blogsNH - Unanswered Questions - Comments

No argument here...

Scott Ives — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:16:41 -0400

Hi Crawford,

New ideas, should not wear a label, when they do they just get bogged down in philosophical rhetoric. I am tired of defending turf instead of working towards practical solutions to the problems facing our country.

Philosophically, I think I agree with you on one point for sure... today we are far too quick to look for a government solution. government(small g on purpose) has inserted its authority into far to many aspects of our lives because we have grown lazy.

We have abdicated our responsibilities to our neighbors and our countrymen to do the right thing and pawned it off to government. The hardest thing to face in this discussion is that it is not some mythical them that is constantly bickering or wasting money on some new social program...It's us failing to live up to our responsibilities as citizens!

The painful reality is that if we are really going to keep this constitutional republic alive, we need to step away from political solutions and step toward the unlabeled.

Thanks Crawford!

Rejuvenated Birthday Cake

Crawford — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:47:16 -0400

Scibmi:

Agreed, this topic is a little long in the tooth. And it's high time we focus on fixing the problems of children's education. That's why I proposed a new twist of allowing people more choice (for most the first time they would have meaningful choice) in the schools to which they send their children. My proposal tries to avoid the very problem you point out of partisan wrangling between conservative-liberal, right-left, blah-blah - those are such tired tunes. That's why my proposal allows those belonging to these groups to send their children to schools that comply with their value systems, and by so doing, avoid all the bickering over how to control other people's children, which I think is the core problem here. People who want to send their children to private sector schools can, whereas those who prefer government schools can send their children to those schools. Isn't that what most people want for their children, to do what they think is best, not what someone else thinks is best for them? Or have we drifted so far into extended adolescence that no age is old enough to make decisions for ourselves and our families?

Concurrently, my proposal shifts much of the responsibility for funding education back to the parents. Given they would be allowed more say in where they send their children for schooling, and for most their school taxes would cease, I think most parents would be more than glad with the trade-off. And certainly those struggling to get by with no children in school will be more than thrilled with the plan. So what's the problem?

Michael, regarding your request for more details supporting my numbers, I think it's incumbent on you to provide your detailed calculations first, given you are the one challenging what I presented. Then I will be more than glad to provide mine.

Respectfully,
Crawford

The Names Change but the Argument Remains the Same...

Scott Ives — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:41:29 -0400

This discussion has had so many birthdays the candles are melting the cake. Forget right, left, centrist and all the other labels and concentrate on the problem. How do we fund education? Our solution for the last, well forever, has been to use government taxation at an ever escalating rate and cost to provide public education.

The results have been less than impressive. I believe that we need to talk about what we need for an educational system first. How can we discuss price until we know what we are getting for our money?

We have given government the opportunity to get this right for a long time and progress has been dismal. We need to open this up to the private sector and allow some free market ideas to allow consumers of this product to get the most bang for their buck and taxpayers will receive a benefit as well...They will not feel as badly used.

Here's a cricket, here me roar!

C. dog e. doG — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:27:08 -0400

Whoa there, Billy-Bob -
Not so fast! I guess this is how revisionist history happens, people fabricate from half-baked cloth what others do and say. Please don't do me the discourtesy of completely misrepresenting a major aspect of my position. As I exchange more with Mikey, I expect that from him, but I thought you would give me a fairer shake than your last posting.

No where in my explication and support of "Crawford's Compromise" did I say that those who do not use your "system" would not end up paying for it. In fact, that's the most unfair aspect of the "Compromise" in that Mikey's fat cats will end up paying the bill for those who can't, and I doubt these cats will use your "system" much, if at all. And they didn't even get to enjoy the sex from which the kids - whose schooling they're stuck paying for - were derived. What a rip-off! Such are the vagaries of Cro-magnons bashing each-other into subservient obedience, but at least the system I support stops clubbing baby seals (that would be the chilren'). We should all hope they will grow up to be responsible adults and pay for their own kids, but they won't learn this in the mosh-pit.

You then go on to make the bold, but unsupported statement that somehow people paying for their own children's eduction is patently unfair. That's an utterance that makes me go "hmmmmm". Jeeeese, any rudimentary understanding of Judeo-Christian ethics would state that your position is completely twisted bass-ackwards, inside-out, and upside down. I don't recall Jesus, or Moses with his weighty tablet, say "go out and steal other people's property so you can send your Johnny and Suzy to some crappy school so they can be 25th in a world-wide ranking of math skills." I must have missed that lesson when I was out back smokin' a joint in "public" school.

Remember, Billy-Bob, the poor do not pay more than they can afford for their spawn's schooling in the "Compromise". In most cases, that's a big fat $0. Don't believe me? Go look at the transcript.

And yes, Billy-Bob, somebody did pay for my eduction, my parents many times over, and me to a much lesser extent (maybe a 75/25 split). So don't go lecturing me that it's my turn to go work for some schmuck so I can pay for the spawn of you, Mikey, and god (or no-god) knows what else out there. My family has done their "fair share". And if I choose to spawn, I'll be sure to step up to the plate again ... for my children, not yours ... except I forgot, Billy-Bob and Mikey, you've ganged up on me and are robbing me now, and I'm not even a fat cat. How christian, jewish, muslim, etc. of you. Is this my involuntary tithing for your church? I don't know why Mikey calls you a neo-con, you sound soooo regressively liberal to me.

