Populism Works But You Already Knew That
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 4/21/09 @ 11:15 pm - Filed Under Featured, Local Politics
During the debate over property tax reform the elitists were out in force warning that if we held referendums on school building projects that our entire educational system would collapse. I mean no electorate would ever approve of higher taxes to support education right? Well, as I argued then, that logic is drastically flawed:
The idea that referendums will kill all school projects is simply not based in reality. Most states have a referendum for bonds and they still build schools. The fact is over half of my property taxes go to the schools. Any serious proposal to slow government spending and/or property taxes HAS to account for that.
Don’t be fooled, this is a money issue pure and simple. The ISTA, construction interests, etc are fighting this because it will mean an end to their elitist ways. Allowing the people to determine how their money is spent on massive spending projects should be at the core of the Democratic Party agenda. It saddens me to see that we’re still a party beholden to special interests…
Voters in Soutwest Allen Community School District proved me right again tonight in their referendum when they approved of a $3.5 million tax increase for additional school funding. It turns out voters will support projects that make sense and aren’t seen as a complete waste of money. Hoocoodanode?
Comments
24 Responses to “Populism Works But You Already Knew That”
Leave a Reply
First, the proponents did a good job, politically speaking, of getting this passed. They kept it as “low key” as possible. Scheduling the referendum in a year when there is no election was brilliant! They also spent school dollars on a direct mail campaign (legal, mind you).
I think there will be backlash on this. Expect an outcry from Aboite residents to the legislature about changing the law. Sadly, it is not until AFTER the referendum passes that the 25,300+ voters WHO DID NOT bother voting will care.
And Jeff- this is NOT a building issue at all- so I think you can draw a distinct difference. The mailers sent out by the school threatened larger class sizes if the referendum did not pass.
If I lived in Aboite, and I wish I did, I would have been in favor of their bond issue. If FWCS proposed raising taxes to add teachers in the early grades and promised to show us data and act accordingly on the results, I would vote for it. If $500 million would get us test scores even close to those of SWAC, I (that’s just me and not necessarily other property owners) would have been in favor of it and I said so during the remonstrance.
But, sadly as Jeff says, that’s not what it was about.
Kevin-what do you mean by “expect an outcry from Aboite residents” ? They passed a petition drive for higher taxes for school funding several years ago and now passed a larger but similar one via the referendum route.Anyone who chose not to participate has no complaint with anyone but themselves.The referendum was pretty highly publicized by the local media.
Kevin,
It wasn’t a matter of not bothering. SWAC did a poor job letting people know about the referendum. I received one piece in the mail, and it looked like “junk mail.”
I had coffee with three people from Aboite this morning, and two of them did not know anything about it. I told them in was in the JG, and they both dropped their subscriptions some time ago, (imagine that).
If SWAC had sent a letter in a school envelope maybe it would not have ended up in the trash.
On a related note. How is it FWCS received $2621 more per child last year, yet their graduation rate is only 78.9% compared to 94.7% for SWAC? For the record, SWAC is in the bottom 10 statewide for funding received per student.
For 2008
FWCS - $4,539 per student
SWAC - $1,918 per student
Nicer buildings is not the issue. It’s the way FWCS is and always has been ran that is the issue.
Schools aren’t allowed to campaign in these referenda, so there must have been a citizen group formed to send out the mail. As I understand the law, it would have been illegal for SWACS to participate in the discussion, as that would have been using taxpayer money to campaign.
Abe,
What the heck does FWCS have to do with this issue?
And I think you miss my point- SWAC did a GREAT job of NOT promoting this- why would they. It kept the opposition away!
Lockwood-
You state that this was heavily publicized. Abe says a few of his friends did not know about it- this is common in EVERY election.
You would be surprised at the number of calls that come in AFTER election day with folks asking if they can still vote!
I think SWAC was smart in NOT holding the referendum in an election year. It kept even more folks away.
Kevin . . .
This is the first time that I can ever recall where a highly-placed Dem advocated the discouraging of voter participation. Somehow that is totally Un-American, but we have seen a good bit of Un-American political activity lately.
Jeff . . .
Populism has always worked but the results are not always desireable.
Kevin,
Your elitism knows no bounds. You actually think it was good public policy not to promote an election? Your comment suggests that the ends justify the means regardless if it is undemocratic and thus un-American. In a democratic state (and in my version of the Democratic Party) we should strive to include anyone and everyone that wants to participate. Unbelievable. This line of thinking is why we need more referendums.
Beyond that, I’m surprised you’re still touting the line that people won’t support tax increases for education. It happens all over the country yet somehow you believe we are uniquely situated in the black hole of rational thinking.
Jeff,
If more Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) thought the way you do, we might actually start finding ourselves having to decide who we like more, rather than who we hate less, on election day . . .
Jeff:
“You actually think it was good public policy not to promote an election?”
NO. I do not. It was smart politics. The SWAC board wanted the measure passed- politically they did the smart thing- THEY KEPT IT AS QUIET AS THEY COULD!
If the MAJORITY of taxpayers in Aboite voted on this measure, I am certain it would have failed.
In re-reading Jeff and Gadfly’s comments I need to say this:
For a blog that calls itself “Fort Wayne Politics”- there is very little understanding of the political machine and what it takes to WIN elections- and if you are involved in the process, it is about winning.
And Jeff- “your elitism knows no bounds”? Wow…a bit over the top don’t you think? Perhaps you should hold up a mirror?
Kevin,
I am certain you are wrong. But even if you were right that would’ve been the correct outcome. If the people didn’t want it then they shouldn’t have it forced down their throat. There’s no Constitutional right to smaller classrooms.
