More Of The Same

The Democrat & Chronicle reports this morning that we finally have a State Budget.

As we all know, the budget is over four months late. You might be tempted to think that the delay resulted from efforts to rein in spending and cut the $9 billion deficit the State is facing. If you did, you'd be wrong.

The budget "highlights" include the fact that State spending will increase by 7.6% and there will be over $1 billion in new taxes. One of the tax increases is the elimination of the exemption on sales taxes for clothing and shoes costing less than $110.00. That ought to help people with lower incomes struggling to balance their budgets.

I was particularly impressed by the fact that the one bi-partisan vote taken in connection with the budget was a 51-8 vote in the Senate to cap local government's ability to raise property taxes. This was largely symbolic since Speaker Silver will not bring the cap to a vote in the Assembly. Still you have to hand it to our State Senators. They clearly believe in limiting spending and taxation....at any level of government but their own.

Value For Our Dollars

The three or four of you who read this blog know that I am a bit of a critic of government spending. For many years, the GOP has been hanging its hat on being the party which will cut taxes. It is the party of smaller government, less entitlements, etc.

Still, as I have written a few times before, what we need most is smart government, not small government. We need to cut taxes but we also need to remember that taxes are the price for the things we get from government. And, by the way, there are some very good things that some of our governments give us. What ought to be every politician's goal is to get government to spend money only on the things it should legitimately do and to tax and spend only those amounts which are reasonable and proper to provide those vital and/or desirable services.

One of the products/services provided by government which is of vital importance is education. Unfortunately, school spending is completely out of control. Education is vital, but the results we get do not appear to match the money we spend. My kids are students in the Gates-Chili School District. I am a fairly satisfied taxpayer and customer of the District. Yet I know that the price I pay for what my kids are getting is higher than it should be.

I attended my daughter's band concert on Wednesday. It was wonderful, as usual. The music programs at Gates-Chili are high-end, and the music directors and instructors there are first-rate, dedicated educators. I am not so convinced about all aspects of the operation, however. Every organization can stand some retrenchment. But, to hear teacher's union representatives speak, you would think that they would almost prefer exile to Siberia than to endure their daily unappreciated and allegedly, underpaid toil. Still, good teachers are worth a lot. The trick is to encourage the good ones and only get rid of the under performers.

All of us in government should strive to give value to the taxpayers for their dollars. The G-C music department should be an inspiration. I am confident that the tax dollars that go to music education at G-C are well spent. I also know that when cuts come, it will be programs like music that are often first to go, even though they are high on the value added scale.

We all as taxpayers should demand responsible spending, but we should also be willing to pay the fair price for the services we want. We need to avoid painting with too broad a brush. Its not correct to say vote against every incumbent and to vote against any spending. We need to take the time to find the good guys and reward them and to identify the bad guys and weed them out. We can't just throw up our hands and say a pox on them all.

If we want responsible spending, stable taxes and quality government services, we have to take action to get them.

A Rose Is A Rose

And a tax rate is a tax rate, except when it isn't.

If you read the story about the Gates Supervisor race in the Monday Democrat & Chronicle, you might think that Mark Assini stated that Gates' property tax rate is the highest in Monroe County. Actually, Mark McIntee said it, but that's beside the point.

It appears that the Gates Democrats want to focus on the tax rate in Gates rather than average or total taxes paid by Gates taxpayers. The implication is, of course, that we are over taxed in Gates.

The problem is that the taxes raised in a town are a function of tax rate and property values. A town with higher property values can raise the same total taxes as a town with lower values even though the first town has a lower tax rate. The lower tax rate does not mean that the town government is more efficient or thrifty; it means they have a bigger pool of tax money to swim in.

A good comparison can be made between Brighton and Gates. They are similar sized towns with police forces. Brighton raises more tax revenue than Gates does, yet it has a lower tax rate. The average taxpayer in Gates pays less taxes than the average taxpayer in Brighton. How can that be? It is because there are some very high property values in Brighton. As a result, higher value property owners subsidize lower value property owners. Total taxes and average taxes along with government spending are all higher in Brighton than in Gates.

