Tuesday, about 20 Elmbrook residents gathered at Brookfield El. to discuss state funding and its affect on class sizes. Board member Glen Allgaier attended as well.

We all introduced ourselves and stated the ages and grade level of our children in the Elmbrook school system. I think I was the only person there who never had a child in the Elmbrook system. (I homeschooled my son.) I would say most of the attendees were mothers of grade school aged children. 

Assistant Superintendent of Finance Bob Borch spent the majority of the time explaining the intricacies of state funding. (Very worthwhile.) As a result, there was not much time left for discussing class sizes.

Superintendent Matt Gibson did briefly outline how Elmbrook is embarking on a 5 year financial plan. Enrollments are dropping, wage and benefits to employees are rising, and the district is looking at budget shortfalls each year. He said it is estimated that by the 5th year, we are looking at a $9 - $10 million total reduction.

Since 83.5% of Elmbrook's "total expenses" came this school year from salaries and benefits, that leaves very little room for cutting. That remaining 16.5% goes for things like text books and utilities. Dr. Gibson stated that they like to keep salary/benefits percentages at 80% of the budget total; districts that are in trouble are at 90%.

Obviously, this will have to change at some point. Taxpayers cannot continue to support this ever growing percentage of the school budget. Not the percentage itself (83.5%) but the amount of money that 83.5% represents. The total budget from last year, 2007-08, was $82 million. I believe Bob Borch gave a figure of $95 million as the budget for next year, 2009-10.

One area where we could save Gibson said would be to limit special classes such as art, music, some of the applied tech, etc. (Somehow sports are never mentioned.) Another area would be to eliminate some teachers by increasing class sizes. 

Dr. Gibson gave a quick look at Elmbrook's current class size averages:

Elementary School: K - 5th grade - 22.5 students/class

Middle School: 6th - 8th grade - 25 - 26 students/class 

High School: 9th - 12th grade - English 23.5 students/class

                                             Math 22.4 students/class

Phy. Ed. would be a higher ratio.  AP, specialty, end of sequence classes (like German 4) have a much lower student/teacher ratio. (I believe some have as few as 12?)

The class sizes mentioned seemed very manageable. They could probably increase by a few students, especially if Chapter 220 students are no longer entering our system after 1st grade. (These students often require more help.)

I wondered how Elmbrook's class sizes compared to the "good old days." So I got out my photo album from my Shorewood grade school days. I counted up the students from the 4 class pictures I could find.

Half day K5 class, 39 students/ 2 teachers (1957) This large class used 1 room and 2 teachers in afternoon; (K4 used the same room and 2 teachers in the morning.)

4th grade - 23 students/class (1961)

5th grade - 23 students/class (1962)

6th grade - 25 students/class (1963)

Pretty close to what is current at Elmbrook. High School classes I remember as being larger than Elmbrook's 22.4 - 23.5/class. But then Elmbrook's figures are averages. That means some have more, some have fewer students/class.

Between now and June 2009, the Elmbrook School district is looking for community involvement in the financial planning process: 

The School District of Elmbrook is currently faced with a projected budget shortfall of $1.3 million for the 2009-10 school year.  This deficit is anticipated to increase over the subsequent three years.  It is a consequence of projected expenses increasing at a rate greater than the approximated 2.5% annual increase allowed by the legislated revenue cap on property taxes.

Here are some of the areas of study: 

• Enrollment revenue potential – resident and non-resident
• Other revenue potential
• Class size and/or program/service savings potential by level (elementary, middle & high school)
• Other staffing savings potential
• Negotiations and/or benefits plan design savings potential
• Energy savings potential

   If you are interested in participating on a study team, please contact Melinda Mueller at 262-781-3030 ext. 1176 or e-mail melinda.mueller@elmbrookschools.org.

I think it is good that the district is looking to long term planning. There is cushion built into the budget, since every year we are told there is this shortfall, yet most years end with a surplus. (At the 2007-08 fiscal year end "Elmbrook Schools spent $1.16 million or 1.4% less than the budget of $82 million.") At some point, with declining enrollment, thus less state aid, this might not always continue.

The district will also be looking at possibly closing a school or two, moving the district office, or even going to referendum to exceed the revenue cap. However, these measures wouldn't be looked into--if at all--until after June 2009 

Belt tightening is never pleasant. The real question is, can you find creative solutions that make it less painful? 

