Foreign Digest: Mali, Cambodia, Liberia

Mali

            The newly-elected president was inaugurated in Mali, marking the representative republic’s official return to democratic, civilian rule after a military coup in 2012.  The coup had occurred because of frustration with the previous elected government’s inability to put down both a Tuareg rebellion and an Islamist insurgency in the north, which, as I have posted, were thwarted by a French-led international coalition in the former French colony, which represented a significant victory in the War on Terrorism.

Cambodia

            Longtime Communist strongman Hun Sen was recently reelected for another term as Prime Minister of Cambodia in an election marred by allegations of widespread election fraud.  The opposition, joined by one of the Cambodian Princes, has protested the results.  The international community ought to pressure the Cambodian regime to respect the expressed will of the people, as it is having some incremental success in doing in Burma, but is not doing adequately in regard to a situation similar to Cambodia’s in Zimbabwe.

Liberia 

           The International Criminal Court has rejected the appeal of Charles Taylor’s sentence for crimes against humanity.  Taylor was the dictator of Liberia in the 2000s during the Liberian Civil War and was responsible for human rights abuses, including mass murder.  An international coalition backed by the United States under President George W. Bush had helped remove the Liberian dictator from power, end the bloodshed and allow Liberia to restore itself to representative government and liberty.  These sentences against dictators for crimes against humanity are essential for deterring such behavior.  

Conservatives Win a Majority in the German Parliamentary Elections

          The conservative Christian Democrats have not only won the German parliamentary elections, but have become the first German party to gain a majority in 60 years.  Chancellor Angela Merkel will serve for a third term.

            The results were better than expected for the center-right Christian Democrats, despite the failure of their coalition partners, the Free Democrats, to meet the 5% threshold necessary to remain in Parliament.  The conservatives won nearly 43% of the vote.

            Merkel was rewarded for her government’s frugality amidst the European economic crisis, which is particularly acute among the States belonging to the European Monetary Union that have adopted the euro as a common currency.  The German economy has remained relatively strong.  The German Government has insisted that weaker members of the union adopt austerity programs to reduce debt in exchange for loans.  Germany has remained a loyal ally of the United States under the Christian Democrats.

           Conservative parties have won parliamentary victories this month in Australia, Norway and Germany.   

The 12th Anniversary of September 11; Terrorism Is Not a Motive, but Is Illegitimate Warfare

           This year was the first that I did not post on the anniversary of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks.  I am sorry, my dear readers, for not posting at the time.  School board business and political campaign matters have been taking up much of my time lately, but I do wish to offer a few thoughts, nevertheless. 

I also wanted to wait until the next day before posting that there were no attacks this year, unlike last year, when Americans learned the next morning that the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya had been attacked and the Ambassador murdered and three other Americans killed.  This year, there was only an attack a few days after the anniversary on the American Consulate in Herat, Afghanistan by the Taliban that resulted in no American casualties.

            The twelfth anniversary of the attacks means, of course, that Americans have survived another year mostly free of terrorist attacks on the U.S. mainland, except for the Boston Marathon bombings, although there was nothing on the scale of September 11.  There were relatively few terrorist attacks on Americans abroad, although jihadist attacks on U.S. military and other government targets continued.  In addition to the American people themselves, the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government deserve the most credit for preventing another September 11.  Additional credit belongs to the Judicial Branch and to the States.  Included within the Executive Branch are the military and other federal officials charged with terrorism prevention, investigation and prosecution. 

However, the Obama Administration still has failed to conduct trials for the September 11 conspirators, which it had halted not long after taking office in 2009.  Also, as I had posted earlier this month, although the 2009 deadly attacks on the Arkansas recruiting station and on Ft. Hood were not terrorism because they did not target innocent civilians, they were examples of militant Islam and therefore should be declared acts of war by the Obama Administration and treated accordingly.  The Administration has declined to declare the shootings acts of war for political reasons that preclude it from identifying the Islamist enemy and its motive, which compromises its ability to win the War on Terrorism.

            There were media speculations about the motivations for the recent shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., which apparently was committed by a mentally ill individual.  “Terrorism” was considered as a possible motive, even though the target was a military command center, not innocent civilians.  Terrorism is not a motive, but a strategy.  In fact, terrorism is the waging a particular type of illegitimate warfare, specifically one that targets innocent civilians to create mass terror to intimidate the populace into accepting the demands of the terrorists.  The motives for terrorism would be the ideological goal for the strategy, such as promoting Palestinian statehood or waging Islamic jihad.  The better that Americans and others around the world understand the particular evil of terrorism, the better it can be identified as distinct from other acts, opposed and prevented. 

           The continued efforts of federal and state officials and the cooperation and vigilance of the American people are succeeding in helping to save lives and to maintain freedom from terror.  These efforts must be maintained and not diminished.  Most of all, Americans and other liberty-loving people around the world must continue to resist the demands of terrorists to guarantee that terrorism would never be a successful strategy. 

Conservative Commentary on the Colorado Recall Elections

           In an extraordinary move earlier this month, voters in two Colorado senatorial districts recalled their State Senators, including the President of the State Senate. 

The two incumbent Democratic Senators were replaced with Republicans.  The Senators were recalled because of a law they promoted that was recently enacted which unreasonably restricted the citizens of Colorado’s right to keep and bear arms.   

            In a representative republic, recall elections should not be used for political reasons, i.e. because of the unpopularity of a particular policy, because the elected officials are elected to exercise their judgment during the course of throughout their term of office.  Recalls should be reserved for instances of corruption or when the officeholder has violated the rights of the people. 

