Woodford County Web Site (coming soon?)

No, now, we really, really, mean it this time. The County of Woodford IS going to have a web site soon.

We think.

The email addressing scheme for the County will be First Initial; Last Name@woodford-county.org. For example, the County Administrator - Greg Jackson's new email address will be gjackson@woodford-county.org.

E-mail should already be in force for departments under this scheme.

What's Our Gross Margin On That?

Is it just us or does it seem a bit disturbing that we're selling nearly half of all the arms on the world market?

Listen, we're as much for reducing our trade deficits as anyone, but is this really the way to do it?

Folks used to be shocked when we pointed out that arms sales during the Clinton administration increased faster than than any previous administration. For some reason they (particularly the supporters of said administration) thought that was just impossible.

Since 911 the Bush administration has made those guys look like pikers. We believe it's time to reaccess our arms sales, particularly those to the "developing" nations, and most particularly, those classified as "conventional arms".

For two interesting pieces on the state of the world market (white market, that is) see:

this Nov., 2006 Boston Globe article

and this congressional summary report.

McCain Saddling Up

Peoria Pundit Gets It!

Commenting on a Peoria Journal Star article, the Peoria Pundit reminds us of a few facts about our property taxes (emphases are our own):

. . . Time and again, I hear elected officials brag about how they’ve voted to maintain or even lower the property tax rate. They do this even though their consistently vote to raise the property tax levy as much as possible without trigging a dreaded increase in the property tax rate. The reason people get property tax bills that go up is because property is constantly being re-assessed at higher values.

It’s such a con job. Were someone to sit down and devise a means to tax real estate in a way that lets taxes go up, but lets politicians claim they didn’t raise taxes, it would look very much like what we have hear in Illinois.

Oops! Heartland's Building Scheme Pops Above The Radar.

Could a property taxpayer revolt be brewing in Heartland Community College's heartland?

Bloomington-Normal voters, already anticipating a rather large increase in property taxes from a proposed Unit 5 school referendum (buildings and general funds) were stunned that Heartland's Board approved a $60 millions building plan without so much as a public input session at its last meeting.

The Bloomington Pantagraph courageously came out with an editorial slamming the plan, and the Pantagraph's editorial page has been flooded with letters to the editor.

Unit 5 Administration must be fuming at Heartland for raising the concrete pouring above the radar in this fashion.

Unfortunately, there has been no surge in candidates for the Heartland Board.

Note to Illinois Central College Board - beware public attention!

Here are some of the letters. So far there have been none supporting the building scheme:

Heartland tax hike unfair without vote

Public treated arrogantly by Heartland trustees

Heartland owes answers to taxpayers

Forget college frills; focus on education

Quote of the Day

Bertrand Russell

from Quotes of the Day

"There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action."

Liberals Are Right! There ARE "two Americas".

From USA Today:

A typical full-time state or local government worker made $78,853 in wages and benefits in the third quarter of 2006, $25,771 more than a typical private-sector worker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The difference was $7,604 in 2000. The compensation advantage holds true for all types of public workers, from teachers to laborers and managers.

Jobs on Public Education

Well, we've waited and waited but it seems the only media coverage of Apple's Steve Jobs' bashing of teachers' unions and the textbook industry is that of the "tech" mags and sites.

To us it seemed like huge news, seeing that Education has been a big customer for Apple almost since it's beginning. There were a few union reps that started slinging mud at Jobs, but they were quickly reigned in by higher ups.

Counterfeit Currency and Education?

One of the reasons for the paucity of posts as of late around here is a re-emphasis on hyper-local issues. None-the-less, even with that goal in mind, it is nearly impossible to escape larger education issues as they impact so greatly on our local property taxes.

We are as enamored of "local control" over primary and secondary education as anyone else, however, we must admit to having been given pause by the following posted by M. Antonucci over at eiaonline.com

By John Stallcup

From the early days of the United States, with minimum regulation, over 1,600 state-chartered, private banks issued paper money. These bank notes, with over 30,000 varieties of color and design, were easily counterfeited, causing widespread confusion and mistrust. With no common national currency there was no confidence in the value of any given dollar.

After nearly 100 years the anti-federal-control politicians finally threw in the towel. Teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and pressed to finance the Civil War, the 37th Congress authorized the U.S. Treasury to issue paper money and the U.S. finally got what it desperately needed: a common currency.

