MOBILE
Voting against levy
February 12, 2012
Voting against a levy is voting against educational, racial, social and economic discrimination.
Voting against a levy is voting against giving some students a better opportunity to earn a high school diploma than others.
Voting against a levy is a vote against letting the Legislature not maintain the school buildings and athletic complexes the Legislature is responsible for.
Voting against a levy is voting against letting the Legislature not provide the funds required for students to attain the goals set for them by the Legislature.
Voting against a levy is voting against funding activities that detract from the constitutional purpose of public schools.
Voting against a levy is voting against spending our money to support optional federal programs championed by special interests.
Voting against a levy is a vote for fairness for all students, responsible government and responsible citizenship.
John Axtell
Valley, Wash.
Voting against the levy is the ONLY chance we have in getting school administrators to even consider changing the status quo: Waste, fluff, bloated administration / salaries and the like.
Vote “NO” (for the kids)
It’s interesting, sad (we seem to have such a biased newspaper) & funny all at the same time: The Spokesman posted they were NOT accepting any more levy related commentary about a week ago and yet the pro levy rhetoric continues…… It’s also very interesting that they waited to publish the vast majority of anti-levy letters until the very last few days after most people have already voted…
Contrary to the apparent beliefs of most levy supporters that people in opposition are sinister child haters, there are many anti-levy citizens with no ulterior motives. I, for one, simply appreciate having actual truths presented (rather than fear invoking commentary and distortions I’ve read/heard). Making it appear that 3yrs of levy costs will be paid in a single yr is an example of distortion on the anti-levy side. Similarly, there are many examples distortions & less than true statements from the pro-levy side. Here’s one irt what levy $ will actually be used for:
It’s extremely disingenuous to say “specific funds” are for “specific items” of an overall budget. Basic accounting shows that the net impact of a levy is simply to increase the “overall budget” (even if presented as paying for specific items). Here’s an explanation of why (please try to understand that this simply explains the shell game of saying “where” certain $ goes (regardless of your opinion as to the need for the $) and is applicable in many other situations you may encounter besides this one:
Imagine an $8M budget spread into 10 buckets. If someone decided $8M wasn’t enough and wanted to request more $ they could simply put the entire $8M into buckets 1-8 and say “we need $2M (levy $) but it’s only for buckets 9 & 10” (maintenance & operations, or whatever your specific levy indicates). The net result of the additional $2M would simply be that the new budget is $10M instead of $8M. The shell game here is that they could just as easily have said the $2M is for buckets 1 & 2 or 3 & 5 or 4 & 7 etc. In other words, the “exact” place they “choose” to say the $ goes to is absolutely irrelevant because it’s all part of “one overall budget” that is being spent.
Regardless of your stance irt the actual need for the $ it’s a complete shell game when they say “don’t worry, the money is only for this bucket or that one”. It raises the Q of why do they need to use shell games to sell a levy; shouldn’t the actual need be strong enough so as not to require moving shells around? Could it be because they need to distract you from looking in some of the other buckets?..
Being “civic-minded” includes being “fiscally aware” of where/how the community spends ii’s money. Too many people fall into the word manipulation traps employed by pro-levy supporters as well as the exploitative “heart string” tactics of “it’s for the children”…
What?… It most certainly IS a new tax. If the old one didn’t have an expiration date we wouldn’t be voting on a NEW one now, right?… Levies are meant to be one time fill-gap revenue streams that may be necessary once every 10-20 yrs. They’re “NOT” meant to be a “constant” revenue stream… It shows incredibly bad district leadership when districts have gotten to the point of expecting levies as a never ending portion (1/4) of their budgets.
Anything with an expected END date (like a “3yr” levy tax or a mortgage) has to have a “new” one started in order to “remain” in place so it’s perfectly accurate to say it’s a new tax. What if, after paying off your mortgage, the bank said “we don’t want you to pay a new mortgage, we’d just like you to pay on this replacement mortgage” for another mortgage term…? How would that go over?
If we paid levy taxes on a monthly basis, and there was a 1 month break between the old and new levy (meaning the tax would be gone for 1 month), would you agree that the new levy is a new tax? In other words, would you have to actually “See” at least 1 month of taxes “without” the levy to agree that the new levy is a new tax? Exactly what would be the difference between that scenario and having no 1 month gap (aside from the 1 month tax savings) in regard to it being a new levy? Just because these new levies take over with no break, as opposed to the 1 month break in the example, doesn’t change the fact that they’re a new levy/tax (it just makes it “less noticeable” than if there was a break period).
The less noticeable taxes may be easier to get people to accept but there’s no disputing that it also makes them the most hidden and therefore tricky/dangerous (ALL somewhat hidden taxes, not “specifically” school levies). Taxes should be extremely noticeable so as not to become forgotten or simply seen as replacements, continuations, etc…
––
Actual levy rates and Levy Equalization Funds (LEF):
The levy rate most often used by school districts is the smaller, LEF assisted one. However, with our current economy, this is a time when LEF funds could go away and people should plan accordingly (plan worst case scenario). That would cause the amount taken by these levies to be approximately 22% more than the school dist claims.
Despite how some people may chose to interpret these posts, I’m completely for education funding via a fair and equitable method. A much more equitable method of requesting additional funding would be to request it via a sales tax (whatever fraction of a penny required). That way, “everyone” casting a vote would actually be voting to “increase their own taxes” as well as other people’s taxes. If it’s going to be a property tax then either A) only property owners should have the levy on their ballots or B) it should be a supermajority vote. Right now many people vote who don’t even pay property taxes… Otherwise this type of a levy tax should require a super majority in order to be considered more of a fair vote (explained below).
A cost cutting, as opposed to revenue generating, method of addressing the education budgets would be to address the underfunded TERS1 pensions and work to modify those pensions via negotiations and constitutional changes. The state already acknowledged that TERS1 (stopped in 1977) was unsustainable and a responsible re-negotiation could be done without undue harm to current pension beneficiaries. All other post TERS1 plans should be transitioned to 401K plans. If you’re thinking “levy $ doesn’t pay for those things”, please review the previous post’s bucket example. Additionally, cost structures should be reviewed and compared to the private & charter schools that currently operate for less money while achieving better scholastic success rates.
If it was a super majority vote this would at least be a fair vote: A super majority vote is necessary anytime you allow a subset group of people to vote on a matter that could be beneficial to them and that they are “not” directly impacted by (in a financially impacting way, i.e. they pay for it). For example (using property ownership rates of 60%), if 65% of “non-property owners” vote “YES”, a levy like this could pass with only 40% of property owners voting for it (even though the property owners pay it).
If Washington was having a vote to increase the sales tax by 2% you wouldn’t want people from the Idaho/Oregon borders allowed to vote (if they were you’d want a super majority vote) on it because, as stated above, they would be a subset of voters that don’t have to pay for the tax but could actually benefit as their sales went up due to people going into Idaho to avoid the 2% increase in Washington.
The counter point of “renters pay levy taxes via rent” is ridiculously simplistic because only in a perfectly linked system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can’t get a renter at a price that covers the costs of the levy, he/she has to lower the rent in order to simply rent the unit out and avoid a vacancy…