May 12, 2000

'At which citizens may offer testimony ...'

Is it the natural right of an American to set him or herself up in business to make a living? Or is this a "privilege" which must be granted by the state?

The Nevada State Education Association (the teachers union) informs us on page 7 of its new 28-page tax proposal that going into business — even setting out to make a profit as a private person or partnership — is a "privilege" for which Nevadans should pay the government a levy starting at 4 percent ... though we all know where tax rates tend to migrate over time.

Nevada voters a couple of decades back enacted a constitutional amendment banning any state "income tax ... levied upon the wages or personal income of natural persons." Presumably the teachers would argue that leaves the field wide open for their proposed "business" income tax. Note, however, that the teachers' proposal specifically defines "businesses" to include "independent contractors, partnerships, limited liability partnerships, business associations," and even "private persons" who file IRS tax forms Schedule C or E ("Profit or Loss from Business"; "Supplemental Income and Loss.")

Hmm.

But let's assume for the moment that no successful constitutional challenge is raised, and this ballot initiative succeeds, providing Nevada's government youth propaganda camps with the fresh cash-flow here promised. That money would be dedicated to increase the cash flow to the government schools — the union insists the Legislature would be specifically forbidden to shift any current school funds elsewhere.

Clark County residents recently saw what a much smaller dedicated tax could do when it came to funding local libraries. Our new Las Vegas libraries are architectural showpieces, full of vast and impressive aquariums, marble statuary, and professional quality theaters (one of them even had to be partially torn down and re-built when it turned out (start ital)its theater wasn't as big as the theater being built across town in a newer, wealthier neighborhood.)

Not many books, of course.

Would the new Teacher Tax be the same? Vast sums for teacher and administrative salaries and glorious architectural monuments — while Nevada's Janes and Johnnies would still sally forth, unable to spell and do sums?

NSEA Executive Director Kenneth Lange says no — "That's why we built the accountability into this document, where we'll at least have a quarterly report, and with luck even a quarterly discussion."

That's right. "Accountability," as covered in Section 15 of the new Teacher Tax proposal, simply means that every three months the clerk of the county school board "shall cause to be published an accountability report detailing the amount of money received by the district during the preceding quarter" and "expenditures made by the district."

Then, within 14 days, the school board "shall hold a public hearing at which citizens may:
a) Offer testimony as to whether money received by the district ... was used in a manner most beneficial to students in the district; and
b) Make recommendations as to how the money should be spent in ensuing quarters."

Isn't that nice? In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Missouri vs. Jenkins, in which a single federal judge in 1985 had taken control of the school district in Kansas City, Mo., mandating a local school tax increase and forcing the schools to spend an extra $1.5 billion on state-of-the-art school greenhouses, athletic arenas, radio and TV studios, a planetarium, and computers in every classroom.

The result? As summarized by the Separation of School & State Alliance: "No measurable improvement in academic achievement, a fallen attendance rate, and a dropout rate that remains at 60 percent for high-school students."

On May 3 of this year, the Missouri state Board of Education finally stripped the troubled Kansas City School District of its accreditation. Despite all the billions, it turns out the district "has not met any of 11 state performance standards," The AP reports.

Utter failure. But at least the U.S. Supreme Court came to the rescue of Kansas City taxpayers after a mere decade. Nevada's new Teacher Tax, on the other hand, would never sunset no matter how badly the schools should fail. The union's version of "accountability" contains no provision for an end to the money river in the event of failure by any definition.

"The Legislative process buys you three years," explains NSEA Executive Director Kenneth Lange. "That would probably be a window to decide how to judge what are reasonable standards by which to judge student performance, teacher performance, and so forth."

Standards which the union might consider adopting ... after the new tax is put in place, you understand.

"Accountability?" Once this new Teachers Income Tax opens the floodgates of dedicated school funding, you might as well try to block the Hoover Dam spillways with a spoon.

***

May 14, 2000

Teachers Tax – Part 2

Euphemized as 'progressive socialism'

Kenneth Lange, executive director of the Nevada State Education Association, brought NSEA president Elaine Lancaster and two retainers to the Review-Journal offices May 8 to present the union's new tax proposal. Like Goldilocks in the fairy tale, the union folks expressed the opinion that a new 4 percent business profits tax rate will be "just right."

"We figure that at 4 percent, the economic theory is that Macy's or United Airlines won't raise their prices on services to people in Nevada based on a 4 percent business tax," Mr. Lange explained.

But by adding this levy to the state's nine-year-old Business Tax (which penalizes Nevada's small businesses for each new employee they hire) wouldn't we risk eventually breaking the camel's back?

"That's what we heard when they proposed the Business Activity Tax," responded Al Bellister, the union's director of research. "But businesses continued to expand and prosper in this state after that tax was enacted; none of the Chamber's predictions of gloom and doom came true."

