Unanswered Questions

Yes sir!  You are correct and the Monitor, letter writers and progressives continue to push for an income tax.  

I read that piece and let me tell you; people just don't get it.  For some reason to add $2000 tax burden is acceptable but to have fuel increase $1500 per year and groceries $500 is somehow a "financial crisis".  Remember though, this is the group that believes that government does everything best when in reality......well, we know the score.

I just read that government has it's hands in 65% of health care in this country with programs like Medicare and entitlements.  They love to blame the private sector, drug companies and health insurance companies.

Obama has proven himself to be just another POL whose uncle liberated Auschwitz (it was liberated by the Russians), has campaigned in "57 or 58 states" and yes, in his infinite wisdom would dictate to each of us how much we should drive, eat and consume overall.  He is irrelevant and like most progressives does not understand that all of our current crises were caused by.....CONGRESS.

Regulation after regulation on energy, rule after rule, legislation after legislation, pandering to special interest environmental groups who act like they were elected all plays into this crisis.  And most on the Left get sucked into the emotional aspect of every issue, believing what their heroes say because it sounds "reasonable" to them.

No matter what the Monitor thinks or opinion writers on this blog or those who opine in the Letters section of the Monitor; the press leans left and even the so called "recession" is whooped up hysteria.

I wish for once, these sources would answer the related questions.  However, due to their inability to do so; I have to believe that their agenda is not honest or true.  The income tax is a way to control more of our money under the guise of reducing property taxes.  So Mr. Hardy, let's ask anyone who wants to respond the following questions which I doubt will be able to be effectively answered,

1. If support for an income tax is to reduce property taxes and the total household income would only yield the same revenue at a 5% tax, why are progressives really supporting that initiative?  Is is really about reducing property taxes?
2. If those supporting an income tax feel that the present evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education is a low number and not accurate then why institute an income tax now if that is not realistic?
3. Are supporters of a broad based income tax willing to pass an amendment at the same time that limits towns spending on schools if the state takes on that responsibility?  A 1% cap with not override possibility?
4. If property taxes go up after institution of an income tax and their theory does not work out are they willing to take a pledge to resign their elected positions?
5. Are they willing to outline a plan to cut spending and sign into law that the income tax will not go into the general fund...ever...but will instead ONLY be used on education.

Do you hear the crickets??????

The answers will not be forthcoming as the real agenda has nothing to do with schools or children......it has more to do with raising money for personal feel good social purposes.

We should not be surprised as this is the same group that supposedly supports our troops while not supporting the war.  Thanks for the post Jehardy......always good to hear from you, 

Bill, It’s Judy  - LOL – that makes me Ms. Hardy; but that’s OK.  Many have said I sound like one of the guys, so I’m used to this.  J   

Anyway, if you think the health care situation is bad now, just wait until this group gets universal health care cooking, the situation will only worsen.   Without universal health care the situation is grave enough.  The policy my husband and I have through work offers a $600.00 deductible.  On top of that most of your basic yearly (or semi-annually) ‘health maintenance’ services – blood work, mammograms, etc.  – Not covered!  Sure, you can go get these services done, referred out by your PCP – but since they aren’t processed at your doctor’s office...  Not covered!   Unless you have a serious health issue, pretty much any preventative care is not covered.   What are we paying for insurance for?  Does this make sense?  No.  Cover basic preventative care now to prevent catastrophic illness later.  What a concept. 

 A dear friend with insurance (same carrier) told me she won’t be getting her annual preventative care this year, she cannot afford it.   When people with insurance can’t afford basic screenings, something is very wrong.  Government involvement will not improve the situation.  

 You’ll never get an answer to your 5 questions re: proper financial management of funds from an income tax.  Crickets, indeed.  You’ll likely be labeled ungracious or even mean for asking for proper rationalization and controls in the first place.  You can’t ask the far left to explain why they believe what they believe, and their justification without a venomous response, I’ve discovered.

On Oil:  The current price of oil is utterly unsupportable by any rational measurement, except for one: Congress and the Federal Reserve have deliberately weakened the US dollar.  The primary purpose is to make American goods and services more attractive to foreign buyers, which helps a handful of huge multinational businesses but screws American consumers, and will ultimately destroy our economy if unchecked.   In order to stop this madness we would need to do a few things: 

1. Stop the deflation of the dollar.  We’re reaching a tipping point from which we may not recover.
2. Fund the development of new oil capacity and refineries by offering tax credits to oil companies in exchange for exploration and refinery development.  Lessen our reliance on foreign oil! 
3. Remove all non-safety-related obstacles to the development of nuclear power plants NOW.  We can’t continue on our current path and expect things to improve.

  Of course, none of the above will happen, especially if Obama is elected President. Instead, when he and Congress impose huge new taxes on oil companies, we’ll get fuel shortages and gas lines, no new energy development (except for worthless but politically-connected wind and solar projects that consume more energy than they generate).  Carter Administration?  Lord, help us.   Radicals will overthrow Iraq after we cut and run and pull out financial support.  Now there’s change we can believe in.  /Sarcasm.  

Sorry "MS" Hardy,

You are correct, progressives do not have the testicular fortitude to answer any of those questions...you are also correct that they use tools of excuse but at the end of the day, they will not discuss the details.  All arguments are driven by emotion; we know where that gets us.....nowhere.

Obama as president, to me is unthinkable.  They say you are judged by the company that you keep and yet another preacher, this time a white priest, illustrates the kind of environment where Obama evolved.  To think that he does not have those tendencies or beliefs in his core being would be naive at best.

Yes, "change" for the sake of "change" without an understanding of the end result.  They may get what they wish for.

Today I heard that Obama would use the traditional first 100 days to institute universal health care.  His campaign spokesperson said that they wanted it to be done right away because they felt it would never pass otherwise.  Isn't that like saying that they know the majority do not support universal health care?

No worry Judy, the Democrats have shown their hatred towards not only those who do not agree with them but also between themselves.  The Democratic primary has been a race baiting fiesta on both sides.  They openly expose their Socialist agenda as they feel they are a shoe in this November.  Heck, Maxine Waters called for the government take over of the oil industry, openly during a hearing.

I hope that intelligent Americans will see through all of the baloney.  Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer people who understand that self reliance and self determination are two of the greatest freedoms that we have.

As for the income tax, only a fool or a Leftist zealot would want one instituted.  I still hear the crickets and their song is crisper and clearer than ever. proving that they are aware of their hidden agenda and can not respond as they would reveal their hypocirisy.

Always good to hear from you. 

Hey Mickey -

Your thoughts regarding the "Crawford Compromise" are noticeably absent. Does this solution meet your criteria as pro-education? If not, why not? What are your criteria? I abide by the credo, "neither a Republican nor a Democrat be", so I don't have a partisan pit-bull in this match - just looking for the best possible solution to our discernibly troubled education.

