|
Letter to state Rep. Sam
Rohrer (R-128)
This page was last updated on February 26,
2008.
March 15, 2004
Rep. Sam Rohrer
House Box 202020
Harrisburg, PA 17120
I could not believe a Republican wrote A Bold Plan
for Pennsylvania’s Future in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette of March
14, 2004. This article could have come straight out of Gov. Rendell’s
Plan for a Rust Belt Pennsylvania.
Instead of placing funding responsibility where it
belongs, in the hands of local voters, your proposal is a leap backward for
Pennsylvania. A successful plan would include the following points.
- Place the primary
financial responsibility for public education on local taxpayers. This is
the only way to make sure the needs and wants of the school district match
the willingness and ability of the residents to pay. In those rare cases
where the school district cannot raise sufficient funds without imposing
unbearably on its residents, the Commonwealth would contribute
supplemental funding sufficient to maintain academics at an acceptable
level.
- The voters of
each municipality/school district should decide which package of taxes
(income, property, et cetera) is best for their unique demographics. A
tax strategy that makes sense for a rural school district may be
completely wrong for an urban district. School districts should have the
ability to use any combination of local taxes (income, property, sales,
wage, et cetera), fees, tuition, donations, et cetera for funding without
undue restrictions.
- School district
voters must vote upon all changes in tax types, rate increases, and
decisions to incur debt.
- Prohibit the
Commonwealth and school districts from accepting federal financial
assistance. Our schools belong to the citizens of the school district,
but accepting one dollar of federal funding means playing by the feds’
rules.
- Encourage school
districts to charge tuition based on ability to pay and the number of
children enrolled. Families with lower incomes and/or more children
enrolled would pay less per child. In no case would tuition be expected
to pay the full bill for a child’s education.
- Tied to point 5,
provide incentives to parents and students for academic achievement.
Harrisburg proposals tend to provide incentives to everyone except the
persons most responsible for achievement.
- Provide public
education choice by implementing a responsible voucher program.
Competition is one of the keys to improving academic results and lowering
costs. We need to stop thinking that publicly funded education mandates
public schools.
Please stop using liberalspeak. The property tax is
not regressive; it’s proportional, as are the income and sales taxes. Also,
calling the sales tax a “consumer choice” tax is sad, and no more true than
claiming the property tax is a consumer choice tax. After all, can’t the
consumer choose how much property tax he pays by choosing where he lives
and/or the value of the property he owns? What’s next, calling the income
tax a “worker’s choice” tax because a worker can choose to earn less so he
can pay less taxes?
To keep the letter brief, I addressed only the K-12
education portion of the Commonwealth Caucus plan. Unfortunately, the rest
of the plan also has serious flaws.
Yours truly,
ROBERT W. COX
©
2004-2008 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.
|
|