WASHINGTON (AP) — On the surface, it would seem like an opportune time for Congress to include targeted tax hikes as part of a cost-cutting package to reduce the huge federal deficit.
Federal taxes, as a share of the overall economy, are at their lowest levels since 1950. A return to the higher income tax rates of the Clinton presidency — when many Americans prospered, and calls for tax cuts were fairly muted — would wipe out most of the deficit. And congressional Democrats appear ready to make deep spending cuts, sought by Republicans, in exchange for a smaller level of tax increases.
Despite all that, most congressional Republicans have vowed not to raise taxes of any kind, complicating efforts to reach a bipartisan deal to reduce spending and prevent the United States from defaulting on its loans.
The adamant stand puzzles many analysts. They say it’s almost self-defeating, blocking Republicans from accepting deals in which Democrats have made the biggest concessions.
“Republicans don’t know when to take ‘yes’ for an answer,” said Bob Bixby of the bipartisan Concord Coalition, a leading advocate of balanced budgets. “They could have very, very favorable terms” in the current negotiations, he said, with Democrats yielding far more in spending cuts than Republicans would have to yield in tax hikes.
The potency of the Republican Party’s anti-tax stance seems to have caught even a top GOP lawmaker, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, by surprise. He had to back away from suggestions that he might accept significant revenue hikes as part of a $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan.
“There was never any agreement to allow tax rates to go up in any discussions I’ve ever had with the White House,” Boehner said Monday.
Key Republicans and others cite at least four key events that transformed the GOP from a party with a balanced approach to taxes and spending — Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan both raised taxes, though many Republicans now ignore those facts — to a party that puts a no-net-tax-increase pledge above almost everything else.
—Read My Lips.
George H.W. Bush’s most memorable campaign phrase in 1988 was “Read my lips: No new taxes!”
But in 1990, Bush faced a rising deficit and congressional Democrats who, like today, insisted on revenue increases to partly offset spending cuts. Bush’s advisers persuaded him to accept the deal. Hardcore conservatives howled, and Bush lost his 1992 re-election bid to Bill Clinton.
A dispirited GOP played a role, but Bush’s slow response to a rapidly deteriorating economy probably played a bigger part. Nonetheless, Republican lore holds that Bush lost because he reneged on a vow never to raise taxes, and thousands of Republican officials since then have sworn not to make the same mistake.
—2003.
By that year, Bush’s son had succeeded Clinton as president, and he solidified the GOP’s image as a party that doesn’t raise taxes, even when it launches costly new missions. In fact, President George W. Bush persuaded Congress to enact a second major tax cut, on top of the one from 2001. Also in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and the GOP-led Congress expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, both of which were paid for with borrowed money.
“2003 was the most fiscally irresponsible year, possibly of all time,” said David Walker, a former comptroller general who travels the country calling for deficit reduction.
Despite such charges, few Republican officials today say the lesson of 2003 is to raise revenues when programs expand and deficits soar.
—A man named Grover.
Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, has spent years cajoling, persuading and bullying GOP officials into signing a pledge never to support a net increase in taxes. While some Republicans grumble about Norquist’s clout, he still wields enormous influence, partly by warning those who defy his pledge that they will pay a political price.
“My God, what has this country come to when one person has to give you permission to do what’s best for the country?” Clinton said in a recent speech, referring to Norquist.
—A more conservative GOP.
In recent years, staunch conservatives have expanded their influence in the Republican electorate. “The Republican Party is dependent, to an extent unprecedented in recent political history, on a single ideological group,” which is conservatives, writes political analyst Nate Silver.
The trend increases the threat of a party primary challenger to any GOP lawmaker who makes accommodations, such as tax increases, to reach an accord with Democrats.
Today’s Republican Party is so taxaphobic that hardly anyone blinks when Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell says, day after day, that the nation has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.