Links: 

Remember late in September, Congress had to pass a $700 billion dollar rescue plan to keep our economy from financial ruin? Well, that emergency plan eventually passed on Oct. 2nd. It grew from its original 3 pages to 450 pages. It also grew in scope: no longer was it a $700 billion blank check, it now included lots of pork!  

In the month and a half since passage, the stock market continues to head downward. More companies, states, and cities are lining up with their hands extended for bailout cash. Every week it seems the bailout bill morphs into something other than its original purpose: (My emphasis throughout.)

Originally intended as a program to largely mop up bad debt related to the home mortgage crisis, Paulson last week redefined the program so that it focuses more direct capital injections into banks and consumer-related debt.

Watching Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson Explain[s] the Financial Crisis is not at all reassuring. (The following are some excerpts, not word for word, but pretty close to what was said. Time stamp notes that section.)

Paul Gigot asks: What can you tell taxpayers they have received for their $700 billion?

What I can tell taxpayers is that the financial system has been stabilized. We never promised that this rescue package would solve all the ills of the economy or that the govt. could push a button. ...it was passed on Oct. 2nd ...by 10 days later we had $115 billion out the door to those banks. ...the system is stabilized...

5:00 You will make an adjustment in your rescue plan to no longer buy those troubled bank assets.Those toxic assets on the balance sheets are still a problem, aren't they? 

They sure are and this was a good idea when we conceived the plan, and it is still a good idea...

By the time Congress passed the law, it was pretty clear that the situation was more severe...the best way to use these funds is to focus on capital and so we announced... to hold back more funds so they would be available for capital.

6:50 ...some of those $700 billion into consumer finance areas like, auto loans, student loans, and credit cards.

This isn't a firm proposal. In our economy 40% of consumer lending takes place outside of banking industry.
...The concept here is a federal reserve liquid pool.

[8:38 Paulson gives the example of an investor coming to the Fed. with a AAA rated student loan paper ...]

11:00 That is not the intent, it is not to be all things to all people. It is to deal with the financial situation. Perhaps that Department of Energy bill passed by congress of $25bil for auto industry, perhaps that could be modified to help.

11:32 How long is the govt. going to be a share holder in a lot of these institutions and the danger of politically directed credit. As you look at this into the next presidency, how long do you think the government should try to keep a stake in these things? 1 year, 5 years, 10, forever?

11: 50 Certainly not forever. No longer than is necessary. We've structured this program to be not obtrusive. We've structured it to not crowd out private capital. We've taken preferred shares and the warrants in common wont be voted...and hired asset managers. This is about getting capital into banks, to help the US economy and stabilize the system.  This is anything but a program to come in and nationalize or have the government be there for a longer term.  It is very different from other programs you've seen described  that have taken place in other countries around the world and some of the programs designed in Europe.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel all that assured that Paulson even knows what this bailout is supposed to be. Do I trust him that these bailouts aren't nationalizing our banks and other industries? Remember How Paulson forced bail-out on the banks?

...US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson strong-armed America's big banks into signing up for the bail-out plan.

... Why was this necessary? he [Wells Fargo's Kovacevich] asked. Why did the government need to buy stakes in these banks?

Paulson, who yesterday made clear his own distaste for the bail-out plan, told the Wells Fargo chief and his fellow bank bosses that it was for their own good, and the good of the country

So who decides where the money is used, the Congress or Paulson? The bailout bill congress wrote and approved gave Paulson control of the project*. So why is the Congress discussing auto bailouts for the $700 billion if Paulson isn't in favor? 

One thing that is clear: Secretary of the Treasury Paulson is a very powerful man right now, and it seems he thinks he is king. And why wouldn't he?

We are venturing into uncharted waters right now, hang on mates, there be rough waters ahead.

*It is much the same when voters last spring gave Elmbrook $62.5 million for the referendum. We approved it, the board decides how the money is to be used. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I almost missed this little notice, it was tucked away on page 27 of Thursday's Brookfield NOW:

Members of the Elmbrook community are invited to attend a discussion about the effect of state funding on class sizes.

If you are interested, come to the meeting at Brookfield Elementary School, 2530 North Brookfield Road. It is being held in the LGI room from 1:30 to 3pm on Tuesday, Nov. 18th.

