Concern education in the state of New Hampshire. And none of them do what needs to be done. Up until a few years ago, Kindergarten thru 12th grade New Hampshire education was run by the cities and towns and financed off the property tax. Then the state supreme court "re interpreted" the state constitution. The Supremes decided that the state must insure equality of opportunity by insuring equal amounts of education funding all over the state. The state had to come up with extra money to subsidize the lower spending towns. To do this, the state now demands that the cities and towns send local property tax money to Concord, where it is divvied up according to a complex, opaque, and controversial formula.
Net result, my property tax goes up, cause of the money sent off to Concord. Concord first skims something off the top and then sends the remainder somewhere, not back to my town.
What we need is a constitutional amendment to put things back the way they were before the Supremes "reinterpreted" the constitution. None of the six amendments before the house do that.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Judd Greg, please stay home
We New Hampshire voters need Judd Greg in the Senate. The Commerce Secretary job offered by Obama is a paperwork job, much less important than serving as Senator. I hope Mr Greg turns down the cabinet post and devotes his considerable talents to supporting the citizens of his home state.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Republican whining
Fox news has put on several Republican to complain that Obama and the democrats have not consulted with them over the content of bills, in particular the super spending stimulus bill.
These complaints are childish. "They won't let me play with them". The Republicans ought to be pointing out how little of the $819 billion dollars is "stimulus" and how much is pork. They ought to be exposing the port by name, rank and serial number. They ought to be pointing out how little of the money will be spent immediately. And how $819 billion is $2730 for every man woman and child in the US. There are plenty of real arguments against the super spender bill. Don't waste your air time with procedural complaints. We voters don't care about the procedure, we care about results. Like how much is this going to cost me. And what's in it for me?
These complaints are childish. "They won't let me play with them". The Republicans ought to be pointing out how little of the $819 billion dollars is "stimulus" and how much is pork. They ought to be exposing the port by name, rank and serial number. They ought to be pointing out how little of the money will be spent immediately. And how $819 billion is $2730 for every man woman and child in the US. There are plenty of real arguments against the super spender bill. Don't waste your air time with procedural complaints. We voters don't care about the procedure, we care about results. Like how much is this going to cost me. And what's in it for me?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
NH state income tax sneaking in the back door
First on the NH House list of bills is constitutional amendment CACR1, "relating to taxes. Providing that all revenues raised by a state income tax shall be dedicated to funding public education."
Sponsored by three Democrats, Charles Weed, Jessie Osbourne, and Barbara Richardson.
Last time I looked, I thought an NH state income tax was off the table. They fooled me, this is a back door way of slipping an income tax thru.
Since we don't have a state income tax (yet!) this bill to earmark income tax revenues for school funding is clearly an attempt to make a state income tax look virtuous, and perhaps over come some of the opposition to such a tax.
This is a bad bill and ought to be defeated for several reasons.
1. It encourages Concord to slap us with an income tax.
2. It gives school spending priority over the other responsibilities of the state. As incomes rise, income tax receipts rise, and education funding automatically rises. This earmark will channel more and more money into schools, without requiring the educators to justify their expenses. Nice work if you can get it, I'm sure the teacher's unions approve. But it is undemocratic. Democratic means we vote appropriations every so often, and the Legislature can allocate money where it is needed most. This amendment favors schools over everything. Schools are important, but they are not THAT important.
3. Earmarks don't belong in the state constitution. The constitution states general principles and assigns powers. This amendment is an attempt to lock in a priority for schooling and deny the Legislature the power to allocate state funds.
Sponsored by three Democrats, Charles Weed, Jessie Osbourne, and Barbara Richardson.
Last time I looked, I thought an NH state income tax was off the table. They fooled me, this is a back door way of slipping an income tax thru.
Since we don't have a state income tax (yet!) this bill to earmark income tax revenues for school funding is clearly an attempt to make a state income tax look virtuous, and perhaps over come some of the opposition to such a tax.
This is a bad bill and ought to be defeated for several reasons.
1. It encourages Concord to slap us with an income tax.
2. It gives school spending priority over the other responsibilities of the state. As incomes rise, income tax receipts rise, and education funding automatically rises. This earmark will channel more and more money into schools, without requiring the educators to justify their expenses. Nice work if you can get it, I'm sure the teacher's unions approve. But it is undemocratic. Democratic means we vote appropriations every so often, and the Legislature can allocate money where it is needed most. This amendment favors schools over everything. Schools are important, but they are not THAT important.
