Home prices in Michigan are the lowest they have been since 1994. Local property taxes that are collected based on the value of the property are, of course, at their lowest in many years. The rise and now the fall of property taxes have placed many local budgets in a crisis. That is why there should be no property taxes based on the value of the structure for individuals or for businesses.
As an example, in Wisconsin, they are running into trouble on the taxes placed on property based on the value. In 2008, a Wisconsin state law allowed local communities to place a limit on the type of challenges that individuals and businesses can make on their property taxes. Local communities were allowed to limit the challenges to the local Board of Review only. But, a large rental property owner sued to have a court review its assessment. The state’s supreme court recently rightfully ruled that individuals and businesses have a right to challenge the tax assessment beyond the local board of review, in support of due process. This means that communities in Wisconsin and around the country are going to have difficulty preparing budgets because there will be challenges to the revenue stream.
Property taxes are one of the most arbitrary taxes we pay. The amount of the tax is based solely on what a local Board of Review thinks the property is worth. The value of any property can’t truly be determined unless it is sold or is used to generate income. But even after a sale, the value of the property may change dramatically from year to year based on issues that are market driven and out of the control of the property holder.
Additionally, those that pay the highest property taxes; homes with high value, homes that have been improved or property that generates income; are those that help the community maintain the overall property values of the community the most. To tax them more, based on arbitrary values, is counter productive.
Communities need stable revenue sources to provided needed services. Even the most minimum of services, like police and fire, will have a consistent cost from year to year, rising with inflation and other factors. Over the last few decades, property values have increased enough to provide communities with a growing revenue source that kept ahead of inflation. But in the past couple of years, that has all changed. Property values are now falling, forcing down the amount of tax revenue received.
Local communities need to base the taxes collected for local services based on another idea. The way to approach this might be on “unit” collection. All property would be valued not on market value, but on size and type of property. All vacant property would have one tax based on the size of the property. Residential housing would have another value based on the size of the lot and the square footage of the structure. The larger the structure, the more tax. Commercial, retail and industrial would have the same concept perhaps just different numbers and taxes.
Details do need to be worked out. But, a stable revenue source for communities would mean that services won’t be cut just because revenues are down. Property owners in a community would also know from year to year what their obligation will be. If the value of their property rises, they will not suffer because of it. Finally, an improvement in the individual housing or business unit property wouldn’t mean that there will be an increase in taxes.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
An arguement for small communities
People have, as it is said, voted with their feet when they left the City of Detroit for other places. The other places are both to the northern suburbs and other states.
Yesterday, the United States Census data was released for the City of Detroit and surrounding areas. It shows that the population for the city is as low as it was a hundred years ago, down to just over 714,000. The counties of Macomb and Oakland showed small increases. The increases were not enough to keep the state of Michigan from losing population also. It was the only state that lost in the last ten years.
Dave Bing, the mayor of Detroit, has said that he will fight the numbers. He claims that the city was under counted by about 40,000 people. If the mayor can raise the count to over 750,000 it will enable the city to keep more state and federal dollars rolling in than at the lower number. But, none of the reasons he provided for the under count sounded very positive. The truth is, your honor, Detroit is suffering just like the rest of the region.
Detroit and most of the surrounding cities like much of Michigan will have to make do with less. Less people, less tax dollars and less sales for the businesses that employ the residents. With a lower population, revenue sharing from the state and federal government will not be as great. Yes, most revenue is shared on a population basis so there will be a cut. But, less people will also mean less representation in both the state and federal governments. States that have more representation will now demand a bigger share of the dollars.
But, there is something else going on that most don’t know about. It is the Headlee Amendment. With property values falling like they have because of foreclosures and people leaving the state (creating less demand) taxes generated from the property are also falling. Cities are having to work with budgets that are far less than they were just a few years ago. Services are being cut, personnel are being laid off and the security of communities is being affected. Many people are assuming that when property values start to grow again, so will tax revenues. But, the Headlee Amendment only allows a small increase in property tax revenues each year. Local governments now need to examine every means possible to make up for the loss of revenue over the long haul. They could ask for a Headlee override, but that is not likely in the short run.