Because of our large tax base, Elmbrook schools get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to state aids for our resident students. Late in October, I asked Bob Borch what Elmbrook's per student costs and state aids were. He replied:

Using the budget approved last week and the methodology the district uses for calculating per student cost, the property tax portion of the total per pupil cost of $12,311 would be $10,384, with another portion coming from state aid at $1,161 and the remainder from local and federal sources.

The state contributes more for Chapter 220 and Open enrollment students, however, there is the perception that these students often are more disruptive in the classroom and school. From Brookfield NOW, "Elmbrook receives between $10,000 and $12,000 per Chapter 220 student in state integration aid." I don't have the Open enrollment reimbursement handy, but it is around half that number.

Because costs continue to rise (teacher and administration wage and benefit packages, rising utilities, etc.), I think larger class sizes are coming. I believe many classes at the high school level are in a 18 - 22 student range. But some of our classes, like German 4 for example, are very small because they are more specialized. The school feels they have a responsibility to high school students who already took 3 years of a language and wish to complete their studies by graduation.  

I don't know how many specifics will be discussed on Tuesday, but certainly I will post any new information if I attend the meeting. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Obama wants you to spread your wealth around, but doesn't do it himself. His charitable donations are abysmal, amounting to less than 2% on average.

He wants you to contribute $845 billion to his Global Poverty Act, but he doesn't even help his own half-brother in Kenya. Guess he has no responsibility to half-brothers?

At the convention he summed up the ability to prosper in America, "Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own." He then contrasted that cynical view with his ideals: (My emphasis)

Our government should work for us, not against us.  It should help us, not hurt us.  It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep.  That's the change we need right now.  So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Obama repeated his "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper" clip in last night's infomercial.

Well, Obama isn't president yet, but we can see how much he believes in his own words: His own Aunt Zeituni lives in a rundown tenement in Boston. Guess being your sister's keeper doesn't apply to aunties either.

Last night Obama also appeared on Jon Sewart's show. He tried to diffuse the Socialist label by quipping,

"That whole socialism argument, that doesn't fly too well,'' Obama said. "The evidence of this seems pretty thin. I said today that I think they found proof that when I was in kindergarten I shared some toys with my friends and that's clearly a sign of subversive activity. 

But there is a big difference between sharing, which is voluntary, and being coerced to share, which is involuntary. Plus, sharing toys in kindergarten doesn't even count. The toys in kindergarten were not personally owned by Obama; they belonged to the school system

When we share our own assets, that is charity. When we share our own assets with friends, that is called friendship. When we are coerced to share our bounty through taxation--to spread the wealth around--that is called socialism! 

Obama summed it up best himself when he was asked about the greatest moral failure in his life and of America at the Saddleback Forum: (My emphasis)

...And what I traced this to [his wild living] is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me. It's about --

WARREN: I like that. I like that.

OBAMA: Absolutely. So -- but look, you know, when I -- when I find myself taking the wrong step, I think a lot of times it's because I'm trying to protect myself instead of trying to do god's work.

WARREN: Yeah, fundamental selfishness.

OBAMA: So that, I think, is my own failure.

WARREN: What about America?

OBAMA:: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty... There's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about "the least of these."

Obama's selfishness and socialism is showing. If he does not do for the least of these in his own family, what makes you think he will do for you?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Elmbrook enrollment down by 103 students, but no need to worry...now. "The state exempts districts from fluctuations in enrollment for one year."

I first learned about this delay at the April 8th school board meeting when they discussed the 2008-09 budget. There was mention that although the 4K pilot program was discontinued, Elmbrook's budget would still be based on their higher 2007-08 enrollment numbers*. It was a boon--a bit of free money.

In other words 2008-09's budget included about $165,000 in extra state aid money, because the state based their funding on approximately 196 4K kindergarten students no longer enrolled in school. (Kindergarten students count as half a student in the state aid formula since they attend half day.) This money was free in the sense that there were not teacher expenses associated with it, because the 4K program no longer existed.

If memory serves me correctly, Board member Glen Allgaier asked if that extra money should be used to offset the coming budget shortfalls. That idea was quickly dismissed. (Thanks, Glen, for trying.) 

Anyway, this year, Elmbrook School District shows a 103 student enrollment decline since last year (97 resident, 5 non-resident) not counting the 196 4K students.