I can still glimpse the feint outlines of free thinking people in the far distant future,

-C. dog e. doG

I believe free public educations serves the community best. I do not believe in tax payer money going to support non-secular institutions. I would need to read more about the Crawford Compromise before I commented further. Can you provide a link to some documentation?

I grew up in a time and place where the general consensus was that taxes were based on your ability to pay and I continue to support that position.  New Hampshire has a history of stinginess when it comes to the support of public education (note that NH is number 50 in its contribution to higher education).  I do not believe that the property tax is a fair tax based on one's ability to pay.  

NH is always looking for a way to get someone else to pay it's obligations.  So maybe the state should legalize marijuana and sell it at the state stores along with booze; or maybe we should open up a dozen casinos and riverboat gambling on the Oyster River; or maybe we should grow up and face our responsibility and instituted a graduated income tax that is based on one's ability to pay.  

I know that will go over like a lead balloon, because greed outweighs responsibility among rightwingers.  I've got mine...screw you is their agenda and motto.

Well, the Monitor editors in their support of education provided us with factless, emotion filled opinion.

It is a well know fact that every state that has instituted an income or sales tax to relieve property tax has realized a net increase in property taxes over the next five years. It does not work. The LEFT will not respond to this because it is TRUE.

You do the research and multiply the total income of households by 5% and then take 1-2% out for administrative costs and exemptions. You will find that amount is less than we spend on education state wide as a whole now. What you want is some so called "expert" to quote that so that you can tie him/her to some political group. Do the math, it will stimulate your brain...informed citizens do the research for themselves instead of relying on some elected hack to give them a story.

If I listen to the radio or watch television in states with an income tax and they are struggling just like we are (and that is about 20 states), that is documentation enough I would say. You want studies done by academics that prove the point. Well, academics doing studies generally have some agenda in their research. Now, I guess you would say that Warner struggling with education funding is not valid unless there is "documentation" to support it.

I know what I read and hear and what people in these states tell me and that is that educational spending is bankrupting them.

I am not anti education; I support a basic education...reading, writing, math, non-revisionist history and heavy emphasis on science so that we can compete in the world.

I do not support schools being the social compass or social teachings in schools. I also am not negative on education but want politicians like those supporting this legislation to tell us the truth.

If they believe that we do not pay enough and they want education to be a certain cost or configuration...tell us the truth.

As usual Michael, you make weak arguments by relying on partisans to do the math and research. Like other progressives, you are unable to answer the questions I posed. That proves my point; you have something to hide like those supporting an income tax.

So are you going to answer the questions?  I figured as much, you either can't or won't because you know that would reveal the true agenda of income tax supporters. 

So if you do not believe that the property tax is the fairest way to fund education then you must support an amendment that stops towns from spending once an income tax is instituted?  No, I did not think so.

You say that an income tax is fairest.  I get angry when renters have children in school and 3 children and they pay nothing in tax towards the school.

The same would be true of a husband and wife that do not want to have children earning $100,000.  They could be paying for the families who do have children and earn $150,000.  There really is no "fair" way.

I have no issue helping others but charity starts at home and you take care of your own family first. We all have an obligation to pay for education.  Our parents did and we should do the same.  It really benefits everyone.

It is NOT about screw you I've got mine.  That is something that has been perpetuated by progressives to stir up class envy and pit one citizen against another.

It is about rewarding self reliance, self determination, hard work, investing in your own life by taking responsibility.  Forcing people to share their hard earned assets did not build this great nation of ours; pulling yourself up by one's own bootstraps did.

We do have a responsibility to pay for education but we do not need to be lectured by those who fail to answer the questions involved and simply push their pet agenda.  Once again, you have, like any other progressive NOT answered the questions that I asked.

Are you not able to provide reasonable, thoughtful answers to those questions I asked.

I hear the crickets!!!!!!!!

Michael,

Here are some related stories about how income taxes do not reduce property taxes.

If you want to do the research, the facts are everywhere:

This is typical rant of folks who think like you Bill:  “It is a well know fact that every state that has instituted an income or sales tax to relieve property tax has realized a net increase in property taxes over the next five years.”

The problem is, you can‘t provide any documentation that supports your statement!!!

You have provided nothing that states:  PROPERTY TAX HAS REALIZED A NET INCREASE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

“So if you do not believe that the property tax is the fairest way to fund education then you must support an amendment that stops towns from spending once an income tax is instituted? “  Stop spending for what?  Police protection?  Fire protections?  Road maintenance? NO, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT.  I WOULD SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE INCOME TAX TO BE USED FOR EDUCATION ONLY.

“I get angry when renters have children in school and 3 children and they pay nothing in tax towards the school.”  WELL, THEN YOU SHOULD BE SUPPORTING AN INCOME TAX SO THAT THESE PEOPLE DID PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO PAY. 

“The same would be true of a husband and wife that do not want to have children earning $100,000.  They could be paying for the families who do have children and earn $150,000.”  THEY ALREADY DO PAY FOR THESE PEOPLE WHEN THEY PAY THEIR LOCAL PROPERTY TAX. AND THEY SHOULD BECAUSE THE BETTER EDUCATED THE COMMUNITY THE BETTER IT IS FOR EVERYONE.

THIS IS THE SCENERIO THAT IS HAPPENING TODAY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Let's take SAY A Mr. Bunker Sr. living on a fixed income in a home he's lived in for the last 45 years on land that has been in the family for over 200 years.  The town says that the property, which he purchase for less than $10K is now worth over $500K.  Mr. Bunker lives on Social Security and a government pension that increases with COLAs maybe 2% per year.  But the taxes go up 10% a year.  At some point Mr. Bunker is not going to be able to keep his property, and will have to sell it just to get out from under the burden.  Is that fair to Mr. Bunker and his elderly wife?  Say Mr. Bunker dies, leaving his 80 some year old widow whose income is now cut because she is now alone?  How will Mrs. Bunker be able to stay in that property that she his lived in for all those years?   If we had an income tax, Mrs. Bunker would probably not pay any tax, and be able to continue to stay in her home

PROPERTY OWNED BY OUT-OF-STATERS SHOULD BE TAXED AT HIGHER RATES THAN PROPERTY OWNED BY THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.  IF THESE PEOPLE MAKE A LIVING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE THEY WOULD ALSO BE PAYING A TAX ON THAT INCOME, JUST AS PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BUT WORK IN VERMONT MUST DO.

I DON’T SUPPORT SALES TAXES BECAUSE THOSE WITH THE LEAST PAY THE MOST.  IT IS NOT FAIR TAXATION.  IT IS TIME FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE TO GROW UP AND BITE THE BULLET WITH FAIRNESS TO ALL.

Hey Mikey -

I too believe "public" should be free, but we're talking about tax financed education, which by definition violates the very definition of free - if I don't pay, people put me in prison. So let's dispense with the fable and fraud of free and freedom, at least for this conversation concerning education. Certainly, one could discuss both concurrently, but that would require the removal of taxes from this simple equation.

