In the meantime, certain members of the legislature would be well served to read the WSJ piece, Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich.

As the title implies, the column focuses on the consequences for states that solve their budget gaps by raising taxes on the “rich.”

Here’s the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.

That’s the bottom line, but there’s also data to back that claim up.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

There is so much more.  I recommend reading the whole piece, especially if you happen to be in the Vermont legislature.  It’s really not that long.

Here’s another excerpt, just in case you don’t read the whole thing.

We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.

But that would never happen here, would it?

(Hat tip: Ace of Spades.  I also saw this linked over at Vermont Tiger.)

I just have to say, first, I hate this issue.  I wish it would just go away – and it would, if the left didn’t want to keep it around to scare people into voting against the scary Republicans.*

That said, my core beliefs, which are more libertarian conservative than traditionalist conservative, keep me from supporting laws that favor the moral values of one group over another, unless the law is needed to protect the rights of others.

My husband and I have had this debate over and over, where I say, laws should not be based on my moral beliefs, and he reminds me that all laws are based on someone’s moral beliefs.  Why shouldn’t we fight for ours?

Well, because two wrongs don’t make a right.

At the same time, I end up living under laws that reflect someone else’s forced morality.

And those people are a bunch of intolerant bigots, guided by fear, if I could borrow their language for a moment.

Merriam-Webster defines bigot as: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

I would say that this reflects the attitudes coming from the left regarding conservative Christians, no?

The problem with being libertarian these days is that no one else is, not enough people to prevent our rights from being trampled, anyway.

So, I realize that, even though I believe in the biblical definition of marriage, not everyone does, but everyone deserves the same legal protections.

In return, Vermont is one step closer to silencing Bible-believing Christians and forcing them to violate their religious beliefs – and they are giddy about it.

Over at my favorite blog of tolerance, Green Mountain Daily, people were spouting off about the idiot-bigot-moron opposition to same-sex marriage, because, of course, anyone who disagrees with them has no good argument, where someone said that no one has been harmed by same-sex marriage.

I pointed out that the Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to adopt children to gay couples after Massachusetts passed a gay marriage law, so they closed their doors.  I would consider that harm.  The state should not force a religious organization to violate its beliefs.  Then there are all of the children who were harmed by the closing of an organization known for finding homes for difficult-to-adopt children.

But Freedom of Religion is just one of those unimportant little freedoms that was merely listed in the First Amendment.  It’s not like the Freedom to Marry, which is made up, or the Freedom from Intolerance, which is a farce.

Besides,

That’s not being negatively affected by same sex marriage, that’s being negatively affected by bigotry.

Ah, the magical B-word that shuts down all disagreement as invalid.  If they just agreed with me, they wouldn’t have had their rights violated.

Then there’s this,

To me, this is an example of the problem with Church structure.  The staff and board of Catholic Charities recognized that gay people often make great adoptive parents.  Yet their experience and judgment is not respected because in the Catholic Church power flows one way from the top down, and not much common sense flows with it.

See!  It’s not the rights-violating actions of a state that refuses to recognize the freedom of religion we are supposed to have in this country; it’s that pesky church!  If only it would use some common sense and abandon its centuries-old beliefs.

At least there are some straight shooters, who are willing to lay it all out,

Here’s the problem: religious beliefs, if granted unconditional freedom, will inevitably be used as a justification to infringe the freedoms of those who do not share them.

I see, so let’s just beat them to the punch and infringe on religious freedom.

That gem was accompanied by this enlightening quote, “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”  Beautiful.

So this is what we face.  I guess that’s what I get for supporting other people’s rights, huh?  I get a nice big, thanks, but now we have to continue on with our war against your beliefs.

Let me bottom line this rant, no one has a right to be accepted.  You just don’t.  The law should not be used to force people to approve of your lifestyle, even if you claim you were born that way.

Live and let live needs to work both ways.

Frankly, I am pretty pissed about this.  I am sick and tired of the left going on about freedom, when all the while they have no respect for freedom; they just want their way.  But when it comes to someone else’s freedom, they couldn’t care less about protecting it.  In fact, they want to restrict it.

My only consolation is knowing that there will be a lot more people lining up to fight back, including me.  We might have supported your pursuit of legal rights, but we are not on your side in your crusade to suppress religious freedom.

.