This came as no surprise though to the administration. The trend toward declining enrollment was "projected:"

Superintendent Matt Gibson said the decrease was on track with projections. He believes a decrease in the birth rate and slowdown in the housing market have contributed to the decrease in students.

Next year, though, the drop will be included in a three-year rolling average that is used to calculate funding for the district. This average figures into Elmbrook’s total revenue cap, the amount it is allowed to collect in aid and taxes.

As such, a drop in enrollment can mean less state aid and higher taxes to make up the difference.

Parents who homeschool or send their children to private schools often send their children to public school in the higher grades. But even at the high school level enrollment dropped by 57 students.

Voters just approved a $62 million dollar high school referendum last spring to expand and improve facilities. Guess we needed that extra room to accommodate those 57 fewer students?

Speaking of the referendum, remember how our additional yearly tax contribution was calculated on a 2% increase in tax base? That 2% has fizzled too.

No need for Elmbrook’s administration to worry though. All budget shortfalls, whether caused by an increase in referendum expenses or declining enrollment will be made up by us, the Elmbrook taxpayers.

*I had not thought about this before: If Elmbrook can collect state aid for students no longer enrolled (because of that enrollment fluctuation delay) does this mean Elmbrook calculates their tax levy on us based on students no longer enrolled too? Remember, Elmbrook taxpayers pay about $10,000 per student / per year for each resident student. I must ask about that!    

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I first heard about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ads on Mark Levin's Friday, Oct. 24th broadcast. (About at the 40 minute mark.) Mark also discussed socialism and floated the possibility that Obama somehow considers his spreading the wealth as reparations.

Mark characterized the business community as being "officially horrified" at the prospect of being under a Democrat majority House, Senate, and presidency. From the Wall Street Journal, Business Finally Fights Back The U.S. Chamber of Commerce throws its weight against a filibuster-proof Senate: (My emphasis)

Ten days to election, and they are pouring millions into ads, canvassing neighborhoods, making calls, getting out the vote, enraging Democrats -- all in an effort to turn around a dire political situation. The Republican National Committee? No. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The business community is back in politics. After years of contented political gridlock, American companies are now officially horrified at what an all-Democratic Washington intends to inflict on the U.S. economy. The Chamber is throwing its extensive resources at denying the left a filibuster-proof Senate. In doing so, it has stuck its finger in the Democratic leadership's beehive, and is facing retribution.

It says something about the momentousness of this race that the Chamber doesn't care. While the trade group has always been a force, over this decade many businesses have inched back from in-your-face politics. They felt comfortable with Republicans in charge. They felt comfortable with Democrats running Congress, since divided government rarely brings change. They felt comfortable not offending either political party, and not inviting attack by liberal activists.

They do not feel comfortable now. The Democratic Party once respected the need for a healthy U.S. business community. That was in part because business was ferocious enough to demand respect. But a resurgent labor movement has asserted control over the party. And business has been more concerned with PR than principle. This, and the recent financial crisis, has emboldened Democrats to pursue a pure antimarket agenda.

Their "card check" legislation means thuggish unionism. Their tax policies would squelch American capital. They'll reverse tort reform. Their antidote for today's financial mess is a super-Sarbanes-Oxley. Trade? What's that? Energy? What's that? Henry Waxman will start so many witch hunts, he'll need a lottery to see who goes first...

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Jay Weber, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Joe the plumber sure put a face on the problem with taxing small businessmen and giving it to workers paying little or no Federal income tax at all.

Now we learn that Joe isn't Joe, he isn't a licensed plumber*, and in actuality, is not in such a high tax bracket**.

This Joe's real name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. But whether he goes by Sam or Joe, there are plenty of small businessmen in the same very real tax situation that Joe asked Obama about.

Joe may not exactly be the "Joe the Plumber" we thought he was, but Barack Obama's tax give away answer is very real and sincerely believes in the ideology of spreading the wealth around.

If it were not for "Joe" would Americans have heard from Obama's own lips that, (My emphasis)

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

There isn't anything really new about Obama's "spread the wealth around" message. It just never got much national coverage. Real Clear Markets spelled it out well back in February:

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth....

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals, he's looking more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states, he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

...

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years.

Joe certainly got his minutes of fame. He was on the Mike Huckabee show and greeted like a hero.  It took Joe the Plumber to put a face on the problem and bring it to the forefront. Why haven't we been talking more about this before?

