCPPS is taking notice.

This is why any broad based tax is totally and absolutely unnecessary

Think about that!

Portfolio Voters

Hey Big Spenders

Since the First District Congressional race is all over but the crying I thought I would tackle the education funding extortion scam the State Supreme Court has partially applied to us here in New Hampshire.

With an “insider” spin of course.

The battle for hearts and minds in the upcoming quest by Democrats for an income tax includes a well-oiled letter to the editor machine from the usual tax-and-spend groupies.

I spotted one such LTE in today's Concord Monitor. It was by former New York educator, Stuart Huggard, who moved into my home town of Deering ten years ago.

Stewie wants more money for schools!

But the solution for all the funding problems with education (as in more, more, and more) are right at Stewie's “front door” so to speak.

You see, “portfolio voter” Stewie Huggard has a beautiful colonial home newly-assessed by Avatar at $312,200.00. With a Deering tax rate of about $19.00 per thousand Stewie pays about $5,700 per year in property taxes which for the most part go to Hillsboro/Deering Cooperative.

But the rub is Stewie, as of today, has his home up for sale for $579,000. The same day his pro-income tax LTE hit the papers.

What a coincidence! Stewie could easily walk up to the Deering town office located right across the street from his abode and ask that the assessed value of his home be brought into line with reality! (no, Stewie shills for an income tax in letters to the editor.)

So Stewie and his wife, both former NY educators if I remember correctly, have about $250,000 in unassessed/untaxed equity in Deering! That means we could put at least $4,700 more money into Hillsboro/Deering to do wonderful things with if they helped out by paying the minimum of their fair share. Its for the children you know.

We have in Deering a well-worn path for Stewie and his Mrs. to follow.

Just a year ago, two former Alabama educators, named Winokur, who moved to Deering several years before Stewie, sold their lovely colonial for $966,000. Not bad. This was of course after listing it for $1.2 million.

Surprise! The Winokur estate was just assessed by Avatar at $671,200 for a difference of just $295,000 in its sale price. If we could have closed in on that Avatar assessment just a wee bit and picked up in taxes at least a quarter million dollar difference there would have been another $4,700 in educator money going “to the children.”

Not for sale yet - but who knows. Another lovely fourteen room colonial owned by a retired educator from Nashua.

This exquisite Deering property is located on 95 acres with wonderful views and is assessed by Avatar for $331,500. Just down the road from this palace is another listed for over one million dollars. Stewie's place and that one can be seen at www.heidipalmer.com real estate. Just click on Deering.

So do we need an income tax on top of the property tax? Or do we have a bunch of “portfolio voters” in full tax and spend mode voting for every single bond proposal they think will enhance their property values before they get out of town with their loot?

Why not have a legitimate property tax instead of another one piled on top of taxpayers?

Its for the children – of the people who live in modest homes who pay much of the taxes now and will not be able hide their income like portfolio voters certainly will.

Evolution

We all know what evolution is. That is the science of warm-blooded creatures walking into the sea to become whales and dolphins after crawling out of the sea to become warm-blooded creatures. It is that simple. Happens all the time.

Political evolution happens as well. There was a shining example of it on display last week in post-paleolithic/Claremont New Hampshire. Our beloved (in the polls for now) Governor John Lynch evolved into something new and from now on we have a highly evolved uber-species of governor. His scientific name for ever-more will be:

Governor Volynchski. Pronounced: Vol-lynch-ski.

The old governor, Lynch, was a creature designated to a very small deciduous, indecisive habitat. He had no natural enemies because a larger predator, Media New Hampshirosis, swallowed them up. The only other creature in direct competition with Lynch in this happy jungle was a friendly, timid, but highly successful plant eater - when he wasn't being cannibalized by other members of its own species.

The newly evolved Governor Volynchski has been – through selective judicial breeding, mated with a weasel-tempered animal which also possesses shark-like tendencies.

Suddenly, the hapless, indecisive Lynch, once the most popular creature in the jungle, must take action that may put him in danger of becoming extinct. He must feed his new darker side!

Should he change his stripes to spots? Can he evolve from being a vegetarian to a meat eater in time to survive or will the Neanderthals in the hills come to eat him up?

I see campfires and hear drums in the distance.

September 11, 2006

 I don't know that September 11, 2001 feels like it happened five years ago in political time because we are pretty much right back to the same old partisan battles as before it happened. It will take several more 9-11's as well as elections before that comes to an end I suppose. All I know is I see an undeniable change at the grass-roots level.

Even though the media does not play over and over again pictures of American citizens jumping out of the Twin Towers rather than burn to death it doesn't mean people do not remember.

A Vietnamese girl burned by napalm and an officer shooting a prisoner in the head may win Pulitzer prizes, but the grim reality of what happened on our own soil just doesn't serve their purpose I guess. I take that back. We certainly were treated to hours of TV time watching Rodney King get the angel dust beat out of him. That served a purpose.

I remember calling a Concord radiator repair shop on the morning of September 11, 2001 to see if my tractor radiator was finished being re-cored. Since I was outside putting a new water pump on the tractor I was not aware of the news that morning.

When the little old lady at the radiator place answered the phone I asked if my radiator was finished. She told me “We are closed today. You better put down the phone and turn on the television.” Then she hung up.

Just like everyone else I watched the events unfold.

My wife already left that morning for Boston about 8:30. She is a flight attendant based in Boston and was leaving on a 767, bound for Atlanta. Her aircraft was full of fuel just like the targeted planes were. She said that was the first thing that entered her mind when she heard what happened while on the employee bus headed to the terminal. “They're after the fuel” she thought. She was turned back at crew lounge and headed home to New Hampshire.