Another way is begin consolidating services with other communities or create regional consortiums to provide base services. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder in his government restructuring drive, is planning on asking the legislator to reduce revenue sharing to communities that don’t consolidate services with other communities.
Tight knit, well run communities may not want to consolidate with neighboring communities. The communities that they may need to consider consolidating services with may not be very well run. They also may have other problems like high unemployment or crime that wouldn’t make it a good fit.
But, let’s move back to the opening of this post. Detroit is losing population because people don’t like the way the city is run, they can’t make a good enough living, because crime is bad, or, for a long list of other reasons. If a community creates a large, intertwined system of services with other communities, people will not be able to just move across the street to avoid the problems in one community. They will have to either stay put and suffer or move much farther away, like out of state. Neither would benefit the local communities or the state.
With few exceptions, many small players is always better than a few large players. This is true in business and government. In business, many small players means no one business can dominate the market, if one fails there are plenty more and competition is much greater. Government works the same way. If people live in a region with many small communities, if one community turns bad, they can leave and go to another. But, if there is a large, regional consortium that is managing the entire region, there is nowhere to go except far away.
If the latest Census has taught us anything it is that people will vote with their feet. If we move to consolidating many of the small communities that we have now, we run the risk of people leaving the state.
Let’s not go there so people will stay here.
-----
Yesterday, the United States Census data was released for the City of Detroit and surrounding areas. It shows that the population for the city is as low as it was a hundred years ago, down to just over 714,000. The counties of Macomb and Oakland showed small increases. The increases were not enough to keep the state of Michigan from losing population also. It was the only state that lost in the last ten years.
Dave Bing, the mayor of Detroit, has said that he will fight the numbers. He claims that the city was under counted by about 40,000 people. If the mayor can raise the count to over 750,000 it will enable the city to keep more state and federal dollars rolling in than at the lower number. But, none of the reasons he provided for the under count sounded very positive. The truth is, your honor, Detroit is suffering just like the rest of the region.
Detroit and most of the surrounding cities like much of Michigan will have to make do with less. Less people, less tax dollars and less sales for the businesses that employ the residents. With a lower population, revenue sharing from the state and federal government will not be as great. Yes, most revenue is shared on a population basis so there will be a cut. But, less people will also mean less representation in both the state and federal governments. States that have more representation will now demand a bigger share of the dollars.
But, there is something else going on that most don’t know about. It is the Headlee Amendment. With property values falling like they have because of foreclosures and people leaving the state (creating less demand) taxes generated from the property are also falling. Cities are having to work with budgets that are far less than they were just a few years ago. Services are being cut, personnel are being laid off and the security of communities is being affected. Many people are assuming that when property values start to grow again, so will tax revenues. But, the Headlee Amendment only allows a small increase in property tax revenues each year. Local governments now need to examine every means possible to make up for the loss of revenue over the long haul. They could ask for a Headlee override, but that is not likely in the short run.
Another way is begin consolidating services with other communities or create regional consortiums to provide base services. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder in his government restructuring drive, is planning on asking the legislator to reduce revenue sharing to communities that don’t consolidate services with other communities.
Tight knit, well run communities may not want to consolidate with neighboring communities. The communities that they may need to consider consolidating services with may not be very well run. They also may have other problems like high unemployment or crime that wouldn’t make it a good fit.
But, let’s move back to the opening of this post. Detroit is losing population because people don’t like the way the city is run, they can’t make a good enough living, because crime is bad, or, for a long list of other reasons. If a community creates a large, intertwined system of services with other communities, people will not be able to just move across the street to avoid the problems in one community. They will have to either stay put and suffer or move much farther away, like out of state. Neither would benefit the local communities or the state.
With few exceptions, many small players is always better than a few large players. This is true in business and government. In business, many small players means no one business can dominate the market, if one fails there are plenty more and competition is much greater. Government works the same way. If people live in a region with many small communities, if one community turns bad, they can leave and go to another. But, if there is a large, regional consortium that is managing the entire region, there is nowhere to go except far away.