           The Colorado Democratic State Senators violated the rights of the people and, therefore, deserved to be recalled.  The Colorado recalls give hope to those who support the cause of liberty that the people will not tolerate further violations of their rights by elected representatives who are supposed to protect their rights.

Conservatives Win the Parliamentary Elections in Norway

The Conservative Party won the Norwegian parliamentary elections.  Conservative Erna Solberg will be the next Prime Minister of Norway.  Together with three center-right parties with which they are allied, the Conservative-led coalition gained a majority of seats in the Norwegian Parliament, despite the fact that the party came in second place to the center-left Labour Party in the popular vote with less than 27%, according to the Financial Times. 

The victory by the center-right ends 8 years of rule by the center-left.  It is the first Conservative win in 24 years.  The party may form a coalition with a populist right-wing government and two centrist allies or possibly form a minority government.

The Conservative platform was to sell off state assets and use some of its considerable oil funds to upgrade infrastructure and to cut taxes, while boosting spending for health care and education, the Financial Times reports.

Norway has been a staunch ally of the United States in the War on Terrorism.  

Together with the results from the Australian parliamentary elections, these results suggest that the global rightward shift that I have posted about continues.

Now Is the Time for Congress to Declare the Ft. Hood Shooting an Act of War

Now that the Ft. Hood shooter has been convicted by a court-martial of the 2009 shooting spree that killed 13 and wounded dozens more and has been sentenced to death, it is time for Congress to declare the massacre an act of war.  The killer, who made clear before, during and after his acts, that his motive was jihad (Islamic holy war), had been inspired by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  The Ft. Hood attacker had corresponded with the terrorist organization’s American-born leader.

With a federal declaration of the shooting at Ft. Hood as an act of war, the victims of this act of jihad would thereby be eligible for the purple hearts and certain combat-related benefits, like those killed or wounded abroad in the War on Terrorism.  More importantly, it would recognize that the Islamist enemy has continued to make the whole world its battlefield, including the American homeland, just as it did on September 11.  The September 11 Terrorist Attacks were treated by the Administration of President George W. Bush as an act of war and the military victims were treated accordingly.

Shortly after the Ft. Hood massacre, I already identified the nature of the attack in my post, Jihad at Ft. Hood, in November of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/11/jihad-at-ft-hood.html.  In February of 2012, in my post, American Casualties of Jihad in the U.S. Homeland Should be Awarded Purple Hearts, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/02/american-casualties-of-jihad-in-us.html,  I expressed support for proposals in Congress to declare the Ft. Hood massacre and the shooting at a military recruitment center in Arkansas as acts of war because of the refusal of the Obama Administration to link them to the War on Terrorism, despite the Islamist motivations of the attackers.  I identified this pattern of the Obama Administration in my post Arkansas, Ft. Hood and Benghazi: The Obama Administration’s Pattern of Failure in Identifying the Enemy, in October of that year, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazi-arkansas-and-ft-hood-obama.html. 

Apparently, the Obama Administration refuses to acknowledge the obvious religious motivations of these jihadists out of concern for being misunderstood to be blaming Islam or because of a political motivation not to admit the attacks were related to the War on Terrorism.  As I have noted repeatedly, this failure to identify the enemy and its motivations makes victory in the war impossible.  It is imperative that Congress defend the truth by setting the record straight and declaring these attacks acts of war.  The victims of jihad deserve such justice.

Conservatives Win the Parliamentary Elections in Australia

          

           A conservative coalition of candidates won the parliamentary elections in Australia yesterday.  Tony Abbott will become the next Australian prime minister.  The conservatives won a large majority in the lower house, but results in the upper house were uncertain. 

The conservative victory ends six years of rule of Australia by the liberal Labor Party, which had led Australia’s first post-war minority government.  Ending the political instability in which Labor had to accede to the demands of the leftist Greens and other fringe partners in its coalition in order to maintain power, during which Labor was plagued by internal infighting, was one of the appeals of the conservatives to the voters.  In fact, Labor had changed leadership twice during its rule, as recently as three months ago, at which point the former Prime Minister returned to power. 

            Lower taxes, a crackdown on asylum-seekers, reducing foreign aid and increasing defense spending were the main planks of the conservative platform.  Specifically, abolishing the carbon tax, which was born by the public, and the mining tax were the most significant and popular conservative proposals.  The latter had exacerbated the decline of the mining boom that had kept Australia prosperous, despite the global recession.  The result of the tax was far less revenue than projected, which has prevented Australia from balancing its budget.  The fiscal lesson from Down Under is clear: raising taxes reduces revenue because it reduces economic growth.

          Reducing taxes are likely to stimulate the Australian economy and keep it from falling into recession and, together with the proposed spending cuts, help it to balance its budget while allowing it to boost its defense, which could be helpful to the United States and its other allies.  Under conservative Prime Minister John Howard from 1996-2007, Australia was a staunch ally of the U.S. in the War on Terrorism.  

American Interests at Stake in Syria

            

           The civil war in Syria is in the interest of the United States for several reasons.  Although the concerns that any action taken against the regime would be of advantage to the al-Qaeda and other Islamist rebels are legitimate, it is abundantly in American interests to overthrow Bashar Assad’s regime, either by direct action or by supporting more rigorously the non-Islamist rebels, and to replace it with one that, unlike the current regime, respects the liberty of its people, is not allied with Iran and does not support terrorism.  At the least, it is in American interest to punish the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons and to deter their further use. 

            As is typical in any civil war, there are international concerns in regard to Syria that cannot be ignored.  There has been spillover of fighting into Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel, some of which are unstable states.  The spillover could possibly trigger a wider conflagration.  Also, the problem of Syrian refugees is particularly acute.  The millions of Syrian refugees in Jordan, for example, risk destabilizing that U.S. ally.  