The point is that statistics can often be warped to make a point. The truth is that Gates taxpayers have been getting a very good deal for a very long time. The quality of life in Gates is quite good, the government services are first rate and the tax bills are reasonable. Hopefully, Gates residents won't be fooled by misleading statistics.

End Of STAR?

Tucked away in the recesses of today's stories on Governor Paterson's budget proposal was a note that he wants to do away with the STAR real property tax rebate that has subsidized school tax payments for many New Yorkers.

I have always believed that STAR was the ultimate shell game. It amounts to being bribed with our own money. But, for many seniors, the STAR plan has meant little or no school tax expense. If STAR is really ended, there will be an outcry like New York politicians have not heard in a long time. I foresee a wheelchair and walker march on Albany to protest this program being cut.

Ending STAR will also put more pressure on School District budgets. Seniors, effectively bought off with their STAR rebates, have stayed home on school budget votes. Without STAR, they will swarm to the polls to vote no on school spending.

I don't think this cut will survive to become law. Seniors vote and legislators know it. They won't cross that interest group.

Better Start That Diet!

I am going to head back to the gym and start my New Year's diet a bit early.

I read the paper this morning and read about the "Obesity Tax". Yikes! Today a tax on sugary drinks, tomorrow a surcharge on KFC. I figure it won't be long before guys like me who weigh over 275 will start paying an income tax surcharge for every pound over a "healthy target weight".

Seriously, there isn't much left between us and the nanny state. Everywhere we turn, we are being told what to eat, what to drive, where to set the thermostat, etc. I'm worried that the liberals who have taken over all the branches of government in Washington and Albany will have guys like me in their sights.

I mean, I put sugar and half and half in my regular coffee (that's three food police violations right there). I use butter instead of margarine and I love roast beef. I'm probably headed for a re-education camp where I'll learn to like whole grains, green vegetables and cottage cheese.

I may move to Canada after all. At least I can still get bacon and eggs there.

The Devil is in the Details

Today's Democrat & Chronicle contained a "speaking out" essay by Michael Shacket. His essay dealt with school funding, and the dearth of detail in the information made public regarding school budgets.

He put the torch to one of the claims always made by school district supporters (which I have generally found questionable), that school budgeting is the most open budgeting process in government. Shacket correctly points out that there is a lot of information withheld from the public regarding school budgeting.

He laid out a great proposal for the type of information that school districts should make available if they really want their taxpayers to be well-informed voters:

"Teacher and administration contracts: More than 70 percent of every school budget reflects negotiated (not mandated) salaries and benefits. The terms of these contracts are hidden from the taxpayers. What is the total dollar effect and budget percentage increase associated with these contracts alone? Contracts should be available on the district's Web site.

Reserve funds: Reserve funds are like savings accounts where taxpayer money is accumulated for either capital or contingency purposes. The amount in these "savings accounts" is often in the multi-millions. However, budgets do not show the financial status of these funds.

Budgeting by school building: School budgets combine money into categories that the public does not understand. What, for example, is "General Support?" Everyone can identify physical buildings. Budgets should reflect all costs associated with each school.

Metrics: While budgets reflect dollars, the associated basic metrics are not presented. For example: How many teachers and students are in each building by grade level? How many buses are in use? How many administrators and support staff members are in each building?

Comparison to previous years: Budgets normally present dollars last year and forecasted for next year. The previous three years of both dollars and metrics would show trends.

Educational outcomes: A Monroe County Schools Report Card is published annually that identifies educational outcomes by school including percentage graduating, SAT scores and the results of standardized state exams. Web sites should include the previous three report cards.

Tables: Districts often use pretty, but uninformative, PowerPoint slides to present budget data. Simple tables would provide clearer data."