If the latest Census has taught us anything it is that people will vote with their feet. If we move to consolidating many of the small communities that we have now, we run the risk of people leaving the state.
Let’s not go there so people will stay here.
-----
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Where is the outrage over Sharia Law?
Where is the outrage against this blood payment?
The United States is part of a Sharia law blood money payment to win the freedom of a CIA contractor and American citizen in Pakistan. Yet, there is no strong reaction in this country about using a Sharia law to win the release of the contractor.
Raymond Davis, a contractor working for the CIA, was released from Pakistani prison in Lahore a few weeks ago. He spent two months in detention awaiting trial on a charge of murder. On January 27, 2011, he killed two Pakistani men that he says were trying to rob him and were brandishing a weapon.
The two families of the men that were killed agreed to forgive Davis for the murders in open court. It was confirmed by an official of the United States that “blood money” had been paid to the families of about $2 million. Under Sharia law, a bribe by any other name, can be paid to the grieving families in return for their forgiveness of the crime. Since Pakistan operates its courts in conformity to Sharia Law, the judge released Davis. He was flown out of the country by the United States ambassador to Pakistan.
So where is the outrage?
Sharia law is a system of laws based on the religious beliefs of Muslims. It is doesn’t recognize the natural rights of humans. For this reason, many in this country, including the Responsible Community, don’t believe our courts should consider it in decisions. In Oklahoma, a citizen’s initiative to prevent it was passed overwhelmingly in the last national election. In many states around the country, most recently in Tennessee, legislation has been introduced that would ban the use of Sharia Law in decisions. (As a nation, we should ban the code of law of all religions from being considered in any decisions. We should only use Constitutional law.) Yet, when the United States wins the freedom of one of our own citizens by using Sharia law, there is no outrage.
The government in Pakistan is in some ways similar to our own system, with one exception. There is an executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. All legitimately elected to office directly or indirectly by a vote of the people. The exception is the Federal Shariat Court. In Pakistan’s constitution, this court decides if any law or ruling conforms with Sharia law. This court makes Pakistan’s government a theocracy, a form of government that doesn’t respect the rights of those that live outside of the religion of the land.
It is doubtful that Davis would have received a fair trial. The evidence presented would be questionable at best and any ruling would need to receive a confirmation from the Federal Shariat Court. Additionally, a long drawn out trial would have done serious damage to United States’ image in Pakistan and possibly to its foreign relations throughout the region. But, when we entered the country in this world wide war on terror, we knew that those risks existed.
Everyone involved in this case from the United States government is denying that the payment was “blood money” or that the United States government authorized it. It was used, it is suspected, as a simple, practical way to get Davis released and bring him home. It is fortunate that he is on his way home because of the doubts with Pakistani’s legal system, but our diplomats should have found another way to get him released. But, the truth is, we used a legal code that we condemn in this country yet use it to subvert the justice system in another country.
Right and wrong doesn’t end at our border. The calls for blocking Sharia law from being used in this country must be consistently applied throughout the world. The payment of “Blood Money” as it is understood in Sharia Law should not have been used to gain Davis’ release. How is it that we will be able to ever again condemn Sharia Law when we used it to our benefit in this case?
-----
The United States is part of a Sharia law blood money payment to win the freedom of a CIA contractor and American citizen in Pakistan. Yet, there is no strong reaction in this country about using a Sharia law to win the release of the contractor.
Raymond Davis, a contractor working for the CIA, was released from Pakistani prison in Lahore a few weeks ago. He spent two months in detention awaiting trial on a charge of murder. On January 27, 2011, he killed two Pakistani men that he says were trying to rob him and were brandishing a weapon.
The two families of the men that were killed agreed to forgive Davis for the murders in open court. It was confirmed by an official of the United States that “blood money” had been paid to the families of about $2 million. Under Sharia law, a bribe by any other name, can be paid to the grieving families in return for their forgiveness of the crime. Since Pakistan operates its courts in conformity to Sharia Law, the judge released Davis. He was flown out of the country by the United States ambassador to Pakistan.
So where is the outrage?