3. Earmarks don't belong in the state constitution. The constitution states general principles and assigns powers. This amendment is an attempt to lock in a priority for schooling and deny the Legislature the power to allocate state funds.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Europe, A History by Norman Davies
A one volume history of Europe, from Neanderthal times to the fall of the wall in 1365 pages. Fairly current, copyright 1996. I borrowed it from the town library 'cause it looked interesting. The author spends the entire introduction nattering about just what constitutes Europe, and are the Russians Europeans, and the importance of countries other than England and France.
I got some 500 pages into it and gave up. Davies doesn't believe in narrative history, where the historian tells the story of kings and peasants and nations and religions. Half the text is little one page monographs, set off in boxes, discussing interesting little details, but otherwise unconnected from the main text. Each monograph breaks the continuity of the main text.
Davies clearly believes the cliche "there are no facts in history". He constantly throws doubt upon generally accepted historical facts but never offers an explanation for his doubts. For instance he says "If it really happened" right after Luther's posting of the famous 95 thesis on the cathedral door. Great. He offers no evidence that the generally accepted history is false, he just casts doubt and moves on. If he really thought that Luther didn't do what most historians think he did, he ought to offer a reason for his doubts, or quote a contrary source, or something. The book is full of revisionist stuff like this but with no backup. I'm as ready as the next man to accept revisions, but I want some evidence in favor of the revision.
Or, he will pass over an important, controversial, historical thesis like the relationship of the Protestant work ethic to the rise of capitalism in a single sentence. I'd like a page or two discussing that one.
So, bottom line. Read another historian.
I got some 500 pages into it and gave up. Davies doesn't believe in narrative history, where the historian tells the story of kings and peasants and nations and religions. Half the text is little one page monographs, set off in boxes, discussing interesting little details, but otherwise unconnected from the main text. Each monograph breaks the continuity of the main text.
Davies clearly believes the cliche "there are no facts in history". He constantly throws doubt upon generally accepted historical facts but never offers an explanation for his doubts. For instance he says "If it really happened" right after Luther's posting of the famous 95 thesis on the cathedral door. Great. He offers no evidence that the generally accepted history is false, he just casts doubt and moves on. If he really thought that Luther didn't do what most historians think he did, he ought to offer a reason for his doubts, or quote a contrary source, or something. The book is full of revisionist stuff like this but with no backup. I'm as ready as the next man to accept revisions, but I want some evidence in favor of the revision.
Or, he will pass over an important, controversial, historical thesis like the relationship of the Protestant work ethic to the rise of capitalism in a single sentence. I'd like a page or two discussing that one.
So, bottom line. Read another historian.
Global Warming Part 3
Vermont Public radio was giving air time to the global warmers yesterday. Walking thru a Massachusetts state forest, and wailing about the terrible things that global warming was doing to the forest. It was eight below zero that night and it's still damn cold today. What global warming?
Plus, this is a forest. They grow just fine from Georgia to Maine. Even if global warming were to make Massachusetts are warm as Georgia (unlikely) the forest would thrive.
Plus, this is a forest. They grow just fine from Georgia to Maine. Even if global warming were to make Massachusetts are warm as Georgia (unlikely) the forest would thrive.
Banks, need therefore
Last year Bush and Congress decided that banks were so important to the national economy as to deserve $750 billion "Troubled Assets Recovery Program" (TARP for short) to bail them out. So far, we taxpayers have given out half of that ($350 billion) to banks. The banks have put the money into the vault, to make themselves look solvent as their piles of mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps, and other dodgy paper have steadily lost value. They haven't been lending it much.
If we really want want money lent out, let's authorize the Fed to directly lend money to US corporations. The commercial banks are shot. They are loosing money as their trash securities fall in price faster than Uncle Sam can pour taxpayer money into them. Why bother to bail out Citi's bad investments. Bypass the banks, and lend taxpayer money directly to US companies that need it. Let the banks sink or swim.
If we really want want money lent out, let's authorize the Fed to directly lend money to US corporations. The commercial banks are shot. They are loosing money as their trash securities fall in price faster than Uncle Sam can pour taxpayer money into them. Why bother to bail out Citi's bad investments. Bypass the banks, and lend taxpayer money directly to US companies that need it. Let the banks sink or swim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)