What makes any currency (or diploma) valuable? The perception and confidence in it based on the belief that its exchange value is at parity at the time of the exchange. Today, one $10 bill has the exchange value of any other $10 bill – not so for a high school diploma.

In the United States, the power to define what standards a student must meet or exit exam they must pass in order to receive a high school diploma has been the responsibility of the states. With few exceptions the states have failed miserably. Until we have specific national content standards and a national high school exit exam the high school diploma will continue to be a counterfeit currency and an outright shame.

A History of Property Taxes in Illinois

The 1800’s
The ability to tax property in Illinois was included in the State of Illinois’ first constitution in 1818. The Illinois constitution of 1818 was unique in that it established: “…That the mode of levying a tax shall be by valuation so that every person shall pay a property tax in proportion to the value of the property he or she has in his or her possession.” Basically, this established an “ad valorem” tax, which in Latin means “according to value”. Thus, an ad valorem tax is a tax that varies with the value of the property. All property, personal and real, was taxed under this system.

When property tax began, land (and improvements) was the primary form of wealth, so it was much nearer to being a duty on prosperity than it is today. Many of the other federal taxes, such as taxes on electrical energy and telephone calls were for nominal amounts and often unknown to consumers.

Property taxes, on the other hand, required taxpayers to make an unequivocal tax payment of considerable size from which the taxpayer could not avoid without losing what was often their most significant piece of property and wealth.

Originally property taxes were collected and used only by the State government. The first significant change in property taxes came in 1839, when growth and political pressure broadened the definition of taxable property, narrowed the scope of exemptions, and identified personal property subject to taxation. In addition, counties were provided the ability to tax personal property.

The Revenue Code of 1853, also allowed for taxation by townships, eliminated double taxation, included stocks and bonds in the tax base, and established a system of utilizing local assessors and created oaths for assessors mandating true and accurate assessments at true full value in money. A State Board of Equalization was established in 1867 and additional provisions concerning assessment practices were established in the Illinois Constitution of 1870.

The 1900’s
The property tax system remained fundamentally the same until the Depression of the 1930’s. The first basic change came with the collapse of personal income during the Depression. The State last levied a property tax in 1932 and replaced the loss in revenue with a State sales tax the next year. Local governments continued to levy and collect tax on property as their main source of revenue. This transition was brought about in large part due to a loose knit but national property taxpayer revolt.

Chicago assumed a leadership role in this revolt. Its citizens, enraged over corrupt practices in property tax assessments discovered before the Depression, and stressed in their ability to pay the toll joined together and refused to pay taxes.

An amendment to the 1870 Constitution, following the passage of the Illinois Income Tax of 1968, eliminated taxes on personal property for individuals and as provided by the 1970 Constitution, corporate personal property taxes were eliminated in 1979. They were replaced by a corporate income tax and a tax on the invested capital of public utilities.

Over time many local governmental units also reduced their reliance on the property tax share in total revenue as they increased user fees, licensing fees and local sales taxes. Dependence on state and federal aid also increased.

But in the 1950s and 1960s the role of property tax expanded dramatically at the local level as it became the major source of school funding during a period when education spending was increasing to meet the demands of the baby boomers.

Later in the 1970’s, due to inflation, prices of homes accelerated faster than other types of property. As a result, residential homes comprised a large proportion of the total assessed value of real property in Illinois. The State then enacted homestead exemptions for owner occupied residential properties, and in Cook County allowed for the institution of a system of property classification.

By the 1980's the baby boomers had passed through the public school system. Rural communities began losing their schools due to declining or stagnating population and tax bases. Property values would often decline with the loss of schools. Rising property values in the large cities led to suburban sprawl as parents became willing to commute to work in exchange for lower housing costs and better funded schools. Property tax rates are usually lower in urban cities but the out-of-pocket taxes are generally higher than in rural communities with lower property values. Moving to adjacent communities meant bigger homes for less money and even if taxed at a higher rate they felt their children received a bigger bang, in terms of quality education, for their property tax dollars.

Soon the rural school districts began crying foul because of the mounting funding inequities. State governments, including Illinois, tried to balance the gap by reducing the amount of state aid to the wealthier (in property value) school districts.

The state governments simply could not keep up with the rate property taxes was increasing. The percentage of overall school revenues from the state dwindled lower and lower.

Because funding inequities exist both within and between states and because many rural communities felt shortchanged by legislators their arguments were brought to the courts. After all, doesn’t the Constitution guaranty equal rights for education?