The argument being advanced by opponents of intervention in Syria is that the Americans and their allies have no interest in Syria because they should not want the Islamist rebels to win.  This argument is contradictory, as it is not an expression of a lack of U.S. interest in Syria, but the acknowledgement of a U.S. interest in Syria: that the rebels should not win, or in other words, that there are competing American interests in Syria.  It is certainly in the interest of the U.S. that the jihadists lose, or at least not win.  It is reasonable for Americans to want their two enemies to fight each other, but a policy based upon such a desire would leave the outcome of the war to chance, let alone fail to enforce chemical weapons agreements or to protect civilians and resolve the refugee crisis.  The U.S. should continue to identify the non-Islamist Syria rebels and support them more rigorously, which would be the only alternative option to direct military intervention that would achieve all U.S. policy goals.  A related international concern is the possibility of Syria’s chemical weapons falling into the hands of these forces, if it has not already happened.

The U.S. is a party to international agreements that prohibit the possession or use of chemical weapons.  It gave up its chemical weapons in reliance of their enforcement.  It is in American interests to enforce these prohibitions.  Otherwise, the message that would be sent to Syria by inaction is that the Assad regime could continue to use chemical weapons with impunity, which would encourage others to seek possession of and even use weapons of mass destruction.  It would especially send a signal to Syria’s main regional ally, Iran, that the Islamic Republic could continue its nuclear weapons program without fear of any significant consequences.  Furthermore, the Assad regime’s indiscriminate mass killing of civilians by both chemical and conventional means is unacceptable and morally obligates the U.S. and its allies to stop it.  Stopping mass killings of civilians by conventional arms was the justification alone for the intervention by the Americans and its allies in Libya, which posed less of an immediate strategic threat to American interests than Syria. 

Syria is the main ally of Iran, the mortal enemy of the U.S.  Depriving Iran of its ally would be a strategic loss for Iran and reduce the Iranian menace to the region and world.

Both on its own and as a conduit for Iran, Syria is one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism in the world.  Syria both harbors and finances terrorists and other jihadists who have targeted and killed Americans.  The 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut by Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’ite terrorist organization, killed 241 Americans, for example.  Through Hezbollah, among other means, Syria interferes heavily with Lebanese politics.  Hezbollah also threatens or attacks Israelis and Jews around the world, even as far as in Argentina, where it has killed scores of Jews in terrorist attacks.  There have been concerns about infiltrations of the U.S.-Mexican border by the Lebanese Shi’ite terrorist organization, which is allowed to bank in Venezuela, which supports Iran and Syria.  Hezbollah is thus a global terrorist organization, one that had the most American blood on its hands before September 11.  In addition, Syria openly harbors Palestinian terrorist organizations Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which are also backed by Iran. 

Lack of confidence in the Commander in Chief is a valid concern in regard to military intervention.  President Barack Obama’s strategy is uncertain and might possibly not be as effective as intended, but lack of confidence is not sufficient justification to oppose any action.  Instead, it is a reason to support an effective strategy.  The credibility of the President and of the United States are at stake, but this concern is only significant because of the overall strategic interests at stake in the Syrian situation.  The concern about casualties in an intervention is exaggerated.  Several weeks each of bombardment of neither Kosovo nor Libya resulted in any American casualties.  The concern about the cost is valid, bust must be weighed against the economic price of inaction because of the continuation of economic sanctions, the cost of meeting the humanitarian needs of the refugees and the spike in the price of oil.

Syria’s sponsorship of terrorism alone is sufficient justification for war, or at least to overthrow the Assad regime by helping the non-Islamist rebels.  The need to punish Syrian use of weapons of mass destruction only adds to the urgency to confront this despotic regime.  American interests would be greatly advanced by a peaceful non-Islamist representative government in Damascus that would be an ally instead of an enemy in the War on Terrorism.

A Compilation of Relevant Posts on Syria

I had posted last month about the Syrian civil war in The Obama Administration Has Waited Too Long to Act Against the Syrian Regime, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-obama-administration-has-waited-too.html.  The purpose of this post is to provide a compilation of the most significant posts in which I have commented either on the Syrian civil war or explained the strategic threat to the United States and its allies posed by Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria.

I had posted about the Syrian civil war in Foreign Digest: Cambodia, Haiti, Falkland Islands, Iran and Syria, in February of 2012 http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/02/foreign-digest-cambodia-haiti-falkland.html about the brutality of Syria’s Assad regime toward its citizenry and the lack of United Nations action against it.  I complained in Foreign Digest: Liberia, Iran, The European Monetary Union, in May of that year http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/05/foreign-digest-liberia-iran-european.html about the dithering of the world in regard to Syria.  In Romney Correctly Identifies Obama’s Weakness in Foreign Affairs, in October of 2012, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/10/romney-correctly-identifies-obamas.html, I criticized United States President Barack Obama’s failure to lead adequately against Syria.  Obama has imposed some economic sanctions and trained some of the rebels and provided them some materiel, but these actions have been ineffective in deterring Syria from indiscriminately killing its civilians with conventional or even chemical weapons, let alone in overthrowing the regime and replacing it with one that is neither a sponsor of international terrorism nor an ally of Iran.

I have posted repeatedly about I call the “Axis of Rogues.”  I first specifically identified Syria as part of the “Axis of Rogues” in Terrorism-Sponsoring Dictator Hugo Chavez Dies, in March of 2013, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2013/03/terrorism-sponsoring-dictator-hugo.html, in which I observed Venezuela’s alliance with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.  As I noted in my last post on this subject, Syria would even have qualified as an original member of the Axis of Evil.

More generally, I have posted numerous times about the threat faced to the West from militant Islam in all its forms. 

