Topeka — Education officials on Tuesday said more budget cuts are possible this school year because of the state’s continued fiscal problems, and even deeper cuts could follow that because of the loss of federal stimulus dollars.
“School district leaders have been presented with impossible choices,” said John Heim, executive director of the Kansas Association of School Boards. “They have had to cut staff while saving for an uncertain future.”
The immediate problem is a $50 million shortfall in the current school budget brought on by lower statewide property tax valuations, an increase in students receiving free lunch and a larger student population, the KASB reported.
Unless the 2011 Legislature makes up the difference, that could cause a $75 drop in the base state aid, which now stands at $4,012 per student.
But bigger cuts could be on the way because schools currently are receiving $200 million in federal stimulus funds that expire this school year.
If those funds aren’t replaced with state funds, then schools will face an additional cut of $300 per student, which would mean reductions in education employees.
The Kansas Department of Education reported that last year, school districts reduced certified personnel, including teachers, by 816 positions, or 2 percent; and noncertified staff by 844 positions, or 3 percent.
Gov.-elect Sam Brownback has vowed to institute a freeze on the total of state spending when he takes office in January.
Mark Tallman, a lobbyist for the Kansas Association of School Boards, said, “We are very concerned about that. If the governor-elect wants to freeze state general revenue funds ... that doesn’t include money to replace the stimulus dollars.”
The state’s historic drop in tax revenue over the past two years has already produced several rounds of funding cuts. A coalition of school districts last week filed a lawsuit against the state, alleging the Legislature was violating the Kansas Constitution by making cuts of more than $300 million to schools.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Shardwurm (anonymous) says…
What a shock. The schools need more money. Wow. With all we're pouring into education we should be the top producer of students on the planet.
Unfortunately the truth is that more money doesn't necessarily equal better education...even if that's what The Industry wants you to believe.
Tell you what - if the teachers want to quit let them. We've got teachers being produced by esteemed institutions like the University of Kan$a$ by the bushel. Let the higher-priced teachers resign with indignation and pursue a career in the private sector like the rest of us and get some new blood in our schools at a lower cost.
Any takers from the teaching community?
*crickets*
Didn't think so.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
Name one other industry where you get a Bachelor's and earn less than $35-40k coming out of college and face the kind of attitude you give to teachers. Can you imagine someone telling a banker that they are a worthless piece of trash and they should go pursue a career in the private sector? Blind hate is pretty helpful, isn't it?
More money doesn't necessarily equal better education. Or at least it shouldn't, but the highest per-pupil funding states tend to perform better than the national average (look at Connecticut as a great example). Don't tell me that funding doesn't play a role. Prove it, instead.
ferrislives (anonymous) replies…
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
"More money doesn't necessarily equal better education. Or at least it shouldn't, but the highest per-pupil funding states tend to perform better than the national average (look at Connecticut as a great example). Don't tell me that funding doesn't play a role. Prove it, instead."
Ok, check out Finland, ranked the #1 country in the world when it comes to education. Here are some articles I've found:::
Education Nation: Why is Finland Ranked Number One In The World?
http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/Educatio...
Why do Finland's schools get the best results?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm
They get less $$ per pupil than our students do, yet they out-perform our students in every way. Our state and school board reps should take a visit to that country for some new ideas that don't involve the endless revolving door of spending.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
Finland has public health care (less debt), finances student education (less debt), so it's feasible that parents can be more involved in the schools. It's an entirely different culture where ignorance isn't lauded as it is in America (we try to call it common sense, but unfortunately, we take it too far).
I can tell you that less money isn't going to get better results.
fan4kufootball (anonymous) replies…
There are pleny of professions coming out of school with a degree that earn less than teachers considering that teachers get 2 months off every year. So if you consider they make $35k - $40k for 10 months of work then do the math - if they actually worked all 12 months of the year there would earn $42k - $48k per year.
There are no other professions that I know of that get two months off during the year without losing their jobs....
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
Baseball.
Basketball.
Hockey.
Football.
All entertainment industries.