In 1981, the State changed the basis of assessing farmland from that of the actual market value of the land to the farmland’s agricultural economic value. Basically, the land was valued at its’ ability to produce, which was based upon its’ soil type, drainage and other agricultural economic factors. The need for this change was due to the conversion of farmland for development, which was artificially inflating the value of the land and placing an unfair tax burden on the owners of land still being used for strictly agricultural purposes.

In 1991, the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) provided that non-home rule taxing districts in the collar counties were restricted from increasing property tax extensions by more than 5% or the change in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less, when property values and assessments increase at a rate that exceeds the rate of inflation. As of 2000, 34 counties were subject to PTELL.

We are funding increases every year on a system built for a babyboomer "surge" which ended long ago, simply because it's perceived as easy to tax property!

The 2000’s
Finally, in 2004, Public Act 93-715 amends the tax code to provide a residential property tax assessment cap and a variety of increased exemptions. The new law provides that counties may opt to provide a 7% cap on assessment increases on owner-occupied residential property up to a total of $20,000 in assessed valuation. The Homestead Exemption for owner-occupied residential property was increased to $5,000 statewide. The Senior Citizens Homestead Exemption was increased to $3,000 statewide and removes the requirement (except for Cook County) for the homeowner to annually re-apply for the exemption. The Senior Citizens Assessment Freeze Exemption income threshold was increased from $40,000 to $45,000 statewide. The Homestead Improvement Exemption limit was increased from $45,000 in improvements to $75,000 in improvements.

Who Collects and Uses Property Tax?
Since 1932, Illinois does not have a State property tax. Local government taxing bodies, such as counties, cities, townships, schools, park districts, fire districts, library districts and hospitals, administer and use property tax revenues. Illinois has more local taxing districts than any other state. There are over 6,000 such local taxing bodies.

According to the Illinois Department of Revenue, the following is a breakdown of property tax extensions in Illinois for the year 2000:

Taxing Body % of Total Revenue ($ in millions)
Schools 58.0% $9,271
Cities 12.7% $2,021
Counties 8.9% $1,420
Parks 4.2% $ 673
Community Colleges 3.9% $ 624
Townships 2.7% $ 436
TIF Districts 2.7% $ 430
Other Special Districts 4.4% $ 708

Who Pays Property Tax?
Basically anyone who owns real property in Illinois pays property tax. There are a number of exemptions, which include, The United States, the State of Illinois, schools, religious institutions, most charitable organizations and governmental subdivisions. According to the Illinois Department of Revenue, the following is a breakdown of who pays property taxes:

Property Type % of Total
Residential 55.61%
Commercial 27.76%
Industrial 12.28%
Farm 3.89%
Railroads .40%

It is generally recognized that any tax should have a basis in an "ability to pay". The property tax has little or no relationship to "ability to pay".

Real estate ownership is a measurement of wealth as an asset. It is also a primary source of debt for most homeowners. Failure to pay property tax, voluntary or involuntary, results in the loss of all money invested. A decline in income due to loss of job or spouse can result in the loss of a home for someone who cannot afford their property tax bill.

Rising property values increases long term wealth and shorter term borrowing power. It can also increase out-of-pocket property taxes even if taxing bodies reduce their tax rate. The damaging results are families and seniors stressed to meet housing costs in mortgages, rents and taxes.

One reason school officials are reluctant to their funding shifting from property tax to income tax is that the former offers a much more stable source of revenue than the latter. What is good for the goose is a burden to the gander.

Perhaps those who truly want education finance reform would be served well by studying the tax revolts of the 1930s.

Sources and additional resources:
• Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission
Property Taxes in Illinois, January 2001 Update
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/cgfa/cgfa_home.html

• Illinois Department of Revenue
A General Guide to the Local Property Tax Cycle
http://www.revenue.state.il.us/Publications/LocalGovernment/PTAX1004.pdf

• Illinois Association of Realtors® & Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois
Practical Guide to Illinois Property Taxes, 2004 Edition
http://www.taxpayfedil.org/

"A Child Is Missing" emergency call system

We have a few reservations about the program, however, if you'd like to enter your cell phone or unlisted landline phone number into the "A Child Is Missing" database for the Woodford County Sheriff, go to the website: http://www.achildismissing.org/.

They claim your numbers will remain confidential and only be used for the emergency call system.

Property Tax House of Cards

The Kankakee Daily Journal has an insightful piece on Taxing Authorities' definitions problems.

