 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Newsweek Has Blood On Its Hands | Main | John Jay's A Blogger Now » May 16, 2005A Taxing TaleI don't normally blog about local Nashville issues, but this story in today's Tennessean about the possibility of a tax increase just reeks with pro-tax increase bias. By the week, the increase is $4.33 — about the cost of a fancy cup of coffee at Starbucks. That perspective on a tax increase is exactly what Metro needs as it decides whether to pay more money for schools, said Jim Pfeiffer, a parent whose children attend schools in Bellevue.The Starbucks dig alone tells you this story is going to come from the perspective that the tax increase is small and the wealthy folks of Nashville's nicer neighborhoods can easily afford it. But the reporter never considers the plight of taxpayers who can't afford to cough up another $4.33 a week. Nashville has many neighborhoods filled with people like that. Nor does the reporter bother to find another resident to counter the statements of Pfeiffer, a resident who is clearly pro-tax increase and whose statements frame and fill the story. Instead, she let's him make statements like this: "When will Grandma understand that her little condo has doubled in value … because we're not living next to a factory?" Pfeiffer said. "We're living in a neighborhood that has good schools. That's what drives real estate value."When will Pfieffer understand that Grandma may will be living on fixed income, and that while living in a neighborhood with rising property values may be a good thing for upwardly mobile folks like Pfieffer, it is a curse for fixed-income Grandmas every four years when the city reappraises property values, automatically adjusting taxes upward for anyone whose property value rose faster than the city average. And it is a double curse for those fixed-income Grandmas because right after reappraisal the Nashville government usually increases the property tax rates. Could The Tennessean have found a fixed-income Grandma to counter Mr Pfieffer's condescending arrogance? Sure. Why didn't they? Because doing so would undermine the case the paper is trying to make in favor of raising property taxes. The reporter gives the game away at the end of the story when she quotes the insufferable Mr. Pfieffer one more time: Pfeiffer hopes other parents, school board members, council members and constituent groups keep the conversation on the high road. He's dismayed, for example, by recent claims from some people that education advocates are using the plight of children as a "human shield" to prevent meaningful scrutiny of the proposed school budgets.This from a guy who earlier in the story questioned the intelligence of Grandmas who might now want to pay more taxes. Does The Tennessean quote any opponents of the proposed tax increase? No. Does it identify who is "ramping" up the rhetoric? No. Ironically, it helps Pfieffer do exactly what those critics he decries claim tax increase supporters are trying to do - use children to shield the tax increase proposal from real scrutiny. Posted in Nashville
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
Exactly so. When I read the article this morning I thought, "Where did they get this guy?" It's the same old song just a different record company. They want to grease the skids before announcing a "minor" increased tax rate for "the children". Where is the intersection between government and private school costs per student? Eventually it has to be cheaper to contract out educations to private schools. Vouchers? Politicians are shrewd when it comes to taxes. They know just how much and where to squeeze before the taxed begin to let them know it hurts. They back off and squeeze again somewhere else before you have a chance to recover. $4 a week for coffee doesn't sound like much. But when citizens are forced to buy a cup for every program from the Feds down to the local dog catcher they wonder if government has become too caffeine dependent. Posted by: the frog gigger at May 16, 2005 09:42 AMI admit to being taken aback by that Starbucks bit in the Tennessean article. They are clearly editorializing. What does Starbuck's coffee have to do with anything? Posted by: brittney at May 16, 2005 11:06 AMWe shouldn't be surprised. Ms. Long wrote this story because Councilman Eric Crafton did some research. According to the School Board's own numbers, Crafton found out that we have enough teachers on the payroll to have 9 kids per class. How many kids are in your child's class? Additionally, since 1975 Metro has 12,750 FEWER students and has managed to increase annual spending by $180 million(inflation adjusted) dollars. Faced with these facts, the Tennessean decides to find some way to make the increase seem small, rather than addressing the facts. I am still waiting for someone to answer my question: If we have 12,750 fewer students than we did in 1975, why are we building new schools? Posted by: Hombredepollos at May 16, 2005 11:25 AMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