So on to the "Crawford Compromise". You mention your disapproval of having to pay for some other kid attending a school of which you don't approve. Me too. I hate that. But that's already happening, and this aspect is at the core of compromise in the "Crawford Compromise". Parents would be granted more choice, but not infinite choice, and for most it would represent the only means to choice in selecting how to educate their children because they are either poor, or not rich enough to pay for other kids to go to public school and their kids to go to a school they prefer. I think this comes down to a control issue. Those with control issues feel they should dictate what other people do, and better yet, what they think. What a monochromatic world that would be - vanilla, mind-numbed mumblings dribbling from dumbed-down children everywhere you go. Surely, Mike, you don't think such "educations serves the community best", do you? In contrast, I embrace the considerably more multi-cultural approach of each family deciding for themselves how and where to educate their children, as their resources allow, in a manner that best reflects their family's values. And for those without the financial wherewithal, at least they are provided some modicum of choice. I would hate to decide for an urban African-American family where they should send their children, just as I hate the same being done to me. One size does not fit all!

I want my children going to schools that best reflect my values, don't you too, Mike? You don't really want to force people to send their children to a school that doesn't reflect their values, do you? What if some Abenaki folks down the street want to send their kids to a school emphasizing Abenaki culture and traditions? Should they be able to do so, rather than be force "assimilated" into a Euro-centric mosh-pit? Or what if a latino influx were to occur in your protected rural community? Would you deny them the ability to congregate and educate their children to preserve their rich cultural heritage? I certainly hope not Mike, or I just don't feel like I know you any more.

Regarding your "general consensus" for what I infer is the current public/government schooling system, hasn't De Toqueville already addressed this best by his observation of "tyranny of the majority"? Isn't that what's at the core of the Bill of Rights - to protect the minority? How is the minority well served when forced to educate their children at the whims of the majority? Doesn't this strike at the very core of the minority, by robbing them of their children's education? Again, Mike, think of the Abenaki family down the road from you struggling to preserve their cultural identity. Please, don't tread on them, or me.

Now back to "ability to pay". A pretty tricky notion, don't you think? Everyone has their own definition, and then there's the problem of putting a gun to someone's head to make them pay for someone else's obligations. Either way you slice it, this one's ugly. Many of us grew up thinking stealing, forcing people against their will, imprisonment, enslavement, are bad things - at least those are some of the lessons I learned from the Vietnam War, and more recently the little tussle in Iraq. But given the current malaise in education, we have to start somewhere. So the "Crawford Compromise" addresses this in a new way to accomplish two key objectives:
1. Increase choices for parents living in New Hampshire to send their kids to schools that better reflect their culture, traditions, and values by letting them keep their property tax portion used for current school expenses. The parents can then spend this money, and maybe more, to send their children to a school of their choice.
2. Redesign "ability to pay". Mike, when you're right, you're right. The current property tax system sucks at figuring out whether Granny down the corner can pay the exorbitant real estate taxes or not. As you and I both know, many fixed-income folks are forced out of their homes because they are forced to pay for other people's children. I don't care how well you perform mental gymnastics, this doesn't sound fair even if you do "stick the landing". So a key part of the "Crawford Compromise" is using better metrics - income tax returns, maybe net wealth statements - to assess ability to pay, which includes assessing the parents' ability to pay for their own children*. I hope you at least agree that parents should pay for their own children's education, to the best of their ability.

Municipalities could continue using the current property tax system with the income protections added, or they could scrap property school taxes and replace with an income school tax. Total money taken would be the same using either approach, but the particular form selected may influence people with high incomes to choose another state for their residence, and bring with them their substantial contributions to the local economies (communities) to which they belong. However, the total tax burden should go down as more parents pick up the tab for their own children... so maybe those fat cats with their fat wallets wouldn't move to Florida after all.

Regarding your comment about higher education, that is currently not part of property tax obligations, nor should it be. First, if schools were educating children well, then most students would be sufficiently skilled to start jobs they seek by the time they graduate high-school. If not, there are plenty of financial vehicles for them to access to help fund their higher education. But higher education strays away from the core of the topic we are discussing anyway, which is primary and secondary education with respect to taxing schemes to fund such.

Finally, your comment "NH is always looking for a way to get someone else to pay it's obligations" puzzles me on two scores. First, New Hampshire is merely a legal/government construct, i.e. it's ether made up from someone's imaginings. So how can something like this, such as it is, have obligations or do anything? It's like me saying Barney the purple dinosaur has obligations to pay my kids tuition. Second, you may then argue people living in New Hampshire have these obligations that they then try to shirk. But isn't this exactly what the parents are doing who try to make other people pay for their children's education? Sounds like a quacking, walking, shirking duck to me.

So that's what the "Crawford Compromise" seeks to remedy to the greatest extent possible: make people pay for their own kids first, as much as possible, and only when the parent's disposable income is fully tapped are they then allowed to go take someone else's property to finance their kids schooling up to a capped amount, say $5K/pupil/year.

As an aside, I do like your ideas about legalizing marijuana, gambling, and may I also infer prostitution, but I think its inappropriate to link these topics to schooling, especially when discussing under-age children. Rather, these topics should stand on their own, as it seems you think too, and I don't think the state should monopolize these vices - it just doesn't sound fair.

So Mike, have I sufficiently fleshed out this school funding option for you? If not, what elements do you think are missing? Also, what problems do you think exist with this approach? Are we at least a little bit free-er and a little less dead with this approach?

*Important: A fundamental element of the ability-to-pay calculation is a deduction for current education expenses up to a specified grade level. This gets tricky deciding whether to include college/post grad tuition as it inevitably delves into traditional class-warfare territory, but we can leave that point alone for now.

Can we lift our feet from the partisan muck, or will we be forever maligned in the quagmire by our past misdeeds?
- C. dog e. doG

Michael...you wrote........ 

"This is typical rant of folks who think like you Bill:  “It is a well know fact that every state that has instituted an income or sales tax to relieve property tax has realized a net increase in property taxes over the next five years.”

"The problem is, you can‘t provide any documentation that supports your statement!!!"

I included several links above and can do so again if you are willing to listen to reason, Michael.

I lived through this in Massachusetts many years ago as I watched homeowners support more income taxes as property taxes grew.  Ask any Massachusetts transplant why they moved here...to avoid the tax mess that they created.

My parents and I lived in New Jersey in the 1960's where the same message was sold to the voters.....the results speak for themselves today.  That is all of the documentation that you need...it is fact.  Do the research. 

My point is made in your answe and this quote below.  The intent is not to provide property tax relief, it is to get more revenue for the state to spoend as it sees fit.  Michael, you wrote:

"NO, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT.  I WOULD SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE INCOME TAX TO BE USED FOR EDUCATION ONLY."m   I rest my case!  This reveals the intent of supporters.