In my next post, I shall explain the numerous significant American interests currently at stake in Syria.

Keep up the Resistance to Common Core in Pennsylvania

In my last post, I explained the origin of the Common Core educational standards that are being imposed on all American students and I enumerated the problems with the standards.

As a school director, I already have seen firsthand the push for school districts to comply with the imposition of Common Core standards here in Pennsylvania.  I am resisting the pressure in my district, but need other districts to ask the Pennsylvania Legislature to stop Common Core.

The Commonwealth approved the adoption of a modified version of Common Core in 2010 that included some of the more rigorous curriculum Pennsylvania already had, but Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, recently delayed the implementation of Common Core because of the controversy around them. Last week, the Corbett Administration announced some limitations on Common Core.  Among the changes made that were based upon concerns in the Legislature are bans on a statewide curriculum or reading list, restrictions on imposing “national” assessments, and protections for student privacy. 

The resistance to Common Core in Pennsylvania is thus having some success.  The changes made by the Corbett Administration are welcome, insofar as they represent the exercise of state sovereignty and limit some of the substantive harm from Common Core, but do not stop the imposition of the standards and their overall weakening of education in Pennsylvania.  School districts are continuing to prepare to implement the standards, which are expected to withstand the current opposition in the Legislature. 

We conservatives in the Keystone State need to keep the pressure on state legislators to stop Common Core before it is too late.  I call upon the General Assembly to approve the bills that would fully stop Common Core in Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania can and must do better than Common Core.

Stop Common Core Now!

The Common Core educational standards are promoted by its proponents as state-led standards that are rigorous, like those of foreign industrialized States, and that prepare students for college and the workplace.  Nearly everything about these claims is false or misleading. 

Critics on both the left and the right are becoming increasingly aware of the dangers of Common Core to the education of every American student and are working against them before it is too late.  Although there is some particular opposition to Common Core from the left because of its big business origin and its emphasis on standardized high-stakes testing, conservatives have also been alarmed by the spread of Common Core for both different and overlapping reasons.  Most of the conservative objections I enumerate in this post are shared by some liberals, although there is more emphasis from the right on the violations of federalism.  

Common Core is promoted by its proponents as having been promoted by the National Governors Association (NGA), but it was first started by big business interests, specifically the liberal Gates Foundation, then adopted by the NGA.  It thus represents “national” standards in all but name, as the name “Common Core” implies.  However, it reflects only the consensus of the States, and not necessarily the will of every State that is being forced into it.  Furthermore, by “State,” it is meant the “Governor,” not the legislatures that have never considered, let alone voted for Common Core.  Moreover, with support from the Obama Administration, the standards have shifted from being “national” to federal.  Either way, Common Core is being imposed in a top-down manner. 

The Obama Administration promoted Common Core by tying economic stimulus money to state acceptance of the standards through its Race to the Top competition for States to receive shares back of the money the federal government confiscated from their citizens.  In other words, Common Core is a federal mandate that violates the principle of federalism.  Not only does it violate States’ rights, but it eliminates local control.  Centralization makes improvement of the standards difficult, if not impossible.  The lack of state or federal debate and legislative action makes the imposition of Common Core undemocratic.  Textbooks are being written according to Common Core standards, meaning that all States will be forced to accept them, at least to some degree, even the handful of States that have opted out of them.  Furthermore, college-entrance tests and even the General Education Diploma tests are being re-written according to Common Core, meaning that all private or parochial schools and even all home-schooled students will be required to comply with them!  As some analysts have observed, there will be no escape from Common Core.

The substantive problems with Common Core are manifold.  Two main areas of concern are the inadequacy of the standards themselves and violations of student privacy.  First, it is necessary to explain the relationship of standards to curriculum.  Standards are the items students are expected to learn and levels of proficiency they are expected to reach, not the curriculum (the methods of teaching them).  However, given the comprehensive nature of Common Core and the materials associated with it and its specificity of particular methods, this particular set of standards essentially does amount to a curriculum, despite the claims to the contrary of its proponents, notwithstanding the fact that, as even with any written curriculum, teachers are left to determine the precise manner for carrying out instruction. 

Common Core is not as rigorous as its proponents imply, or as it should be.  It is not comparable with the standards in foreign industrialized States, as its proponents claim, nor is it even more rigorous than the standards in several American States and is even less rigorous than some.  In the subject of English, the emphasis in the curriculum based on Common Core is on non-fiction versus great literature, which discourages imagination, critical thinking and exposure to other ideas, periods or cultures.  In mathematics, the curriculum uses methods that have either never been used before or that have been unsuccessful, and it prepares students only for lower levels of algebra and discourages students from taking calculus.

Common Core weakens student privacy protections.  It makes students vulnerable to data-tracking, which reflects its origin in big business, as employers can track prospective employees.

Indeed, Common Core was created on behalf of big business interests by individuals that are neither qualified in curriculum-writing nor in their content areas, who are unelected and unaccountable, and who are intent on creating standards that serve the interests of big business.  The curriculum may be suitable for employment, but not necessarily for good citizenship, which is the purpose of education.  For example, Common Core prepares students for community college instead of competitive four-year colleges, as the promoters of Common Core imply, as well as tracks students individually for potential employment.

Naturally, there is also concern among conservatives about the enormous cost of adopting Common Core, which is estimated at billions of dollars across the Union.  

We conservatives should become educated about the standards and the curriculum that is based upon them.  Five States have opted out of Common Core and the legislatures of several others are also considering opting out or modifying the standards.  In my next post, I shall discuss the particular situation in Pennsylvania.   We conservatives must unite to oppose Common Core in every State of the Union and stop their implementation before it is imposed irreversibly, and if necessary, even partner with liberals who share our concerns to protect American students from the harm Common Core would cause.  

