The Illusion Of Zero Drop Outs

Governor Lynch is all about his success at reducing Drop Out rates in New Hampshire.  (The number of high school age kids who leave school without graduation or achieving a recognized equivalent.)  He even has a goal.  New Hampshire will have a zero percent drop out rate by 2012.  And based on the available data, I think he will succeed, but not in reducing actual "drop outs" to zero.

Mr. Lynch's crusade is more about perception than reality.  He has legislated that students stay in school until the age of 18. At any point up to or after age 18, the student may exit the education system into any number of alternative which will not reflect negatively on the success of John Lynch or his program to achieve zero drop outs by 2012.

The term 'drop out' has been changed at the state level for reporting purposes, excluding any number of 'drop outs' from the data reported to national entities.  The new term is "Early Exit Non-Graduates."  Early exit non graduates can exit into any of a number of alternatives and not be counted as drop outs.  While there has been a decrease, this is still the primary method by which drop out rates are being reduced in New Hampshire.

Students who leave the public school system for home schooling, vocation programs, alternative education, seek certificates or GED's, or enroll in at least one college like course are excluded as drop outs.  It is reasonable to assume that public service jobs, or volunteer programs will also be rolled into the acceptable early exit program, as well as any number of employment opportunities to be classified  by the state as an acceptable early exit-non graduate solution.

And it is no surprise to anyone paying attention that failing students are pushed along or that standards overall have declined.  This may produce fewer drop outs, but at what cost to the student or the taxpayer funded 'states interest' on which a mandatory public education is supposedly based?

Are you beginning to get the picture?  John Lynch is committed to reducing the number of reported drop outs.  And I will give him credit with having a genuine interest in making sure kids are completing some kind of requirement.  But redefining the essence of what constitutes a drop out, and adding as many exit strategies as possible just so you can claim to have eliminated the problem, is not solving the problem. It is hiding it.  And while a standard public school education should not be the only alternative, and many kids will find success in other paths to becoming self reliant, advertising your redefined success in a historical context which you have abandoned is dishonest.

So can Governor Lynch achieve a zero drop out rate in New Hampshire?  Yes he can.  But it will be through bureaucratic wand waving and semantic gymnastics.  We'll still have drop outs.  We just wont be calling them that.  And the Governor is hoping no one will notice.

Cross Posted

Republican Suckers!?

John Lynch could only win re-election with the help of Republicans and independents and so he did.  So are they all liberals in denial, or just a bunch of suckers?  Someone fell for the lies about the budget.  They believed the liberals and their RINO agitators who sold them on a $70 million dollar surplus while the state was still trying to rob the JUA and sell off property.  Never occurred to ask why the state needed to spend taxpayer money on lawsuits and litigation to steal money from the JUA when they claimed to have a "surplus?"

I asked that question often.

But when votes showed up in adequate numbers to take every branch of government with a super majority of Republicans, they still left the little governor that could.  Suckers.

We are suckers because on November third, as if by magic, the surplus smoke screen cleared to reveal the wreckage of years of democrat majority rule.   Now that the election is over we have a budget crisis again. 

Cathy Silber of the very partisan (so-called non-partisan) GSFTC began early by trying to sell the solution for our resurrected funding woes on a more modern revenue structure. (Sales and income taxes if you didn't know.)  Every major democrat began talking about the challenges of dealing with a Republican majority and our budget situation--and how it might affect services.  And now John Lynch admits we have a huge problem.

Have?  We always had this problem!  And we have it because John Lynch let the democrat majority spend and spend, then used gimmicks and one time money to hide it, and now it is time to pay.

When will we learn?

From this morning's union leader...

Lynch said he’s ordered all agency heads to find a way to cut 5 percent from their existing budgets. The move is his way of addressing what could be a revenue shortfall of more than $600 million with no changes in spending or taxes

Emphasis mine. 