Sharia law is a system of laws based on the religious beliefs of Muslims. It is doesn’t recognize the natural rights of humans. For this reason, many in this country, including the Responsible Community, don’t believe our courts should consider it in decisions. In Oklahoma, a citizen’s initiative to prevent it was passed overwhelmingly in the last national election. In many states around the country, most recently in Tennessee, legislation has been introduced that would ban the use of Sharia Law in decisions. (As a nation, we should ban the code of law of all religions from being considered in any decisions. We should only use Constitutional law.) Yet, when the United States wins the freedom of one of our own citizens by using Sharia law, there is no outrage.
The government in Pakistan is in some ways similar to our own system, with one exception. There is an executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. All legitimately elected to office directly or indirectly by a vote of the people. The exception is the Federal Shariat Court. In Pakistan’s constitution, this court decides if any law or ruling conforms with Sharia law. This court makes Pakistan’s government a theocracy, a form of government that doesn’t respect the rights of those that live outside of the religion of the land.
It is doubtful that Davis would have received a fair trial. The evidence presented would be questionable at best and any ruling would need to receive a confirmation from the Federal Shariat Court. Additionally, a long drawn out trial would have done serious damage to United States’ image in Pakistan and possibly to its foreign relations throughout the region. But, when we entered the country in this world wide war on terror, we knew that those risks existed.
Everyone involved in this case from the United States government is denying that the payment was “blood money” or that the United States government authorized it. It was used, it is suspected, as a simple, practical way to get Davis released and bring him home. It is fortunate that he is on his way home because of the doubts with Pakistani’s legal system, but our diplomats should have found another way to get him released. But, the truth is, we used a legal code that we condemn in this country yet use it to subvert the justice system in another country.
Right and wrong doesn’t end at our border. The calls for blocking Sharia law from being used in this country must be consistently applied throughout the world. The payment of “Blood Money” as it is understood in Sharia Law should not have been used to gain Davis’ release. How is it that we will be able to ever again condemn Sharia Law when we used it to our benefit in this case?
-----
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Comments on events around the community
Comments from around the community:
From Politico.org: Newt Gingrich tweaked President Barack Obama Friday for taking time to fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket when he could have been working on the Libyan crisis.
“If they want to, they can get rid of Qadhafi,” he said. “The president announced on March 3rd that Qadhafi has got to go. This is the opposite of Eisenhower or Reagan.”
Obama’s position on Libya “makes us look weak and uncertain and increases the danger in the Persian Gulf,” he said.
Responsible Community’s Comment: And, Mr. Gingrich, who should we replace him with, someone from the rebels that are fighting him? Reagan drove the Russians out of Afghanistan by helping the rebels that was lead by some guy named bin Laden. Now look what we have on the world stage. It isn’t so certain that the rebels would be better than the status quo.
Besides, Mr. Gingrich, should we be involved on a third front in this War on Terror?
From Reuters: Judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin's anti-union law. A complaint filed by Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and County Board Chair Scott McDonell, alleges that the anti-union measure contained fiscal items that required a quorum in the Senate.
Responsible Community's Comment: It was clearly wrong that the Democrats left the state to hold up the vote on the legislation. It was nothing more than a filibuster by any other name and The Responsible Community doesn’t think they are right. As wrong as the legislation is a filibuster only blocks the will of the people.
But, it was wrong for the Republicans to reduce themselves to using trickery to get the legislation past.
From The Oakland Press: Two former local Democratic party officials from Michigan face up to 14 years behind bars for allegedly forging paperwork to put fake Tea Party candidates on the November 2010 ballot.
Responsible Community’s Comment: This should receive the highest honor for the lowest act (and dumbest) in politics. This is the sort of thing that happens in third world countries and in Arizona. There, Republican officials created fake Green Party Canidates to pull from Democrats.
From the New York Daily News: Right-wing blowhard Ann Coulter took her incendiary views to a whole new level Thursday, this time finding the silver lining in Japan's nuclear disaster.
During a segment on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show, the conservative firebrand tried to calm jittery viewers by telling them "radiation is good for you."