Michael Evans wrote :"THIS IS THE SCENERIO THAT IS HAPPENING TODAY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Let's take SAY A Mr. Bunker Sr. living on a fixed income in a home he's lived in for the last 45 years on land that has been in the family for over 200 years.  The town says that the property, which he purchase for less than $10K is now worth over $500K.  Mr. Bunker lives on Social Security and a government pension that increases with COLAs maybe 2% per year.  But the taxes go up 10% a year.  At some point Mr. Bunker is not going to be able to keep his property, and will have to sell it just to get out from under the burden.  Is that fair to Mr. Bunker and his elderly wife?  Say Mr. Bunker dies, leaving his 80 some year old widow whose income is now cut because she is now alone?  How will Mrs. Bunker be able to stay in that property that she his lived in for all those years?   If we had an income tax, Mrs. Bunker would probably not pay any tax, and be able to continue to stay in her home"

Yes, Michael, this is true  but if property taxes do not go down...then Old Ma Bunker will be in terrible shape anyway. 

Michael, you wrote: 

"PROPERTY OWNED BY OUT-OF-STATERS SHOULD BE TAXED AT HIGHER RATES THAN PROPERTY OWNED BY THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.  IF THESE PEOPLE MAKE A LIVING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE THEY WOULD ALSO BE PAYING A TAX ON THAT INCOME, JUST AS PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BUT WORK IN VERMONT MUST DO."

Not constitutional or fair,  Just because a person has worked hard enough to afford a second home her does not mean that we tuck it to them on taxes. 

Michael, you wrote:

 "I DON’T SUPPORT SALES TAXES BECAUSE THOSE WITH THE LEAST PAY THE MOST.  IT IS NOT FAIR TAXATION.  IT IS TIME FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE TO GROW UP AND BITE THE BULLET WITH FAIRNESS TO ALL."

Well, Michael, I do not agree.  Over taxation impacts families and impacts children.  School budgets grow year after year but we need to protest families and their stability.

You answered a couple of questions here but still avoided several:

1)  Would you support an amendment that would freeze town spending so that taxes can not be raised more than 1% to fund any school expenses if an income tax is instituted.

2)  If an income tax is voted on those who find it to be the solution, should it fail, would resign their office if it does not provide property tax relief.  Would you support this?

3)  Spending cuts...do you support those?

 The truth be told, the income tax is a way to raise revenue and spend more.  It has little to do with education and property tax relief.

Mr. Bill, Mr. Bill!

What do you think of the "Crawford Compromise" as a means to resolve the conflict between Republicans and Democrats, between conservatives and liberals, between you and Mikey? Specifically, your opinion and reasons for that opinion with respect to replacing the property school tax with an income school tax? Are there other aspects you have a problem with, and why? I, and other inquiring minds, would like to know what you think. Thanks.

The surest road to slavery is an uninquisitive, obedient mind.

- C. dog e. doG

It sounds good, looks good on paper and has good components.

Unfortunately, legislators and pols would not support this as it undermines their influence.

You asked Michael if he wanted to have his kids attend a school that reflects his values.  Unfortunately, progressives are a real challenge to what you propose.  They want a school that reflects their narrow "vision" of what society should be.

Good luck but the Crawford Compromise doesn't stand a prayer of passing.  It is too much of a departure for the parties to agree on.

I beg to differ, there Billo...progressives don't have a narrow world view, it is your type that has THE narrow world view.  Get real.  What does neo-conservative mean....status quo.  Live in the past, fear everything you don't understand!!  

Not really so. What the blogger means is that we all should be able to acquire the education that agrees with our philosophy and belief as choice.

Progressives have a world view and set beliefs like those that you term "neo-conservatives" (a label and narrow definition based on a Left leaning belief).

"Change" for change sake leaves people spending their lives struggling. Today, progressives tell you how you should think, what you should do to be responsible socially, what you should say and place parameters on the level of correctness of those thoughts. What could be more narrow than that?

You think you have all of the answers but in reality you have very few. The only thing we have to fear is one political point of view squelching free speech and imposing their social agenda. Progressives have done a good job of that in society and especially our schools.

No fear, just anxiety about how far the Left will take us in their quest to engineer us socially.

Well, there is no anxiety in knowing where  neo-conservatives will take us.  We have almost fifteen years of recent history:  illegal immoral wars; huge war machine; a failing economy; unbelievable debt; the selling of America to the highest bidder; greed beyond anyone's conprehesion; secrecy; torture, prisons, death, destruction of all that was good about our nation as well as the environment we leave our children to mention a few of the roads that neo-conservatives have led this nation. 

That is certainly not a legacy that progressives will leave.  That is why progressives must defeat the immorality of the neo-conservatives and right wing brainwashed fascists that support them.  If the shoe fits, wear it.

It always devolves into this Michael.  Well rehearsed talking points from the Left.  I will answer these one by one.

"Immoral" is relevant to the Left so and "immoral war" is in the eye of the partisan.

A failing economy-I think not, this is not the Great Depression and it is recovering.  We had 7 straight years of good economy.  Economy goes up and down.  Figures don't lie but liars figure and you can report the facts and spin them to make things look dire.  Progressives are all about doom and gloom.

Debt has been an issue for decades and we always wipe it out, reduce it or restructure it.

Selling to the highest bidder-I might agree that we have too many Middle Eastern and Chinese companies buying up companies and land.

Greed-A trumped up talking point based on isolated incidents.

Secrecy-We need that to protect our own citizens.  You would put all intelligence on public display in a feel good manner.

Torture-If playing loud music or saying things against the Koran is torture then I am all for it.  Water boarding I am not in support of.

Prisons-In country prisons are needed.  Cultural influences breed crime.  Keep prisoners where they belong, behind bars.

Death-Tell that to Bill Clinton as millions died in Rhawanda and we stood idly by and would not help.

As far as the environment, this administration has done nothing to destroy it.  Environazi's like the Sierra Club have seen to that.  You should read the letter from yesterday on how Jeanne Shaheen is taking lobby money from the Sierra Club and how they are interfering with forest management in New Hampshire.

Believe what you want but progressives are weak on defense, think that you can negotiate with anyone, want to spend unbridled money for social wasteful programs and have no understanding of the economy; they think companies exist to provide employment and break even.  Couple that with isolationism and as we can witness in the current Democratic primary, they are just as racist, bigoted and hypocritical as the other side that you so vehemently condemn.

Fascism is closer related to progressivism, as is Socialism and Communism.  Not your brand of redefined fascism; true fascism.

Still no answer to those questions, Michael....it speaks volumes! 

You'll never agree with me and I'll never see the world through your corrupt eyes, so I guess it's best to just stop now.  It's a waste of time, and time is a valuable resource.  Know this...you are in the minority.  America is changing and you are going to be left behind.  So be it.  Why should I care.  

Whoa, there, boys -

I intrepidly reenter the fray here in hopes of turning the discussion back to school funding and finding out what Mike thinks at this juncture about the "Crawford Compromise". Mike, if you're willing, I would love to know your answers to the questions I posed to you in my last posting to you. I too think the current education system and funding thereof is greatly flawed, but more importantly, I think we can make major strides improving it if people would stop the partisan freight trains for a moment to consider ways to best resolve the problems. I hope you are willing. Thanks for your thoughts.