*The Democrats – who control Congress, and have – could make civil unions federally recognized and force gently persuade the states, by threatening to withhold money, to offer civil unions.  With equal legal protection, gay marriage would be wholly unnecessary.  This is a compromise that would give both sides most of what they want.

I woke up thinking about a post on this topic, but life called me away from the blog today.  As it turns out, Emerson Lynn’s Same Sex Marriage: The Conservative Case reflects some of what I was going to say and what I think is the strongest point.

The crux of the issue is one of social stability. Marriage connotes commitment. The more couples that seek that commitment, the more stable we are as a society. The greater the barriers to that commitment, the less stable we are. That has been conservative dogma for eons.

Thus, the more couples that marry, the more stable we become. If that is accepted, then it also follows that same-sex couples would add to society’s stability, not subtract. That should be something conservatives embrace.

And of course, this point,

The opposition has always been that gay marriage would do harm to one of society’s most fundamental social institutions. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Gays have not done any harm to the institution, heterosexuals have.

I don’t have time to lay out my thoughts on this issue, so for now, a link to Mr. Lynn’s piece will have to do.

The latest word from Education Commissioner Armando Vilaseca is that the change would require the approval of the legislature (since the proceedure for homeschooling is dictated by a very detailled statute), so nothing will be done this year.

This is not over, though.  The new commissioner does want to take a look at ways to streamline the home study enrollment process.  We should expect a proposal next year.

That’s what we do.  Well, we don’t cut positions in our family, but we do cut out expenses.  It’s amazing how things I think I can’t live without one year go on the chopping block the next.

The Times-Argus had an article the other day about the cuts, specifically focused, at least titularly, on the St. Johnsbury prison closing.  But there was something else tucked in there that caught my eye.

According to the article,  “Some of the proposed cuts rely on shifting responsibilities to local communities, the federal government and other organizations.”  One of those proposed shifts is “having local school districts oversee the state’s home school program.”

Currently, the state Department of Education has a full-time, year-round Home Study Office.  There is a small staff (three, I think) that deals with homeschooling parents’ questions and approves enrollment applications.

Just as a side here, for those of you who don’t know about homeschooling in Vermont, every year, parents need to send in enrollment packets with the curriculum for the coming year and an assessment of the prior year, as well as some other administrative stuff.  The Home Study Office reads through all of this information and determines whether or not the parents are meeting the legal requirements for homeschooling, providing an education in the six subject areas required by statute (which applies to all schools, public, private, and home) at the age and ability-level of the child.

The Home Study Office costs between $250,000 and $300,000 per year.  There are over 2,000 families enrolled in the home study program.  (There are also families who homeschool without enrolling.)

Now, normally I am a fan of local control.  I am not a supporter of centralized government.  I believe strongly that when the people making the decisions that affect your life can see you, as opposed to a bureaucracy that only knows you as a name or number, it is usually better.  They have to see the consequences of their actions as they impact real people in their community.

For every rule, there is an exception, and this is one exception.  I will give you three reasons why this is a bad idea, followed by a couple of solutions. (Bolded, for easy skimming!)

The way our education funding system is set up, the local schools have a financial incentive to have homeschool students return to the schools. The funding they receive from the state is based on number of pupils.  For every homeschooled student, they lose money from the state.

In contrast, the state saves money for every homeschooled student.  The state pays block grants per pupil.  Fewer pupils means less money going out.

There is a conflict of interest when the body charged with approving homeschool enrollments has a financial interest in seeing homeschooling fail. That alone is a good reason to keep the approval process with the state.

Another concern, as a homeschooling parent, is that the public schools, in general, will be less understanding of homeschooling, why people do it, how it is beneficial, and that it is okay to do learning differently than it is done in a classroom. Whereas most homeschooling parents allow for their children to learn in an unconventional way, most school personnel have doubts about those methods, despite the success rate of homeschooling.

A third reason this is a bad idea is that there will be an uneven application of the law.  This is the case in Massachusetts, where the local school districts oversee homeschooling.  The oversight varies from a simple letter of notification required in some places to a detailed list of all materials that are going to be used and proof that the parent is qualified to teach requested in other districts.

I inquired with the school district where my parents-in-law live (in Mass.) and the packet they sent me asked for all kinds of  detailed, privacy-violating information that went way beyond ensuring that the children were receiving an education.

My solution would be to cut the Home Study Office and not replace it with anything. My longtime readers know that I advocate an “innocent until proven guilty” approach that assumes parents are educating their children and not abusing them, unless there is reason to investigate.  Our current law assumes we all need a thorough annual investigation.

