This Is Not News

The United States House of Representatives recently rejected a constitutional amendment that would have required all future revenue increases to be passed by a two-thirds supermajority of both the House and the Senate. Since few, if any, revenue increases ever pass by a two-thirds majority due to their unpopularity, the amendment would effectively forbid Congress from closing tax loopholes or raising tax rates in the future. Although the amendment failed, a majority in Congress supported it; the final vote was 232-189, short of the two-thirds majority required to amend the Constitution. Given the high degree of support, it stands to reason a measure like this will come before the House again; that support, along with the news that Republicans in Congress plan to pass a massive tax cut that will likely be weighted more toward the wealthiest taxpayers, tells me that we need to have an informed discussion of the nature and function of the federal tax system.

To lay my cards out on the table, I believe in a progressive, redistributive tax system. By progressive I mean a system in which wealthier citizens pay a greater share of their wealth in taxes, and by redistributive I mean a system in which those tax revenues are then used to improve the resources of poor and middle-class citizens, either by directly returning to them in the form of tax credits and rebates or by providing services that they would otherwise be unable to afford. Our current system imperfectly reflects these priorities, as progressivity and redistribution seem unfair to many Americans who therefore exert political pressure to keep rates low and open loopholes; a significant minority wish to impose a flat tax or eliminate most income taxes altogether. At first glance, they have a compelling argument; America is a capitalist society, built upon the notion of individual competition and achievement. Perhaps more importantly, we have enshrined respect for private property and transformed it into a fundamental right, conferred by human nature. Given these principles, why should citizens not be entitled to keep what they earn? Read the remainder of this entry »

Last time my smiling mug appeared in this section, I promised a discussion of how exactly we could go about paying for an education system that would do the job right. I was all ready to write that story for December, but then we had that whole wacky election and Kev just wrote one hell of a piece, which shifted Pattie’s article over to Policy and left me standing when the music stopped . . . so you got to read their pieces and I got another couple of months to think about the issue, which I think is a win-win situation all around.

When last we spoke, we were discussing the disparities in spending between distressed urban school districts and well-to-do suburban districts. My argument then, as now, is that it is patently unfair to demand that the Philadelphia School District live up to the same standard as the smaller, more affluent Jenkintown District when the latter outspends the former almost 2 to 1 on a per-student basis. I want to turn now to different approaches that are being taken to how parents, districts and states fund the education of their children. Read the remainder of this entry »

I like to believe in the old notion that there is strength in numbers. It usually makes sense and it’s quite romantic: many people working together can do so much more than one person working alone. However, experience has also taught me the wonders of the so-called “mob” mentality: just because you have many people doesn’t mean that they collectively have the sense of even one good-sized rock. But lacking that sense, the mob can use their sheer girth to achieve what a single senseless soul can only dream.

We Americans got evidence of this senselessness delivered right to our doors earlier this year in the form of the 2000 Census Form. Back in 1997, we started to hear quite a bit about this year’s form because this would be the first census in history to use the “revised standards for federal data on race and ethnicity.” (Yes, you read that correctly, and, as everyone knows, anytime you see the words “revised federal standards,” you better pull up a comfortable chair and pour yourself a drink.) These revised standards would allow respondents to check “one or more” of the category options listed in the racial question. Multiracial Americans, including myself, would no longer have to choose only one race or select the catchall “other” box. For some, this change is a major victory, for others, it’s a major setback in racial tolerance, and for still others, it’s a statistical nightmare the horrors of which they cannot begin to fathom. For me, it’s an opportunity to observe public debate on a topic that I’ve lived with all my life. Read the remainder of this entry »

There seems to be little disagreement in America that urban public schools are in trouble. Test scores are dropping, students are dropping out, and a general sense of hopelessness seems to be pervading the system. You won’t find a candidate for public office who isn’t decrying the state of the schools, and saying that by God, something has to be done about it. The question is, what needs to be done, and do we have the will to do it?

Let me get my biases out in the open on this one. I definitely lean to the left of the political spectrum, I live in the city of Philadelphia, and I am working on a degree and teaching at a public university. I also, somewhat paradoxically, spent sixteen years in private schools before I got here. That said, I am convinced that the argument I’m about to make is as well-supported by facts as it is unpopular in certain circles. We, as a society, are failing the public school system, and we will continue to fail it until we change the way education is paid for in this country. Read the remainder of this entry »