Desperately clinging to illusions of hope somewhere in the shadows cast by the White Mountains,
C. dog e. doG

I never heard of this until you wrote about it here. I asked you to provide more information or documentation about this, but I didn't see any come forward. I googled "Crawford Compromise", but found only a link to your post here. Who's behind this? What's the real agenda?

When it comes to the education of a community’s children, whether it be a town, city or state, I am a traditionalist in that I firmly believe that the community is responsible to pick up the tab, as they have done pretty much since the beginning of our nation.

Although our nation is made up of many diverse parts, we are also a nation that needs to live and work together, and that kind of socialization happens in our schools. Public schools can also offer a diverse program that will help meet the needs of their students that small, private schools may not. They also have resources, such as libraries that small institutions only dream of.

Your approach sounds like “health savings accounts.” They might work for a few, but for the many, they will fail because human nature doesn’t work that way. The entity we know as the State of New Hampshire has shirked its responsibility in educating its young and its future. We have no problem with things like “rooms and meals taxes”, or outlandish fees to register your car, or taxes on your utility bills. But we try to support education with a “lottery.” I was teaching in a public school here in NH when that answer was concocted by the wise men in Concord over 40 years ago. And today our property taxes are putting people out of their homes, and as a progressive, I just find that immoral, while neighbors down the street making the big bucks don’t pay the same percentage of their livelihood for the good of all.

I’m sorry, but your approach doesn’t solve the problem but will only create greater problems and the kids will be the losers. When the cost of an education in this state runs $10,000 or more per child per year, even guys like Bunker will revolt if you try to get him to pay for his progeny. Won’t happen, even though he may be sufficiently able. People will hide their assets or cheat on their taxes like they do now to avoid paying for the extended nursing home care required by elderly parents.

Hi Michael:

I think it's high time I chime in considering I was the one who called in to the "Mike Ball Show" on the radio (I think about 6 years ago) with this nutty notion that there's an obvious, and better solution to funding eduction than what was taking place in New Hampshire, or any state for that matter. I was pleasantly amused to hear from a friend recently that my idea caused such a raucous on this blog, and I'm quite surprised someone thought enough of it that they carried the banner lo these many years. I certainly think it's timely, given the current education funding crisis, but then again, this was so 6 years ago. Therefore, I'm not sure how much of a crisis it represents, unless of course you have children in school, or you're an elderly person on a fixed income and you can't afford your property taxes any more. Such are the vagaries of polyticks.

Any whooo, what he (Mr. Dog?) outlined does fairly represent the plan I conjured for a more fair, better system of education in New Hampshire. There are no black ops. or hidden agendas here - you needn't be afraid. In the inimitable words of many a professional athlete and coach: "it is what it is." So I think I answered your two primary questions, I'm the "who" and the "real agenda" is as I stated.

I am curious what your thoughts are to such an approach. If you have more questions regarding this plan, I guess I'm the guy to ask given I am its architect. I don't write with the panache of Mr. Dog, but I'll try to fill in the blanks as best I can. Thanks for your interest.
Humbly,
Crawford

P.S. Ooops, so sorry Michael. I either mistook the first paragraph of your response as your complete reply because your wide paragraph spacing on my screen caused me to overlook the remainder, or you edited your reply while I was constructing my response. No matter, I look forward to reading your complete response with the full attention it deserves and provide my own if one is warranted. I am enthused that some real exchange of ideas is actually taking place here.

Hey Mikey, you so fine, you so fine, hey Mikey, hey Mikey -
I commend your bravery - replying with your more extended thoughts on the "Crawford Compromise" before you even knew who was behind this dastardly plot to bring reasoned discourse to this debate, and what their "real agenda" is - that's just crazy, man. (I think its a communist, no, wait ... a community plot) Your Community Thanks You, Michael Evans!

Also, a big shout out and welcome to the fracas - or is this more a curfuffle - Mr. Crawford. I hope I accurately represented your scheme for government school financing in New Hampshire, and I certainly have some thoughts of my own with respect to Mikey's daring reply. (Don't fret now Mike, I have some thoughts on the current screwed up system too.)

And now, without further unpleasantries, I'll endeavor to answer Mike's critique to the best of my diminished abilities. (I had much more stamina, virility, and mental dexterity back in my 20's)

First, your assertion that the "community" picked up the school tab from our country's inception is a tad misleading at best. (What are your sources and reference documents for your assertion?) Some governments did, some didn't, and surely most didn't impose the onerous conditions on the inhabitants that they now do. In the beginning of this nation most people took care of their own children's education, either by home schooling, or pooling resources voluntarily to build a school and hire a teacher. I too label myself a traditionalist in this tradition, and those who know me know I rarely consider myself a traditionalist in any sense, with respect to anything.

And your reference to "community" is misleading, though I suspect not intentionally so. As is so often the case, people use this term as if its an entity, some real thing like a person, whereas it's really just subterfuge to hide who pays and who steals within the "community". They also use the term to conjure images of people peacefully living together, communing with nature, just doing good things - a kind of Eden, but without God of course for the atheists, or with some form of deity for the believers. I am curious, Mike, in your isolated "community" of Warner (or is your "community" something different), do people associate voluntarily, or is it a community of shackles where each enslaves the other? By the context of your statement, I take it "community" is just another name for government, which to my surprise is the primary definition in my trusty dictionary. I was always under the impression community meant something better - a congregation of people freely, happily living together, but now it makes so much more sense this way.

And by the way, should I choose to spawn someday, the children born thereof will not be "community children", rather they will be the children of me and my fellow spawnee. Likewise, any children you may have born or will bear, either in or our of wedlock, are completely yours. I'd rather not be forced to have anything to do with them. Be a man, Mike! Buy their clothes, toothbrushes, internet access to porn, and if you make enough or have enough wealth squirreled away, their own schooling. I'm sure you and like minded souls could build your own "community school", just don't involuntarily include me or the spawn of C. dog e. doG!

And as we all know, once we remove the blinders of our traditional elementary educations, governments are just institutions of violence; without force they collapse. It's time to stop looking at the shadows in Socrates' cave and think they are more than that.

Now Mikey, is this really how you choose to live, handcuffed to your neighbors? Or do you want something better for yourself, and dare I infer for your family: better choices, better schools, better relationships with your neighbors other than threatening to club each other if the other doesn't do what the other wants them to (this all sounds so Cro-Magnon, man). Remember poor lil' Abner Abenaki down the street? Why should his kids be forced to go to your "community school"? I'm sure he and his spouse would much prefer an education emphasizing elements important to the Abenaki way of life. Likewise, when Jesus Ramirez and his extended family move in next door to you, I'm sure they would much rather send their kids to a school emphasizing latino values, traditions, and rituals; it's the Right of Parenthood for {insert deity of choice}'s sake! Why let the happenstance of geographic proximity to you screw this up for them.