Ideally, the law should only require a notification be sent to the local school that the child will be home schooled.  Parents should still be required to provide an education in the six subject areas required by law and to assess the child’s progress annually using the currently accepted methods.  Except, instead of sending these to the state (or a local school) to be reviewed, the parents should keep them on file, to be turned over in the event of an investigation prompted by a concern over neglect.

Obviously, that won’t happen.  Parents are not trusted with the rearing of their own children without government intervention these days.

Besides, Armando Vilaseca, the Commissioner of the VT Dept. of Ed., already told homeschoolers he cannot support notification only with no oversight.

Okay, so my real solution is to do nothing.  Keep the system the way it is. The local school districts are not equipped to handle home study enrollment reviews – most are not well-versed in the complexities of the law – and this “unfunded mandate” could cost the local schools more than it saves the state.

Again, this is an idealistic solution.  Commissioner Vilaseca has expressed support for local oversight.  Given that he is charged with finding positions to cut in the Department of Education, my guess is that this will go forward.

If the state is determined to cut the Home Study Office, it is important that homeschooling parents have an alternative to the local school available. In New Hampshire, parents can have their enrollment reviewed by the public school, a private school (which usually charges a fee), or the state.

We need a fail-safe in place if we are faced with a school district that is hostile to homeschooling.  It is unfair to parents to subject them to an unevenly applied law, enforced by an entity with a financial stake in seeing them denied their right to homeschool, without providing options for relief.

Update: Nothing will be done this year.

Yet, there are those who refuse to come to the table and instead seek to marginalize Vermont Tiger’s events as partisan.  This is not only a pathetic ploy for their own partisan gain, but it is also highly detrimental to Vermont’s economic future.

I hope that those individuals will be the ones who are marginalized and that the discussions will continue and action will follow.

Let’s be clear about the definition of partisan.  To be partisan is to be concerned with the power of a specific political party.  That is not what Vermont Tiger is.

Vermont Tiger is only concerned with Vermont’s economic future, which is dismal at best, unless we change course.

Here is an illustration of what the symposium was all about, from Candace Page of the Burlington Free Press.

Successful economic development in the 21st century is built around high-quality universities in places where interest groups can put aside their differences to focus on making the right public and private investments, two national high-tech leaders said at a conference Monday.

“We can bake more bread, or fight over the crumbs,” Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group told a group of about 80 Vermont businesspeople. He ascribed his region’s high-tech success in large part to the presence of government-supported, world-class universities and a strong community college system.

How partisan.

We can either bake more bread, or we can fight over the crumbs.  Or we can bake more bread, while some of you complain about how partisan bread-baking is.

I have no doubt that you will still show up for the crumbs, but wouldn’t you like to be a part of the baking?

I will not have my laptop with me, but I will be sure to fill you in later.

I will send updates to Twitter via cell phone.  I’m @shesright, if you want to follow.  There is also a widget showing my last three Twitter updates in the right-most side bar of this site.

I will not be available to approve comments today, but people who have had a previously approved comment will have their comments posted right away, provided they use the same e-mail address as before.

I have no idea why it took me so long to post this.  I have been looking forward to it for two weeks now.

Why should you care? I have two words for you – Megan McArdle.

Ms. McArdle is the most awesome libertarian economics blogger from the blog Asymmetrical Information, currently housed at The Atlantic.  And she is giving the closing address, entitled, (Blogo)spheres of Influence.

Okay, there is another reason you should go.

This timely and essential event will feature three speakers with the experience and credentials to address the economic challenges that Vermont faces and must overcome in the next months and years. These speakers – and panels of prominent Vermonters – will explore strategies for surviving the recession and for promoting economic development, growth, and prosperity in the Green Mountain State.

Vermont Tiger has all the info prominently located at the top of the sidebar on the right of the site.

Register now (before Jan. 26) and save $20.

You can bet She’s Right will be there.

Whether they loved him or hated him, Vermont political junkies of all kinds read Inside Track, his political column in Seven Days, religiously to get the latest dirt.

Philip Baruth over at Vermont Daily Briefing has a warm tribute.  Go on and have a read.

Peter will be remembered fondly by many.  He was the kind of guy who, even if his column left you saying words I can’t repeat here, you couldn’t help but like when you met him in person.

May he rest in peace.