Kudos, Mr. Shacket. I hope that the school district leaders, who are currently spending our money on lawsuits to preserve sales tax revenue, will pay attention and give their constituents the information they need to make informed choices.

Return on Investment

Tonight, the Seventh & Eighth Grade Band held their annual Holiday Concert. The Band, consisting of over 120 musicians, is divided up into a Concert Band and a Symphonic Band. My daughter, Evelyn, an Eighth Grader, plays the Euphonium in the Symphonic Band.

Each group played four pieces. The music was wonderful. While I know that I am biased, these kids sounded as good as any high school band. I have been listening to them for the past 4 years; they are quite talented.

In addition to my pride and pleasure at seeing and listening to my daughter play, there was another reason I wrote about tonight's concert. I am sure you have read a lot about the F.A.I.R. plan and the effects it may have on schools. I have written about that topic both here and on the Gates blog. I have indicated my belief that Gates-Chili is a wonderful district for our kids to be going to school and that we should not be reluctant to pay the tax bill that goes along with getting a quality education.

My belief that the money we spend on school taxes is largely well-spent was justified again tonight. First, the sight of so many kids being able to experience the joys of playing music is awesome. Also, the families of those kids are clearly being enriched by that experience, as well.

Tonight, though, I want to focus on the Band conductor, Christopher Oldfield. His love of music, his enthusiasm, and his energy, are infectious. He clearly loves music and he loves teaching and conducting young musicians. We all hear stories about jaded teachers who really feel that teaching is just another job. Well, spend a night at one of these concerts, see a Chris Oldfield giving a heart-felt, enthusiastic effort, and you will agree that if there are a few teachers like him at Gates, then our investment in our schools is being returned many-fold.

More D&C Condescension on Consolidation

The Democrat & Chronicle reverted to its condescending best form today with its editorial entitled "high taxes, duplicated services are connected". The editorial opens with this thoughtful and reasonable premise:

"Frankly, New Yorkers continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths on getting the high cost of living in this state under control."

Not satisfied with one insult to its readers, the editorial went on to opine:

"New Yorkers, who support 4,200 taxing entities statewide, need to either start supporting streamlined, more efficient government operations or stop whining about the high taxes they pay."

Quite frankly, there is little reason to accept the D&C view that local government is too expensive. I am a fairly typical New York taxpayer. The dollar amount of taxes I pay to the Town of Gates comprises less than 8% of the total dollar amount of taxes I pay for State Income taxes, County taxes, School taxes, and Town taxes combined. That does not include sales and excise taxes paid to the State.

From the Town of Gates, I get a Police Department which responds within scant minutes for emergencies, provides a four or five car, 24/7 road patrol, and which takes reports in person, a Highway Department that paves, repairs, and plows my streets, picks up my leaves in the fall and my yard debris every week, a Recreation Department that provides beautiful Town Parks and recreation programs for youths and senior citizens, a library that has been seen as second to none in the suburbs, and provides dozens of other services, as well.

All of that for less than 8% of my total tax expense! I'd say that I get 60- 70% of the services I value and enjoy from my Town government. That's quite a return on my investment.

The D&C doesn't get it. We "whiners" aren't whining about paying for the host of services we get from our local governments. We want the State to stop spending lavish amounts on numerous programs and projects of dubious merit and for which we get little value for our money.

The other big thing the D&C seems to forget is the thing called "the consent of the governed". We are entitled to have the government and services we want. Citizens have a big say in the nature and cost of local government, which is generally low cost and high value. We have virtually no say in our State government, which is a Byzantine, bloated, and dysfunctional entity. Don't lecture us about our local government until the really costly levels of government clean up their acts.

The D&C criticised the people of Holley for agreeing to spend $1.00 per day to have local police. That's only about 20-25 cents more than it costs to buy the D&C every day. Given a choice, I know which one I'd give up.