"So by your account, we should all be heading for the nuclear reactor" leaking radiation in Japan, joked a skeptical O'Reilly.
[O’Reilly continued,] "The prevailing wisdom is there's a level of radiation that's gonna hurt you and perhaps kill you ... What you say may be true - there may be some doses of radiation that in the human body can ward off infection. But in something like this, you gotta get the folks out of there, and you have to report worst-case scenarios."
O'Reilly pointed to the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof that radiation kills, but Coulter wouldn't budge.
Responsible Community's Comment: Well, I would like to purchase a one way ticket for Ann to help out with the work that is going on with the reactors in Japan. She can help get them up and running at the same time she is becoming disease free.
-----
From Politico.org: Newt Gingrich tweaked President Barack Obama Friday for taking time to fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket when he could have been working on the Libyan crisis.
“If they want to, they can get rid of Qadhafi,” he said. “The president announced on March 3rd that Qadhafi has got to go. This is the opposite of Eisenhower or Reagan.”
Obama’s position on Libya “makes us look weak and uncertain and increases the danger in the Persian Gulf,” he said.
Responsible Community’s Comment: And, Mr. Gingrich, who should we replace him with, someone from the rebels that are fighting him? Reagan drove the Russians out of Afghanistan by helping the rebels that was lead by some guy named bin Laden. Now look what we have on the world stage. It isn’t so certain that the rebels would be better than the status quo.
Besides, Mr. Gingrich, should we be involved on a third front in this War on Terror?
From Reuters: Judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin's anti-union law. A complaint filed by Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and County Board Chair Scott McDonell, alleges that the anti-union measure contained fiscal items that required a quorum in the Senate.
Responsible Community's Comment: It was clearly wrong that the Democrats left the state to hold up the vote on the legislation. It was nothing more than a filibuster by any other name and The Responsible Community doesn’t think they are right. As wrong as the legislation is a filibuster only blocks the will of the people.
But, it was wrong for the Republicans to reduce themselves to using trickery to get the legislation past.
From The Oakland Press: Two former local Democratic party officials from Michigan face up to 14 years behind bars for allegedly forging paperwork to put fake Tea Party candidates on the November 2010 ballot.
Responsible Community’s Comment: This should receive the highest honor for the lowest act (and dumbest) in politics. This is the sort of thing that happens in third world countries and in Arizona. There, Republican officials created fake Green Party Canidates to pull from Democrats.
From the New York Daily News: Right-wing blowhard Ann Coulter took her incendiary views to a whole new level Thursday, this time finding the silver lining in Japan's nuclear disaster.
During a segment on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show, the conservative firebrand tried to calm jittery viewers by telling them "radiation is good for you."
"So by your account, we should all be heading for the nuclear reactor" leaking radiation in Japan, joked a skeptical O'Reilly.
[O’Reilly continued,] "The prevailing wisdom is there's a level of radiation that's gonna hurt you and perhaps kill you ... What you say may be true - there may be some doses of radiation that in the human body can ward off infection. But in something like this, you gotta get the folks out of there, and you have to report worst-case scenarios."
O'Reilly pointed to the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof that radiation kills, but Coulter wouldn't budge.
Responsible Community's Comment: Well, I would like to purchase a one way ticket for Ann to help out with the work that is going on with the reactors in Japan. She can help get them up and running at the same time she is becoming disease free.
-----
Friday, March 18, 2011
American Exceptionalism
Clearly one of the most troubling issues during the Bush administration were the “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay. Then, Senator Obama, while campaigning to replace Bush in the oval office, promised that he would close the prison one year from the time he took office. He signed an executive order to just that two days after he took office.
It has been more than two years and the prison is still open.
Now, President Obama has signed another executive order to keep 50 of the prisoners there without trial for an indefinite period of time. The same order initiates his own “military commissions” trials for the other detainees. This is creating a bill of attainder that is prohibited in the Constitution, or, just picking someone up and creating a law that allows the individual to be held.