Thank you, Joe. Sorry your life has become an open book.

*Many people in the trades do not have an actual license themselves but work under the license of an owner or boss.

** " Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama that he might be 'getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000' a year. His simple point was that Obama's punitive tax proposals would make it more difficult to realize his dream."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

We are learning more and more about Barack Obama's tax plan--it is not a tax cut but a socialistic increase in spending.

As Obama was on the campaign trail in Ohio this week, Obama encountered Joe the plumber--a small businessman. He was not impressed with the Obama tax plan. Fox News Neil Cavuto interviewed Joe.

Now Barack's response, 'Spread the Wealth Around' Comment Comes Back to Haunt Obama:  

Sen. Barack Obama’s recent comments to a plumber named Joe are making some Americans nervous about Obama’s wealth-redistribution tendencies.
 
“Your tax plan’s going to tax me more,” the plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher told Obama at a rally in Ohio on Sunday.
 
Wurzelbacher told the Democratic presidential candidate he’s about to buy a company that will put him above the $250,000 income level. Obama has said he will raise taxes on people making a minimum of $250,000 – and that includes small businesses that file taxes as individuals.
 
“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too,” Obama told the plumber.

That spread the wealth comment was picked up by "McCain and other critics, who say Obama sounds like a socialist."

Contrast that with the McCain position:

“My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can ‘spread the wealth around.’ My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans,” McCain said.
 
McCain says he would reduce business tax rates to boost job-creation.

After the yesterday's debate, the Joe was interviewed by ABC: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me'. CBS also interviewed Joe post debate; he said the McCain health care plan would help him more. Joe didn't get to say anymore because the network said they were out of time. 

The idea of taking from the more wealthy, like Joe, and giving to the less wealthy, regardless of if they pay federal income tax or not, is not a tax cut. It is welfare. It doesn't sound like socialism, it IS socialism.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Our race for the White House seems like it has gone on forever. Canada just got the job done in less than 2 months. (Lucky them!)

Who did Canadians elect? The Conservative or the Liberal?

The Conservative.

Canada's new Prime Minister is Stephen Harper and according to the Wall Street Journal, Conservative Canada, John McCain take note: (My emphasis)

...Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.

The WSJ suggested that Harper hoped to secure a parliament seat majority but his response to "the global financial panic" that critics said was "too casual" might have kept him from it. 

So what prompted his victory? His pro NATO role, funding military, and troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism platform.

Mr. Harper restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. He reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Domestically, Harper "promised to cut corporate taxes to further attract capital and grow the economy."

What was Harper's closest challenger, Liberal Mr. Dion's platform? "To levy a new carbon tax on business" and "flee Afghanistan."

What Americans will do on Nov. 4th remains the mystery. Will they be like their Canadian neighbors to the north and vote for the true tax cutter--especially on corporations--and pro military presence man John McCain? Or choose the wealth/income redistributor (remember Obama wants Bush Tax Cuts to expire) and abandon Iraq candidate Barack Obama?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I always find it interesting to see how much politicians give to charity. Senator Joe Biden gave a paltry $995 last year, yet he made $2,450,042! And his $995 to nonprofits was over twice his normal yearly giving for the past 9 out of 10 years. Why do I say paltry? Because many teens I know give more money from their part time job income than he gave in his past average donations.  Biden made almost $2.5 million but gave such a little amount... amazing.

Actually, I am surprised at his Scrooge-ishness, because Biden says he is a Catholic. I would have thought he would have given his church more. (David Wade, a spokesperson, said the Bidens did give to their church, “The charitable contributions claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity.” That could be the case. But why they wouldn't record these donations and put them on their tax return is beyond me, since that is such a standard practice. It raises the question, if you aren't claiming the entire amount, then why list any at all?)

I was thinking about stinginess vs. generosity again today when I looked at our church bulletin. I usually check the offering report for the previous week and often am pleasantly surprised at the dollar amounts listed. Our congregation almost always gives above the amount needed to stay on budget, and they do this without coercion.

The associate pastor does remind us from time to time that all we have is from God and that He allows us to keep around 90%. But there is no heavy handed tithe requirement or even a hint that giving more makes God love you more. The love is supposed to be coming from us to God in the giving, and it is evident in our church. Often people give more than the usual 10%. Many of these families are not wealthy and some are large, having 4 or more children.