And doesn't that number sound familiar?  A revenue shortfall of 600 million with no change in spending or taxed.  Not to put to fine a point on it, but while 5% is a nice gesture it lacks parity with the fiscal reality of the lives of those who must pay for this government.

The line watched most closely is spending of money raised by state taxes over the next two years. That total soars to $3.7 billion, compared to $2.9 billion now, an increase of 31 percent. Part of the increase is the fact that one-time dollars, most notably federal stimulus funds, will not be available in 2012 and 2013.

For those a bit slow on the uptake, let's call them Lynch voters for now, Mr. Lynch used one time money to hide excessive liberal spending (during a four year period when inflation was basically flat) we need to increase revenues to cover all that fiscal gymnastics.

So while people were trying to hang onto their homes and cutting corners, the democrats were spending their declining income like there was no tomorrow.  Turns out for most of the elected democrats there was no tomorrow,all except for governor Lynch.  He's still there, thanks to whoever fell for all the lies.

Of course the deficit problem would still exist without him, so perhaps it is better that he can not escape responsibility for it.

We do have a veto proof majority--though that could prove to be less of an advantage on issues like fixing education funding and dealing with spending issues that might affect local property taxes.  But on the whole, there is a more important lesson to be learned...

Lynch Lied.  The democrats lied.  The Republican's for Lynch lied.  The media that regurgitated the surplus meme failed to do their jobs.  This has to be fixed, and it might hurt, but if we don't do it now, your future will be coming up taxes, and taxes and more taxes.

As we ponder the options we may find another way to describe John Lunch's unprecedented fourth term as governor.  I'm open to suggestions.

Posted 11/20/10

Governor Rapes School Funding To Hide Budget Shortfall

Again, we see the smoke clear over the wreckage of the Lynch budget.  In this mornings UL Tom Fahey reports on how the Legislative Fiscal Committee plans to pilfer half of the $41 million dollar federal educations stimulus meant to save teachers jobs and the minds of our future leaders.

They voted for a plan put forward by Gov. John Lynch to hold back $20.5 million to cover shortages in other areas of the budget.

Shortages in the budget?  What shortages?  We have shortages?  How do you have a so-called 70 million dollar surplus and still have shortages?

And where's the media outrage about this massive money grab? Teachers, administrators and most importantly THE CHILDREN! will suffer. That's SUFFER! you heartless, loathsome, uncaring politicians!

Where does Boo Hoo Hampster fall on this issue?  Why Isn't Harrell Kirstain penning a scathing press release titled...

"Governor Rapes School Funding To Hide Budget Shortall !"

We'd be hearing about it 24/7 if we had a Republican Governor.  So is the self-editing silence because the idea came from a democrat who just ran for office claiming he had created a budget surplus?    Wouldn't that be....hypocritical?

So now we have shortages? Nice of the newly re-elected governor to announce we have other shortages in his budget after lying about it for months.  No kidding we have shortages.  Took you until after election day to find them did it?

Did you happen to notice that we have more "shortages" than another $20 million in sugar daddy money from the feds can hope to cover?  And maybe you've discovered that we will still have those shortages in the next budget but without all the federal money to hide it?

Just remember why those shortfalls are there when the grown-ups take over and have to make cuts for liberal spending we never could afford in the first place.

Good Morning Pyrrhus

If elections have consequences what of this?  In New Hampshire, Governor John Lynch squeaked out an unprecedented fourth term as governor.  The state party went all out to protect him.  But in the process they not only lost their majority in the State House and State Senate, the Republicans appear to have taken veto proof majorities in both of those houses and swept the five member State Executive council, which reviews state contracts and appointments.

Governor Lynch won his battle but lost the war.  The democrats were so focused on keeping their pro-gay marriage tax and spend governor, that they reduced him to a figure head in the process.