It was hard not to be reminded of Hank Rearden's meeting with Wesley Mouch and the rest of the "Steel Unification" gang in Ayn Rand's classic novel of the collapse of the nanny state, "Atlas Shrugged":

"Then Lawson said softly, half in reproach, half in scorn, 'Well, after all, you businessmen have kept predicting disasters for years, you've cried catastrophe at every progressive measure and told us that we'll perish — but we haven't.' ..."

But even assuming for the moment that a "mere 4 percent tax on business income" won't grow into a new and expansive tyranny, is there any reason to believe more money will solve the problem?

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Missouri vs. Jenkins, in which a single federal judge in 1985 had taken control of the school district in Kansas City, Mo., mandating a local school tax increase and forcing the schools to spend an extra $1.5 billion on state-of-the-art school greenhouses, athletic arenas, radio and TV studios, a planetarium, and computers in every classroom.

The result? As summarized by the Separation of School & State Alliance: "No measurable improvement in academic achievement, a fallen attendance rate, and a dropout rate that remains at 60 percent for high-school students."

At least the U.S. Supreme Court came to the rescue of Kansas City taxpayers, eventually. Nevada's new Teacher Tax, on the other hand, would never sunset no matter how badly the schools should fail.

"I've always said, 'Don't just throw money at the problem,' " answered NSEA President Elaine Lancaster on Monday. Instead, "The answer is to give us as much money as we think we need to solve the problem, and then if we fail, take it from there."

And what does Ms. Lancaster mean by "take it from there"? If all the new spending fails, we finally close the failed government school in question?

"No, you wouldn't do that," she responded.

Ah. So when she says, "then you take it from there," Ms. Lancaster means that in the result of failure (remember, this is after the union has been given "all the money we think we need to solve the problem,") all the teachers and administrators in the failed school in question would be dismissed — never allowed to work in the system again?

"No, we wouldn't do that," Ms. Lancaster responded.

Ms. Lancaster was clearly getting a bit testy, on several occasion muttering things under her breath as the more diplomatic Mr. Lange answered our questions, jerking her head and staring at a point high up on the wall as she added her sotto voce comments.

But I considered it important enough to keep seeking an answer: what did Ms. Lancaster mean by "and then if we fail, take it from there"?

"You might bring in some people from the state to discover what's going wrong," she snapped, rolling her eyes up and away from me.

Ah. So, "Then if we fail, you take it from there," simply means "you keep on giving us more money, no matter what"?

"Well, you can put those words in there if you want," Ms. Lancaster huffed, "but that's not what I said."

Ms. Lancaster declined to comment on the uselessness of the billion dollars spent in Kansas City, explaining she was unfamiliar with that case. But she did prove willing to respond to editor Thomas Mitchell's question on the way state tax moneys are divided among school districts — redistributing funds into poorer neighborhoods from areas where people earn more and tend to buy nicer homes.

After all, in a capitalist system, what is the great incentive for folks to complete their own educations, get married, work hard, save, and invest? Isn't it that such behavior is rewarded by the ability to buy their children better things — including a better education? Is it really wise to completely eliminate this link between parental behavior and the ability to provide for one's children? Should it really be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" Mr. Mitchell asked.

"Well, it may be politically incorrect to say it," replied Ms. Lancaster of the teachers union. "But yes, it's the duty of those who have, to take care of those who do not."

Actually, of course, it's perfectly politically correct to advance this theory in America today. All that's politically incorrect is to give the belief its proper name.

Only today, after half a century, are "mainstream" economists beginning to acknowledge that Ludwig von Mises and F.W. Hayek were right, in mighty books like "Human Action" and "The Road to Serfdom," when they demonstrated there can be no stable "mixed system" between capitalism and its opposite, anymore than one can safely drink from a glass of water which is "only half sewage." Once a nation starts down the road to collectivism, has any bureaucrat ever said, "No, please don't give us any more money or power. Clearly this is a task government just can't accomplish"?

Of course not.

Euphemize it as "progressive socialism" all you want, the doctrine union president Elaine Lancaster embraced in our offices on May 8 is that of Karl Marx.

Growing from this rotten root, it should come as no surprise that today's "public schools" dope up a fifth of their students to treat the disease of "boyhood," while indulging the absurd "leveling" theory that — instead of expelling the troublemakers and allowing brighter students to move ahead unencumbered — every standard should be dumbed down, even the laziest and least adept students receiving A's and B's for "a good effort" until willful and illiterate young loonies are finally awarded their surgeon's scalpel or their pilot's wings, since any other course of action might "damage the children's self-esteem."

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
His new book, Send in the Waco Killers is available at $24.95 postpaid from
Mountain Media, P.O. Box 271122, Las Vegas, Nev. 89127; or by dialing 1-800-244-2224