So, is government meddling in schooling something we should want more of, or less? I find violence abhorrent, therefore I vote for less. That's why I was drawn to the "Crawford Compromise" plan for government school financing - I want as little violence perpetrated on people as possible, while still allowing the opportunity for all children living in New Hampshire to receive an adequate education. I find it strange that significant numbers of people want more of a bad thing (government shakedowns) that inevitably leads to less of a good thing (well educated, clearly thinking students). What kind of person wants to go around threatening everyone else in their communities? How does that happen? Where has all our freedom gone?

But I digress, and now return to the smaller issue of government financed schooling. Mikey, it also sounds like you want to force socialization of other people's kids according to your tastes. That reminds me of a middle-sized state located approximately in the middle of Europe some 70 years ago. The apparatchik wanted all children to be schooled according to a strict regimen chosen by them, not parents. As I recall, they weren't too big on supporting traditions they didn't like, especially those nasty Jewish ones. I'm not such a big fan of the one-size-fits-all solution, it so rarely fits anyone except "Za Party". Mike, don't you think Abner's kids would be much better served going to a school steeped in Abenaki tradition rather than yours, one which at best would offer a light, whitewashed exposure? Wouldn't school choice much more ensure an authentic preservation of their culture than some saccharin substitute offered in the school you prefer? Who want's the vanilla excretion at the back end of forced government schooling? Not me. Assimilation is the death of one's heritage, one's culture. I'm a big supporter of cultural preservation, diversity, chosen identity. Aren't you, Mike? Isn't that a key plank of "progressive" thought? Sounds like some re-decking is in order, here.

Even if your favorite flavor is vanilla, why do you support your system wherein only the well-off have the choice to send their children to schools they prefer, but you deny this very right to those of lesser means? Do you not like the masses? Why are you a proponent of a scheme that keeps kicking them in the asses? Do you find them offensive? Do they scare you? Wouldn't it be better to provide such folks greater means to a better education, not less? The "Crawford Compromise" assuredly does this, whereas your expansion of the current system only adds more child fodder to the dumbed-down schooling scheme. I just don't get why anyone wants more kids going to worse schools, not the reverse; it sounds Pol Pot'ish, and not in a good way.

Regarding resources like libraries that public schools have and small private schools don't, a few points:
1) The internet has largely obsoleted library buildings. Much research is now done via internet - we don't need no big stinkin' edifices anymore.
2) For those still pining for the library experience, and I count myself among such dinosaurs, we are still allowed the occasional visit to the local library.
3) Most secondary, and virtually all primary eduction is about acquiring fundamental skills: reading, writing, arithmetic - not research. Too bad most schools fail on this front - their primary mission.
4) Are there other resources we should be concerned with that larger schools have that smaller one's don't for educating children? If so, is there possibly some creative solution so we don't keep duplicating resources for each fiefdom, like local libraries serving both students ... and non-students? I know, it sounds crazy.
5) If people don't agree with me on this library issue, and they think it's important and that you're right, "Crawford's Compromise" still allows them to send their children to large, impersonal, government or private schools. This plan does not get rid of your cherished Big Public Schools (BPS's). You and the multitudes you claim think like you can still send your kids to these schools you hold in such high esteem. Meanwhile, Abner, Jesus, I, and other minorities are afforded an opportunity to select a school we prefer. We don't like vanilla! Stop cramming it down our throats!

Now on to your particular critique of the financing scheme. Your observation that the "Crawford Compromise" sounds like a medical savings account is mostly incorrect:
1. There is no accounting mechanism to create partitioned savings accounts to finance your children's schooling. I'm not opposed to such things, but they would be yet another hassle that seems to best serve investment houses and advisors, not Joe Six-pack and Cindy Cigarette.
2. But, you do get to deduct your own children's schooling expenditures from your school tax calculation, so that is similar. What's the problem with this aspect, Mike? Don't you think education is important enough to warrant a stinkin' tax deduction?
3. But, you don't lose whatever you don't use, one of the more odious aspects of the medical savings account scheme. Who invented this draconian solution anyway, oh yea, government wonks.
4. Accounts, to the extent they exist, only pertain to those who seek government financing for their children's education, and quite a lax one it is. They only pay back what they can afford. What a steal ... I mean deal! Don't you think Cindy Cigarette should pay for her kids schooling if she wins big in the Lotto? Why should the rest of us poor schmucks let the newly crowned millionaire princess ride off to South Beach, Miami scott free? Especially when she smokes two packs a day. That just doesn't seem fair to me Mikey.

You then comment the approach I support "will fail because human nature doesn’t work that way", but you don't go on to explain how this is so. I infer you think parents en masse will shirk their parental duties to raise and educate their children, whereas evidence abounds all around us that the vast majority of parents want better for their children and often make difficult sacrifices to make this happen. Where's your evidence of significant numbers of parents shirking their duties with respect to schooling? I'm not aware truancy is on the rise, or that drop-out rates are accelerating. But if they were, I wouldn't be surprised, not many of us like vanilla - not that I have anything against the tropical spice, it's just not to my taste. But for those of you who are aficionados of the stuff, by all means, keep feeding it to your children.

Now on to your point about property taxes being a bad mechanism for calculating school taxes. I 100% agree*! It absolutely sucks at deciphering one's ability to pay taxes - it takes no account of how such assets are financed, the cash flows of the individual, and other aspects of a person's wealth. That is one of the fundamental points the "Crawford Compromise" undresses and addresses! It uses the other metrics I mentioned before - income tax returns, maybe net-wealth statements - to calculate one's ability to take on someone else's schooling burden. As I stated before, I think it may be immaterial whether this approach replaces the current property tax system, or just augments it by adding income protections, other than the fact that there will be different winners and losers depending on whether they are income rich or property rich. In either case, Granny Fixed-Income down the street is protected!

But Mikey! There's more. A major benefit to you, but an unintended aspect of this plan and one that doesn't hold particular value to me: only the rich get soaked in this scheme. The rest of us poor-to-middlin' schlepps get off scott free. I would think you, of all people, the self-professed progressive, the surveyor and purveyor of all that is liberal would be ecstatic about this. And yet, you aren't. Again, I just don't think I really know who you are anymore. Quixotically, you then go on to denounce the virtues of an income based ability to pay by saying Bill and his buddies cheat on their income taxes, and will do so to shirk fulfillment their parental duties under the "Crawford Compromise". For one, schooling a child does not cost $10K/year. There are great, nay superior educations to be had for far less. Here's my source on this: check out schools like Canterbury Children's Center for about half your price. Second, though I don't personally know Bill, he doesn't strike me as one who cheats on his income taxes. Third, it doesn't seem to bug you that "tax fraud" is already taking place when you want to use income taxes to pay for the schools you prefer. I'm at a loss, here, Mikey. I always find contradictions puzzling.