Preliminary estimates of the shift are staggering.  Prior to last night the State democrats held one US Senate Seat (and still do, Jeanne Shaheen is not do for her drubbing until 2014), both congressional seats, a majority on the 5-member Executive council, 224 Seats in the 400 seat State House and 14  seats in the 24 Seat state senate.

Waking up on November 3rd 2010, Republican Kelly Ayotte has crushed democrat Paul Hodes, and both congressional seats are now in Republican hands.  At the state level, Republicans have swept the executive council taking all five seats.  In the state house the tally appears to stand somewhere between 280 and 300 Republican seats.  The State Senate should settle out at 16 Republican, 8 Democrat.  All counts are not final but the majorities appear solid.

The state democrats thinking this is angry voter syndrome are ignoring history; truth be told, it is their brief tenure that appears to have been brought on by the angry voter.  What we have today is more on par with New Hampshire history.  But it speaks volumes about the rhetoric that there ever was a liberal ascendancy in the Granite state. Taken in a Darwinian context, it looks as if it was more like an evolutionary dead end. 

So while John Lynch"enjoys" the bipartisan support that kept him in office, he may not enjoy the harsh reality that without bipartisan support in his legislative body none of his priorities will see light of day.  He may find himself whiling away the next 24 months examining the fabric on the office curtains, working on catching the rim of the waste paper basket with crumpled up policy aspiration sky-hooks, and if the Republicans so deem it, watching his appointments get rejected and his vetoes overturned at their discretion.

What is really unprecedented then, is that he is now (most likely) the weakest Governor in the entire nation and that that bipartisanship he's been talking about, is no longer just a talking point.  He can't do anything without it.

Good Morning Pyrrhus.  Hope you enjoy your 'victory.'



Cross Posted

More Gay Lobby Lunch Money For Lynch

Mr. "Don't let Out of State Money Corrupt Local New Hampshire Elections" himself, Governor John "The Hypocrite" Lynch, is the willing recipient of over 100,000.00 in gay activist out of state money in direct contributions to his campaign.  He's also most certainly getting it through the back door from Ray Buckley and the NHDP's many spigots, the HRC, and others.

As if that wasn't enough of an integrity killer, Lynch has now just received at least another $7,000.00 dollars from out of state gay activists in his latest campaign finance documents.

Lynch needs the money.  He loaned himself another $350,000.00 in the same report, according to the Concord Monitor.  So he has loaned his campaign a total sum of $850.000.00 dollars in this one election.

But Lynch has only raised 1.12 Million for the general election with his own loans.  Take the loans out and he only has 350,000.00 from sources other than his own checkbook.  Thirty five percent of whats left is from one special interest; gay marriage activists from Tim Gill's Political Out Giving, the group he secretly slithered off to, to give a luncheon speech back in May.  After he got caught, he insisted it wasn't for political contributions.

Talk about integrity collapse.  This is a guy who publicly whined about the national organization for marriage running an ad in which they told the truth about his flip flop on gay marriage, and now he's gotten up to 35% of all his campaign funding (other than personal loans) from Tim Gill's out of state same sex marriage millionaires. 

These are wealthy individuals who make private direct contributions to candidates, or contribute through groups like NH HRC or other front groups (who then funnel that money directly to the NHDP in the case of New Hampshire) so it harder to trace them and their agenda.  And what is their agenda? Their sole purpose in donating it to hide out of state single issue contributions meant to manipulate local elections to advance their fringe agenda.

So John Lynch is a liar, and a hypocrite.  Still.

Gay Lobby activist donors so far from his most recent campaign finance report.

Hoff Edwards         Cambridge        MA     $1000.00

Elmendorf Steve    Washington      DC     $1000.00

Offutt Christi         Fargo               ND     $1000.00

Ricketts Laura       Chicago            IL      $1000.00

Offutt Ryan           Fargo               ND     $1000.00

Heifetz Mel            Philadelphia     PA     $1000.00

Snyder Brian          New York          NY     $1000,00

Cross Posted