My last post responding to charter school criticisms elicited even more criticisms, so it’s time for another installment in the series. The following ideas have been expressed in the comments on this blog and around the Internet. I’ve included my arguments in favor of charters:
Charter schools need to prove they’re good enough before they receive [...]

My last post responding to charter school criticisms elicited even more criticisms, so it’s time for another installment in the series. The following ideas have been expressed in the comments on this blog and around the Internet. I’ve included my arguments in favor of charters:
Charter schools need to prove they’re good enough before they receive [...]

The Wall Street Journal ran an excellent editorial yesterday, by Brendan Miniter, pointing out that school choice has become a bipartisan issue. It’s inexcusable to leave children trapped in public school systems that are failing them, and an increasingly large number of politicians of every ideological stripe are working together to bring about real educational [...]

Foster’s editorial page weighs in on the New Hampshire Senate’s budget, and its decision to tax New Hampshire businesses during a recession:

New Hampshire’s reputation as a state with a business-friendly environment is at risk. It might mean a slower recovery from the recession than was previously thought. We may be in for many more months of hard times. And it is all because of an irresponsible legislative proposal.

The Senate Finance Committee wants the Legislature to suspend the business enterprise tax credit. Why? Because members of the committee and others in the Senate and House are afraid to engage in common sense government — afraid to attack the $11.5 billion budget for 2010 and 2011 from the spending side. The lawmakers have turned to what they see as an easy escape from the budget woes created by runaway spending and overestimations of revenues.

Tom Fahey reports in his Under the State House Dome column in the Union Leader that Governor John Lynch is looking to expand the Real Estate Transfer Tax to cover not only when you sell your house, but also when you refinance:

The basic idea is to pull refis into the existing tax, and to lower the current 1.5 percent tax rate. Eleven other states already have a similar tax in place. It’s not clear if the proposal will be ready by the time the Senate meets to vote on a budget plan on Wednesday.

Another idea in the wings is to look closely at limited liability corporations, which can be structured to escape business taxes on big payouts to owners.

The Senate Finance Committee directed the Department of Revenue Administration to comb through tax laws to find every little hole a potential taxpayer could slip through and find a patch. Lynch spokesman Colin Manning said the refi tax idea is one result of the DRA’s work. (Emphasis added)

The change would hot homeowners who look to refinance in order to get a better rate, but also those who add a second mortgage to pay for college or starting a business, or anyone who takes out a home equity loan to fix up the homestead.

It looks like any money you keep in your pocket is now being treated by the Governor and Senate Finance Committee as a little hole that you’ve slipped through.

Imagine is they put this much effort into cutting spending in a recession as they did to looking for ways to get more money out of taxpayers.

The Union Leader editorial page looks at how the House and Senate set budget priorities, and is not impressed:

Last Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee passed a budget that could be balanced only with the addition of new revenues. Its members also increased taxes and fees, but replaced the revenue generated by the House’s not-yet-existent new taxes with revenue generated by not-yet-existent slot-machine casinos.

Each of these budgets is based upon the Dan Eaton Principle. During the House budget debate, Republicans objected to the leadership’s plan to pass a spending bill first, then go for the tax hikes needed to pay for it. They said, reasonably, that the state should budget like families do, by first determining how much money is available, then deciding how to allocate it. House Majority Leader Eaton rebuffed the criticisim with an aphorism: “It makes sense to know how much you’re spending before you decide how much money to raise.”

Arnold Kling, whose writing on health care is fantastic, takes a look at the stimulus package as it’s being implemented. Kling aruges that aside from the pork projects and bad decisions, the basic structure of this stimulus package is counter-productive:

As we know, most of the stimulus spending does not take place until next year and beyond, so the short-run gains are puny. On the other hand, the big increase in the projected deficit creates the expectation of higher interest rates, which raises interest rates now. These higher interest rates serve to weaken the economy.

According to this standard analysis, the stimulus is going to hurt GDP now, when we could use the most help. Much of the spending will kick in a year or more from now, with multiplier effects following afterward, when the economy will need little, if any, stimulus.

This is the flaw with using spending rather than tax cuts as a stimulus. The lags are longer when you use spending.

Mark Tapscott looks at the White House’s growing frustration with criticism of the stimulus package, and the Administration’s moves to shut people up:

A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus projects has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It’s a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

“Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

“Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.”