Every administration since Clinton has said the “war on terror” is worldwide. The combatants are located in many countries around the world, including the United States. The battlefield, therefore, as defined by The Geneva Convention is not a tightly defined field but encompasses most of the globe. When people in this “war on terror” are captured the Geneva Convention Treaty has very detailed guidelines on how these prisoners of war should be treated. The United States signed the treaty. But, Obama, who promised to end this abuse of power, has now signaled that we will not follow the convention’s rules, but will only follow our own.
What is so troubling about this?
The United States expects every country in the world to follow these rules. If a United States citizen, civilian or military, are captured, the first thing we request is that they be treated fairly and by the rules. The executive order that Obama signed tosses the Geneva Convention rules out for the United States, just like previous administrations. The people that are being held in Guantanamo Bay are not classified as prisoners of war to avoid the convention’s rules and will not be classified as common criminals to avoid United States law. So, how is it we can expect others to follow the rules when we are not?
The answer is that as a culture, we often believe in American Exceptionalism. In its current use, it is the belief that we are better than other nations because of our belief systems, government, culture and history. The idea means that we can make our own rules at the same time that we expect others to follow different rules, rules of course, that we have agreed to but don’t follow.
Well, we are different. Our form of government is nearly perfect compared to most everything out there. Our belief in civil rights that are enumerated in the Constitution has made us a great country. If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, they have the right to due process. This means they can’t be held until we come up with something to charge them with. Or, if they are a prisoner of war, we have other rules that we agreed to follow.
But, our Exceptionalism shouldn’t provide us with an excuse to make our own rules, but rather that we follow them better than others. It is because we became great in our own right not because we were above everyone else, or in a phrase - above the law, but because we are a community of law.
Our Exceptionalism should compel us to follow the rules as an example, a shining beacon to the rest of the world. President Obama needs to resend his executive order and classify the detainees as prisoners of war or charge them with a crime where they can be tried in open court.
-----
It has been more than two years and the prison is still open.
Now, President Obama has signed another executive order to keep 50 of the prisoners there without trial for an indefinite period of time. The same order initiates his own “military commissions” trials for the other detainees. This is creating a bill of attainder that is prohibited in the Constitution, or, just picking someone up and creating a law that allows the individual to be held.
Every administration since Clinton has said the “war on terror” is worldwide. The combatants are located in many countries around the world, including the United States. The battlefield, therefore, as defined by The Geneva Convention is not a tightly defined field but encompasses most of the globe. When people in this “war on terror” are captured the Geneva Convention Treaty has very detailed guidelines on how these prisoners of war should be treated. The United States signed the treaty. But, Obama, who promised to end this abuse of power, has now signaled that we will not follow the convention’s rules, but will only follow our own.
What is so troubling about this?
The United States expects every country in the world to follow these rules. If a United States citizen, civilian or military, are captured, the first thing we request is that they be treated fairly and by the rules. The executive order that Obama signed tosses the Geneva Convention rules out for the United States, just like previous administrations. The people that are being held in Guantanamo Bay are not classified as prisoners of war to avoid the convention’s rules and will not be classified as common criminals to avoid United States law. So, how is it we can expect others to follow the rules when we are not?
The answer is that as a culture, we often believe in American Exceptionalism. In its current use, it is the belief that we are better than other nations because of our belief systems, government, culture and history. The idea means that we can make our own rules at the same time that we expect others to follow different rules, rules of course, that we have agreed to but don’t follow.
Well, we are different. Our form of government is nearly perfect compared to most everything out there. Our belief in civil rights that are enumerated in the Constitution has made us a great country. If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, they have the right to due process. This means they can’t be held until we come up with something to charge them with. Or, if they are a prisoner of war, we have other rules that we agreed to follow.
But, our Exceptionalism shouldn’t provide us with an excuse to make our own rules, but rather that we follow them better than others. It is because we became great in our own right not because we were above everyone else, or in a phrase - above the law, but because we are a community of law.
Our Exceptionalism should compel us to follow the rules as an example, a shining beacon to the rest of the world. President Obama needs to resend his executive order and classify the detainees as prisoners of war or charge them with a crime where they can be tried in open court.
-----
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Don't punishing school districts for good budget practices
Save money and spend wisely, but not too wisely.
What?
