Prelude to Broadbased Tax

Hampton Union; 03-29-08
By Ron Dupuis

We're not unique.
Recently at a breakfast meeting State Rep. Nancy Stiles and I found we were reading the same newspaper article concerning education in rural areas.

"Did you get to the part about transportation" Rep. Stiles asked.

"I sure did. It seems the problem of getting children to school in less affluent regions costs more than in the most urban setting," was my response.

"How about the problem of hiring and retaining good quality dedicated teachers in these districts" was my next question?

Rep. Stiles just shook her head in acknowledgement. "It's the same story. They hire qualified teachers but because of less pay and larger class size, they eventually lose them to higher paying, less stressful positions in urban schools."

"And what about funding" I asked? Why is there less funding for more needy communities?"

Now, for me, comes the fun part. If you were thinking this breakfast meeting was at our own state capital, or perhaps some legislative work session, or even one of the many education funding workshops held through out New Hampshire the last 15 years, you'd be wrong on all counts. In fact, if you thought the newspaper in question was the Hampton Union, Portsmouth Herald, or any other fine publication our state has to offer, again, you'd be wrong.

This particular breakfast meeting was at the Great Wall Sheraton in Beijing, China, and the article under scrutiny was in "China Daily" the country's official, nationally published English language newspaper. Our little meeting became somewhat surreal when the article further revealed that in addition to teachers' salaries, class size, transportation cost, and state testing, the question of funding became paramount. It seems aid from the central government is distributed unevenly, creating donor and receiver districts. Who could have imagined that after traveling half way around the world, we would discover the same education problems there, as we have here in New Hampshire. We're not unique.

There will be more on the China journey in future columns.

Speaking of donor towns: Here we have a good news, bad news situation. The good news is that all our Democratic Senate members who promised to resolve the education funding problem if elected have indeed kept their promise. Something rather unusual in the realm of politics. The bad news is that they did it with one of the worst funding bills ever to come out of Concord. It not only spends $100 million more than the state has, it brings back donor towns in greater numbers than ever before. In a 14-to-10 party line vote, the Senate passed SB539 against the wishes of their own leader, Gov. Lynch.

When several longtime Republican legislators were contacted, the consensus was that passing SB539 was a smoke screen in order to make a broad based income or sales tax more palatable. Since the bill would take effect during the 2009-10 school year which is well into the next biennial budget, the funding would have to be provided by the next elected Legislative House in November. Will anyone be surprised when both a sales tax bill and an income tax bill are among the first to be discussed next January? Stay tuned.

One final note: From time to time this column receives comments and e-mails from around the country. This message is for the people who live in states that have not yet held their Democratic primary. Forget it; don't bother, save your money. Since the '80s the Democrats have devised a scheme that renders your vote useless. It's called the "superdelegates." If in fact the vote in the primaries is too close to call, or if in fact the voters choose a candidate that leadership is not happy with, or if in fact they just feel like it, the superdelegates get together at the convention, nominate the person of their choice, and happily go on to the general election. That's the way it is. Voters be damned.