Italy Eliminates Its Real Estate Tax

The center-left-right coalition government of the Italian Republic has agreed to eliminate the hated real estate tax, according to ANSA, the Italian news agency.  ANSA reports that the $4 billion in revenue will be made up with taxes on services. 

The onerous tax had been imposed by the technocratic government of former Prime Minister Mario Monti as part of its efforts to eliminate Italy’s budget deficit and reduce its high debt burden.  Monti had cut spending, but his tax increases, especially of the real estate tax, worsened the severity of Italy’s recession and prolonged it.  The lack of economic growth means decreases tax revenue, which makes it even more difficult to reduce debt.

The Parliament will have to approve the tax deal, which is certain to pass.  The elimination of the tax was a requirement for participation in the government by the center-right.  The failure to reach the agreement threatened the unstable executive.  Governments in Italy are notorious for not lasting long, although often the same party has remained in power by simply re-shuffling the Cabinet.  The current grand coalition of the center-left and center-right, however, is unprecedented and most analysts do not expect the executive to endure more than a few months.  Its stability has been further strained by the conviction of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on fraud charges and his ban on holding public office.  He leads the center-right bloc of parties.  ANSA reports that action is pending in the Senate to remove him from his seat.  Although the center-right is protesting his treatment by the courts, they are unlikely to abandon the government and trigger another parliamentary election, according to ANSA, as they are not likely to win.  The resolution of the real estate tax controversy will stave off the Government’s collapse, for now.  

The Government of Italy is also working to continue Monti’s work of avoiding an increase in the value added tax, the onerous European sales tax, reports ANSA.  Thankfully, the Italian Republic continues to pay a lower premium on interest rates on bonds – around 250 basis points higher than benchmark German bonds, according to ANSA – than it had.  The Government has managed to initiate only a few reforms so far.  A bigger test will come when it addresses constitutional reforms.

The Obama Administration Has Waited Too Long to Act against the Syrian Regime

           In response to the alleged use by the Syrian dictatorship of weapons of mass destruction against its civilians, the Obama Administration is finally considering military action against Syria.  The United States had warned Syria that using weapons of mass destruction would be unacceptable.

The Obama Administration has waited until after more than 100,000 people have died in the Syrian civil war, including countless civilians killed in indiscriminate shelling by the Syrian regime, after the Syrians crossed the line against which the U.S. urged them not to cross, not only of moving their chemical weapons around, but of actually using them against civilians.  The Administration has also waited until after al-Qaeda and other Islamists have become a dominant force in the opposition to the Assad regime, which will complicate the international community’s efforts to support the non-Islamist Syrian opposition and replace the Syrian dictatorship with a representative government that respects the liberty of its citizens. 

The Syrian regime, starting with the late President Hafez al-Assad in 1983 and continuing up to the present with his son, President Bashir Assad, has been at war with the United States for thirty years, either through direct combat or through its sponsorship of jihadists who have targeted Americans by acts of terrorism or other unprovoked violent acts.  Syria harbors and financially supports Lebanese Shi’ite terrorists Hezbollah, as well as Palestinian terrorist organizations, all of whom have targeted Americans, French, Israelis and Lebanese.  Furthermore, Syria is the closest ally of Iran, the mortal enemy of the U.S.  As such, the Syrian regime has been complicit in Iranian machinations against the U.S. and its Iraqi allies in Iraq.  There is no doubt that the elimination of the Assad dynasty would serve critical American interests and promote peace in the region.

Syria, as terrorist-sponsoring regime with weapons of mass destruction, should have been named part of the Axis of Evil.  A former Soviet client state, Syria is supported not only by the Iranians, but propped up by Russia and therefore should be considered part of what I call the Axis of Rogues, which refers to the mutual help provided among various rogue regimes, such as Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, etc., as well as their terrorist allies.

I note what we are seeing in response to the Syrian civil war is the international community’s liberal diplomatic mindset that compels it to negotiate in good faith with despotic regimes that butcher their own or other people as these dictators negotiate in bad faith and string out the negotiations while squeezing out more blood.  As the international diplomats favor exhausting every method of persuasion in order to avoid the most effective one – military force – and as they assuage their self-righteousness in not appearing to have “started” an “unnecessary” war, the despotic regime slaughters more and more civilians.  Only when a consensus is finally reached that there is no other option, does the international community send in combat forces, or after the regime has satisfied its blood-lust and changed matters strategically to a more favorable position, does the international community send in peacekeepers.  Then the international community congratulates itself on what a good thing it has done, ignoring all the deaths that its pointless, protracted diplomacy in the name of “peace” had allowed beforehand.  Indeed, there is something in the liberal mindset that makes it difficult to recognize evil in anyone, except, of course, in conservatives, especially those conservatives who espouse morals based upon objective truths.  

The Obama Administration has been right to oppose the Syrian regime, but wrong to have allowed Assad and his henchmen to get away with murder for far too long.  Now is the time for American leadership – and not “leadership from behind,” as in Libya, but moral and military leadership.

Pennsylvania Joins the Interstate Voter Registration Cross-Check Consortium

Pennsylvania has joined with 23 other States in a consortium that shares voter registration data in order to cross-check for individuals who are registered in more than one state.  Those individuals can then be purged from the voter rolls by the state in which they are not resident in order to prevent them from voting in more than one state, which is illegal.

The Keystone State is the first Northeastern State to join the consortium, called the Interstate Voter Registration Cross-Check Program, which is administered by Kansas.  Other Northeastern States should also join because many residents there also maintain winter residences in the South, especially in Florida.  These snowbirds sometimes do vote in both states, one in person and the other by absentee ballot.  A number of registered Democrats who resided in New York, for example, voted for the Gore-Lieberman slate of Presidential Electors in the disputed Election of 2000 in both the Excelsior and Sunshine States, thereby contributing to the closeness of the contest.  