Almost all tourist industries.
Seasonal farming.
What do they all have in common? You still have things to work on in your offseason. They don't just get to vacation for two months.
pittstatebb (anonymous) replies…
Shardwurm - nowhere in the article does it say schools need MORE money. The article is about not cutting school funding anymore than it already has been cut. Please read the article again and consider the "business model" that so many in the private sector want to apply to schools. Schools have an increase in enrollment. In the business world this equates to higher demand. When you have a higher demand, you increase your raw materials needed (tax money) to make more goods (educated students). Now consider what schools are asking. They are not asking for more money, just what they thought they would get (even schools for fair funding is not asking for an increase in $, just funding what was passed by the legislature).
tryandkeepup (anonymous) replies…
Do you have children? Did you ever go to school? What is your problem with eduction
and educators. I would like to see anyone take $4,000 and educate a child of any age for one year. Why is this such a difficult concept for so many Kansas citizens. Experienced (or as you call them "high priced" teachers) don't want to quit educating....they are just exhausted from working two extra jobs to make ends meet. I'll venture that in most smaller districts in this state, the guy that picks up your garbage makes more than a first year teacher. So put your kids at then end of the driveway on Wed. and let him teach geometry.
windex (anonymous) replies…
I know a lot of teachers and sitting here, right now, I can name seven former teachers off the top of my head who have said, "screw this; it's too hard, I get no respect and I'm sick of spending so much of my own money and neglecting my own family in order to devote my time and energy to other peoples' kids." One of these teachers went and worked in the private sector (property management) for one year and then she returned to teaching. The rest of them are living happily ever after in the business world. Some of these former teachers were average. Three were absolutely extraordinary. They gave and gave and worked and worked and eventually burned out (partly due to the attitudes of people just like you, Shardwurm. Congratulations.)
geekyhost (anonymous) replies…
"The Industry" right now is the charter school business. They want you to believe that they can turn this all around when the evidence says otherwise.
kcsparky (anonymous) says…
With so many people being up in arms about how the country is becoming Socialist because the government is wanting to run the health care, why is it that everyone is upset when the government doesn't pitch in the money to run the school systems. Why wouldn't it be better for the schools to be run by the private sector just like health care?
I don't really see a difference. If you want them to butt out, then make sure it is all inclusive, we can't pick and choose.
whats_going_on (anonymous) replies…
the same goes with Medicaid and such. Ironically, the lives of a lot of people supposedly against government run healthcare are being paid for by everyone but themselves. Makes no sense.
Clevercowgirl (anonymous) says…
Wow, what a riducuous set of comments about teachers. BTW, this article is not even addressing teachers, it's addressing state funding of education. Shardwurm: money may not equal better education, but I can guarantee that less money will equal less education.
conservative (anonymous) says…
I love the people who spout off about how teachers are underpaid but fail to scale up the pay by a third. You see teachers only work 9 months out of the year. So while yes they only make 35 to 40 thousand per year they have 3 months off plus vacation and sick time something the people making 45 or 50 thousand don't.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
I love the people who don't know an educator, nor do they appreciate the fact that one person has to interact with hundreds, if not thousands of children over a career. Teachers are criticized mightily, way moreso than any other government employee. Doesn't make sense.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Teachers don't make 35 to 40 thousand per year. Average pay is almost $50,000 in Kansas. Plus they get group life, group health, disability income, accidental death and dismemberment, and hospital surgical, and/or medical expense insurance.
tryandkeepup (anonymous) replies…
Average pay in Kansas $50,000 with all the benefits you mention.....
you obviously haven't tried to get a teaching job. I think you are
confusing administrators with the average elementary school
teacher.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Excuse me? I don't lie and I don't make stuff up. I'm not confusing anything, you are. I meant teacher pay and that's what those numbers represent:
http://kansaseducation.wordpress.com/...
thelonious (anonymous) replies…
You see teachers don't work only 9 months, the school calendar is actually about 10 months, and yes there are breaks like christmas vacation, etc., but whether it is 9 months or 10 months or whatever is actually beside the point - when you count the hours spent grading papers, class prep, etc. that are done at home on evenings and weekends during the school year, they actually work 50-60 hours per week during those 9-10 months, so it works out to at least the 2080 hours that a regular 40-hour per week job does - they essentially work a full 12-month job compressed into 10 months (or 9 months if you insist) - after which they need that 2-month break in the summer, which, by the way, many spend doing continuing education, working on their graduate degrees, etc. I am married to a teacher - I know what the reality of their situation is.
