Re: [RLCNH] Re: From Lawyer Ed Mosca via Paul Mirski
- Dan is right, as are Ed Mosca, Jane Aitken, and Paul Mirski. Dan's plan I
believe is the best. In order to make the Republicans grow some backbone,
one thing needs to be trumpeted, over an over and over again: As has been
repeated explained by economic Thomas Sowell, and repeatedly argued by
pundit Cal Thomas....
"There is no connection between spending and educational achievement....There
are many examples that show spending and educational success are not
related. New Jersey, which had the highest per-pupil expenditure in the
1996-97 school year ($10,241) and the second smallest pupil-to-teacher
ratio, received nearly 50 percent of its public education funding from
federal sources. Yet its students ranked 39th on the 1998 Scholastic
Aptitude Test. Conversely, Minnesota, which stood 27th in per-pupil spending
($5,826), received the highest ranking in student achievement on the same
test, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council's 'Report Card
on American Education.'"
We must fight to keep schools controlled by the towns and funded by the
towns independently. And we must face down the unconstitutional Claremont
rulings of the state supreme court. ---Tim Condon
On 2/13/07, Dan McGuire <danmcguire@...> wrote:
> The real problem is that the current legislature AGREES with the court on
> Claremont. If they didn't we could just let the court blink first because
> we have article 28 of the Bill of Rights on our side:
> * [Art.] 28. [Taxes, by Whom Levied.]* No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or
> duty, shall be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext
> whatsoever, without the consent of the people, or their representatives in
> the legislature, or authority derived from that body.
> IMHO that "under any pretext whatsoever" is the most beautiful phrase ever
> put into a constitution.
> If the Dem's propose a constitutional amendment along the lines that Ed
> says, we have to fight it. As long as Claremont isn't put into the
> constitution we can always fix anything they do in the legislature at some
> later time.
> On 2/13/07, Jane <jane@...> wrote:
> > Fellow Republicans,
> > Pretty good summary. We've been predicting this for nine years and
> > it's now at our door. Prepare to fight this out or accept the demise
> > of NH as we know it.
> > Read on,
> > Paul Mirski
> > JOHN LYNCH'S SINISTER PLAN TO DESTROY NEW HAMPSHIRE
> > This is one of those times when it's not pleasant to say I told you
> > so. But, as I've been predicting, Saint John a/k/a Governor Lynch
> > has "proposed using New Hampshire's school approval standards and
> > curriculum frameworks to define the constitutionally adequate
> > education that the state must provide schoolchildren." You can also
> > read about it here and here.
> > Having correctly predicted what the definition would look like, I
> > will now predict its cost and what Lynch's constitutional amendment
> > will look like, and how he is going to get it passed. I will also
> > explain how Lynch has inoculated himself against an income tax, if
> > the amendment doesn't pass.
> > Start looking for property down South, my dear conservative friends;
> > 2007 marks the year that New Hampshire, as we know it, died.
> > THE COST: The minimum standards and curriculum frameworks are,
> > essentially, everything that the public schools provide. While
> > Lynch's "definition" leaves out things like driver's ed and guidance
> > counselors and vocational education, that won't make much difference.
> > In order to put a price tag on this "definition," Lynch will use what
> > is called the "successful schools" model of determining the price of
> > an adequate education. In a nutshell, you identify the "successful
> > schools" -- for example, schools where between W% and X% of the
> > students score between Y% and Z% on whatever standardized test or
> > tests turn you on. Then you tweak that sample to come up with a cost
> > -- for example, excluding a certain number of high spending schools
> > and/or a certain number of low spending schools or excluding the cost
> > of this or that course or service. Then, drum roll please, you have
> > the cost of an adequate education.
> > In other words, the "successful schools" model, like every other
> > method that has been developed to determine the cost of an adequate
> > education, is thoroughly manipulable and allows one to set the cost
> > of an adequate education at whatever he wants the cost to be. It
> > will be at least the $8,290.00 per pupil that the education funding
> > scheme concocted by Saint John in 2005 cost.
> > Assuming about 200,000 students that's at least $1.6 billion. My
> > prediction is that the cost will be somewhere between $1.6 billion
> > and $1.9 billion.
> > $2 billion in state funding!!!! -- that's an i-i-i-i-i-i-income t-t-t-
> > t-t-t-tax (lots of boos here). But here comes St. John to the rescue
> > (can you hear the William Tell Overture?)!
> > THE AMENDMENT: St. John unveils an amendment that allows targeted
> > aid but doesn't allow the State "to walk away from its obligations to
> > public education" (cheers, cheers and more cheers -- as the William
> > Tell Overture climaxes)! That is St. John's amendment writes
> > Claremont into the Constitution sans the requirement that the entire
> > cost of an adequate education be funded with State taxes.
> > Will the center-right Republicans support it? For sure. Lynch will
> > portray the choice as you're either for my amendment or you're for an
> > income tax. And the tongue-tied, intellectually enervated
> > Republicans will come on board so fast that it will make your head spin.
> > What about the Dem's and the Rinos who want an income tax; will they
> > support it too? For sure. Because they know that writing Claremont
> > into the Constitution will allow them to spend their way to an income
> > tax in a few years. Here's how:
> > The Lynch amendment is a one-way ratchet. Assume there are three
> > "successful schools" that are used to set minimum spending for the
> > State. In Year One, school district A spends $6,000 per student
> > according to our "successful schools" cost study, while school
> > district B spends $8,000 per student, and school district C spends
> > $10,000 per student. The average, which is the cost of an adequate
> > education, is $8,000 per student, which means that school district A
> > must increase its spending to $8,000 per student. But that drives
> > the cost of an adequate education to $8,667 per student. The year
> > after that, the cost is $9,100 per student. The year after $9,400.
> > And all this assumes that school district C, which likes to spend
> > more than the average (like, Hopkinton, for example), doesn't raise
> > its spending. If it, and other successful school districts (in real
> > life the sample would be greater than just the three school districts
> > in this example), continue to spend more than the average, which is
> > likely, the cost of an adequate education grows even faster.
> > Pretty soon --sooner than you think-- the pressure on property taxes
> > will make enough voters fall for the sirens' song that we need an
> > income tax to reduce taxes.
> > But what if the amendment fails either to make it out of the
> > Legislature, or at the polls in 2008? Doesn't that leave Lynch, who
> > proposed the definition, holding the bag?
> > LYNCH ONCE AGAIN SCHOOLS THE REPUBLICANS: As noted above, Lynch will
> > portray the choice as between his amendment and an income tax. It is
> > a false choice. But can the tongue-tied intellectually enervated
> > Republicans make the case? Doubtful. Advantage Lynch.
> > Assuming the amendment makes it to the ballot, but fails, Lynch will
> > be quick to remind everyone that the definition was a "bi-partisan"
> > effort. If a majority of Republicans, or even a sizable majority
> > back Lynch's definition, then Republicans will be seen by the voters
> > as much to blame as Lynch if the amendment doesn't pass in 2008 and
> > the Court says raise $2 billion in state taxes or else.
> > Posted by Ed Mosca, on http//granitegrok.com Feb 12/07
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]