That’s right. A state senator thinks that school districts that save money should be punished for saving too much.
School districts in the state of Michigan have a cumulative savings account in so called “rainy day” funds of $1.6 billion. The districts have scrimped and saved as much as they could so they would have a cushion against drastic cuts in state aid or other funding. This not only is a wise thing to do, but fits very well into concepts supported by the Responsible Community.
State senator Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison, thinks this is “obscene.” He is the chair of the Senate finance committee. It is Brandenburg’s belief that in the slow economy and with the state’s budget problems, each school district should spend their fund before they receive any more state aid. For each school district with a budget surplus the bill that he wants to offer would cut off of school aid until the fund is below 15% of the district’s annual budget. It would seem that Brandenburg would want it to be the other way around. He should offer incentives to school districts to save money and be financially responsible.
Brandenburg is a member of the party that demands government be operated like a business. Any business around, large or small, would be happy to have a reserve of more than 15%. A responsible community, school district or municipality, should save as much money as it can while still providing the services that its citizens expect. The fund, besides being a cushion against swings in funding, can be invested to help provide income to defray the costs of operating, or perhaps, be self sustaining.
Brandenburg is also a member of the party that believes in local control. Making sound budgeting decisions by each of the school districts that has enough of a surplus to establish a rainy day fund reflects exemplary local control. The state should not dictate the budgeting principals of these school districts.
When a community operates out of the establish norm, such as not being able to pay its bills, it is taken over by the state to bring its budget in alignment with general accounting and management principals. But, if that a community swings that other way, operating in a way that reflects sound business practices, it should not be punished.
-----
What?
That’s right. A state senator thinks that school districts that save money should be punished for saving too much.
School districts in the state of Michigan have a cumulative savings account in so called “rainy day” funds of $1.6 billion. The districts have scrimped and saved as much as they could so they would have a cushion against drastic cuts in state aid or other funding. This not only is a wise thing to do, but fits very well into concepts supported by the Responsible Community.
State senator Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison, thinks this is “obscene.” He is the chair of the Senate finance committee. It is Brandenburg’s belief that in the slow economy and with the state’s budget problems, each school district should spend their fund before they receive any more state aid. For each school district with a budget surplus the bill that he wants to offer would cut off of school aid until the fund is below 15% of the district’s annual budget. It would seem that Brandenburg would want it to be the other way around. He should offer incentives to school districts to save money and be financially responsible.
Brandenburg is a member of the party that demands government be operated like a business. Any business around, large or small, would be happy to have a reserve of more than 15%. A responsible community, school district or municipality, should save as much money as it can while still providing the services that its citizens expect. The fund, besides being a cushion against swings in funding, can be invested to help provide income to defray the costs of operating, or perhaps, be self sustaining.
Brandenburg is also a member of the party that believes in local control. Making sound budgeting decisions by each of the school districts that has enough of a surplus to establish a rainy day fund reflects exemplary local control. The state should not dictate the budgeting principals of these school districts.
When a community operates out of the establish norm, such as not being able to pay its bills, it is taken over by the state to bring its budget in alignment with general accounting and management principals. But, if that a community swings that other way, operating in a way that reflects sound business practices, it should not be punished.
-----
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
We must be certain about convictions
A community can’t know with any certainty that they have the right answer if it doesn’t allow challenges to decisions it makes.
The United States Supreme court has opened the door to allow some forced DNA testing of evidence in Skinner v Switzer out of Texas. This is a very complex case that involves a lot of legal issues. With that in mind, only a brief explanation will be offered here. (For more on this issue, please visit http://www.supremecourt.gov/ )
In 1993, Hank Skinner was convicted of killing his girlfriend and two sons. He claims he was asleep on a coach in an alcohol and cocaine induced haze when the killings took place. At the trial, the result of DNA testing on some of the evidence at the crime scene was presented, but not all the evidence was tested. Mr. Skinner’s attorney, concerned that the results from testing all of the evidence would prove to be injurious to his client’s defense, decline to request all the evidence be tested. After his conviction Mr. Skinner requested that the remaining testing be done. The district attorney refused on the grounds that it is merely a post conviction time and resource waster.