Mathematically, of course, that’s not necessarily true. A government can close a budget gap with tax hikes, spending cuts or some combination of the two. Liberal bloggers make this point more robustly than do most Democrats in Congress.
“No, McConnell, we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem,” wrote a blogger named westcoastliberal at Rawstory.com. “If you and your GOP cohorts had not sought tax cuts as a remedy for every problem, we could be sitting pretty as a country right now.”
The Republican Party’s anti-tax stand is aided by a public with conflicting wishes. Voters generally oppose large deficits, higher taxes and cuts in programs that benefit them, a painless but impossible combination.
A March AP-GfK poll found that 62 percent of Americans say cutting government services is preferable to raising taxes in order to balance the budget. Less than one-third favored tax hikes.
But their tune changes when faced with specifics, such as cutting popular and expensive programs that threaten to drive the deficit much higher. A new Pew Research poll asked whether it is more important to reduce the budget deficit or to maintain current Medicare and Social Security benefits. “The public decisively supports maintaining the status quo,” Pew found.
Walker says the growing deficit mirrors a changed society that’s less willing to confront the consequences of spending more money than one makes. For 175 years, he said, the country refused to accept big deficits except in cases of deep recessions, declared wars or national emergencies. “It was part of our culture,” he said.
“About three decades ago, our culture changed,” Walker said. Americans amassed debts on their credit cards and home equity loans, and the government similarly lived on borrowed money. Given voters’ and lawmakers’ reluctance to make sacrifices, Walker said, Congress should enact a system of automatic spending cuts and temporary tax surcharges that would be triggered when the deficit hits designated levels.
Bixby, of the Concord Coalition, said deal-making in Congress “used to be a good thing.” Now, he said, “people seem to be going out of their way to avoid a solution.”
Tax hikes and program cuts are naturally unpopular, Bixby said, but how else can the deficit be tamed?
“Raise revenues and cut spending,” he said. “It’s not that difficult.”
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Popularity and Principle: Mutually Exclusive?
Once again, Jack Layton is on the campaign trail. As in past elections, he must remind all Canadians that he is “running for prime minister.” Contrary to what Ignatieff says about a blue door and a red door, there’s an orange door too.
Whatever one thinks about Layton’s ideas and policies, the man deserves a level of respect for his years of political action on the federal scene in Canada. He’s been hardworking and relentless. He’s congenial and often good-natured. He’s a man of principle, and remains faithful to the core ideals of his party.
Despite these legitimate accolades, Layton must continue to deal with the reality that his federal party remains the smallest represented in the House of Commons. He’s far from ruling; in fact, he’s far from being the Official Opposition. Whatever his ideas, proposals, or criticisms of the ruling government, his number one challenge is simply to be heard at all. This reality has more to do with the political climate of this country than the quality of the work of the party itself, but it is nevertheless how things currently stand for the New Democratic Party.
Of course, Jack and the NDP could choose to steer a course that is more palatable to the voting public. He could call for lower taxes, lower social spending, expanded prisons, and more aggressive foreign policies. In effect, he could send the party’s values to the trash bin of irrelevance and swing a big right at the next intersection of opportunity. But he doesn’t, presumably because to do so would be a betrayal of everything he and the party have worked toward since the NDP’s formation.
The good news for Jack is that although he may never get a sniff of real power in Ottawa, he is in good company. As long as he continues to honour principle over popularity and conviction over political expediency, he continues the mandate envisioned by the party’s respected founder, Tommy Douglas:
“The growth and development of the New Democratic Party must never allow us to forget our roots. Don’t sacrifice conviction for success. Don’t ever give up quality for quantity. In a movement like ours, as socialist movements around the world have demonstrated, we’re not just interested in getting votes. We are seeking to get people who are willing to dedicate their lives to build a different kind of society, a society founded on the principles of concern for human well-being and human welfare.”
