Opposition to Referendum Equals Opposition to Prosperity?
Our good friend and local professor, Mpeterson, has weighed in on AFP’s calls regarding the upcoming school referendum and gets it completely wrong.
So, we have an out-of-state group that jumped into a local issue and decided not to bother following the law?
AFP is a national organization with a Wisconsin chapter. The Wisconsin chapter is who is getting involved. To say it is an “out-of-state group” would be like calling UWWC an “out-of-county group” because it is “headquartered” in Madison.
And as has been explained to Mpeterson, AFP is within the law in making calls about the referendum. Just because an advocacy group files a complaint does not mean that anyone broke the law.
I know Owen is a big supporter of Americans for Prosperity—although how you can vote against the single biggest booster of economic prosperity in a globalized economy (improving the educational infrastructure) and still claim to be in favor of prosperity, doesn’t make any damn sense to me.
Indeed I am a supporter of AFP because I support their mission. But the rest of that sentence is garbage. As I articulated in my column last week, opposition to the referendum does not mean that opponents don’t support education or economic prosperity. Schools are a part of the equation, but so is a reasonable tax burden, government accountability, rule of law, private capital, and a thousand other things.
By Mpeterson’s logic, opposition to any school spending would constitute opposing prosperity. So how much should we spend? $20k per kid? $50k? $100k? And what of the impact of such spending on the community? Should that factor into the decision making process at all? What about the seniors living on a fixed income where $300 in higher taxes is a serious issue? What of them? Do they not matter because we MUST spend more on schools else sink into economic ruin? Not to mention that the proposed spending has nothing to do with better teachers, better curriculum, additional courses, or anything else. It’s just about buildings.
Mpeterson’s condescending attitude toward referendum opponents is one of the many reasons that citizens are becoming more and more disgusted with the professors and teachers in public employment. They seem to think that the taxpayers’ pockets are bottomless and indignantly stick up their noses at anyone who suggests otherwise.
I went to his site and read his column. I can’t stand it when people suggest that only those who consistently vote to spend more money on schools are pro-education. There’s something to be said for making sure that schools are spending money effectively, too. By his rationale, whether West Bend asks for $100, $100 million, or $100 billion, the correct vote is yes. It’s always yes.
Let’s hope that as a philosophy professor he doesn’t get assigned to teach elementary logic.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 04, 2007 at 0129 hrsThe executive boards of the West Bend Chamber of Commerce and the West Bend Economic Development Corporation both voted unanimously to support this referendum. Yet I think they are also for prosperity. Curious.
Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 04, 2007 at 2041 hrs
As to the AFP, they have every right to advocate against the referendum. Their website makes it very clear that they are an advocacy group. As one who seems to always push for full disclosure regardless of the issue, I’d think Owen would agree that they should identify themselves through the registration process. Again, curious.The executive boards of the West Bend Chamber of Commerce and the West Bend Economic Development Corporation both voted unanimously to support this referendum. Yet I think they are also for prosperity. Curious.
I’m sure they are. As I have said, I don’t think that one’s support or opposition to this referendum is not indicative of one’s support or opposition of education. By the same token, one’s support or opposition to this referendum is not indicative of one’s support or opposition of prosperity. I believe that we are all doing what we think is in the best interests of our community and state. We just have different priorities, perspectives, and opinions about how to get there.
Their website makes it very clear that they are an advocacy group. As one who seems to always push for full disclosure regardless of the issue, I’d think Owen would agree that they should identify themselves through the registration process. Again, curious.
They are a group that supports smaller, limited, pork-free government. But in this particular instance they made education calls. It’s like when WEAC does education with one arm and advocacy with the other. You can legally do both.
They identify themselves on the call, so the needs of disclosure have been met. Far more people who receive a call can google the name rather than call Deb and have her email them the registration forms - not to mention it was in the paper. Do you really think that registering does anything to bring more disclosure to the matter?
Furthermore, because they are doing education calls, they are not legally required to register. It would be like me telling you that you need to get a hunting license even though you don’t plan to hunt. I’m not sure why y’all are so insistent that a group do something that they are not legally required to do. It really smells like an act to distract and discredit than anything legitimate. And when one considers the completely baseless way in which my name was thrust into the complaint, the whole thing looks more like a group trying to intimidate the opposition into silence with threats of legal action.
Posted by Owen on November 04, 2007 at 2101 hrsThe AFP’s mission statement says “The grassroots members of AFP advocate for public policies that champion the principles of entrepreneurship and fiscal and regulatory restraint.” They show up in West Bend days before an election with a costly phone campaign. Yet you claim they are not advocating. And, who is the grassroots contact here? Is it you? Did you help craft their message? If so, do you not consider yourself an advocate? You were so interested in the financing of the It’s Time group. How about some info on AFP’s financing.
Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 04, 2007 at 2200 hrs
The irony here is that I agree with many of the AFP philosophies. I just think if they are trying to influence a local election, they should be up front about it.Yet you claim they are not advocating.
Advocacy, under the law, is in the message - not in the mission statement. If I say that the referendum is $119.3 million, am I advocating or educating? You know that I am opposed to it, but the statement is a matter of fact - not opinion. The law is quite clear on these things.
And, who is the grassroots contact here?
Who cares? There is no legal requirement for there to be some local contact for anyone to get involved. I could go to Milwaukee and opine on their issues on my own accord and I would be perfectly within my rights.
Is it you?
I know that it’s shocking that there is anyone besides me who opposes the referendum, but no. It is not me.