You then go on to contradict yourself in your comments to Mikey. I don't get it, but then again, contradictions tend to baffle me. I think I've been quite clear in what I propose, and I think I know what Mikey wants, mostly, but I don't have a clue at this point what you propose. Your appraisal of the "system" schools is right on - they do all of those nasty things you claim. I know, I was there and can still rememba' the horror. So why do you insist on perpetuating this "system" with your money and mine? Sounds crazy to me. I say, if others want to send their kids to these mosh-pits of cultural chaos steeped in PC putrescence, have at it - just leave me, my wallet, and my kid out of your mad experiment ... and your gun sites.

Hey Mikey, I'm still waiting for your parent school-affordability calculations? Are you afraid to cough them up because the truth doesn't support what you want? Or, are you still plodding through your ciphers? If anything, I think Crawford underestimated how much parents can really afford.

"Live free or die," are we dead yet?
- C. dog e. doG

Last Word

Bill Bunker — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:33:06 -0400

Michael,

Without stipulations, an income tax would turn into a trough for the legislature to spend as they see fit. Look at some of the legislators pressing for this income tax; they have been at it for years.

I say, yes, institute an income tax but if it does not provide relief, every legislator supporting the proposition that it is the answer would be summarily removed from office with no chance of serving the public again. I hear crickets.....why?.....because they know the income tax would be abused.

Second, when you decide to raise money for anything, you need to know the cost. No one agrees on the cost. Who is to say that it won't be so loaded with special items that the income tax does not meet the needs. I do not want social feel good programs on school like "Heather Has Two Mommies" or instruction on how to put a condom on a banana..those are private family teachings.

Lastly, they would need to place a cap on what towns can raise for schools. Say, 1% per year so that property taxes can never be used again for schools.

I hear crickets.....no one can comment on those items....why again?......because they know the real reason for an income tax.....raise more money for the state to spend.

Not true.

Michael Evans — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:17:09 -0400

I don't know where you came up with the idea that I think the people don't pay enough in taxes for public education. I would like you to show me that statement, Bill. What I have consistently said, is that I don't believe the property tax is a fair tax because it is not based upon one's ability to pay. That is why I support an income tax, actually a graduated income tax is what I truly would like to see, so that the tax collections are based on one's ability to pay. The scheming and dodging of a fair tax system by the NH Legislature over the years seems to me irresponsible. Bite the bullet, and create a fair system to provide for the education of the next generation, our most precious resource.

C.dog e.dog and Mike

Bill Bunker — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:28:29 -0400

I am done commenting on this string it is obvious that C.dog feel that those who use the system should pay and those that don't should not. Unfortunately that will never come to be and on it's face is unfair. Someone paid to educate you, C.dog, now it is your turn.

C.dog is correct that schools do indoctrinate with social policy and beliefs as well as revisionist history.

Michael, you feel that people do not pay enough and that is not true. You fail to admit that an income tax would not reduce property taxes and you would not restrict that tax to be spent solely on education.

A society based on jealously of the other guy and believing that people are not paying their share or the creation of class envy is non productive

If legislators believe and promise that an income tax will reduce property taxes by the same level permanently then they need to sign a pledge to resign if that is not the end result. Otherwise they are schemers and lying to the voters of NH.

That is my final comment to all.

What Next!

C. dog e. doG — Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:33:33 -0400

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 math back in the 70's? Well, just go ahead with old fashioned ciphering - we'll wait - you'll get the answers eventually, or is the income tax code you so cherish too complicated for you? Oh, and Mikey, when you're concocting your example, you might try for something a tad bit more representative than someone making $250K/year livin' la vita loca in a trailer park - it's so prima facia fraudulent. Why not start with a family making $50K/year before tax.

Mikey, please translate: "We can’t find the money to support our traditional public schools…how could the towns if you will support many public/private schools?" I have no idea what this means. But, I do commend you on your honesty about mainstreaming - it was downright refreshing. There's hope for you, yet.

And finally, Mikey, what are you so afraid of? If your government=public schools are so great and popular, the "Crawford Compromise" poses no threat to these cherished institutions - happy natives will go on sending their chilren to the "school" where you want to indoctrinate, oops I mean acculturate, oops I mean assimilate, oops I mean educate them.

Just thinkin' out loud while trolling for freedom fighters to man hidden bunkers in the White Mountains,
- C. dog e. doG

Join the Revolutionary Militia, not the Redcoats and Turncoats!

C. dog e. doG — Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:51:37 -0400

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

Mr. Bunker and Mr. Crawford

Michael Evans — Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:16:51 -0400

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.

Mike and Crawford Doggie

Bill Bunker — Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:35:25 -0400

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.

Splash!

Crawford — Tue, 3 Jun 2008 17:20:50 -0400

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.

Well, doggie, I don't know

Michael Evans — Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:08:32 -0400

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).

I'mmm Baaack!

C. dog e. doG — Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:59:18 -0400

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.

Heeeere's Crawford

Crawford — Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:21:16 -0400

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.

Unanswered Questions

Bill Bunker — Mon, 26 May 2008 06:46:28 -0400

The has been a concerted effort by the Monitor staff to promote the institution of an income tax in several Editorials and opinion pieces over the past couple of weeks. It started with Mike Pride’s piece “It’s Amendment Season: This To Shall Pass and then escalated on May 6^th with the editorial: “Forget The Amendment; Treat All Students Fairly” and finally on May 15 the editors penned: “Poll Suggests; Higher Property Taxes Likely.”