- Walter Stewart [from The Life and Political Times of Tommy Douglas, 2003]
Whatever one thinks about Layton’s ideas and policies, the man deserves a level of respect for his years of political action on the federal scene in Canada. He’s been hardworking and relentless. He’s congenial and often good-natured. He’s a man of principle, and remains faithful to the core ideals of his party.
Despite these legitimate accolades, Layton must continue to deal with the reality that his federal party remains the smallest represented in the House of Commons. He’s far from ruling; in fact, he’s far from being the Official Opposition. Whatever his ideas, proposals, or criticisms of the ruling government, his number one challenge is simply to be heard at all. This reality has more to do with the political climate of this country than the quality of the work of the party itself, but it is nevertheless how things currently stand for the New Democratic Party.
Of course, Jack and the NDP could choose to steer a course that is more palatable to the voting public. He could call for lower taxes, lower social spending, expanded prisons, and more aggressive foreign policies. In effect, he could send the party’s values to the trash bin of irrelevance and swing a big right at the next intersection of opportunity. But he doesn’t, presumably because to do so would be a betrayal of everything he and the party have worked toward since the NDP’s formation.
The good news for Jack is that although he may never get a sniff of real power in Ottawa, he is in good company. As long as he continues to honour principle over popularity and conviction over political expediency, he continues the mandate envisioned by the party’s respected founder, Tommy Douglas:
“The growth and development of the New Democratic Party must never allow us to forget our roots. Don’t sacrifice conviction for success. Don’t ever give up quality for quantity. In a movement like ours, as socialist movements around the world have demonstrated, we’re not just interested in getting votes. We are seeking to get people who are willing to dedicate their lives to build a different kind of society, a society founded on the principles of concern for human well-being and human welfare.”
- Walter Stewart [from The Life and Political Times of Tommy Douglas, 2003]
Monday, January 3, 2011
Romeo Dallaire on the Existence of God
“After one of my many presentations following my return from Rwanda, a Canadian Forces padre asked me how, after all I had seen and experienced, I could still believe in God. I answered that I know there is a God because in Rwanda I shook hands with the devil. I have seen him, I have smelled him and I have touched him. I know the devil exists, and therefore I know there is a God.”
- Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire [Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, 2003]
- Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire [Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, 2003]
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Revising the Narrative
On May 31, 2010, Israeli military forces attacked a convoy of humanitarian ships in international waters. Bound for the Gaza Strip, the ships were loaded with food, wheelchairs, books, toys, electric generators, medicines, and building materials prohibited under the Israeli blockade of Gaza, such as cement. Prior to the voyage, the convoy’s organizers had taken extraordinary steps to demonstrate utter transparency regarding the cargo and passengers on board the ships. Great lengths were taken to ensure that not a single weapon or offensive device was present – absolutely nothing that would offer Israel the pretext it most certainly desired to justify a large-scale confrontation. Predictably, however, these precautionary measures were completely ignored.
The circumstances of the Israeli attack are well documented. At 4:30 in the morning, under the cover of night, military forces surrounded the lead ship in the convoy using helicopters and small boats. Automatic weapons opened fire from above as soldiers rappelled from helicopters onto the top deck. In the following minutes, nine of the passengers aboard were shot and killed, some of them at point blank range. Many more were injured. Every one of the 600+ members of the convoy was detained, in some cases beaten, stripped of all belongings and recording equipment, and eventually deported back to their home countries. A small percentage of the aid originally destined for Gaza was later delivered, with most of it destroyed, lost, or gone to waste (as in the case of cases of expired medicines).
What most stands out about this remarkable incident is the fact that it has been so readily accepted and endorsed by western populations. Canadian and American media outlets were quick to put their spin on the story, following the ridiculous line that the Israeli attack was somehow defensive. One need only imagine the roles in this account reversed, however, to see the utter hypocrisy of the verdict. Imagine, for a moment, that an Israeli passenger or cargo ship was attacked from the air by Turkish, Palestinian, or Iranian military forces in international waters. Imagine further that nine Jews were killed in the aftermath, some of them in apparent execution style. Not only would the incident be utterly condemned by all corners of society, it would almost certainly be considered a provocation worthy of a military response. Headlines would scream for blood. Turkey – or Gaza – or Iran – or whoever the perpetrator might be - would be roundly condemned as a rogue state that must be punished.