I suspect there's something more that you're unwilling to share with us, some dark ulterior motive for your refusal to endorse the "Crawford Compromise", and your stedfast adherence to our broken, corrupt, government schooling fiasco. Please share with us, let out your inner demon(s) that I may help you see that further enslaving more people is bad, doing its opposite is good. Don't be my massa, be my friend.

So I now ask you, Mr. Michael Evans, what's your real agenda here?

Just tryin' to find a little sanity as I struggle to maintain a foothold in the foothills of the White Mountains before I go,
- C. dog e. doG

* Note: I also agree those other taxes suck - suck dollars right out of my wallet! But again, they are off point to our current discussion. To the extent such silly things should exist at all, government staff should only charge the bare minimum costs tied to the service for that tax. Example: if we should register vehicles, they should only charge the lowest minimum cost to achieve this Herculean feat, not the transparently exorbitant fees they now charge.

Well, doggie, I don't know how to respond.  If I have an agenda, I guess it is to make paying taxes more equitable...based on one's ability to pay.  I suppose a Crawford Comprise might make people think twice before they conceive a child, and it might keep the "choice" doctors in business if the parents understood they were responsible for paying for their own children's education.  But there are many who wouldn't be so inclined to plan ahead that way.   I seriously doubt the CC would  be received well by most of the "community...state...whatever you wish to call" it.  I don't know of any community that has tried your plan, do you?  If so, how successful has it been?   America is supposed to be the great melting pot of culture, but your proposal wants to emphasize our differences rather than our commonalities.   The NH State Constitution expressly recognizes education as a cornerstone of a democratic society and it has been compulsory in the state since 1647.  Free  public education is a substantive right of the people.

We all benefit from an educated population, and I'm sure you agree with that, Mr. Dog.  But I don't know too many middle class parents of say three who could afford the $15 to 30K or more it would cost to educate their children.  

I was not saying the Mr. Bunker cheats on his taxes, and if you took that from my statement, I'm sorry.  What I meant was I know there are people who hide their assets in order to lower their liability for nursing home care.  Mom signs the house over to her children and no longer is that one of her assets.  What is to prevent others from doing the same under the CC plan?  I guess I just don't like the CC plan, no offense to Mr. Crawford.  (BTW, I've been looking for information about the family of Joseph and Mary Webster Crawford who lived in Meredith, NH in the middle of the 19th Century).

Mr. Evans -
After reading the extensive replies in this interesting blogfest, I think I'm ready to take a big breath ... and jump into the deep end of this pool.

Though you and Mr. Dog may not realize it, I think the two of you may be quite close to an agreement on the fundamental issue of "ability to pay." A key component of the plan, which Mr. Dog picked up on but may not have expressed clearly to you, is determining the potential tax payer's ability to pay the school tax or pay for schooling their children. No where does my plan call for bankrupting anyone.

In your example, your describe a middle income family with three children in school. Well, how much can they afford to pay? Say their combined family income is $50K/year, and they have $20K in savings. Leaving the savings alone for now, I calculate they could pay on the order of $18K/year to school their children. At $5K/student/year, schooling expense comes to approximately $15K. Thus, they clear the schooling hurdle by about $3K/year. Of course, they can afford at least another $1K/child before dipping into their savings, or skimping on some primary expenditures. There's not a lot of leeway here, but they make it; most importantly, the kids are all right.

Now lets look at a lower income family bringing home $25K/year. Many of their expenditures, including schooling, remain relatively fixed, housing is likely about $3K/year less, and a biggy, federal income tax, vanishes. So, they end up just scraping by. Maybe they can contribute $1K/year during their children's school years. Under the "Compromise" plan, they pay no more than the $1K/year during this time, and one of those fat cats you like so much picks up the rest of that family's tuition expense. Then, as their children reach age of majority, and presumably move out of the house or contribute to the family's income, this family's school tax rises commensurately with their disposable income. No one goes broke, no one loses their house, and no need for the abortions you insinuate.

Now on to your point about people hiding assets. They can, and already do, but my plan does not rely on liquidating people's homes as nursing homes do. True, the plan becomes more robustly fair if net wealth is included, but just the income tax return alone offers a fairly reliable means to assess most people's ability to pay. Based on your writings supporting a NH income tax, I think you must agree with me on this point, unless I'm missing something here.

Regarding the benefits of enabling people to select the best schools for themselves and their children, I do think Mr. Dog addressed this issue sufficiently, if not comprehensively, and I would risk just repeating his major points. However, I will point out many "communities", as you like to call them (I prefer the more clear moniker of towns), do in fact offer those living under their domain to attend schools of their choice because they don't have a particular school, e.g. high-school, within their jurisdiction. I don't recall the children and families complaining about this greater reign of freedom granted them. And you may be surprised to find out many parents do in fact send their children to those schools you prefer. Sounds like it works for me and for you. I don't see the conflict here, do you?

Finally, I think you do like my plan, you just don't know it yet.
Respectfully,
Crawford

P.S. Sorry I can't help you out on the Joseph and Mary Crawford research, don't know them.

Let's be realistic, the Crawford Compromise has about as much of a chance of succeeding as the Free State Project, which, in itself is similar to the proposal mentioned here.

Mike, I hope that you were referring to the mythical Mr. Bunker paying his taxes because I pay plenty of taxes to the feds and town of Barnstead. No one hides anything. If you have acreage and you have it in land use for instance, it restricts your development of that land and costs you $$$ should you ever develop it. You also give up rights to post your land and have to allow hunting and fishing.

People get a deduction for children.....why?.....because it is expensive to raise children. People get deductions for many things but these are not evasion techniques, they are allowances in the tax code.

Your assertion that some people do not pay their fair share is true at the $250,000 annual income levels....not so true under that. Of course we know that the Kennedy's skillfully use all of the tax loopholes.

As far as nursing home care, that industry is greedy.  You worry about the oil companies; nursing homes rape people who have worked all of their lives to save something for their children and then it is all of a sudden gone for three squares of jello a day.   The laws exist for children to protect the assets of their parents and that is how it should be.  However, those assets have to be signed over for quite a while or they lose them to the nursing home so it is not as insidious as you make it seem. 

Education does benefit all of us but it is a business like the corner store or GM. It's leadership and membership are self perpetuating like anything else. Congress sets mandates that are often wasted and foolish.

We are 25th in the world in math. Is that the fault of teachers or administrators....no...it is the fault of having to teach to the slowest student. Mainstreaming back in the late 70's and 80's added to that issue. Government needs to get out of the way and we need to focus on curriculum rich schooling. Forget the political correctness and social indoctrination. If we did that, they might find that an adequate education was not as costly as they think.

In your example, you describe a middle income family with three children in school. Well, how much can they afford to pay? Say their combined family income is $50K/year, and they have $20K in savings. Leaving the savings alone for now, I calculate they could pay on the order of $18K/year to school their children.

