School spending: The exemption ruse
Pennsylvania's so-called restrictions on school districts' tax hikes are a sad, cruel joke on taxpayers, who certainly aren't laughing.
The state Department of Education has OK'd 199 districts hiking property taxes for 2012-13 without seeking voters' approval.
It granted them exemptions from a 2006 law that requires referendums for tax hikes above a state-set level. And it did so despite 10 previously "valid" exemption reasons being reduced to three for 2012-13 -- construction debt, special education and pension costs.
Never mind that any overall shortfall can be portrayed as a threat to one of those three items because money's fungible, as the Allegheny Institute's Jake Haulk points out. Or that self-serving, taxpayer-shafting interests that have long driven public education's gravy train continue their predictable "draconian cuts" rhetoric, as the Commonwealth Foundation notes.
What's most outrageously puzzling is that a state government controlled by Republicans allows this "exemptions" charade to go on. Where's the legislation to protect taxpayers -- who elected them -- by ending it?
On school taxes, Republicans in Harrisburg must practice what they preach -- and ensure that state education officials do, too.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.