Given that Al Gore and his wife gave a pittance, coupled with Biden's ridiculous amount, and the Obamas only recently gave above their 1% average, to me shows a selfishness. God instructs us to give Him the first of our fruits, not the left-overs. We are to trust Him to take care of us. (In fact, that was the subject of our sermon today, from a series on The Sermon on the Mount, Oct. 5, 2008)*

It's no wonder these politicians think people must be compelled by the government to give to social programs through taxes. They know they would not give voluntarily. From National Revue:

It has become a common practice, when a presidential candidate releases his or her tax returns, for reporters and pundits to examine how much the candidate gave to charity. In September 1992, for example, when the Washington Post reported that Al Gore, then the Democratic candidate for vice president, had released his tax returns, the second paragraph in the story noted that out of income of $183,558, Gore “donated $1,727 — less than 1 percent — to charity.

But thankfully, plenty of Americans do give voluntarily, and they give a lot!

When the government taxes me more, it reduces my ability to give to the good works I think are worthy. Taxes also compel me to support programs I don't agree with or think are immoral, such as Planned Parenthood or ACORN. My "donation" in the form of taxes gets less bang for my buck because it must first travel through the maze of wasteful government bureaucracy.

If politicians like Biden, Obama, and Gore would give more to charity, maybe they would be less eager to increase taxes to pay for government social programs. Maybe then they would be more understanding of how higher taxes impacts voluntary giving. Obviously they have not tried it.

In case you were interested, McCain's giving, Palin's income and giving. 

*When my husband was laid off in 1982, we were concerned that we would not be able to meet our charitable donation commitments. Thankfully, we got through it.  

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The Senate bailout plan passed Tuesday night. The bill went from the 113 page house version to 450-something pages! How could the Senators even read 450 pages?

This travesty of a bailout bill epitomizes everything wrong with Washington: Dire problem...Don't fix problem...Load on the pork...Make problem worse.

What is in there? I heard some tax breaks. The oddest was for children's wooden arrow manufacturers. I call that the good part because at least it probably does not amount to much money.

This bill is probably everything Congressman Paul Ryan feared. Certainly the Senate version did not get that month long, or even a week long committee meeting process that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner wanted. Instead they rushed this pig through.

Michelle Malkin posted 3 pieces Tuesday: Kill the baliout: The vote draws near, and The Senate votes, and Read the Senate bailout bill here, which included the bill's language. They give a flavor of the night and bill. Nays include: Brownback, Bunning, Dole, DeMint, Feingold, Inhofe, Johnson, Sanders, Sessions, Shelby, to name a few. The votes are recorded at end of Malkin's The Senate votes posting. (I will have to thank Feingold, which does not happen very often.)

Correction: Hold the phone, the following did not make it into the final bill: The bill included an amendment from Senator Sanders for a 10% income tax surcharge on incomes above $500,000, $1million for couples. That will hurt some small business owners.

It goes back to the House Thursday, with a vote possibly on Friday. If you are a praying person, pray the House would have wisdom.

The most important piece, the repeal of the Community Reinvestment Act I think is still sadly lacking. Without that piece of the pie, I think we are doomed to just keep repeating the cycle.

Seems that additional 340-some pages were pure lard.

Sickening. 

We have a model that worked pretty well when the government stepped in with the Savings and Loans. Why didn't they do that?  What about the Republican model of lending institutions purchasing insurance? Another possibility comes from frugal Dave Ramsey.

Post Script bright spot: "The bill also reaffirms the Securities and Exchange Commission's authority to suspend so-called mark-to-market accounting, an issue that gained surprising traction among lawmakers looking for less costly alternatives to the Bush plan. The practice, adopted in the aftermath of the savings-and-loan collapse in the 1980s, pegs the value of assets to their current market price, rather than the price paid for them.'

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Our present market woes and the Freddie/Fannie mess did not come out of nowhere. They are not George Bush's fault. They started a  l-o-n-g  time before either Bush.  Watching the house burn down: What caused our economic crisis? gives a good run down of the chain of events leading up to this crisis.

First thing this morning, I checked to see if Rep. Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner were on board with the bailout bill. If so, then I felt it might shore up the market with the least harm. Thankfully, ACORN funding has been removed from the present version.

Rep. Paul Ryan doesn't like the bail out but agrees we are painted into a corner and must do something. Jim Sensenbrenner it seems will not support it at all. GOPUSA says it is still a Train Wreck.

