The school district superintendent said that the budget would be cut dramatically if there is not a referendum to the tune of $5.5 million for the year, followed by annual increases indexed to inflation. The increases would automatically take effect every year for ten years, unless the school district chooses NOT to increase the levy for that year. I wrote a letter to the paper, stating that while the referendum proponents had good arguments in favor of increasing taxes for the school, it was not equitable to require tax increases across the board to pay for 29 extra-curricular athletics and music programs, when the school was having difficulty funding basic educational programs. The participants and their parents should pay for the costs, such as busing, equipment, and fees. The participants should hold fundraisers and promote their events, and interested patrons pay the gate fees that should fund extracurricular events. These are nice little frivolities that may or may not accentuate the educational experience, and the taxpayers should not be required to fund every extracurricular activity under the sun, when the benefits are dubious and immeasurable. The participants choose to take part, and they should pay for their participation.
I did not state a position on the referendum, only that equity should be considered. What can the taxpayers bear? When is the taxation excessive? Who truly controls the process? Is there democratic order and reasonable representation in spending the taxpayers money in this way? I find it interesting that the referendums never appear in the year of a regular election. Why is that? In the regular election years, the levy referendums would never pass. Who votes to increase their taxes? Very few and very far between do people choose to increase their taxation, especially when there are demands for increased funding, while utility bills, mortgage, and general expenses climb at a rate well above the rate of inflation. When will the taxation ever be enough? In one of my more cynical moments, I would say that since the interests of the taxpayer body are minimally represented, doesn’t that constitute a de facto taxation without representation? Think.
I got a call from one of the local radio stations, asking if I would mind doing a radio interview to explain my position. I said I would be happy to elucidate. I did not realize that the interview would take place at that very moment. Still, I went ahead and talked to the guy. I was somewhat surprised that I got the call in the first place. The letter was published just one day before. Oddly enough, the guy said that I was the first person he called, and he was amazed I agreed to the interview. Why wouldn’t I agree, when I wrote the letter? If I did not want my voice to be heard, I would have kept my thoughts to myself instead of submitting them for publication. The radio interviewer said it usually takes 15 or 20 calls before he can find someone agreeing to voice their opinion on the radio. I guess that was my 1.5 seconds of local attention for the decade.
Posts
