Commentary: When Imagination Fails, Raise School Property Taxes!

For 17 years both political parties have wrestled with education financing, but neither has summoned the imagination to break out of the “raise your property taxes” box.

by John McClaughryJohn McClaughry

The heavily Democratic Vermont House has passed a bill (H.889) designed to squeeze out enough new dollars to keep the Education Fund solvent for 2015. Republicans voted No on the higher education property tax rates, and their state chairman declared that the Democrats’ passage of the bill was a “cold and callous action”.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane to see how we got to this point.

In 1994 Gov. Howard Dean, then in his parsimonious phase, froze the amount of state aid distributions to school districts under the under the Foundation Plan. A group of disappointed money seekers, led by Rutland Northeast Supt. William Mathis (now a Shumlin appointee to the State Board of Education) and ACLU co-counsel Peter Welch (now a Congressman), brought a case to the Vermont Supreme Court . They made the highly imaginative argument that the “common benefit” clause of the Constitution (adopted in 1777 to outlaw special favors to cronies) somehow required property-rich districts to share their property base with property-poor districts. The Court, led by Justice John Dooley (still a Justice), gave them everything they wanted (without even a trial!).

The 1996 Brigham decision held that all school districts had to have “substantially equal …access to tax resources.” Armed with this judicial mandate, the Democratic legislature joyously pushed through Act 60 of 1997 with its “shark pool” of revenue redistribution.

Act 60 broke the link between your school budget and your school property tax rate. It also conferred enormous and long-sought regulatory power on the State Board and Department of Education.

When popular resistance to the Act 60 shark pool mounted, the Republican legislature and Governor of 2003 enacted Act 68. The revised law tried to brake that spending by tying the “district spending adjustment” of the education residential property tax rate to the amount spent above a legislatively-set dollar amount. In 2014, if a district’s voters spent 20% over $9,151 per pupil, their residential property tax rate would increase by 20% over the state-set 94 cents per $100 of fair market value.

But those brake shoes aren’t slowing down the spending bus. The link between education spending per pupil and the residential property tax rate is still there, but it’s not at all obvious to the voters of any given district, because the tax revenues are all shipped off to Montpelier for redistribution through the Education Fund.

The legislature’s duty is to keep that Fund full enough to cover the budgets sent in for payment by the 277 school districts. They could, but won’t, add another penny to the sales and use tax (which the Republicans did to pass Act 68), or increase the General Fund contribution beyond $296 million when that Fund is again $70 million in the red.

That leaves them with raising the two school property tax rates, and trying to find some new brake shoes to slow down local spenders without hammering them over the head with state spending restraint mandates.

Hence the present bill, that raises the residential base rate from 94 cents to 98 cents per $100 of Fair Market Value and the nonresidential base rate from$1.44 to $1.515. The bill also increases the Base Education Spending Amount from $9,151 to $9,382. That is well under the 4.2% residential property tax rate increase, and thus inflates the district spending adjustment that translates to higher residential tax rates.

The Republicans countered with a proposal to scrap the whole system for 2017 and concoct something else (details not even hinted at). The Democrats voted that down and passed their alternative for feeding the education monster: creating a new education income tax in 2017.

The bottom line here is that legislators of both parties are facing politically unsustainable public school spending.  The Democrats are doggedly using the tools of their beloved Act 60 to raise ever more revenues. They are also rushing forward with mandatory consolidation into Regional Education Districts that they believe might save a little money (but almost certainly won’t). Looking ahead, they have now gone on record in favor of raising income taxes.

The Republicans blame the Democrats for raising property taxes, but if the Republicans were in the majority they’d have to do exactly the same thing – unless they could come up with some magical new scheme, about which they seem to have no clue.

There is an alternative: changing the ponderous and increasingly state-controlled monopoly school system to a model built upon parental choice and provider competition.  That seems to be well beyond the imagination of either quarrelling party.

John McClaughry is the founder and current vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Stephan Syz April 21, 2014 at 11:47 am

Hi John and Bill,

I hear you on WDEV with some regularity.

I wanted to pass on this link (lyrics at the bottom) to a song my father taught me in German over 60 years ago while playing (screeching) out the tune on his violin Jack Benny style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Gedanken_sind_frei It still rings true when I read about wars and peoples’ attempts to convert others to political or religious persuasions. Stephan

Reply

jim bulmer May 1, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Just one more example of how central government can screw things up.

Reply

Gary Richardson May 1, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Unfortunately, the Democrat/Progressive combine is still in place. Therefore, the solid majority of Vermont voters continue to support this “combine” every two years while wondering why they don’t like the results of their work. Let’s build a new “combine” and try them out. We might like the change.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

Another Study: $15 Minimum Wage Hurts Low Wage Employees

by Rob Roper The National Bureau of Economic Research released its latest working paper on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage policy. Vermont legislators, who are contemplating a push for...

Civil Forfeiture: Standing Up To Government Theft

By John McClaughry Damon Root, writing at Reason.com, reports that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has joined Justice Clarence Thomas’s war against civil forfeiture. Earlier, Justice Thomas...

May Day for Britain’s Theresa May

by John J. Metzler NEW YORK—It’s political May Day for Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May after what appeared as a massive miscalculation in calling a general election which...

Massachusetts’ “Whites Only” Mascot Law

by Rob Roper If there was any doubt that political correctness has gone beyond loony, look at our neighbors in Massachusetts where the legislature is contemplating a law...

Roll Call! House Pledges Support/Funds for Global/State Climate Change Agenda

 . H.R. 15 – A HOUSE RESOLUTION STRONGLY OPPOSING THE U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND RECOGNIZING GOVERNOR...

Video