Of course, Mr. Skinner sued.
Then, in 2001 Texas passed a law that allowed post conviction testing of DNA. But, prosecutors and the lower courts all decided against Skinner. All deciding that it was pointless since no other evidence conclusively proved that Skinner did not commit the crime.
The Supreme Court decided that in very limited cases, courts must grant a post conviction request to be sure that state law allowed him due process. But, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, emphasized in strong terms that this was a very narrow ruling. Only in very particular circumstances could someone sue in the way Skinner did.
So many convicted prisoners claim their innocence that the joke is that the prisons are full of innocent people. This may be just more of the same. In our court system, with all the Constitutional protections, it is difficult to believe that there is a lot of error. Death Penalty Paper, a pro-death penalty web site, reports that 69 innocent death row convictions have been over turned since 1973. Based just on that number, it seems that the proverbial “99.9%” of all convictions have not been overturned and presumed rightfully convicted.
But, this case is more about two other issues than the innocence of Skinner. The first issue is our advancement in science. As science advances, more certainty about evidence can be presented in the courts. As more post conviction challenges are made based on the advancement of science, a responsible community can’t deny a person’s rights based solely on the fact that he was already convicted. Within narrow guidelines, as the recently Supreme Court ruling said, a state can’t deny someone’s basic due process.
The bigger issue here is certainty. The United States has built a criminal justice system that we can have confidence in, not that it is without errors. The way those errors can be reduced and abuse can be prevented is to allow challenges to the system to be given due process. When advances are made in science, there is no reason that a responsible community shouldn’t allow them to be applied to post conviction cases within reason.
-----
The United States Supreme court has opened the door to allow some forced DNA testing of evidence in Skinner v Switzer out of Texas. This is a very complex case that involves a lot of legal issues. With that in mind, only a brief explanation will be offered here. (For more on this issue, please visit http://www.supremecourt.gov/ )
In 1993, Hank Skinner was convicted of killing his girlfriend and two sons. He claims he was asleep on a coach in an alcohol and cocaine induced haze when the killings took place. At the trial, the result of DNA testing on some of the evidence at the crime scene was presented, but not all the evidence was tested. Mr. Skinner’s attorney, concerned that the results from testing all of the evidence would prove to be injurious to his client’s defense, decline to request all the evidence be tested. After his conviction Mr. Skinner requested that the remaining testing be done. The district attorney refused on the grounds that it is merely a post conviction time and resource waster.
Of course, Mr. Skinner sued.
Then, in 2001 Texas passed a law that allowed post conviction testing of DNA. But, prosecutors and the lower courts all decided against Skinner. All deciding that it was pointless since no other evidence conclusively proved that Skinner did not commit the crime.
The Supreme Court decided that in very limited cases, courts must grant a post conviction request to be sure that state law allowed him due process. But, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, emphasized in strong terms that this was a very narrow ruling. Only in very particular circumstances could someone sue in the way Skinner did.
So many convicted prisoners claim their innocence that the joke is that the prisons are full of innocent people. This may be just more of the same. In our court system, with all the Constitutional protections, it is difficult to believe that there is a lot of error. Death Penalty Paper, a pro-death penalty web site, reports that 69 innocent death row convictions have been over turned since 1973. Based just on that number, it seems that the proverbial “99.9%” of all convictions have not been overturned and presumed rightfully convicted.
But, this case is more about two other issues than the innocence of Skinner. The first issue is our advancement in science. As science advances, more certainty about evidence can be presented in the courts. As more post conviction challenges are made based on the advancement of science, a responsible community can’t deny a person’s rights based solely on the fact that he was already convicted. Within narrow guidelines, as the recently Supreme Court ruling said, a state can’t deny someone’s basic due process.
The bigger issue here is certainty. The United States has built a criminal justice system that we can have confidence in, not that it is without errors. The way those errors can be reduced and abuse can be prevented is to allow challenges to the system to be given due process. When advances are made in science, there is no reason that a responsible community shouldn’t allow them to be applied to post conviction cases within reason.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)