Yet in the actual narrative, Israel is not the victim but the aggressor. The nine individuals who lost their lives were Turkish. The hundreds of others who were abused, detained, interrogated, and deported were from a host of other nations. And the real loser in this story, the Gazan citizens and communities that make up the largest refugee population on earth, were deprived of much needed humanitarian aid.
Sadly, the flotilla attack was not the first incident of its kind to occur in recent memory. Just the year before, in January of 2009, the Israeli military initiated what can only be properly described as a massacre. Over a period of weeks, Israel destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Gazan infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, police stations, flour mills, universities, power stations, roads, and other critical fixtures were levelled to the ground by hundreds of bombing sorties. Even worse, 1,400 Palestinians were killed - including over 400 children. Young Israeli soldiers later complained about the lack of actual engagement with anything resembling an armed enemy, comparing the bombardment of Gaza to the work of a child using a magnifying glass to burn up ants.
These incidents, and others like them, can only occur (and will continue to occur) with the approval of Canada and the United States. With Canada’s unquestioning diplomatic support and American financial contributions, Israel has the wherewithal to withstand criticism from much of the rest of the world. It can continue to act with impunity, smug in the knowledge that angry responses provoked by its bullying will only reinforce the false image of Israel as victim, justifying further military aggression.
Clearly, the time has come for the Canadian public to re-examine its popular understanding of Israel. Stereotypes and narratives aside, it is time for this nation to be judged by its actions like any other. Few countries in the world would be allowed to abuse its neighbours as badly as Israel has and go unchallenged. Few countries in the world would be allowed to assault humanitarian ships in international waters, carpet bomb captive communities, and collectively punish 1.5 million people through economic strangulation. With the world’s fourth most powerful military and the only country in the Middle East to possess an arsenal of nuclear weapons, Israel is not the region’s victim but its bully.
Blissfully content in their ignorance, the North American public has played along with a romantic but inaccurate narrative for far too long. If the modern state of Israel could ever be called a victim, it certainly can be no longer. It is time for courageous men and women to stand up and call Israel to account. The narrative requires revision.
The circumstances of the Israeli attack are well documented. At 4:30 in the morning, under the cover of night, military forces surrounded the lead ship in the convoy using helicopters and small boats. Automatic weapons opened fire from above as soldiers rappelled from helicopters onto the top deck. In the following minutes, nine of the passengers aboard were shot and killed, some of them at point blank range. Many more were injured. Every one of the 600+ members of the convoy was detained, in some cases beaten, stripped of all belongings and recording equipment, and eventually deported back to their home countries. A small percentage of the aid originally destined for Gaza was later delivered, with most of it destroyed, lost, or gone to waste (as in the case of cases of expired medicines).
What most stands out about this remarkable incident is the fact that it has been so readily accepted and endorsed by western populations. Canadian and American media outlets were quick to put their spin on the story, following the ridiculous line that the Israeli attack was somehow defensive. One need only imagine the roles in this account reversed, however, to see the utter hypocrisy of the verdict. Imagine, for a moment, that an Israeli passenger or cargo ship was attacked from the air by Turkish, Palestinian, or Iranian military forces in international waters. Imagine further that nine Jews were killed in the aftermath, some of them in apparent execution style. Not only would the incident be utterly condemned by all corners of society, it would almost certainly be considered a provocation worthy of a military response. Headlines would scream for blood. Turkey – or Gaza – or Iran – or whoever the perpetrator might be - would be roundly condemned as a rogue state that must be punished.
