Spokane7
68°
February 9, 2012 in Washington Voices
Education must be a priority in hard times
Currently before Valley voters is an opportunity for citizens to take action and make a real difference in our community, right here and right now. This action is a resounding “yes” vote for our school replacement levies.
A “yes” vote will reaffirm our belief in the necessity of education to move our communities and our nation forward, and will continue the promise of one generation to the next for the betterment of all.
A “yes” vote is also a vote to strengthen our economic infrastructure. No amount of municipal spending and stimulus by any local government can overcome a weakened school system. Money, jobs and human capital will flow to those communities that have prioritized and made the commitment to excellence, despite economic challenges.
In this time of financial stresses, we too, must define our priorities. Our children must not be penalized and school operating budgets decimated by fiscal shortsightedness. The crucial components of our democracy and economic well-being are formed locally, through positive action. Each of us is needed for this success. Please vote “yes” Feb. 14 for our children and for our community.
Dean and Elizabeth Grafos
Spokane Valley
Genesis Church finds new home 
flyerd1 on February 13 at 1:18 a.m.
Contrary to the apparent beliefs of most levy supporters that people in opposition are sinister child haters, there are many anti-levy citizens with no ulterior motives. I, for one, simply appreciate having actual truths presented (rather than fear invoking commentary and distortions I’ve read/heard). Making it appear that 3yrs of levy costs will be paid in a single yr is an example of distortion on the anti-levy side. Similarly, there are many examples distortions & less than true statements from the pro-levy side. Here’s one irt what levy $ will actually be used for:
It’s extremely disingenuous to say “specific funds” are for “specific items” of an overall budget. Basic accounting shows that the net impact of a levy is simply to increase the “overall budget” (even if presented as paying for specific items). Here’s an explanation of why (please try to understand that this simply explains the shell game of saying “where” certain $ goes (regardless of your opinion as to the need for the $) and is applicable in many other situations you may encounter besides this one:
Imagine an $8M budget spread into 10 buckets. If someone decided $8M wasn’t enough and wanted to request more $ they could simply put the entire $8M into buckets 1-8 and say “we need $2M (levy $) but it’s only for buckets 9 & 10” (maintenance & operations, or whatever your specific levy indicates). The net result of the additional $2M would simply be that the new budget is $10M instead of $8M. The shell game here is that they could just as easily have said the $2M is for buckets 1 & 2 or 3 & 5 or 4 & 7 etc. In other words, the “exact” place they “choose” to say the $ goes to is absolutely irrelevant because it’s all part of “one overall budget” that is being spent.
Regardless of your stance irt the actual need for the $ it’s a complete shell game when they say “don’t worry, the money is only for this bucket or that one”. It raises the Q of why do they need to use shell games to sell a levy; shouldn’t the actual need be strong enough so as not to require moving shells around?Could it be because they need to distract you from looking in some of the other buckets?..
Being “civic-minded” includes being “fiscally aware” of where/how the community spends ii’s money. Too many people fall into the word manipulation traps employed by pro-levy supporters as well as the exploitative “heart string” tactics of “it’s for the children”…