by Edward Mosca

This coming week, the House is set to take up a so-called bipartisan constitutional amendment on education funding. But the amendment is bipartisan only in the sense that it is supported by both Democrat and Republican House members. As far as the substance is concerned, the amendment is totally one-sided in the Democrats’ favor.

Essentially, the amendment writes the Supreme Court’s misbegotten Claremont/Londonderry decisions into the State Constitution. More specifically, the Legislature would be required to define an adequate education, determine its cost, and fund the cost exclusively with state taxes. All of this would be done under the highest level of judicial oversight.

What this means is that anybody can go to court at any time and sue the Legislature on the grounds that it hasn’t properly defined an adequate education and/or that it hasn’t set the cost high enough, and it will be the Legislature’s burden to prove otherwise. As a practical matter, unelected judges will have the ultimate say on what is taught in the public schools, how it is taught, and how much we are taxed to pay for it.

According to Republican policy leader Gene Chandler, this amendment “meets our Republican ideals.” If Chandler and other Republican “leaders” really believe that the education mandarins in Concord can make better education policy than local school boards, teachers and parents, and that unelected judges should have the ultimate say on the curriculum and cost of public education, to paraphrase Obi-Wan, “Well then they are truly lost.”

If this amendment passes, say goodbye forever to local control. The education mandarins in Concord would determine what the locals should be paying for public education. And those school districts that did not receive full funding would have to make up the difference through the local property tax.

And say hello to a broad-based tax. Because the amendment envisions the Supreme Court having the final say on the cost of an adequate education, anybody can run into Court and claim that the $1 billion the Legislature has determined an adequate education costs is “inadequate.” If the Court agrees, the amendment requires the Legislature to pay for whatever the Court says the cost is.

The only tweak to Londonderry/Claremont is that the Legislature would not have to distribute funding on a comparable per pupil basis. However, at the insistence of House Republican leadership the amendment also provides “every school district shall receive a meaningful share of these funds.” In other words, no town, no matter how affluent, can be denied a “meaningful” spot at the education funding trough. Let the feeding frenzy begin!

The so-called bipartisan amendment is not just antithetical to “Republican ideals”, it is also really stupid politics.

Republicans are going to lose, not gain, votes in the 2008 election by supporting this amendment. Voters who believe that unelected, elitist judges should be running our public schools aren’t going to suddenly switch their affiliation to Republican. On the other hand, voters who believe in fiscal responsibility and/or local control and/or that the judicial branch has no business setting education policy will have good reasons not to vote Republican.

But it is not just public education where elected Republicans are truly lost. Can you name a single major policy proposal that Republicans have brought forward since John Lynch was elected Governor back in 2004?

Worse still, it’s not just that Republicans are only offering “same-but-less”, rather, some of the most egregious examples of “nanny-state” legislation in the last legislative session have been supported and sponsored by Republicans. For example, it was Republican State Senator Bob Clegg who sponsored legislation mandating that health insurers cover bariatric surgery.

Republicans seem to be staking the entire 2008 campaign on the State’s budget deficit. One problem with this strategy is that voters don’t get all that worked up about deficits. Remember Ross Perot? All he talked about during the 1992 election was the deficit, and all that got him was a distant third place.

The other problem with making the 2008 election all about the deficit is that we won’t really have a handle on the size of the deficit until 2009 because that is when most of the red-ink is projected to occur.

What Rep. Chandler and the other Republican “leaders” don’t seem to understand is that you can’t beat something with nothing. And, aside from carping –albeit quite correctly– about the budget deficit they appear to have no alternative approaches to the issues facing the State.

by Peter Bearse

When might our yearning for simplicity lead us astray? – When dealing with the economy. We see this happening now with schemes for tax reform. We recognize that current tax arrangements have become mind-numbingly complex and rather unfair. So we seek a simple tax. Enter Steve Forbes with a “Flat Tax.” Never mind that it fails to address the root of our economy’s failings. Never mind that it’s just another income tax with which Congress can play its social engineering via tax incentives’ games. It’s flat; and since, according to Tom Friedman, the economic world is also “flat,” flat must be good.

And so we have the all three Republican candidates for Congress in the 1st C.D. competing on flatness -- on how quickly and strongly they recommended the Flat Tax. Unfortunately, they’re informed by ideology, not economic understanding. Why would a Flat Tax be good for the economy? What basic economic problem would it help to solve? What good would it do besides providing less business for accountants, lawyers and H.R. Block?

The major source of our economic problems is that we have been living far beyond our means. Savings have been very low and sometimes negative (dis-saving). Consumption has been unsustainably high. We have financed higher spending by drawing down equity in our major asset, our homes. Our trade deficit has been consistently negative, with imports far higher than exports. Our federal deficit has ballooned. Private debt has risen like the flames of a house afire. China and oil exporting countries have supported our excess spending by buying our country’s debt – to the extent that their “Sovereign Investment Funds” are buying our industry. How does a Flat tax address these problems? It doesn’t. It is simply a simple-minded, politically inoffensive expedient.

What would help us get a grip on our economic future? – a Consumption Tax [CT], otherwise (though somewhat misleadingly) called a “national sales tax.” As you can tell from the name, it taxes spending on consumption, not income, savings or investment. Thus, by its very nature, it provides disincentives to excess consumption and positive incentives for higher savings, investment and earnings.It is not nearly as simple as a Flat Tax. Members of Congress can still try to play games with it to favor some interests over others. Yet, it’s better than the current income tax and the proposed Flat Tax in its ability to help us strengthen and rebuild our economy.

Another advantage is that the CT would force our government to live within its means. This is because calculations show that a “reasonable” CT rate (say, 7-12%) would not generate enough revenue to finance the U.S. government at its current, excessive rate of expenditure. So what!, says this economist. It’s about time that Washington has to live within its means. To the extent that this is deemed to be a serious issue, we can consider another so-called tax which is not a tax but a fee on undesirable pollutants – a “Carbon Tax”. This would, in turn, be better than the highly touted “cap and trade” arrangements to reduce carbon emissions and fight global warming. But this calls for more discussion.

PETER BEARSE, Ph.D.
International Consulting Economist
March 16, 2008