I commend the Corbett Administration for its efforts in favor of ballot integrity, both in joining the consortium and in continuing the legal defense of the voter identification law approved by the Republican-led legislature and signed by Governor Tom Corbett, who is also a Republican, which I posted about several times last year.  The new law will still not go into effect in time for the General Election this year because of legal challenges by liberal Democrats.  Pennsylvania should continue to support voter identification and other common-sense anti-fraud measures that prevent the dilution of the vote of the honest electors and give more confidence to the people in the results of elections for public office.

Spain Must Accept Self-Determination for Gibraltar

I urge the Spanish government to drop its claims to Gibraltar, the British possession on its southern coast.  North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies Spain and the United Kingdom are currently involved in a row over the strategic territory.

Gibraltar has been in British hands since 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, and was legally transferred to England by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713.  The Gibraltarians have strongly registered their intent to remain British in two referenda, most recently in 2002, and have not indicated any recent change of their minds.

I had posted in March of this year in support of the self-determination of the residents of the Falkland Islands to remain British instead of becoming part of Argentina (See my post, Falklanders Vote Overwhelmingly to Remain British, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2013/03/falklanders-vote-overwhelmingly-to.html).  My consistency is in regard to popular sovereignty, it must be noted, is not necessarily because of any pro-British bias.  In fact, I would support Scottish independence from the U.K. based upon this principle.  Indeed, I am concerned that the Kingdom of Spain is undermining its own claims to its possessions in North Africa, such as Ceuta and Melilla against Morocco, which it ought not to relinquish.  I note Spain seems to be conceding the inevitability of the independence of Catalonia.  

I oppose imperialism and aggression – for the very reason that they violate self-determination – but whether the issue is territories that had been unclaimed and that were then claimed and occupied peacefully, or lands taken long ago in war and transferred by peace treaty.  If we accept the principle of popular sovereignty, then we must accept the will of the people, especially when it is expressed by the great majority of the people, regardless of whether or not we agree.

Words Being Misused to Mean Their Opposites

            

           There are several words that are being misused nowadays in such ways as to mean the opposite of what they were intended to mean, or at least nearly the opposite.

Virtual

            The use of this word has been corrupted from that which is true, to that which is nearly true, to that which is fake.  A “virtual world” does not mean a true world, but an artificial, computer-generated one.

To Implode

            An implosion is that which draws matter in (i.e. is attractive).  It is being used in order to refer to that which has becomes unattractive (i.e. is repulsive).  An implosion is the opposite of an explosion.  In an explosion, material is ejected outward (repelled) from the source, whereas in an implosion, matter is drawn into the source (attracted).  The confusion arises because certain explosions, such as controlled building demolitions, mimic the results of implosions.  The use of the word implosions to describe such events has led people to conclude falsely that an implosion is synonymous with collapses, both of the literal and figurative kind, especially those that figuratively collapse of their own weight.  Therefore, the figurative collapse of an institution, policy or enterprise that causes it to lose public support (to become unattractive or repulsive) is being described with a word that means that is attractive.

Viral

            The use of this word refers to the ability of a virus to replicate and transfer itself.  However, it is being used in reference to that which is copied and transferred by others, in addition to its figurative use in regard to computer viruses, which spread themselves.  Viral is thus being used to refer to something that spreads like a virus, but only in the sense of rapidity and not in the characteristic manner in which a virus spreads.  In fact, the manner in which the word is being used is opposite that used by a virus. 

Lame duck

            This term has been expanded beyond its original meaning of an elected official who has been defeated for reelection and is now being use to refer to an elected official who has been re-elected.  It is not meant for all out-going elected officials, but only those who have lost political legitimacy by losing reelection, as opposed to those elected officials who many not stand again for election, but who have not lost political legitimacy by losing reelection.

Agenda

            This word comes from the Latin for “things to be done.”  It comes from the same root word as in the cognate to act and thus necessarily implies action.  It is being used, however, to describe not only things to be done, but also refraining from things to be done.  An agendum (note the singular form of his plural word; there is no such word as “agendas”) to refrain from something, such as increasing taxes or violating neutrality, for example, by not taking any action is not something “to be done.”  Therefore, refraining from actions cannot constitute agenda. 

           As I have noted frequently on this blog, the correct usage of words is of critical importance to freedom when liberty is based upon written law.  In addition to offending the Truth, the danger to liberty in a republic of misusing or misunderstanding the meaning of words, coupled with disregard for the original intent of those who wrote the law, is manifested when laws are essentially amended or even repealed by judges in circumvention of public debate and the legislative decision-making of the representatives of the people.  To use words properly is to defend liberty.

Presidential Elections in Mali, Iran and Zimbabwe

Mali

            Mali conducted its first presidential elections since the military coup in 2012 and since the Malian government, aided by an international coalition led by the French, regained control from al-Qaeda and other Islamist rebels in the breakaway northern part of the country in the Sahara Desert earlier this year.  The elections marked a successful return to democracy.

            The turnout was reportedly low in northern Mali where there remains strong sentiment among the Tuaregs for succession.  There were reports that Tuaregs threatened citizens not to vote.

Iran

            Iranians chose the least hard-line Islamist candidate for president among the pool of candidates allowed by the theocratic mullahs.  The results suggest the economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iran because of its nuclear weapons program are having some effect, as the sanctions were one of the campaign issues.  However, Iran’s policy is not likely to change significantly.