Take a moment to read the article and then come back here and read the rest of this post.

We don't want to glaze anyone's eyes with figures and percentages. The point is to note that government has a habit of shifting definitions and parameters so it can claim almost anything it wants.

How much money do we owe? In the now famous Clintonian logic, it all depends upon what the meaning of the word 'owe' is, how you define "money," and "we". It's called dissemination (no pun intended whatsoever) and it's been around as long as there's been a public purse to be filled. In reality, there is very little clarity about Woodford County's long-term economic plans -- beyond announcing tax "cuts" sometimes before the next election.

What do we want to see? We want to see a long-term plan for keeping Woodford County financially sound for future generations. Paying for infrastructure and services is important. So is tax fairness. But we've never been one -- and we believe this has never been a county -- that believes in tax cuts at any cost. Equally important is government investment in the county's social fabric, research and development, and public infrastructure.

New terms, calculations, or definitions rarely illuminate government intentions; more often they obscure it. It's a smoke-and-mirrors approach, when what's needed most with taxpayers' money is clarity and transparency.

Eureka Library Asks for $391,000 for 6,250 residents

The Eureka, Illinois Public Library Property Tax Extension request for this year amounts to $ 391, 000 and change. The request is for an additional $18,000.

The library serves some 6,250 residents according to their website. The request is about, what, not quite 63 bucks for every man, woman, and child. That, of course, is just the tax request. We don't know what their budgeted expenses are per "potential customer".

Break down the cost per actual unique library "user", and now you're talking real money.

But we digress - the levy request represents a 5% increase over the prior year.

Do your own cost/benefit analysis - we don't presume to do that for you.

Illinois Central College Wants Another $885 Thousand

Our sources indicate that the requested Illinois Central College Property Tax Extension levy for this year is $ 26.773 millions. This is an increase over last year of about $ 885,000.

This would seem to represent a 3.5% increase.

Now we just need to know where that's going. The tax rate is just a tad less for this year at $4.36 per $1,000 assessed valuation if our mental math is correct.

You will notice that you haven't seen this in any of the News Media - at least we didn't.

No word yet on what the latest concrete pouring or what sending those kids and staff to China cost.

If you fall in the I.C.C. taxing district check out what you are paying versus other items on your bill such as your local fire protection, roads, etc. We find that it is out of line in terms of cost benefit, especially for those on limited or fixed income. You might want to call one of your trustees and express your opinion.

By the way, if our information is correct, tuition went up over 15% last year from $65 per semester hour to $75. This amounts to $150+ per full time student.

Extreme MakeOver: School Choice Edition

Why can't we fund the student instead of the educational bureaucracy? Lidia Downs of the Family Taxpayers Foundation in a current editorial letter brings the bony finger of indignation to bear on the Illinois legislature and Illinois Education:

The fact is that public schools are like other monopolies - they squander money.

Their newest ploy is this so-called “tax swap” which would raise both individual and corporate state income taxes by 67% in exchange for a promise of temporary property tax relief, which they can’t guarantee. Under this bill, 6¼ % sales tax would also get applied to such services as movie tickets, hair salons, parking, golf courses, car repairs and more. The result would be about $6 billion more for state government, plus less local control of our schools. A better name for this bill would be a “tax swindle!”

The real test for state leaders AND for education bureaucrats is to find solutions like charter schools, virtual schools, and opportunity scholarships, that have actually been proven to result in vastly improved academic achievement. It’s time we funded the student instead of the system.

Jump cut to another excellent analysis of why some "vouchers" are bad and some are very good according to anti-school choice folks.

When is a voucher not a voucher? When is is for college! The Heritage Foundation's Dan Lips
points out:

When the scholarship is for higher education, rather than for elementary, junior, or high school. Pell Grants, the G.I. Bill, and Hope Scholarships--all essentially vouchers--earn wholehearted support from liberals who demonize "vouchers."

Pell Grants, the G.I. Bill, "Lifetime Learning" tax credits, and college scholarships are all school choice initiatives. Why is ok for some age students and not for others?

President Clinton embodies Democrats' strange position on school vouchers. In 1998, he vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have provided school vouchers to 2,000 low-income children in Washington, D.C., calling the plan "fundamentally misguided." But just a year earlier, he signed a tax package that included the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits. At the time, those tax subsidies were projected to help 13 million Americans enroll in a postsecondary institution of their choice after high school.

Mr. Lips continues,

There is no magic reform proposal that will fix all of the failures of our K-12 system. That’s why it's important to shift the focus from the system to the student. Students have diverse needs, and there are many schools that could meet those needs, including private schools.

That's why school choice programs, including vouchers, hold great promise and promote equal opportunity. Like Pell grants, existing school voucher programs in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C., are structured to give disadvantaged families the same opportunity that more affluent families already have -- the ability to enroll their children in safe and high quality schools.

Say no to the "Tax Swipe" and yes to school choice. Let's fund the kids and not the system.

The Ethanol's coming, The Ethanol's coming!

The Daily Pantagraph reports Greg Jackson and Kyle Ham believe at least one ethanol production facility is in Woodford County's near future.

The interests here in the County being what they are we seriously doubt that there will be much media coverage of some of the rather unpleasant facts attending the ethanol boom. That leaves us with the job and placing the bulls-eye directly on our back.

First off, if ethanol is a way to fight foreign oil dependence, why the heck is there a tariff on Brazilian ethanol and not on Saudi oil? Just a question.

Alright then, let's see 4 up to 70 jobs created! (We wonder if that range could be pinned down a bit better.) Higher prices for grain! Higher property values! Decreased dependence on oil!

The first person to say it's "win-win" may just get slapped.

Let's take the last first. Without going nuts on the numbers, suffice it to say they just don't add up. According to the USDA's latest figures the fossil fuel input is almost equal to the ethanol output! On top of this, of course are the huge corn subsidies, the 51 cent per gallon direct subsidy (not the net ethanol, but rather the gross which is mostly recycled fossil fuels). Granted - there are huge oil and gas subsidies as well. That's worked out real well for us, hasn't it?

Now for no extra charge, you get huge demands on water tables and higher food prices with reduced corn exports. This is all presumably to replace a minuscule percentage of our national oil and gas consumption.

That's not to say this would not be good to some farmers, ethanol producers, and ag conglomerates because it will. Perhaps there even would be a financial windfall for the County Government.

Most commodities folks we know say if you haven't already invested in your ethanol plant, you probably shouldn't, because corn-based ethanol will only last 5 years or so and then the plants will be converted to other biomass like grass, cellulose, etc.

At any rate - here's the uncomfortable question:

Why on earth would we want to turn agriculture on its head in this way for what all the world looks to be a short term profit? Why have we embarked on such a dangerous public policy initiative? Every time the government gets involved in the markets it mucks them up.

We realize that Woodford County is going to ride this wave. We just hope the local effects justify the state and national policies, and no one falls off the surf board.

Woodford County Journal Nails the "Tax Swipe", ehh "Swap"

The Woodford County Journal today hits one completely out of the park with its editorial entitled, "Tax Swap Plan Needs To Stay Shelved".

Our compliments to the staff over there, and we hope they won't sue us for linking to a photocopy of the piece. In fact, run out and buy a copy of the paper, just to be safe.

The proponents of the Big Swipe feel they have momentum but we're not so sure the folks won't rise up when they see what is really going on, who's behind it, and what is at stake.

We particularly enjoy the passage which fearlessly states:

"It is easy to point to increased property taxes as arguments for a funding crisis. It is more logical, however, to address the increasing spending - on transportation, utilities and especially salaries and benefits - to see the money feeds a proverbial elephant growing in the living room . . . most of the money won't go to educate children, it will go to pay for past (and we dare say, future) poor choices at the state level"

The emphases, as always, are our own.

Peoria Journal Star Stands Up (heh, heh)

In another hard hitting editorial, the Peoria Journal Star has called on the newly elected County Board Chairmen of Woodford and Tazwell Counties to "mend fences". Such sage advice can only be ignored at the Counties' peril.

This courageous stand is best illustrated by the final line of the piece:

"Whatever hatchets are out there, residents of both counties will be best served if those they elected bury them."

With a solid policy compass like this is it any wonder our Board depends so heavily on the paper's opinion for direction?

The editorial board did manage to get in the obligatory Woodford County dig, though:

"He's [Tazwell Board Chairman Prather] lucky to have a bipartisan board, if Woodford is any indication. Stable finances should help, too."

We sure hope their jobs are safe over there at the paper with the announcement of their imminent sale. We hear David Geffen is ready to pony up $2 Billion for the L.A. Times. Maybe he'd like the PJS as well. We'd miss those nuts.

PTELL machinations, games, and other "fun"

Two very interesting articles for your consideration popped up in the Illinois print media the last couple of days. One is from the Pontiac Daily Leader and deals with Pontiac Township High School District's new levy. The other is from Journal Gazette reporting on Matoon's School District and their new levy rate.

The articles are instructive about how some taxing authorities feel regarding the concept of capped spending.

The district [Pontiac] is "asking for almost every single penny we can," the board of education heard in a review of the 2006 levy by Amy Smith, director of the Livingston Area Vocational Center, who worked on preparing it. The district "will not see a lot of extra money" because of the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL), or tax caps, she said. The increase in EAV means the district can levy about $77,000 more than in 2005; without being limited by PTELL, the board could have levied $240,000 to $250,000 more than in 2005, Smith estimated.

In other words, PTELL prevented them from spending another $170, 000 - darn it! Even more astounding is the attitude reflected here, and unusual in it's frankness:

. . . board President Scott Bauknecht . . . added that, in the future, the board will have to ask voters for a tax-rate increase in a referendum.

Superintendent Harlen "Butch" Cotter reminded the current board members that past boards also tried to keep the overall tax rate down, and resisted taking some actions, such as selling bonds, to get the tax rate up, before PTELL became effective in Livingston County, for taxes levied in 2000. PTELL allows a taxing district to receive an increase in tax extensions on existing property, plus an additional amount for new construction. The increase on existing property from one year to the next is limited to 5 percent or the national consumer price index, whichever is less. The CPI for 2006 levies will be 3.4 percent.

"We made that call years ago, said Bauknecht, who was on the board when voters in the county approved PTELL in 1999, noted after Cotter's comment. The hope of past boards was that when the district needed a higher tax rate, voters would give it to the board, Bauknecht added.

So they didn't inflate their needs before PTELL as so many taxing authorities did. They did the right thing counting on asking the taxpayers for money if they needed it. The taxpayers have said no. Now they're looking on this as a mistake and are listening to advice to circumvent what the wishes of the taxpayers seem to indicate. More of the same comes from Mattoon:

MATTOON -- A request for about $11 million in property tax revenue drew mixed reactions from school board members and residents alike, with supporters of the 2007-08 tax levy ultimately prevailing during a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday.

Opponents of the 6-percent total increase -- what officials said the district can expect in property taxes -- said it defies the intentions of local residents who overwhelmingly passed the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) four years ago to curb tax hikes.

. . . Administrators said they are not trying to circumvent the requirements or “spirit” of PTELL, because this law does not apply to the property tax revenue sought to repay the money borrowed for Mattoon’s two new elementary schools.

Not including the funds for paying these bonds, the new request for tax revenue is higher than last year’s by 3.4 percent, which effectively is the cap imposed by PTELL. This figure also accounts for the estimated taxable value of land in the district, said administrators.

. . . board Vice President Charles Young said . . . “Ask the people for the money, rather than finding ways to just take it,” Young said Tuesday. “When we find ways to maneuver around PTELL, we risk ruining (the public’s) trust.”

Ahh, that last seems somewhat sane.

If the School Administrations and School Boards would concentrate as hard on holding the line on spending as they do on worrying about "tax caps" and how to get around asking for money we could begin to make some real progress in taxation.

I think my favorite snippet is from the Gazette:

Superintendent Larry Lilly said . . . “If we don’t approve the levy that’s presented, we’re going to have to take a hard look at (reducing) people and programs.”

This, of course, is the over used threat that's supposed to scare taxpayers with children and families of school employees.

We fall into both categories and we say, "REDUCE AWAY! ! ! You can start with pensions and benefits!"

Support Wind, Feel Good - Burn Money!

We suppose you'd get just as much and generate a little heat for your own home this winter if you'd just take a match to some cash, but if you'd rather, you can give it to Renewable Choice Energy in Colorado.

They're unselfishly providing regular consumers with the opportunity to buy "Wind Power Cards". Renewable Choice Energy is big into selling "renewable energy credits" to businesses and government entities. With the Wind Power Card regular folks can get in on the game.

There's only one slight problem. The card doesn't give you any energy, or credits, or anything else. It is magnetized so you can stick it on your fridge, but that's about it. We guess the "credit" they're selling you is credit for being dumb. The money just goes into the Renewable Choice Energy coffers.

But you can feel good about helping "the environment"?! Sometimes we just shake our heads.
Pretty clever if you can get away with it.