I went to the Spanish language TV channels for news. That is when I saw people jumping from the North Tower. But on American television, nothing I can recall.

I guess that type of news doesn't serve their purpose. But I remember.

Endless Lawsuits, Yep That's For Me

Just a quick reminder of what the NH State Supreme Court has in store for us! Check out Ohio and the "DeRolph" case.

I know we in NH are a little behind the times when it comes to education extortion lawsuits but you have to remember our state supreme court had that unfortunate impeachment thing happen to them. It slowed them down a bit but it is clear they haven't learned anything from past experience or other states who are tangled up in this lawyers dream come true known as education funding. 

A DeRolph Chronology

May 9, 1991

The DeRolph case was filed in Perry County.

Oct. 25, 1993

The trial was heard in Perry County courts.

July 1, 1994

Judge Linton D. Lewis Jr. ruled Ohio's school-funding system unconstitutional. (Son of two educators)

Aug. 30, 1995

The 5th District Court of Appeals overturned Lewis' decision 2-1, after the State appealed the decision, claiming that the legislature should determine the level of funding. (NH has no appeals court)

Oct. 10, 1995

The Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding, representing more than 500 of the state's 612 districts, appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

March 24, 1997

In a 4-3 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned the appellate ruling, declaring the entire school funding system to be unconstitutional. They gave the General Assembly a year to overhaul the funding system and reduce the reliance on local property taxes.

Feb. 1, 1998

The legislature established a new basic-aid formula for state and local funding to school districts, phased in to reach $4,414 per student in 2002.

March 24, 1998

The Supreme Court's one-year deadline passes.

May 5, 1998

Ohio voters rejected a penny-on-the-dollar increase in the state sales tax to raise $1.1 billion a year, half for schools and half for property-tax relief. (by about 70%)

Feb. 26, 1999

Judge Lewis, in Perry County ruled that the legislature has not complied with the Supreme Court's order for a ''complete, systematic overhaul'' of school funding.

Nov. 16, 1999

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments relating to the State's appeal of Lewis' ruling.

May 11, 2000

The Supreme Court declared that the General Assembly has failed to fix the school-funding system.

May 30, 2001

The legislature increased funding to schools by $1.4 billion, boosting per-student state aid to $4,814 that fall and $4,949 the next year and providing parity aid to poorer districts to lessen disparities.

June 20, 2001

The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether the latest legislative fix meets the court's mandate.

Sept. 6, 2001

In another 4-3 ruling, the court says the system remains unconstitutional but ordered a fix to bring it up to Ohio's ''thorough and efficient'' standard.

Sept. 17, 2001

Over objections of legislative leaders, Taft asked the court to reconsider its latest ruling.

Dec. 13, 2001

The court appointed mediator Howard S. Bellman to negotiate a settlement in the case. (where we are now)

March 21, 2002

Bellman notified the court that mediation failed.

December 11, 2002

The court, by a vote of 4-3, ruled that Ohio's school-funding system remains unconstitutional and orders lawmakers to fix it, giving no deadline and relinquishing its jurisdiction in the matter. "Unconstitutional.''

May 16, 2003

The Ohio Supreme Court blocked any further action in Ohio courts.

August 14, 2003

The Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear the case on the procedural point of whether there can be a right with no legal remedy

October 20, 2003

The US Supreme Court declined to hear the case, effectively ending the DeRolph litigation.

The system remains unconstitutional. (That was then, this is NOW)...........

Democrats dust off old federal suit in Ohio school funding battle

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Scott Stephens

Plain Dealer Reporter

Thirty-nine Democrats in the state legislature tried to breathe life Monday into the seemingly moribund court battle to change the way Ohio pays for the education of 1.8 million public-school children.

Their vehicle: an updated version of a mostly forgotten federal lawsuit. The suit, filed in 1991, claimed Ohio was violating the state constitution and federal disability laws by failing to provide a "thorough and efficient" education for children with disabilities.

The federal lawsuit was shelved in favor of an action filed in state court by low-wealth school districts that challenged the funding system on behalf of all students.

That case, the landmark DeRolph v. Ohio, resulted in four Ohio Supreme Court rulings that concluded Ohio was too dependent on local property taxes to pay for its schools and should have a "complete systemic overhaul" of its funding system.

Although the level of school funding increased, no such overhaul took place. After the state court issued its fourth and final ruling in the DeRolph case three years ago, the federal case was allowed to go forward. Last year, an amended version of the complaint filed by the Ohio Legal Rights Service asked the federal court to enforce the DeRolph order and to overhaul the entire system.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Democrats argued that the state is moving backward on school funding by diverting money to charter schools and by increasing the dependence on local school tax issues.

"We've actually taken steps to make it more unconstitutional," said Sen. Marc Dann, a Liberty Township lawmaker who filed the brief on behalf of fellow Democrats.

State officials are seeking dismissal of the federal lawsuit on several grounds, including the argument that Ohio education officials defer to federal authorities on special education. Gov. Bob Taft and Republican legislative leaders have also pointed out that during Taft's tenure, education funding has increased 33 percent.

Judge John Holschuh is expected to rule on the dismissal motion soon. Meanwhile, Democrats maintain the state is failing poor, minority and special-education children.

"We frankly think it's unconscionable that the Republican-led Senate, House and governor have not taken care of the least among us," Senate Minority Leader C.J. Prentiss of Cleveland said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

sstephens@plaind.com, 216-999-4827