On Paying For Immoral Things, Or, Is Stupak On To Something?

by: fake consultant

Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:20:12 AM EST

The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats' concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House's version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.

The goal is to limit women's access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn't have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.

At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I'm starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I'm also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak's logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.

It's Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we're done here it's entirely possible that you'll see Stupak's logic in a whole new light.

State Parks Eroding

by: Jennifer Daler

Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 07:07:25 AM EDT

On our recent visit to the North Country, we went to Forest Lake State Park in Dalton. It is a beautiful place, but "is" will turn into "was" very soon if nothing is done. The parking lot is closed and in total disrepair. Visitors park on the road outside the closed gate. There is a building that once housed a snack bar and restrooms, also closed. Although there is a sign at the entrance saying "dogs prohibited beyond this point", people bring their dogs. Some were fairly well behaved and kept on leashes, while others were allowed to run around, urinating and defecating at will. The owners did not pick up the feces. Although another sign said "no fires" people brought their barbecues. And there was garbage left in the water and on the beach. Someone apparently comes to mow the lawn, but that is all.

Greenfield State Park has also gone downhill over the past couple of years.

Parks and Recreation Director Ted Austin:

Degradation is real and will accelerate, force closures at a point when you can't be there safely," Austin said.

Landrigan:

New Hampshire is the only park system in the country that does not receive money for operations from a general fund or dedicated fees unrelated to parks.

How did this come about?

The Legislature and then-Gov. Judd Gregg embraced self-funding of the park system in 1991.

Chair of the State Park System Advisory Council Richard Ober:

"The result has been a structural deficit that has produced steady and unacceptable degradation of the system,'' Ober said. "The model has failed and must be changed."

Budget aide Gail Wolek said that the park system is a service agency being run on a business model. Any surprise about the epic fail?

One of the reasons tourists visit New Hampshire is for the beautiful parks. If they are allowed to decay and be closed, that will not only be bad for state residents, but also bad for businesses that rely on or are helped by tourist dollars. People will not drive to NH to frolick in dog doo.

Yet another example of  penny-wise and pound foolish policies leading to more and worse problems.

DeJoie-Peterson Education Funding Amendment

by: johndejoie

Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM EDT

The plan utilizes a true statewide property tax, where all properties across the state are taxed at $5.50/$1000 of value. This money is redistributed across the state. Along with the tax, there is a Homestead Exemption on the first $150K of value for primary residences. The plan raises an additional $660 M, for a total of all education funding of $1.2 B. We envision that the additional $250 M would be utilized to target, based on the Governor's EEI (Educational Equivalency Index). The assumption is that towns will use the increased state funding, to fully fund education and lower their current local school tax rates (i.e. a $1 increase in state aid will result in a $1 drop in local school tax).

Effectively this requires resort home owners and second home owners to contribute to the responsibility of educating our children. The plan also requires residents of property wealthy communities, who have high value homes, to contribute to the education of students who are less fortunate.

There have been three primary objections to the plan:
1) Donor Towns
2) Raising taxes on business
3) disadvantaging renters

Donor towns are a red herring. Since all homeowners pay the same tax and there is a homestead exemption, poor people in wealthy communities are helped as much as poor people in any other community.

Businesses are already benefiting in property wealthy communities. In fact, businesses (except service industries) are more likely to locate in wealthy, low tax towns already. While this plan will increase taxes on some businesses, it will also encourage business to locate in other poorer towns because of newly decresed local school tax burdens.

Renters are a group who are disadvantaged and we need to offer a method so that they also benefit from a drop in taxes to their landlords.

Sorry for the wordy explanation, but I wanted to offer a thorough explanation.

John DeJoie