Zimbabwe 

           As happens every time there is a presidential election in Zimbabwe, long-time dictator Robert Mugabe officially wins a majority of the vote amidst widespread allegations of fraud committed by his government.  The international community seems to tolerate human rights violations in the racist, failed socialist state that has been suffering from hyperinflation.

Pennsylvania Budget Follow-Up: The Elimination of the Death Tax on Small Businesses

         

           As part of the Commonwealth’s fiscal year 2013 budget approved June 30, Pennsylvania has eliminated inheritance taxes on certain small businesses. 

The budget was approved by the General Assembly, in which Republicans hold a majority, and signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett, also a Republican.  The measure to eliminate the death tax for small businesses attracted strong bipartisan support.

Under Pennsylvania’s new inheritance tax law, to be generally qualified as exempt from the inheritance tax, a small business must have less than a $5 million net worth and employ fewer than 50 full-time employees and the business must be transferred to a spouse, lineal or collateral descendant. 

As I had noted last year, Pennsylvania had already eliminated them on family farms.  See my post from August of 2012, Governor Corbett Abolishes Pennsylvania’s Death Tax for Family Farmers, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/08/governor-corbett-abolishes.html.  In that post, I urged that the tax be eliminated on businesses, especially small businesses that require a significant amount of land to operate.  As with family farms, many owners had to sell off all or parts of their businesses in order to pay the inheritance tax.  Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax ranges from 4.5% to 15%, depending on the relationship of the heir to the decedent. 

The Keystone State’s death tax is especially burdensome because all inherited assets are subject to the tax, whereas the United States and most other States in the Union that impose an inheritance tax allow a significant exemption.  A typical example in other States is to exempt the first $100,000 dollars of assets.

The death tax was supposed to be phased out completely for all Pennsylvanians and was reduced for lineal descendants from 6% to the lowest rate many years ago, but no further action had been taken until these two measures to ease the burden for family enterprises.

           I praise the General Assembly and Governor for enacting these tax reforms.  These tax cuts should boost the economy, make Pennsylvania more competitive in attracting and maintaining businesses, and even reduce suburban sprawl.  I call upon them to phase out the death tax completely for all Pennsylvanians.

Obama Denies the Obvious in Egypt

The deposing of Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi by Egypt’s army was obviously a military coup d’etat, notwithstanding the fact that it was demanded by a broad-based opposition and that it was popular.  United States President Barack Obama has declared, however, that the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood-led government from power was not a military coup.  A finding that it had been would have barred the continuation of American military aid to Egypt.

There is nothing wrong with a coup that removes a democratically-elected government that had usurped its power, as long as the coup leaders restore civilian, representative government that protects liberty as soon as possible.  The point is that it was wrong of liberals to criticize former President George W. Bush for not opposing a coup that temporarily removed Hugo Chavez from power in Venezuela and for President Bill Clinton to restore Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power in Haiti, both of whom were democratically-elected presidents who gradually became dictators.  Liberals were also wrong to oppose the popular removal by the legislative and judicial branches of the Honduran government of the country’s president, who was a Chavez ally who had attempted to extend his rule, in violation of the constitution of Honduras, just as the Left was wrong to oppose the popular 1973 coup supported by most Chilean institutions that removed the Marxist Salvador Allende from power in Chile.  In contrast to Egypt, the Obama Administration denounced the Honduran coup and sanctioned and ostracized the government that restored representative republican rule.

As I have posted in regard to all of these examples, liberals must learn that the manner of choosing a government, or even the type of government, is not as important as the manner in which it rules, specifically, whether it respects civil rights.  They would profit from studying especially the examples of two infamous democratically-elected regimes, namely Napoleon Bonaparte’s French Empire and Nazi Germany. 

The Obama Administration should be honest and consistent and call the Egyptian military coup what it is and instead ask Congress for the power to repeal the law prohibiting military aid to regimes that come to power by a military putsch, or at least the power to waive such a rule under certain circumstances, such as when a military coup restores liberty.  Even better, it ought to applaud the Egyptians for removing an authoritarian Islamist government that had disappointed the people it had oppressed, while encouraging freedom for all.

Update on the Promotion of Dollar Coins

A new study by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has determined that dollar coins would save $13.8 billion by replacing paper currency, nearly triple the figure suggested by earlier studies, according to CNBC.  Paper currency is cheaper to produce, but far less long-lasting than coins.

CNBC also reports that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has introduced bipartisan-supported legislation to phase out the one-dollar Federal Reserve note (the dollar bill).   Several foreign states have eliminated their single-denomination paper notes, thereby encouraging the use of coins and saving money.  Advocates of dollar coins have promoted the phase-out of the dollar bill to encourage the use of dollar coins and to achieve the projected savings.

See my earlier posts on this subject: Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money, from September of 2011, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/09/dollar-coins-are-not-waste-of-money.html; Follow-Up: Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money, from October of 2011, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/10/follow-up-dollar-coins-are-not-waste-of.html; Use Dollar Coins and $2 Bills, from the same month, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/10/use-dollar-coins-and-2-bills.html; and The Obama Administration is Penny-Wise and Pound Foolish about Dollar Coins, from December of 2011, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/12/obama-administration-is-pennywise-and.html. 

See also the website of the Dollar Coin Alliance: http://www.dollarcoinalliance.org/.

Pennsylvania House Bill 76 and Senate Bill 76 Would Eliminate School Real Estate Taxes

Pennsylvanians are being crushed by real estate taxes, especially school real estate taxes, which tend to increase the most.  The burden of funding Pennsylvania’s schools is falling disproportionately on homeowners.

Real estate taxes are particularly burdensome on senior citizens and businesses in Pennsylvania.  Now that estate taxes (“the death tax”) have been eliminated on family farms in the Commonwealth, real estate taxes remain a major contributing factor in the break-up of family farms across Pennsylvania.  They also discourage younger people from purchasing homes. 

