April 11, 2009 Referendum on Sales Tax Increase in Hamblen County

The committee to increase the local sales tax in Hamblen County from 9.5% to 9.75% was formed on Monday.

If enough money has been raised or if the Tribune extends credit, the Win The Vote sales tax increase committee will probably have a big ad in the Tribune tomorrow asking Hamblen County voters to support the sales tax increase from 9.5% to 9.75%. Letters or postcards may follow. Then students, school employees, or parents passing out literature at work, sending e-mails, and going door-to-door.

We may see an original editorial--unlike the typical Tribune editorial that has been copied from some other paper. There will probably be an onslaught of letters to the editor and the proverbial Tribune "series" of articles on schools and the sales tax--all with the Tribune's and School Board's classic pro-tax stance.

You can blame this third push for a sales tax increase directly on the City of Morristown. In the first (countywide) sales tax referendum in February 2008, the City tried to get city votes by promising a city property tax decrease. The city and county both noted that part of the money would go to education--- "for the children." David Purkey and Stancil Ford prepared and signed letters on county stationery that were sent out to county voters. That referendum failed.

Despite the setback, the City was determined to get a sales tax increase approved despite the initial setback. So the City held a second referendum--just for city voters--again promising city voters that the City's 2007 historic 40% property tax increase would be rolled back to a 25% increase if the sales tax referendum was approved. Letters were sent out by Mayor Barile and the council saying in no uncertain terms vote "Yes." Sort of like the county's "pick-your poison" wheel tax referendum in 2002. The citywide referendum passed.

City voters reduced one poison (property tax) by voting for an increase in another poison (sales tax). Then the City--which had joined in expressing passionate concern for education in the first referendum--decided to keep ALL of the sales tax instead of voluntarily contributing part of its sales tax increase to "the children."

In this third sales tax referendum, the county is pushing to make the city's sales tax increase countywide---just as it would have been had the first countywide referendum passed. The county is NOT offering any roll back in property taxes to county voters.

The city and county have orchestrated a two-prong approach to force/extort/blackmail voters into finally approving, in effect, a countywide sales tax increase. The City went first and offered a property tax reduction to finally get the sales tax increase passed in the city. The County is going second and, if the tax passes, city, county, and school officials will have gotten what each wanted all along--more tax money.

With the never-ending push for more money, where is the plan describing exactly how additional money will be spent, what improved educational outcomes will be realized, how much test scores will rise, how student literacy will be improved, or how much graduation rates will go up?

From the Win the Vote committee: This is about "the children." The answer to all school woes is money, more money, and still more money.

From the taxpayers: We love the children. The answer to all school woes is NOT money. And can you tell us how much taxpayer money will be enough? Just a ballpark figure will be OK. 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%?

March 14, 2007 Robbing Peter To Pay Paul

Monday's committee meetings were fascinating. It's a real shame that Hamblen County commissioners don't tape and show committee meetings on the cable TV government/education channels.

$1.5 million was given to the school system for architects to do studies and draw plans as decisions are made about what to do at East and West High.

The vote was 12-1. Larry Baker cast the only "no" vote because of concern that the school board plans to tear down the historic old portion of East High. Guy Collins was absent.

Joe Swann made the motion to give the money. Later, a few people realized and reminded Joe that when you spend money, you do have to know where it's going to come from and you do have to include that information in your motion.

And just where is the money coming from? An "inter-fund loan." That's sort of government-speak for robbing Peter to pay Paul on a temporary basis. In this case, though, it's more like robbing Peter to pay Paul and then getting Pansy to pay it back.

Confused? Here goes: The plan is to get the $1.5 million for the schools (Paul) in the form of a "loan" from the Garbage Fund (Peter). Then the Debt Fund (Pansy) will pay off all this newly-acquired Garbage Fund "debt"--debt that wasn't ever really Garbage Fund debt anyway.

The Garbage Fund is just acting as a "middleman" or broker (no pun intended) to funnel the money out of the debt fund.

No one ever asked why the school board had been depleting its School Fund Balance year after year instead of planning for these costs. A few questions came up about maintenance because most people realize that the problems the school board is talking about didn't happen overnight and that millions will have to be spent to fix it all. No answers---just a statement that Maintenance is great.

Joe Swann did manage to rankle several feathers as he blamed the county commission for the problems at East High! Someone get out the coffee and give Joe and everybody else a big whiff.

It's the School Board that is charged with maintenance of the schools and that is responsible for the health and safety of the children.

This is the first time that the school board has come to commission with a request for money to address these problems.

Now I can hardly wait to hear that good fiscal planning has reduced the county's $40 million debt load over the past 7-8 years so that we are in a position to take on new debt without a tax increase!

Don't hold your breath on that one....