Conservative, you should reserve your comments for things where you actually know what you are talking about.
ferrislives (anonymous) says…
I don't believe that federal stimulus dollars were meant to be "taken over" by the states that received them after they expired. Why does the KS school board think that this is so?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
KS has been underfunding the educational system based on the amounts arrived at by the legislature and required by the Supreme Court.
Apparently a fair amount of the stimulus funding went to make up for that shortfall.
That doesn't absolve the state from the responsibility to fund education at the correct levels.
jafs (anonymous) says…
Well, we'll see what Brownback's promise to "protect" education really means.
Pete_Schweti (anonymous) says…
Good thing we got that library pork barrel project squared away before coming to THIS little revelation.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
You don't understand the difference between a municipal tax and a state tax.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) says…
Education should have to participate in the Obama recession just like everyone else. Social justice has it's downside.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
Recession started with Bush, bro.
america f*** yeah!!!!!
Seriously though, you're a bad conservative. You don't have an American flag anywhere in your Avatar, nor an eagle.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
Don't you have some homework to do, bro?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Public educators are parasites upon society. They have to have their customers forcibly brought before them. They don't even teach kids the fundamentals very well anymore--I swear I almost threw up hearing one teacher talking about teaching the "whole child." Government run education makes about as much sense as government run media. Why wouldn't they take the opportunity to praise the state at every turn?
And BTW, they aren't short of money. Spending per student has significantly increased over the past 20 years, yet somehow now they have to cut programs and fire teachers that they could afford on less money in the past? Something smells, and it's coming from the administration building.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
What a strong and completely radical statement that is. Are social workers also evil?
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Some are, some aren't.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
So you only operate in absolutes about educators? What if I were a public teacher but a private tutor on the side?
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Nope. Read it again more carefully.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
You still sound like a jerk.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Maybe so, but when we've been inculcated our entire lives with lavish praise for all state employees--teachers, social workers, police officers, soldiers etc.--anyone who dares criticize this status quo is going to sound like harsh braying to the propaganda-saturated ear.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
You're right, I cannot open my mind up as far as you've opened yours, to see things in clearly defined, "the state is my enemy" ways.
There are no easy answers. Stop acting as though every government worker is some propaganda artist. They are people, like anyone else.
jimmyjms (anonymous) replies…
Yes, because blanket generalizations are indicative of strength of argument, right?
Dumb, de dumb dumb.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Kind of like how blanket criticisms are indicative of lack of anything substantive to say, right?
hartk678 (anonymous) replies…
Spending per students has, based on dollars alone, increased over the last 20 years. But certainly NOT "significantly." Adjusted for inflation (which most people's wages in the private sector are) schools are asked to do more now with less money than they had 20 years ago.
When the legislature set up the BSAPP system in 1992, the baseline was $3600/pupil. To have the same buying power in 2010, you'd need $5560/pupil today. A bit off from the $4012/pupil districts now receive. And in that time, the cost of everything has gone up. Especially the technology component which wasn't as present in 1992.
Though the formula is more complicated than this, for Lawrence (with more than 10,000 students), that's a difference of around $15,000,000. (5560-4012 x 10,000)
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Where are you getting your numbers because according to http://kansaseducation.wordpress.com/... spending is $12.660 per student today while it was $4,960 twenty years ago.
So actually, even adjusted for inflation, spending has *significantly* increased.
hartk678 (anonymous) replies…
http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/pdf/StFinanc...