The House Bailout failed to pass 228-205. Seems Pelosi gave a pre-vote speech that did not warm the hearts of Republicans by blaming Bush for all of this. Democrats were not enthusiastic either. Democrats against: 95, Republican NOs: 133. Wisconsin Representatives voting NO: Jim Sensenbrenner - R, Tom Petri - R, and Steve Kagen - D.

Roughly 4/5ths of Americans do not favor a bailout, which is why democrats were hesitant to sign on. Some want the free market work as in Citibank buying Wachovia today.

The market closed at 777 points down today. The price of oil went down to $96/barrel, gold closed up about $8 at $898/oz. One thing saving our bacon is that world wide markets are jittery too. If you are a foreign investor, who do you trust with your money? Don't know how long foreign investors will stay with us though.

I have no idea what is the right thing to do regarding the bailout bill. I think Ryan voted for because he knows this could go way south.

At the very least, it is time to put an end to no money down and little money down mortgages!

Vicki McKenna talked today on her radio show about how she* is in the process of buying a home. When she first started looking months ago, she was told she needed 20% down. This is consistent with what a Realtor friend told me--that people were getting mortgages if they had 21% to put down. But now Vicki was told she could get a mortgage for 3% down, if she did it before the end of the year!

I believe the little or no money down policy of the Community Reinvestment Act started us down this fiscally irresponsible path. Without the cushion of 20% down, for those times when home values falter, these no/little money down loans became upside down.

So the American taxpayer is asked to bailout out the lenders, and Congress is drilling more holes in the boat by not reforming down payment requirements? Pretty typical.

PS Did you see that the House passed a $25 billion bailout for automakers?

*CORRECTION: It was not Vicki herself, but someone in her building. The point remains the same regardless who got the loan. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

There is lots of chatter today about how Sen. John McCain squashed the soon-to-pass bail out plan. (So much for the Dems. calling him Bush 3)**

Hmm, the Democrats are in the majority, why don't they just pass it on their own?*

Because they don't have the votes in their own party.

Truth is, the bail out bill the media said was near passing, was NOT anywhere near approval. House Republicans were not consulted on the Paulson bail out bill.

In addition, Senator Lindsey Graham was on Fox last night and explained that part of the bail out money would go to ACORN! From Hot Air:

House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise.  One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza

Would you want that to pass? 

Most Americans are not in favor of a bail out. Most Republicans do not favor a bail out. Newt Gingrich has not favored a bail out to save our economy. (Emphasis mine) 

Newt Gingrich:  Well, the last time we were promised they were going to save us, it was $300 billion; it was a housing bill.  And what liberal Democrats in Congress did, for example, was add $500 million a year for a left-wing activist group called Acorn.  Now, I can’t imagine why we’d want the taxpayer to give $500 million a year to a left-wing activist group, but it’s in the bill which the Bush administration signed and that was only back in July and that was going to solve everything.  That was $300 billion ago.

Now we have a brand-new, liberal Democrats, many of whom, for example, Chris Dodd, was the largest single recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he is the chairman of the Banking Committee.  So the guy who got the most money is now going to write a bill to give taxpayers money to the people who gave him money.  Somehow, I am not reassured.

The House GOP (Republicans) have presented a plan of their own. It is more of a Work Out than Bail Out. Gingrich also favors a Work Out that would include borrowing at 2% not bailing.

I may just be a Home Economist, but I know we need to do something. If the average American was in better financial shape, not carrying around $8,000 debt on their credit card and not one paycheck away from financial disaster, I might be inclined to just tough it out.  

Gingrich recommended that Republican leaders like Boehner, DeMint, Shelby, and McCain meet to put together a proposal Americans will support. Then the people will put the pressure on the Democrats in Congress to pass it, much like public pressured Congress to drill for domestic oil. But since Harry Reid just stuck a ban on domestic oil shale drilling onto an appropriations bill, while this crisis is going on, so much for listening to the will of the people and doing what this country needs.

Heaven help us. I mean that literally.

Read more: Market Rescue Dos and Don'ts  from the Heritage Foundation

*Observation courtesy of Nick Reed interjecting on the Jay Weber show this morning. 

**Observation by a caller on Rush's show today. (The car radio does make running errands more tolerable!) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: