'Sales Tax Increase Won't Give Schools 'the Best'

• Story
• Comments 

Print

Create a hardcopy of this page

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font sizeI 

"I think they had already decided what they were going to do before they had their public meetings.” --  Michelle Anderson (lives on 7th Street, opposite Hamilton School, after a Moline School Board meeting)

                          

A year ago, a special interest group calling itself YES Makes Cents for Students, and the Moline District 40 School Board, lobbied the public to pass a 1 percent sales tax referendum that would have dumped $11.5 million into the districts' coffers, with the sales-pitch “our kids deserve the best.”

In March 2014, 55.78 percent of the voters flatly refused to impose the 1 percent sales tax. A similar referendum had failed in 2009.

Refusing to take "no" for an answers, YES Makes Cents for Students, and the county school board have once again forced the issue onto this year’s April 7 ballot:

“Shall a retailers’ occupation tax and service occupation tax (commonly referred to as a 'sales tax') be imposed in The County of Rock Island, Illinois, at the rate of 1 percent to be used exclusively for school facility purposes?”

The hope is, this being a municipal election -- with a lower turnout expected --  the "no" voters will stay home, and the “yes” people -- the tax increase supporters -- will make a point of getting to the polls.

So why does Moline need a 1 percent sales tax increase for “school facility purposes?”

Could it have anything to do with the fact that it is spending -- without first seeking voter approval via referendum  -- $17.3 million to “renovate” Hamilton school, cramming the project down the throats of the objecting neighbors?

Moline District 40 just sold Ericsson School for $50,000, and Garfield School for $75,000! Ericsson was a 22,912-square-foot facility built in 1969. It was sold for $2.18 per square foot. At the same time, the “renovated” Hamilton “super school” will be a 69,000 square foot. facility with a of cost $250 per square foot. The net loss is two school buildings and $17.15 million!

Superintendent David Moyer earlier told the voters that the $17.3 million cost of “the project will not affect the current tax rate. Once Ericsson and Garfield elementary schools close and their students start at Hamilton Elementary, the district will save a minimum of $350,000 annually.”

It appears, however, that he failed to mention that the $17.3 million expansion would create a  “need” for the district to try and ram through a 1 percent perpetual sales tax increase -- i.e., a tax increase each and every year! And if we do indeed save the promised $350,000 per year, it will only take 50 years for the voters to break even and  to get back the $17.3 million spent.

So what will the taxpayers get for their $17.3 million? Here’s Mr. Moyer’s description:

The Hamilton "project includes a new entrance and front office area with updated security; a two-story, horseshoe-shaped addition connected to the existing building; a circular, two-story addition with an open space school officials are calling the 'Imaginarium;' a new commons/lunchroom area; a music classroom that can be opened and used as a stage; a gymnasium; a new playground; and a new driveway and parking lot.

Here are some pertinent facts: Moline District 40 enrollment was 7,493 in the 2013-2014 school year. Total governmental fund revenues for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 were $87,676,046.  Total governmental funds revenues increased $1,769,135 or 2 percent from the previous year. Total governmental funds expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 were  $99,118,747.

The district states “its operating expenditures per pupil were $9,853.97.” But if the total  funds expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014 were $99,118,747, as there were 7,493 students, the “governmental fund expenditure” was $13,228 per student.

Compare those facts with facts contained in the Alleman High School 2013-14 Annual Report.

Total Operating Fund Revenues: $2,991,284

Total Operating Fund Expenses: $2,981,910

Alleman 2013-2014 enrollment: 464 students

Alleman is therefore spending $6,727 per student, while Moline District 40 is spending either $9,853 or $13,228 per student.

The student to teacher ratio at Alleman is 17:1. The average class size at Moline is 25.

Students meeting or exceeding ACT Readiness Benchmark Report:

-- Alleman: 66 percent

-- State of Illinois: 44 percent

-- United Township High School: 28 percent

-- Rock Island high School: 23 percent

-- Moline: 48 percent

Average 2014 ACT Scores:

-- Alleman: 23.6

-- Illinois Quad-Cities: 18.8

Percentage of students who will attend college/universities:

Alleman: 98 percent

Moline: 63 percent

Maybe instead of pushing tax increases, which hurt every taxpayer and business in Rock Island County, perhaps its time to take note of what Alleman is doing, and how it is doing it. Maybe if your “kids really do deserve the best,” perhaps its time to send them to Alleman.

(The 2013-14 Moline Budget appears at: molineschools.org/budget/14_15/CAFR%20Moline%20School%20District%2014%20Final.pdf. The Alleman 2013-14 Annual Report appears at: allemanhighschool.org/editoruploads/files/1314%20annual%20report.pdf)

Posted: Saturday, March 20, 2015 am - QCOnline.com

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

Posted: Friday, March 20, 2015 11:00 pm By John Donald O'Shea

How Congress made itself irrelevant

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress enormous power.

So how does America end up with a feckless Congress? If Congress is supposed to be a coequal branch of government, how did this happen? Take a look at just some of the great powers given to Congress in the Constitution.

-- “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”

-- “To regulate commerce ... among the several states.”

 -- “To coin money, regulate the value thereof."

-- “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."

-- “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”

-- “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

-- “No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law,:

So, how does a Congress which is given power to make all the laws, regulate commerce, coin all money, levy all taxes, appropriate, and to make all laws necessary and proper for the execution of its enumerated powers as well as the powers vested by the Constitution in the government and departments, end up feckless and servile?

First, Congress delegates its powers. Second, Congress accedes to presidential encroachments upon its powers.

In the late 1800s,  Congress began delegating its powers to a fourth branch of government”  -- administrative agencies --  a branch nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

In doing so, Congress acted pursuant to its power to regulate commerce, conjoined with its power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its commerce power. This process of creating agencies apart from the traditional departments of government began in 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Subsequently, it created the Federal Trade Commission (1914), the Securities and Exchange Commission (1934), the National Labor Relations Board (1935) and the Environmental Protection Agency (1970). 

Other independent agencies made part of the Executive Department now include the Food and Drug Administration, (now part of the Department of Health and Human Services), the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and the Federal Energy Regulation Agency (now both parts of the Department of Energy), and the IRS (Treasury) .

In almost every case, Congress has delegated to these administrative agencies the power to make rules and regulations  with the force of law to further the public interest, public convenience, or public necessity. The result has been tens of thousands of pages of regulations, by which the agencies have “legislated” down to the minutest detail.

Congress has been relieved of the duty of writing legislation, and in the process has rendered itself irrelevant. Congress retains power to undo agency regulation, but does so rarely. (Word limitations prohibit discussion here of the Federal Reserve.)

Congress can also be weakened by acquiescing to a president’s executive orders. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, power to declare war. Congress is also given power “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization” and to the Senate is given power to approve or disapprove of treaties.

But what happens when the President embarks a kinetic action -- resembling war -- in Libya, or when the president refuses to faithfully execute the uniform rule of  naturalization (the immigration laws)  passed by the Congress, or makes executive agreements with foreign nations, in the nature of treaties, which the president refuses to submit to Congress for its advice and consent?

When the Congress acquiesces, it accedes to the diminution of its powers.

Finally, there is a third factor: feckless leadership. There was a time when House and Senate  leaders were willing take on a president who dared to encroach on the powers and coequal status of Congress.

In England, during the reign of the Stuart kings, members of the House of Commons went to the Tower of London to preserve the House’s “power of the purse.”

When the Commons refused to vote subsidies demanded by Charles I to finance his domestic policies and foreign adventures, and when the King embarked upon the device of forced loans to circumvent Parliament’s control over the purse, peers and commoners alike chose prison rather than acquiescence.

In our country, members of our colonial assemblies went to war to defend the principle of “no taxation without representation.”

The present Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, appear to be two men content with their reelection to high office, and otherwise spineless and clueless. Opposed by a president who says “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable,” they say, “let’s negotiate, and see what of ours we can give you.”

To loosely paraphrase Winston Churchill, the President demands 75,000 new IRS agents to run Obamacare, Boehner and McConnell, promising to repeal Obamacare, demand negotiations, and then agree to provide and pay for every IRS agent demanded.