We're talking BSAPP. That's just what comes from the state. The other $8000/pupil is what comes from the local communities and any federal dollars for programs for either low-income schools or for students with disabilities.
The local part is what spurred more than one lawsuit about the BSAPP funding because most western KS towns cannot supplement that state aid with local taxes like Johnson County can.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
OK, so your previous statement is incorrect. Funding has significantly gone up. You can't cherry-pick only one source of funding and say I'm wrong while ignoring inconvenient numbers.
hartk678 (anonymous) replies…
I can cherry pick. Because this article is about the BSAPP funding.
But if you want to talk overall, don't just use the averages for the entire state. They are widely skewed by the budgets and salaries of the NE KS districts.
It would be like looking at the average salaries of lawyers in, say, Illinois. And thinking that would reflect on lawyers working in small-town southern Illinois. The Chicago lawyer salaries would throw it off.
I don't have the data on this one, but I'd love to see the budgets from schools in 1990 for utilities, healthcare, (though I know you think teachers shouldn't be afforded that as any kind of perk), and technology and compare that to the same three budgets for 2010. My guess is that those three components alone (and the fact that, yes, teachers have been given some COL salary increases) would more than gobble up the extra money.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Your guess is quite convenient, kind of like your cherry-picked statistics. Your guess also ignores that, even adjusted for inflation, spending is way up. So your guess that rising prices have gobbled up the extra money seems rather unfounded.
whynaut (anonymous) replies…
Correction: public educators are underpaid parasites upon society.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
You mean overpaid. Average salary in Kansas is almost $50,000. Plus they get group life, group health, disability income, accidental death and dismemberment, and hospital surgical, and/or medical expense insurance. That's for nine months of work.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
It's increasingly not for nine months of work, first of all. School usually starts in early to mid August and dismisses near the end of May. That's almost 10 months. Benefits are irrelevant. They SHOULD get benefits. everyone needs insurance. Furthermore, they have to plan a curriculum and teach summer school, they have to maintain certifications, etc. It's not just some haphazard vacation every year for them. You think a teacher isn't worth $50,000, start a private school. Offer them less and see what kind of teachers you get, bud.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"That's almost 10 months"
They canceled spring break and fall recess and winter recess and MLK day and Labor day?
"they have to plan a curriculum and teach summer school,"
They stopped paying people extra to teach summer school?
"You think a teacher isn't worth $50,000, start a private school. Offer them less and see what kind of teachers you get, bud."
I think a good teacher is worth her weight in gold.
whynaut (anonymous) replies…
I once roofed houses with a teacher/baseball coach during the summer. Do you know how much a bundle of shingles weighs? About 90lbs. He only weighed about 130. Have you ever carried one up a ladder to a rooftop in a KS July? Not fun. Wonder why he would do that if he could just live parasitically off of his generous teaching salary.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Probably had a gambling problem. Or he was just making some extra money in his spare time. Either seems equally likely.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
What do they say when we assume?
geekyhost (anonymous) replies…
They didn't cancel them. They scheduled inservice for most of them, plus extra paperwork and planning days and continuing education credit work.
whynaut (anonymous) replies…
no it's not
MyName (anonymous) replies…
Yes, because clearly teaching young people how to read, write, and function in our democracy is a parasitic activity. Just like tapeworms.
Spending per student hasn't kept up with inflation, which is why they had that big court case to enforce the part of the state constitution that requires the legislature to fund education.
I mean seriously, the budgets are all a matter of public record. If there is fraud, or the money is just magically sitting somewhere in a pile and forgotten about, why don't you show the rest of us where it's at?
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
No, spending per student has *outpaced* inflation. Check your facts, I provided a link above.
And teaching people how to read and write would be great. If only our schools were focused on such fundamentals instead of teaching the "whole child."
"why don't you show the rest of us where it's at?"
It's going to a bunch of salaries of people we don't need. We don't need to spend that much on administrators.
thelonious (anonymous) replies…
Liberty_One says:
"Public educators are parasites upon society."