Yet in the actual narrative, Israel is not the victim but the aggressor. The nine individuals who lost their lives were Turkish. The hundreds of others who were abused, detained, interrogated, and deported were from a host of other nations. And the real loser in this story, the Gazan citizens and communities that make up the largest refugee population on earth, were deprived of much needed humanitarian aid.
Sadly, the flotilla attack was not the first incident of its kind to occur in recent memory. Just the year before, in January of 2009, the Israeli military initiated what can only be properly described as a massacre. Over a period of weeks, Israel destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Gazan infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, police stations, flour mills, universities, power stations, roads, and other critical fixtures were levelled to the ground by hundreds of bombing sorties. Even worse, 1,400 Palestinians were killed - including over 400 children. Young Israeli soldiers later complained about the lack of actual engagement with anything resembling an armed enemy, comparing the bombardment of Gaza to the work of a child using a magnifying glass to burn up ants.
These incidents, and others like them, can only occur (and will continue to occur) with the approval of Canada and the United States. With Canada’s unquestioning diplomatic support and American financial contributions, Israel has the wherewithal to withstand criticism from much of the rest of the world. It can continue to act with impunity, smug in the knowledge that angry responses provoked by its bullying will only reinforce the false image of Israel as victim, justifying further military aggression.
Clearly, the time has come for the Canadian public to re-examine its popular understanding of Israel. Stereotypes and narratives aside, it is time for this nation to be judged by its actions like any other. Few countries in the world would be allowed to abuse its neighbours as badly as Israel has and go unchallenged. Few countries in the world would be allowed to assault humanitarian ships in international waters, carpet bomb captive communities, and collectively punish 1.5 million people through economic strangulation. With the world’s fourth most powerful military and the only country in the Middle East to possess an arsenal of nuclear weapons, Israel is not the region’s victim but its bully.
Blissfully content in their ignorance, the North American public has played along with a romantic but inaccurate narrative for far too long. If the modern state of Israel could ever be called a victim, it certainly can be no longer. It is time for courageous men and women to stand up and call Israel to account. The narrative requires revision.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Telling Half the Story
[from julieroys.blogspot.com]
by Julie Roys
SENIOR PRODUCER, MOODY RADIO CHICAGO
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
I HAD A SPIRITUAL CONVERSATION WITH A STRANGER THIS WEEK LIKE NONE I’VE EVER HAD BEFORE.
The setting wasn’t unusual. I was sitting beside a gentleman on a plane flight. And, we struck up a conversation as passengers sometimes do.
Neither was the man’s spiritual journey all that unusual. Apparently, he had grown up in a family that had religiously attended a mainline Protestant church. When he had become an adult, the man had drifted away from the church. But, in past three years, though, he had begun attending an evangelical mega-church near his Florida home. And now, he had a renewed interest in his childhood faith. That’s pretty common: I know dozens of people with similar stories.
What differed from the norm, however, was my response to this man. You see, I discovered that though this man considered himself a Christian, he actually espoused New Age and humanist beliefs. Yet, because he didn’t really understand Christianity, he didn’t even realize that these beliefs are incompatible with Scripture.
When I asked him what he believed to be the essence of Christianity, he referred to its moral code—not the salvation of lost humanity. When I asked why Jesus died, he said Jesus died simply to provide an example of how to respond to pain and suffering. And, when I asked if he believed in a literal heaven and hell, he said, “No, not at all. Heaven and hell are just states of mind.”
Now normally, I’d respond to this sort of answer by explaining Romans 6:23: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.” But, I’ve become increasingly aware that average Americans have a mostly pagan worldview. And, you can’t dismantle that worldview by just explaining one verse; you need to tell the story of redemption starting at the beginning. So, I asked him a question I’ve never asked a seeker before: “What, then, was the purpose of the sacrifices in the Old Testament?”
The man tilted his head to the side, rested his chin on his hand, and after a few seconds of silence replied, “I have no idea.” Here, this man had spent his entire childhood in the church. He’s been attending an evangelical church for the past three years. And, he knows nothing—absolutely NOTHING—of man’s separation from God and the need for a sin sacrifice!
So, as best I could in a very short time, I gave a survey of the Old Testament. I told how Adam and Eve’s rebellion infected mankind with sin and sentenced us to death; how God instituted sacrifices to show that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin; and how the Passover pointed to Jesus: just as the blood of an unblemished lamb caused the angel of death to pass over the homes of the Israelites, so the blood of Jesus—our Passover Lamb—covers our sin so we can escape eternal death.
“That’s fascinating,” my new acquaintance responded. And, he added that I had given him a lot to think about. But, this man had given me a lot to think about. How can it be that children graduate out of our children’s churches, finish confirmation, attend our youth groups and still fail to understand the story of redemption? Why do we explain the gospel in many evangelical churches beginning in the New Testament—midway through the story?
That’s not how Jesus did it. When he explained who He was to the men on the road to Emmaus, he started with Moses and the Prophets. He explained Himself in the context of the Old Testament. If we want to avoid the heresy and syncretism so prevalent in our society today, I suggest we do the same.
by Julie Roys
SENIOR PRODUCER, MOODY RADIO CHICAGO
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
I HAD A SPIRITUAL CONVERSATION WITH A STRANGER THIS WEEK LIKE NONE I’VE EVER HAD BEFORE.
The setting wasn’t unusual. I was sitting beside a gentleman on a plane flight. And, we struck up a conversation as passengers sometimes do.
Neither was the man’s spiritual journey all that unusual. Apparently, he had grown up in a family that had religiously attended a mainline Protestant church. When he had become an adult, the man had drifted away from the church. But, in past three years, though, he had begun attending an evangelical mega-church near his Florida home. And now, he had a renewed interest in his childhood faith. That’s pretty common: I know dozens of people with similar stories.
What differed from the norm, however, was my response to this man. You see, I discovered that though this man considered himself a Christian, he actually espoused New Age and humanist beliefs. Yet, because he didn’t really understand Christianity, he didn’t even realize that these beliefs are incompatible with Scripture.
When I asked him what he believed to be the essence of Christianity, he referred to its moral code—not the salvation of lost humanity. When I asked why Jesus died, he said Jesus died simply to provide an example of how to respond to pain and suffering. And, when I asked if he believed in a literal heaven and hell, he said, “No, not at all. Heaven and hell are just states of mind.”
Now normally, I’d respond to this sort of answer by explaining Romans 6:23: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.” But, I’ve become increasingly aware that average Americans have a mostly pagan worldview. And, you can’t dismantle that worldview by just explaining one verse; you need to tell the story of redemption starting at the beginning. So, I asked him a question I’ve never asked a seeker before: “What, then, was the purpose of the sacrifices in the Old Testament?”
The man tilted his head to the side, rested his chin on his hand, and after a few seconds of silence replied, “I have no idea.” Here, this man had spent his entire childhood in the church. He’s been attending an evangelical church for the past three years. And, he knows nothing—absolutely NOTHING—of man’s separation from God and the need for a sin sacrifice!
So, as best I could in a very short time, I gave a survey of the Old Testament. I told how Adam and Eve’s rebellion infected mankind with sin and sentenced us to death; how God instituted sacrifices to show that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin; and how the Passover pointed to Jesus: just as the blood of an unblemished lamb caused the angel of death to pass over the homes of the Israelites, so the blood of Jesus—our Passover Lamb—covers our sin so we can escape eternal death.
“That’s fascinating,” my new acquaintance responded. And, he added that I had given him a lot to think about. But, this man had given me a lot to think about. How can it be that children graduate out of our children’s churches, finish confirmation, attend our youth groups and still fail to understand the story of redemption? Why do we explain the gospel in many evangelical churches beginning in the New Testament—midway through the story?
