Here are the immediate articles from the Pulse Journal talking about the two big levy issues ofLebanon and Little Miamifresh off the defeat announcements.
By Richard Wilson, Staff Writer Updated 10:23 PM Tuesday, May 3, 2011
LEBANON – Voters soundly rejected a proposed tax to support Lebanon schools Tuesday, forcing officials to consider laying off teachers and cutting services.
With 100 percent of precincts counted, the numbers show 4,105 voters, or 56 percent, voted against the levy, while 3,202 voters, or 44 percent, were for it, according to final, unofficial results from the Warren County Board of Elections.
The defeat means the district could return to the ballot later this year with a similar proposal. If no new revenue is approved for next year, officials will be looking at cutting $6.5 million out of the district’s annual $44 million budget.
“We just lost by a pretty good margin. The results speak clearly. We have a lot of work ahead of us,” said Lebanon schools Superintendent Mark North.
As part of the defeated tax proposal, the district planned to make permanent annual cuts to the budget of $500,000, effective next school year. North said those cuts, primarily classroom teaching positions being eliminated through attrition, will still be made.
North said he and Treasurer Eric Sotzing have already recommended to the board to return to the ballot if the levy was rejected. North said Tuesday’s results did not change that recommendation.
“We can’t keep a district operating with cuts that would amount to $6.5 million,” he said.
Lebanon schools is not far behind what led to the demise of its neighbor, Little Miami schools, which is in state receivership because of an annual deficit of millions of dollars. Lebanon schools is projected to run out of cash reserves and be operating at a deficit by 2013.
That’s a scary thought for many voters, like Bryan Pennix, a district parent who is a teacher at Blanchester schools.
“I’d like for the schools not to go in the toilet,” Pennix said after exiting the polls. “If Little Miami folds, Blanchester will have to absorb some of those students. I’d hate for Lebanon to head down that path. I think the no voters are shortsighted on what that could do to a community.”
After exiting the polls at the Praise and Worship Center on Miller Road, Gary Conger of Lebanon said he voted against the proposal. He said school salaries are too high and district leaders have shown poor fiscal management.
“They need to work with the funds they got. The administrators are making too much money,” he said.
Voters narrowly defeat Little Miami levy
By Richard Wilson, Staff Writer Updated 9:50 PM Tuesday, May 3, 2011
HAMILTON TWP. — Voters narrowly rejected Issue 2 – a five year, 13.95-mill operating levy to support the Little Miami Local School District, according to early, unofficial results from the Warren County Board of Elections.
With 100 percent of precincts counted, the preliminary numbers show 51 percent voted against the levy, while 49 percent voted in favor of it.
The levy would have enabled the district to resolve its debt, balance the budget and eventually emerge from state receivership. Additional taxes would be necessary to bring back eliminated staff positions, reduced services, like high school busing, or to reopen any of three shuttered elementary buildings, school officials have said.
The school district has been forced by the state oversight commission to reduce services and staffing to state operating standards, amounting to more than $8 million being cut from the annual budget since 2008. Tuesday’s results mean the district has experienced its eighth consecutive defeat of a proposed new tax. The district is likely to return to the ballot later this year, as the key factor determining Little Miami’s future is getting a levy approved, according to the state commission’s financial recovery plan.
In 1944, FDR was fulfilling a long sought after promise of progressives, which his cousin Teddy Roosevelt helped begin, to create a better, more fair world, which were a direct play-book from socialist thought. FDR like his cousin, whom I admire because of his energy and intelligence, suffered from a desire for power, and a belief that he was one of the elites that were enamored by God to help the less-fortunate.
Here is FDR reading his Second Bill of Rights from 1944. Just like a king from a far away land, he consults his subjects in a similar manner, which is fundamentally an incorrect American philosophy. Unfortunately, for those in society that have a tendency to be skittish by nature, socialism is an attractive idea because they naturally lack courage. Those are the kind of people who embraced FDR and his New Deal policies.
“The Economic Bill of Rights”
Excerpt from President Roosevelt’s January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[1]:
“ It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
Cass Sunstein is working toward a different kind of America. People like me completely reject what Cass proposes.
This is a video from Cass Sunstein during 2006, long before he was Obama’s regulatory tzar. He is exactly why the FDR’s Second Bill of Rights would never work, because people like Cass are weak-kneed intellectuals that would rather have price fixes instead of allowing competition to drive the market.