I have no idea how you’ve arrived at this estimate, but I seriously doubt that there are many families making $50K after-tax who could afford to pay 36% of their income to educate their children. Perhaps you can show us how this would be possible. I’m not sure how you figure that the family with $25K and three children could afford the $1000.00 a year you suggest.

Based on your writings supporting a NH income tax, I think you must agree with me on this point.

Indeed, I do.

However, I will point out many "communities", as you like to call them (I prefer the more clear moniker of towns), do in fact offer those living under their domain to attend schools of their choice because they don't have a particular school, e.g. high-school, within their jurisdiction. I don't recall the children and families complaining about this greater reign of freedom granted them.

This is true for a few “towns” in our state, and has been for many years. But Doggie is talking about a school for the Abernaki, a school for the Latinos, a school for this culture and that culture, etc. etc. etc. Won’t work. We can’t find the money to support our traditional public schools…how could the towns if you will support many public/private schools?

Let's be realistic, the Crawford Compromise has about as much of a chance of succeeding as the Free State Project, which, in itself is similar to the proposal mentioned here.

Yes, Bill, I believe I wrote that same thing in one of the early replies. I also was not inferring that you cheated on your taxes. I know you are paying you share of what the towns and state require at this time. I doubt, though, that you’d be very happy about you’re being required to spend 36% of your net income to educate your children in the Barnstead Multi-School System that the Crawford Compromise envisions. Of course, if this system did exist, then your children could attend the Rush Limbaugh School of Politics, I suppose.

I’m not sure why you have to bring up the Kennedy family. There are many more gangsters on your team, as we all know. But let’s take that guy making $250K a year and lives in a 30 year old single wide mobile home in a low-rent mobile home park. He pays a tax on his building, and the landlord pays tax on the land, but do you think he’s paying his “fair share”?

Mainstreaming

I was teaching when this philosophy went into practice, and I can tell you it was not easy to teach to the mainstream. Even though it required a paid aide, who shared the classroom with me, I felt that we were failing all the kids, those at the top and those at the bottom and those in between. Granted, the social aspect of a heterogeneous classroom benefited some, but in general, I think that program failed most everyone. That’s when I decided to change careers. And I will grant you that the costs would probably go down if the classrooms were homogeneously grouped.

Mr. Bill -
Forced (compulsory) government school attendance does not Bill a free man make. I grant you the "Crawford Compromise" does not open the cage to set you free, but it does make the shackles a little less binding. I just don't know why you are so wed to what is so obviously a bad education system. Is this a conservative thing wherein all change is bad? I don't think your Founding Fathers would look down upon you very favorably at this juncture, Mr. Bill. Tsk, tsk.

On to the fraudulent financing front where big house paupers are king! How do you think property taxes are a better form of theft than income taxes? At least with the latter there's some attempt at affordability; the apparatchik don't want to force you to move away or go bankrupt, they are much like mosquitos: they'd rather take less from you now that they may feed again upon you another day. Soooo, I'm not such a big fan of income taxes either, but property taxes are worse. Like alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes, meal taxes, etc., they hit the little guy harder, not that I think hitting the big guy is a good thing (like Mikey does). But if you think parents without the financial wherewithal should receive some form of government financing to school their children, someone has to pay. That's the compromise element to the "Crawford Compromise." Remember Mr. Bill, the current system screws the low and middle income people the worst!

That is why you should avidly support the "Crawford Compromise". It brilliantly reduces how many people are bludgeoned with the school tax. But maybe you are a rich guy and are pissed off you will still be paying under this scheme. True, if you are, you will, but then you are paying already, so you would be perhaps no worse off. Maybe you are a rich guy with loads of cash, but little property, in which case you should support the "Compromise" version that still taxes property, but has income protections. Or you're just the opposite, loads of land, but little cash, then what are we arguing about, you should have been on the income school tax bandwagon years ago!

Or is it a State vs. Town thing for you? Sounds like someone has another control issue to me, but there's actually nothing in the "Crawford Compromise" preventing its application to just the local government sphere of dominion. Why not try it in your town Mr. Bill, you'll like it.

Now on to the school choice front where the current choice for most is soooo very USSR: "Attention all comrades, we have brought you much - you now have the choice to attend the local government school, or the local government school. Make your choice now." Come on Mr. Bill, who are you trying to snow? If you want to move away from stalling out the rest of the class (students) so the teacher may coddle little Jimmy who's not so good at ciphering, then I can think of no better solution than enabling parents to have a real choice of which school they send Smart Suzy and Calculus Queen Kathleen to. What you propose is just more years of endless wrangling with local school boards, et. al. What's that got you, so far, Mr. Bill? Oh yea, our current corrupt, crappy education system resulting in that 25th ranking in math of which you're not so fond. Sounds to me like we need to reintroduce the novel concept of choice into the USA, or at least in New Hampshire.

Let's stop being Massachusetts North! If that's our model, our future is bleak. Let's shoot for the stars, a la JFK, rather than wallow in Big Pig holes in the ground, like his brother.

Still panning for flakes of freedom somewhere in streams of hope running off the White Mountains,
- C. dog e. doG

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey -
What's the world like, way out on that I-89 wayside known as Warner? Is the air a little thin atop Mt. Kearsarge in your little one-room cabin? People down here below your "ivory tower" already pay what you insinuate is an exorbitant, perhaps impossible, percentage of their income, and more, on children's education. What about the poor middle-class bastard right now just trying to provide a better life for his children by sending them, dare I say, to a private school (oooohh, the horror)? This guy could easily spend 50% or more of his income, and yes, that's a before tax calculation. Maybe you just aren't familiar with such selfless people. Ironic, isn't it Mikey?

Or perhaps this is something novel to you because you choose to hang out with people who don't choose to spend as much as they can afford on educating their children. Ironic, isn't that, Mikey?

Clearly Mikey, you don't hang with many, or any, of those I'm sure you, "the progressive", professes to want to help: native americans, hispanics, etc. For one, it's Abenaki, A-b-e-n-a-k-i, not Abernaki, Mikey. They're an indigenous people native to this area. You sound so Kennedy-esque, right down to your blue-blooded pronunciations and misspellings. Rememba', rememba' when those Euro's showed up almost 400 years ago (I presume your ancestors, based on your name), and did their little number on the natives? And now you want to force them to go to your schools? This rings a familiar sour note, sounds a lot like Kennedy-Onassis denying Wampanoag access to tribal land a few years back. Don't you just hate is when those uppity natives insist on disturbing the sea-side tranquility for Mr. and Mrs. Massa ... or sending their little savages to schools the restless natives prefer? Tsk, tsk, doesn't sound very liberal to me, Mikey. Ironic, isn't it?

What next, Mikey? Will you tell the African American they should vote for your gal, Hilary, because y'all know best for the folk?

Impress us Mikey, let's see you put your government = public school eduction to work and do the math to calculate what people can pay for their children's education? Or are your math skills not up to date - didn't learn that new