STORM2K

I know all you Liberals are probably sick of constantly being reminded, using reason and logic, that what you preach when it comes to taxes is horsecrap.

In SC we have a radio talk show host ...his name is Ralph Bristow, and no...he is not a Conservative. But he is the next best thing. A Libertarian.
By definition jfyi --- 1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action be capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.

But on with it....This is from his daily dispatch and I think even you Liberals will find it interesting. Ralph is one of the best I've heard next to Rush, when it comes to disecting what is wrong with the Liberal philosophy when it comes to Taxes and Education.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Noble" effort misses mark

Somehow, I got on the mailing list of the South Carolina Democratic Leadership Council, which has an e-mail newsletter called "THE PALMETTO NEW DEMOCRAT. " It bills itself as the "e-Journal of Progressive Ideas and People in South Carolina."

SCDLC President Phil Noble penned the following President's Note and sent it to me yesterday. He wrote:

The Facts on Tax
We hear an awful lot from our Governor and the Republicans in the State House about how taxes are too high in SC and that's why we need all the tax cuts. Sound good - but it just ain't so.

As detailed in an interesting new study (see below) on state tax and spending policy, it seems that on both sides of the ledger SC is about average for the 50 states. According to the academic study, "The facts are clear: the state is not out of line with U.S. averages and maintains a relatively balanced tax system."

In the critical area of spending on education, SC is about at the national average - that's the good news. The bad news is that we are already way way behind in education (50th in test scores) and if we are to ever catch up we have to spend more than other states on educating our kids. If we simply 'keep up' and spend the same as everyone else, then we will stay in the same position we are now ...at the bottom.

So, the next time you hear a Republican saw 'tax cut' think 'education cut'.

That's the facts on tax...and don't let anyone try and fool you.

-Phil Noble



If that's the best "Noble" effort that "progressive" people in South Carolina can muster, the Democrats are completely void of either logic or intellectual integrity. (I won't address his spelling and grammar errors, because I make a few of those myself from time to time.)

First, being "average" in taxes among a nation of tax-hungry states is not satisfactory. We should be well below average if we want to improve the economic status of South Carolina residents.

Second, Noble reasons (I use the term loosely) that if "average" spending produces the worst education outcome, the solution is to spend more. All he must do is look to Washington D.C. to see the fallacy of that theory. According to figures supplied by the National Education Association, D.C. schools revenue per average daily attendance in 2001-2002 was $13,364 - the highest in the nation. In practically every objective measure of student performance used by schools today, D.C. schools finish dead last - even behind South Carolina. I'm not blaming the District's abundance of cash for its poor performance, but we have proof that high spending does not overcome poor performance, and the lowest spending often produces excellent performance.

Just yesterday, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) named D.C. students the worst in the nation in writing. A few weeks ago, the NAEP named D.C. students the worst readers in the nation.

Utah, with the lowest per pupil spending in the nation, routinely scores above the national average on all areas measured by the NAEP. North Carolina and Nebraska, which rank 38th and 42nd respectively in spending, also produced above average writing scores in the latest round of testing.

Year after year, spending and performance rankings demonstrate there is no correlation at all between the level of education spending and the performance of students, but liberals continue to argue for more spending as the means to improving education. Their ignorance of the facts is starting to get a bit tiresome.

As a footnote, it is also true that high taxation is not required for high education spending. New Hampshire, with the lowest taxes in the nation, ranks above the median (23rd) in education spending. Low taxes frequently result in higher income, and it takes less of the state's GDP to fund education at a higher level. Governor Sanford wants to increase income by lowering taxes, and he's on the right track.

I can agree on the logic of Ralph's comments. It's not how much you spend, but how it's spent.

With the recent tax increases that the casino industry, smokers, and others have seen in my state of NJ, there's been alot of conversation 'round the water coolers about why it is NJ's auto insurance rates are the highest (I pay $1,600 per year for my 2000 Accord), property taxes are outragious, health insurance, cigarette are now $5.85 per pack, etc. Then there's Delaware that has NO STATE SALES TAX nor income tax and seems to be buzzing along quite well. The roads are in better condition and cleaner, etc. The one thing that we kind of agreed upon was the fact that Delaware doesn't have any really big "urbanized" areas. There' Wilmington, Dover (hardly urban), and Newark, but they're nothing like good ol' Newark, NJ. The urban schools are also the schools that have the biggest education issues. Philadelphia's schools have been taken over by the state!

Costs do increase over time and logically that means that money comes out of the taxpayer's pockets. However, as we've discussed on this board, there's many obvious wastes of our money (i.e. pension plan for Congress), that it's going to take someone with some $#%^ to really tackle and solve this problem. I tend to feel also that tax cuts end up meaning reductions in services because I sincerely doubt that in the grand scheme of things when cuts are made, the managers, directors, supervisors that work in our great government are ACTUALLY THINKING of ways to make their workplace more efficient so that we can get the same level of service for less money.

I don't know the full story in SC but the Dems are wrong if they assume more money will make the schools better, just like those who think less taxes will make our economy better. It is what you do with the money that is important.