That’s really the difference between you and I Kevin. I believe the people can make informed decisions that will better their community. You clearly believe a minority of people need to steer things so the majority don’t screw it up.
That’s elitist. And that is why my comment was not over the top but dead-on accurate…
Jeff,
I think the folks in Aboite, given the current economic climate, would have voted “NO”.
The problem here, is that neither of us can prove our positions.
I do NOT think a minority should make decisions- where did you ever get that??? I have often stated my disappointment that not enough people are involved in the political process.
I live in Aboite, and consider myself fairly up on local news, reading the headlines of JG and NS online every day and catching the news on TV 3 or 4 times a week. I had no idea there was a referendum until 2 days before. Perhaps it’s because I don’t have kids so I didn’t get the word through the school system. If there was a mailer it must have looked like junk mail and I threw it out.
Still, when I did hear about it, it was advertised as a $13 yearly increase for a suchandsuch valued home (don’t remember for sure). What wasn’t publicized as much and what I didn’t find out until the day of, was that a no vote would have actually decreased taxes by a large amount. Also not helping matters was the numbers didn’t match from source to source.
Also, was the vote at the same location as the last election? Somewhere else? I’ve voted at several different locations since moving into my current home, they seem to change it up regularly. The online version of the news story on one of the local papers mentioned something about a list of precincts but I do not recall seeing a link to what they were referring to.
So, what did I do? I did nothing. I didn’t have enough information nor enough time to comfortably make a decision and I also had no idea where I was supposed to vote. What a joke.
What I sincerely hope most of you picked up on here, was how Kevin inadvertently tipped his hand and showed us all how a true “partisan” thinks, I.E. “It’s not about what’s right, it’s about winning.” To hell with the people, you gotta do what’s right for the party, at any cost.
Like purposely finding ways to lower voter turnout, which Kevin describes as “smart politics”. While it may very well be smart politics, it sure is disheartening.
Tim,
So you think that the group of parents who wanted this issue to pass should have promoted the election - which most likely would have caused it to fail?
Politics is politics boys and girls. You have to know how it works.
If John Doe is running for Mayor, should he hope that EVERYONE shows up to vote? Or, should he do his best to make sure that the people who will vote for him will show up that day?
There is not a candidate in office today that did his very best to encourage his opponents supporters to show up to the polls.
Candidates target direct mail to supporters and those that, based on voting history, they think will support them.
Candidates do phone banking to supporters and those that, based on voting history, they think will support them.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason that the Democrats took 7 seats away from the Allen County GOP during my turn as Chair- we motivated our supporters to get to the polls and vote. In all honesty, I did my very best to NOT motivate the oppostion supporters.
Again, for a blog called “Fort Wayne Politics” there is very little knowledge about how elections work displayed here.
Kevin you crack me up. I’m not saying your tactics don’t work, obviously they do. Just because they work doesn’t make it right. I just think it’s a sad reflection on the moral fiber (or lack therof) of the participants.
I know it’s naive to think a candidate would or should win on their own strengths and merits as opposed to employing a well oiled obfuscation machine to make the other candidate look inept or unqualified, but I guy can dream can’t he?
As for your take on Jeff’s site having little knowledge of how elections work, I find that laughable. Sounds to me like you just can’t stand the fact that a politically active Democrat that gets a lot of traffic disagrees with your scorched earth “demonize the opposition” tactics. I find that humorous.
“Politics is politics” is exactly what is wrong with politics. It’s no wonder voter apathy runs rampant.
Patrick, you’re 100% right, that’s why it’s refreshing to frequent a site like this, where the players on both sides would rather discuss politics honestly than simply appease their respective political machines and hierarchy.
“Politics is politics” is exactly what is wrong with politics. It’s no wonder voter apathy runs rampant.
No, voter apathy is what’s wrong with politics!
What do you think would happen if, at the local level, EVERY voter took the time to meet each candidate that they had to choose from, asked the questions most on their mind, and cast their vote based on that one-on-one exchange?
Jeff, Kevin is right in a way. If you believe in a cause, then you believe in it no matter what the polls say. Your job is then to get as many people who agree with you to get out and vote. If the majority opposes your position but you win anyway, that just means the other side failed to do its job.
I do not live in the school district, but I have several family members who do. With the economy the way it is we all know that layoffs, reduction in work hours, elimination of any raises and in many cases a reduction in pay and benefits are a part of life. Many companies have temporarily stopped contributing to pensions and 401(k)’s. I know of several in our area who have gone to a 4 day work week, no over time and reduced hours. All these cuts were done to save peoples jobs. In other words, everyone took a benefit/pay cut so that all would have some work.
I would like to know what school systems are doing to reduce costs. Are they eliminating pay raises? Are they temporarily eliminating contributing to pensions? Have the reduced sick days and/ or vacation days? These are tough times and when a school system asks those paying the bills to pay more, I want to know what they are doing to reduce costs and shoulder the bad economy like the rest of us?
Kevin,
I think most of us understand how elections are won but I disagree with your implied assertion that there’s only one way to get there.
It’s very important to get out your base of support but growing that base is another important aspect. Or one can take the alternate course of suppressing turnout. I don’t believe in that approach and I find it wholly undemocratic.
You can certainly be in it to win, nothing wrong with that, but the end doesn’t justify the means. The democratic process is the bedrock of this great country and I for one don’t approve of the shenanigans you think were politically smart.
Having principles is usually considered a good thing and I still believe that the best ideas can win - if that makes me naive then so be it…