That’s not how Jesus did it. When he explained who He was to the men on the road to Emmaus, he started with Moses and the Prophets. He explained Himself in the context of the Old Testament. If we want to avoid the heresy and syncretism so prevalent in our society today, I suggest we do the same.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Spa of the City
It's a warm and sunny August afternoon. I sit in a cafe on Vancouver's Granville Street. The windows are wide open, allowing the breeze to freely wander the tables and chairs inside. I lazily nurse a strawberry ice cream fruchillo while pedestrians meander up and down the sidewalk in front of me. Smells from nearby restaurants waft by enticingly while hot dogs in hot rods vie for the attention of their prey. Pigeons and drifters compete for handouts, while the sun gleams powerfully off the condo towers overhead. I savour this moment.
The June crush of lesson planning, marking, meetings, and report cards feels like ancient history. The physical demands and mental fatigue of the school year are distant memories. My mind and spirit recharge daily, and my imagination flickers with fresh vision for the year ahead.
I am almost ready to return.
The June crush of lesson planning, marking, meetings, and report cards feels like ancient history. The physical demands and mental fatigue of the school year are distant memories. My mind and spirit recharge daily, and my imagination flickers with fresh vision for the year ahead.
I am almost ready to return.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
In Defense of Independent Education
Independent education in British Columbia has had a hard time of it recently. The move by a local Catholic school to suspend Lisa Reimer, a lesbian teacher who made her sexual preferences public, has complicated matters immensely. Hard core advocates of public-only education have taken the opportunity to pile on independent education, calling for a complete rollback of public funding.
Polls and surveys playing off of these calls have popped up in various media outlets. Typically, the questions sound something like this: "Should taxpayer money be used to fund private schools?"
At first glance, the question seems reasonable. The query may even agitate casual observers who may have not otherwise given the matter any serious thought. Independent schools are wealthy enough, one might think. Why should they receive additional funds? Isn't that a drain on the public system?
In order to answer these questions, it is crucial to unwrap the subtle misconceptions loaded into the initial question: "Should taxpayer money be used to fund private schools?" I believe the following essential understandings about this issue not only clarify - but greatly strengthen - the case of independent schools.
- Parents of students attending independent schools usually pay double the amount paid by their public school counterparts. It's important to note that independent school parents pay their property and provincial taxes, just like their neighbours. These tax streams form the basis of revenue for all public schools in the K-12 system. Independent school parents don't receive a benefit from one cent of these tax contributions directly, however, since their children don't attend local community schools. Instead, these parents make the sacrifice to pay additional tuition (in effect, they pay taxes twice or thrice) in order for their child to receive a different sort of education (often faith-based).
- Independent schools save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs. The taxpayer dollars spent on each public school student must cover all capital expenses (buildings, facilities, and bus costs). By comparison, independent schools are an absolute bargain. Taxpayers contribute absolutely no separate funding for private school capital expenses of any sort; building campaigns and the like must be supported entirely from the private sector - often the same parent community that is already paying high tuition.
- Independent schools only receive a portion of the per-student provincial funds made available to their public school counterparts. We've just established that independent schools receive no separate capital funds toward buildings or buses, but the disparity becomes even more apparent when one compares the ratio of funding per student. Most independent schools receive 50% of the per-student grant received by public schools; the more affluent independent schools only receeive 35%. Once again, this is not "extra" taxpayer money going toward a private system; instead, each independent school student represents a significant savings for the province.
- In no way do independent schools siphon money from the public system. If it hasn't been made sufficiently obvious already, it's important to make this final statement. Independent schools do not threaten the public system in any way. Remember, parents of independent school students pay taxes just like any other citizen. Technically speaking, a portion of their tax dollars goes not only toward the education of their own child ... but also their neighbour's child; tuition payments are then paid in addition.
Parents of independent school students make enormous financial sacrifices. The result is a healthy, efficient, hybrid education system. It's one that penalizes no one, protects the public system, and allows all parents the freedome of choice in education. I'm thankful that we live in a society where such freedoms still exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