What a ridiculous, sad, and downright scary statement. Not to mention complete bunk.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Scary? What's scary is having the government control education. As far as being "bunk," sorry, but it is by definition true. Public education adds very little to society. They don't teach kids the fundamentals well anymore and are dumbing down society, not educating it.
thelonious (anonymous) replies…
Liberty_One says:
"Public education adds very little to society."
Wow. Keep talking. Perhaps you should run for office on the "public schoolteachers are parasites" and "public education adds very little to society" platform.
Good luck with that.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
I know. There's so much propaganda out there coming from the state the people are brainwashed to think that our schools are actually underfunded and that teachers actually do a good job. It's only because it's becoming so obvious that people are starting to notice what the real condition of public education is.
funkdog1 (anonymous) replies…
I have a child in public school right now. In kindergarten he was being taught what I was taught in first grade. In second grade, not only was he taught the third grade material I learned, he was even taught some basic algebra, which I did not see until seventh grade. I spend some time volunteering at the school and I have found several things to be true 1) there is nothing "fancy" at our public school. pretty much, the kids have access to basic learning materials. 2) the teachers and office people are, for the most part, exceedingly professional and good with the kids. 3) the kids themselves are bright and being taught a hell of a lot more than you and I were when we were in grade school.
Try walking into a public school and spending some time there before you spew your ridiculousness.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Wow, anecdotal evidence. That's convincing. By the way, I'm doing fine, so what's all this talk about a bad economy? Must be ridiculousness.
funkdog1 (anonymous) replies…
Let's see. Since my kid is one of 26, and the two other second grade classes are about the same size and being taught the same curriculum, that makes a sample size of around 78. There are studies run with fewer people. I also volunteer for all the grades in a school of around 500 kids. And, since the curriculum is basically the same across the entire Lawrence public school system, I would say that's more than "anecdotal" evidence. Are all the teachers fabulous? Of course not. Are all the kids at the same learning level? Of course not. Are all the school districts in the state equal? Of course not. Are there administrators being paid too much? Probably.
In this bad economy, 10% of people are out of work, not everyone. So indeed, is the bad economy ridiculousness?
I may have "anecdotal" evidence (if you call spending several hours in a grade school "anecdotal") but compared with what you have--which is nothing--I'd say that one of us is blowing hot air and it's not me.
Again: try walking into a school and spending some time there before you go spouting your worthless opinion.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Oh, ok, so to summarize you have lots of anecdotal evidence. And my opinion is worthless because I don't have anecdotal evidence. Got it.
thelonious (anonymous) replies…
Something smells alright...and it's coming from your keyboard.
pittstatebb (anonymous) replies…
Liberty_One - Please state your profession and we will take facts, twist them to our agenda and make statements about how your profession is a parasite on society.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Check the profile--I'm a ninja clown.
geekyhost (anonymous) replies…
My guess is "failed student." I can taste the bitter from here. Yikes.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
You are right. Public school failed me terribly. The pace was mind-numbingly slow and the material ridiculously easy. Only now do I realize that was the point. Public school isn't about education.
deskboy04 (anonymous) says…
I have a great deal of respect for the people who are working with our kids. Those kids are our hope for the future. I support people who are doing their best to make that future the brightest it can be.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Time to cut the budget
hartk678 (anonymous) replies…
It has been:
2008: http://kansasliberty.com/liberty-upda...
2009: http://blogs.kansas.com/gov/2009/11/2...
gogoplata (anonymous) replies…
Time to cut more.
Slaphappy (anonymous) says…
Are Kansas students being taught this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2...
catfishturkeyhunter (anonymous) says…
Id rather see the schools and education recieve more money than watching mine and everyone elses tax dollars wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to fund Obama's stupid trip to India.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
“… As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
-Frederic Bastiat.
llama726 (anonymous) replies…
Forgive me for picking on you, L1, but it's really tiresome to see you throw around the "socialist" label. Allow me to turn the tables on your quote for a moment.
"As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
And every time we object to a thing being done only by businesses, the free market radicals conclude that we object to private enterprise exclusively. There are few absolutes.