Speaker Boehner rather than saying, “This House controls the purse, Mr. President; we oppose Obamacare and were not going to appropriate funds for a single new IRS agent,” says, “We’re afraid we’ll be blamed for a government shutdown; you demand, Mr. President; we’ll deliver!”

When the Congress acts like a rubber stamp, who can blame the president for treating it like one.

Posted Online:  Mar. 17, 2015 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

Barack H. Obama Clearly No Franklin D. Roosevelt

On Feb. 11,  President Obama asked Congress to pass a Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the Islamic State (IS). In his letter to Congress, he wrote:

“My Administration’s draft AUMF would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...“Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations....

“The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership....

“It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.”

Section 3 of his proposed AUMF provides “This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate  three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.”

Compare Mr. Obama’s remarks with those of Franklin D. Roosevelt on Dec. 8, 1941, the day after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor -- when FDR asked Congress for a Declaration of War in these unequivocal words:

“Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. ...

“As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. ...

“No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. ...

“With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounding determination of our people -- we will GAIN THE INEVITABLE TRIUMPH -- so help us God.

“I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.”

President Obama’s Feb. 11 remarks are consistent with his Sept. 10, 2014 remarks, when he spoke of “degrading,” “destroying” and “managing” the “IS” threat.

Why didn’t Mr. Obama use FDR’s speech as a template?  And say:

“Over recent weeks a group of Muslim barbarians calling themselves; ‘The Islamic State’; have shamelessly and savagely beheaded Americans, Christians and anybody else, including other Muslims, they get their blood-stained hands on, who don’t share their despicable, perverted understanding of the Islamic faith. In addition, they have open and publicly declared their intent to kill Americans and fight jihad against  America and its people.

“All measures be taken for our defense ...

“No matter how long it may take ...  win through to absolute victory ...

“... we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

“I ask that the Congress declare that since the 9/11 attacks on our country, that a state of war has existed between the United States and all Islamic terrorist, by whatever name they currently style themselves.”

That would have clearly signaled to our people, our allies and our enemies exactly what our president and the American people intend to do in response to Islamic terrorism.

Instead of recognizing these groups already have declared war, and are at war with us, and unequivocally vowing “absolute victory,” the president sends Marie Harf, the State Department “ditz,” out with an inane message that we need to find “jobs” for suicide bombers!

In war, there is no place for political correctness, euphemism or mixed-messages. The American people, our allies, and our enemies must understand why. If our president’s goal is to “degrade,” “manage” or “shrink the Islamic State’s sphere of influence,” that is limited war.

Destroying the Islamic State, on the other hand,  is total war. That is what FDR vowed to do to Japan. We destroyed them to the point of absolute victory. They were unable and unwilling to fight further. FDR knew the job of the Japanese army was to kill Americans; “Jobs for Japanese” was not part of his war plan.

Mr. Obama says, “Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct [ground] operations.”

But if Americans won’t do what is necessary to protect America from Islamist terrorism, why would local forces sign up to serve as canon fodder?

I can understand the president’s reluctance to fight another ground war. Sadly, he has no easy choices. Most military experts say the war can’t be won by the use of air power alone. How do you eliminate terrorists hiding among the civilian population with air strikes alone?

The real question is, can America win a war, if America fights a civilized war to mange IS,  while IS fights war rejecting all international norms and conventions?

Can we successfully fight a war to manage “IS,” while they fight a war to destroy us? If we do, do we afford them an extended opportunity to strike us catastrophically? Can we afford to sit by while IS becomes a full-fledged terrorist nation-state, financed by oil revenues and the power of taxation?

Dithering only enables IS.n   The more money IS has, the more difficult our winning becomes.

FDR did not speak in terms of degrading or managing  Japan; he spoke of winning an “absolute victory.” FDR didn’t tell our friends and enemies that our war effort would not include “long-term, large-scale ground combat operations;” instead, he spoke of using “all measures.”

FDR didn’t impose a three-year time limit; he spoke of winning -- “inevitable triumph” --  “no matter how long it may take!”


Posted: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:10 am
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015
John Donald O'Shea