Did you help craft their message?
No, but what if I did? Is it not my right?
If so, do you not consider yourself an advocate?
I advocate for causes in which I believe, but that does not divorce me from the capacity to craft a message that does not advocate. Again, if I run a newspaper ad saying, “the referendum is $119.3 million,” does the mere fact that I am on record opposing the referendum make that a message of advocacy? Or is it just a fact for the education of the readers?
You were so interested in the financing of the It’s Time group. How about some info on AFP’s financing.
IT filed a public document and I had every right to take a look. have no idea what AFPs financing looks like.
I just think if they are trying to influence a local election, they should be up front about it.
Again, their name is in the message. They have been quite up front about who they are.
This kind of badgering of people for becoming involved in the political process reeks of bullying. And I would ask you the same thing I asked Kris… WEAC is also running calls into the district. Where are you on that?
Posted by Owen on November 04, 2007 at 2301 hrsCharlie, think of it this way…
Pat has been giving “informational sessions” for a while now, yet she clearly advocates the passage of the referendum. Should she have to register on behalf of the district as an advocacy group?
Posted by Owen on November 04, 2007 at 2324 hrsIt’s funny how when it’s my side, it’s education and when it’s their side, it’s advocacy.
Kind of like how advisory referenda are either the expression of the will of the people or a phony poll.
Depends on who’s doing it.
Posted by on November 04, 2007 at 2341 hrslol. I know that from behind your lenses, a lot of what I say looks crazy.
But you finally asked exactly the right question Owen. Glad if I was able to help.
The real question is, “how much money per student is the right amount?”
If we knew this, we could act on it.
Well, what kills me—and this repeats a conversation some of us have had away from the B/S universe—is that even though, all along, you’ve been strongly opposed to this initiative, you have no idea what the right amount actually is. All along you’ve simply been guessing . In order for you to actually know the right amount to spend, you’d’ve had to do what Mr. Hillman and the board did—you’d have had to ask the tax payers for their opinions, write down their criticisms and observations, run the numbers through a few banks of accountants and actuaries and then, spend 2 years working the numbers down to what would work best.
Dude, you didn’t do any of that. You simply wrote up your little column and said “nah, it’s stupid.”
I love the idea, btw, that you think professors think the taxpayers’ pockets are bottomless.
What’s scariest, I suppose, is that you seem to believe that professors aren’t tax payers too. Maybe you’re under the impression that my (lower than the average of 6 regional states) salary is tax free?
Ironically, Brother Owen, it’s likely that you earn more than I do, in which case these rough personal shots are even more embarrassing—or, less likely but possible, I may make more money than you do. But in that case I’ll also be carrying your distributed share of the burden of educating our neighbor’s kids. (And if you don’t earn more than me, than you’re probably spending too much time blogging and not enough time working. ;^))
And finally, I’m not being condescending to any opponents of the tax referendum. People should look at the facts and make up their minds.
No, I think you’re feeling condescended to because I simply made it clear that you don’t know anything about the relationship between investing in education and the prosperity that follows in the globalized economy. Even then, I’m sorry if you read condescension into my tone… there was nothing more than impatience with your lack of broader perspective and because I’m afraid of your certainty. I’m afraid it will cost everyone’s children the kind of educational advantage this country—demonstrably—can no longer afford not to give them.
Usually I’m a lot funnier than all of this. I feel like an old scold, but I also haven’t felt at all compelled to let you waltz through this discussion as if your understanding of the larger economic issues was complete when it is clearly—to any political economist who works in the interaction of education and economic wealth— lacking. Anyway, it was clear to me, and I’m not even a political economist. I just hang out with them. I tried to be circumspect, but you just weren’t having any of it.
You should have taken me up on the coffee.
What also confused me is how you’ve managed to argue that being against this referendum is good for business when essentially all of the business leaders in the county are in favor of it.
All of which is to say, “politics, how about that.”
I’ll go tell my wife that we don’t have to pay taxes any more.
I’m still looking forward to having you cancel out my vote on Tuesday.
Posted by Mpeterson on November 05, 2007 at 0147 hrsPro: “It’s for the children”
Con: “What about the seniors living on a fixed income where $300 in higher taxes is a serious issue? What of them?”
To answer the senior question (also the low-income household situation):
WI Homestead Credit Claim is a process to mitigate property taxes (and is available to renters as well - 25% of rent is presumed to be property tax) for lower income households.
As income increases, the amount of credit decreases. As property taxes increase, the amount of credit increases.
The maximum Household income to qualify is $24,500 per year, the maximum Credit available is $1160.
The last time I did a form was in 2003 for a person that I was P.O.A. for - that year her investment income had declined -Her total Income was $14,763, her property taxes were $2632, and she received a $684 credit (about 25% of her tax bill). If her income had been less than $8000, she would have received $1160.
There is also a “Property Tax Deferral Loan Program” available through WHEDA for up to $2500.
I do notice that the 2006 schedules (H) have the same income/credit/maximum property tax amounts as 2003 - perhaps that is an issue the state legislature needs to deal with at some future date, if those amounts are not enough.
I find the “It’s for the children” argument as hyperbolic as “what about the seniors”. Just as we won’t see children being educated on the street curbs if the refendum fails, neither will we see seniors filling the homeless shelters if the referendum passes. And we probably won’t be seeing them eat dog food at Perkins either.
Pardon me for “interfering” with boring facts.
Posted by on November 05, 2007 at 1106 hrs
Ol' Army