"We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education."
No. "Socialists," or slightly left leaning liberals as myself would never say that. That's because we know that you don't oppose private education for whoever can afford it, and everyone else can just deal with whatever scraps the wealthiest people want to leave for them.
The free market doesn't have a solution for getting every kid a chance at a decent education because the profit motive is insufficient to drive every service to the level which would be most beneficial to the most people. The government isn't the exclusive solution either. Then again, I can't get that through to the free market radical's head, can I? There can be no middle ground. Either we have a free market with no restriction or we have socialism.
"We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all."
I don't think it's the liberals (or as you seem to think, socialists) in the US demand that you follow a state religion. Bad example, but part of the quote, ok.
"We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on."
How does the free market promote equality? By opposing accommodating handicapped people. By opposing desegregation. Need I go on? Businesses do what they do as long as it's profitable or convenient to their worldview. And don't spout the "motivated consumers" line, because people already don't care where their products come from, so it's not as though they'll take the time to go out of their way, sacrificing their own convenience to further causes like I mentioned.
"It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
What you're saying is that you want people to eat as long as they can afford the grain. Now, if their employer decides to terminate their employment, you'd rather they not have any free grain. Meaning, you want them to eat, but the invisible hand of the market allows you to cede any responsibility when that person starves to death. They played the game and lost, right? I wish life were that black-and-white, but regrettably, it is not.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"The free market doesn't have a solution for getting every kid a chance at a decent education because the profit motive is insufficient to drive every service to the level which would be most beneficial to the most people"
Wrong. Today even the poorest enjoy luxuries that royalty had no access to before. The market constantly drives prices down. The best way to get rich is to sell to the masses since there's a lot more of them. Education was becoming cheaper and cheaper until the government got involved. In fact that was one of the major complaints of educators--they were being forced by competition to lower their prices so they demanded that the state intervene. Just look at medical education. If you wanted just the basics so you could practice as a country doctor, there were tons of medical schools that were cheap which would teach you the basics in a short period of time. They lobbied the government complaining that there was too many doctors and thus the competition was driving the price of medical care down (oh the horror!). The states starting requiring medical schools to be licensed, creating a state-enforced oligopoly and driving up the cost of medical school and lowering the number of doctors so they could charge more too. The free market brings prices down. Color TVs were once a luxury item only the well-off could afford. Just the other day I saw a 32 inch TV sitting next to the garbage dumpster at my apartment complex--nobody even took it because it's not a flat-screen HD TV so nobody wanted it. This is what the free-market does--if allowed to operate education would be so cheap that anyone with the will to learn could.
"How does the free market promote equality? "
Because of competition. It's exactly because consumers don't care where their products come from, as long as they are cheap. They don't care who makes them at all. $$ matter more to consumers and employers than race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
"you'd rather they not have any free grain"
Wrong again. I'd rather they not have any stolen grain. The government does not give away free anything. It confiscates resources from one group and redistributes them to another.
"the invisible hand of the market allows you to cede any responsibility when that person starves to death. "
Wow, what a perfect example of what Bastiat was talking about. Contrary to what you assume, I don't cede responsibility at all. It's YOU who are ceding responsibility. YOU want the government to steal from your neighbor to help out the poor so YOU don't have to. I believe it is my *personal* responsibility to help people out in need. I have given food to people that I made myself. I have given rides to handicapped people and helped people move. You're doing exactly what Bastiat was talking about. Just because I don't want the government to do something doesn't mean I don't want it to be done.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
If you feel a responsibility to help people, why do you object to paying taxes that go towards the same end?
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Because it's immoral to steal from one person to give to another. The ends do not justify the means.
Plus let's be realistic and admit that the government spends a lot of my tax money on killing people and throwing people in jail for non-crimes, buying votes, bailing out well-connected corporations etc.
newmedia (anonymous) says…
Only in Liberalville does a freeze on spending become a cut!
jafs (anonymous) replies…
That's because the school funding was previously cut, and if spending freezes, then that cut remains in effect.