Examining the Democrats one campaign at a time... Here's some lies and facts related to Democrat promises and mud-slinging regarding education and funding for same, in this case looking directly at the Maryland Governor's campaign, but the issues relate to races in other areas as well.
The Democratic National Campaign Committee and their friends (the candidate(s)) in Maryland are continuing to bombard residents of Maryland on behalf of those friends (the candidate(s)) -- most especially one Mayor Martin O'Malley -- in the hopes of helping to get them elected.
In the case of O'Malley, who (as noted previously) is running against current (incumbent) Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich, the campaign ads are screaming about the "fact" that Ehrlich raised college tuition 40%.
Lets examine this a bit more carefully though.
Lie #1 - Ehrlich never raised any tuition. Huh? How is that possible. Well, like idiots that try to blame the national budget deficit or any other ills on any one man (normally President George W. Bush), the fact is that Ehrlich has no direct control over tuition rates. His budget may influence tuition rates if he doesn't allocate the requested amount of state money towards the colleges and universities, but again he has no direct influence over tuition rates which are set individually by the colleges and universities, their board of regents/directors, and the persons in direct charge of same.
Lie #2 - though the campaign ads talk about a 40% number and toss about the "good name" of The Washington Post, the facts are that the increases in tuition that might, just might, be attributable back to Ehrlich's actions happened over a series of years, not just one year. In that same time other colleges and universities in other states were doing the exact same thing -- raising tuition and other costs -- to cover their own increasing costs. Either way, the facts are that the increases happened slowly, 12% in one year, 15% the next, etc. Outpacing the inflation rate, but never a direct 40% increase. Compounded over the years the total would be approximately 40%, but in that same time frame inflation increased approximately 12 - 15% total (if not more).
Lie #3 - O'Malley and his friends complain that Ehrlich has not given a priority to education spending in the state and his budgets have resulted in children having to go to school in trailers, rather than in classrooms that additional spending would supposedly help get built faster. Actually this should be lie #3a, and lie #3b, but they are both related. Ehrlich has given education the same level of priority in his budgets that his predecessors have, if not an even higher level. He's been required by law to elevate spending on education and he's met those requirements. To say otherwise is an outright lie.
On the second part of the complaint/campaign ad charge the facts just don't support the claims either. While it's true that Ehrlich hasn't provided the levels of funding that have been requested, the fact is that the state can't simply open up the wallet and write blank checks to cover building for schools and classrooms in the state. The facts are that the state has added residents (gee, I wonder where they've all been coming from?!? Illegal immigration, an issue that Ehrlich has tried to slow and get some support on while being stymied by local executives like Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, along with the Democrat controlled Maryland state legislature) through people immigrating into the state, others moving into the state, and residents that have have children in a boom that has outpaced building of all types -- schools, hospitals, police and other emergency workers, and homes too -- have left the state of Maryland facing the same problems that many other states that are seeing rapid growth in populace have faced. You simply can't build as quickly as some school systems would need to handle the influx of students that they are faced with. If you do build the new classrooms and other facilities, in just a few short years you find that the residents that used to live in an area have all moved elsewhere as they chase the next level in luxurious homes and next level in school systems. As that migration takes place the schools that just built up and added space as necessary find that they now have empty classrooms that are costing them money to heat and cool. Not a great idea considering that the waste eats into the school budget for other things.
I think that's enough of the lies and dissections of same, but here's the best education I can give to readers. O'Malley (the Democrat) has promised to increase spending on education and give it a priority. That's great, but he's also refused to rule out raising taxes to cover his promises in that area and others. This would be the same O'Malley that raised taxes in Baltimore in multiple areas because he was facing decreases in state funding thanks to the deficits that were facing Governor Ehrlich when he took over the state following the last Democrat governor (Parris Glendening). Glendening came into office as governor after leaving his former job as County Executive of Prince Georges County Maryland. When he left that job, he left them with a budget deficit. When he took the job as Governor of Maryland, he came into office following former Governor William Donald Schaefer. Schaefer had left a budget surplus and well stocked rainy day fund for the state. A surplus of over a billion dollars. 8 years later that surplus was gone, and the state was $2 billion in the hole. Why?! Because Glendening and his friends in the Democrat controlled legislature couldn't stop spending on anything and everything. Education spending that had been out of control "suddenly" faced cuts and denials of requests because the state was out of money.
Ehrlich took office and had to start tightening the budget everywhere. While he would have liked to continue the big spending of his predecessor, he couldn't. The state had serious issues to deal with and refusals by Democrats in the legislature to cooperate on passing a slots gambling bill for the state. Ehrlich campaigned on the issue of slots for the state and soundly beat his Democrat opponent (one of the latest to run for office in the Kennedy clan, but thankfully one which Maryland residents sent packing) on that issue and on the issue of bringing fiscal restraint back to the state.
Now, here's the important part. Ehrlich has tried hard to keep from raising taxes. He was forced to accept some tax increases, and he instituted some "user fees" for some things (including implementing a "flush tax" that goes to helping to clean waste water). He promised vetos in increases in the state sales tax, even if it would fund education. He held the line on increases in taxes and in spending. Over the successive years, Marylanders have enjoyed seeing their budget brought back into balance, and a new surplus being built up along the way. There's not a ton of money in the rainy day fund, but at least there is not $2 billion deficit either.
Mr. O'Malley wants to spend more on education and he promises to do it even with the implication that we might have to pay higher taxes (might, ha!, we'll be guaranteed to have to) to do it. O'Malley is like many other Democrats before him, he's of the mind that he can play Robin Hood and tax from the rich to pay for the poor. While it is a noble thought, his definition of "rich" is one that would include middle-class, upper-middle-class and beyond. His idea would primarily be that in the name of helping "us" be able to afford to send our children to school he'd take more tax money to give back to us to help us with.
Here's the problem with that idea -- the math never works. First, as noted, he'd be hitting the middle-class and higher for the tax revenue to do what he promises with. If not via income taxes (which would be easier to target income ranges with), then via the state sales tax (which would hit everyone, and more so impact upon the poorer citizens). Either way, in the name of having an extra $50 - $75 per child to spend on education, O'Malley would tax away an extra $75 - $100 per family, if not more. Where's the extra money go? Into efforts to collect the revenue, into managing the new revenue streams if new fees or taxes are implemented, or into administration of new contracts that would be let to manage the new construction or whatever the intended purpose would be.
How about, instead, we leave that $75 - $100 in the pockets of the parents and let them spend the money on their students as they see fit. Even better, how about cutting taxes even more, giving the parents back more money and letting them spend the money to send children to private schools -- schools that cost less per student and produce better results all around?!
Ooops, we can't do that because if we do we'll leave the public school system without enough money to cover those that can't afford to go to a better school. Oh?! Really?! How about we really try it and find out. How about using competition, real competition, and having public schools compete against private schools to see who can do the best job at the lowest prices for our children. Leave the money in the hands of the parents and see what happens.
Just my $0.02. Don't agree? Speak up in the comments area below.