Real estate taxes have contributed to a decline in Pennsylvanians’ net worth by reducing the value of real estate because they increase the cost of ownership.  Real estate values decline especially after homes are sheriff sold for failure to pay taxes, thereby resulting in lower assessments for those and neighboring properties, which thereby produce less real estate tax revenue, which, in turn, increases pressure to raise real estate taxes.  Eventually, a point of diminishing return is reached.  This vicious cycle is especially noticeable in urban districts.  Moreover, real estate taxes penalize improvements to real estate and reward dilapidation, thereby encouraging blight.

The power of school boards to increase real estate taxes in their districts has allowed school spending to increase faster than the rate of inflation and population increase. 

            Identical bipartisan bills in both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, House Bill 76 and Senate Bill 76, would eliminate school real estate taxes.  Both bills are gathering more and more legislative support.  The bills, which are the product of efforts by the Pennsylvania Coalition of Taxpayer Associations, are sponsored by Rep. Jim Cox (R-Berks County) and Senators David Argall (R-Schuylkill County), Mike Folmer (R-Lebanon Count), Judy Schwank (D-Berks County) and John Yudichak (D-Luzerne County).  Argall and Folmer’s districts also include parts of Berks, among other counties. 

            The bills would phase out school real estate taxes in every Pennsylvania school district over two years by replacing them with increases in the state sales tax (from 6 to 7%), as well as by broadening the list of taxable items, and personal income taxes (from 3.07 to $.34%) for those earning over $35,000.  This tax-shift plan would be revenue-neutral, as each school district would continue to receive its current allotment, adjusted for inflation.  Those few districts without debt would immediately see an immediate elimination of school real estate taxes, while every other district would continue to service its debt obligation; real estate taxes would continued to be levied by these districts, but only the amount necessary to service the debt, until the debts are fully retired.  School districts could raise income taxes for major projects, such as school construction, only by referendum.  Gambling revenue from slot machines would continue to help fund the schools. 

It is important to note Pennsylvania’s state sales tax has been dedicated to funding the schools since its inception.  It is paid not only by Pennsylvanians, but also by visitors from other states, thereby reducing the burden on citizens of the Commonwealth.

            A companion amendment to Pennsylvania’s Constitution would permanently prohibit school real estate taxes, once they are eliminated.  Counties and municipalities would continue to levy real estate taxes, however.  Until they are eliminated, Pennsylvania homeowners will continue essentially to rent their homes from the government and will thus never truly own them. 

            If HB 76 and SB 76 were passed and signed into law by the Governor, Pennsylvania homeowners would save a net of hundreds of dollars a year on average, while realizing a substantial gain in net worth because of the increase in property values.  Businesses would also save money, which would make Pennsylvania a more attractive place to locate, maintain or expand a business.  There would be fewer breakups of family farms and less urban sprawl.  The homebuilding industry would benefit from an increase in demand for homes, because they would be more affordable.  All of these factors would stimulate the economy, thereby generating additional sales and income tax revenue for the schools.  Because they would be receiving a predictable stream of revenue, school districts would be forced to control spending, but would be able to focus more on improving education than on raising funds.  These bills would establish tax fairness by spreading the burden for education more equally to all Pennsylvanians and increase freedom by increasing property rights, as citizens of the Commonwealth would be significantly less vulnerable to losing their homes.

           As a homeowner and school director in an urban school district, I see firsthand the damaging effects of school real estate taxes.  I have repeatedly called publicly for the legislature to enact real estate tax reform, as well as privately urged legislators to do the same.  HB 76 and SB 76 represent the best opportunity ever to eliminate school real estate taxes.  To increase freedom and fairness, as well as to improve the Commonwealth’s economy, I urge the Pennsylvania General Assembly to approve these bills and the Governor to sign them into law.

Pennsylvania Opts out of Medicaid Expansion

          Pennsylvania has effectively exercised its option of not expanding Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor, which is a key part of the federalization of health insurance approved by the liberal Democratic Congress and signed into law by United States President Barack Obama, a Democrat, in 2009.

           When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the so-called Affordable Care Act, it declared its requirement that states expand Medicaid, under the threat of losing all of their federal funding for the program, unconstitutional.  The coercion of the States violated their sovereign rights, under the principle of federalism.  Some of the States among the 26 that had sued the federal government have voluntarily opted to expand the program, while several others opted out of Medicaid expansion.

           Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, has not officially announced his decision on whether to expand Medicaid, but he had been asking the Obama Administration questions about the nature of the expansion and the expected costs.  Under the federalization of health insurance plan, the federal government would pick up most of the initial costs for the expansion of Medicaid, but the States would bear an increasing burden of billions of dollars over time. The big-government entitlement program is already expensive, riddled with waste, fraud and abuse, burdensome and ineffective. The Governor has asserted that there is no deadline for him to decide to expand the federal welfare program.  The Commonwealth did not appropriate any money in its recently-passed budget for the implementation of Medicaid expansion, thereby effectively opting the Keystone State out of the expansion, at least for now.

           Corbett resisted pressure from welfare advocates to opt into the federal plan to expand Medicaid.  He deserves gratitude from Pennsylvania taxpayers for resisting the pressure.  We conservatives should continue to oppose the expansion of Medicaid and the federalization of health insurance and instead support market-based reforms, the elimination of the prohibition of purchasing insurance across state lines and medical malpractice tort reform.

Pennsylvania Balances Its Budget without Raising Taxes

           The Pennsylvania General Assembly, led by its Republican majority, approved a balanced budget for the Commonwealth – on time and without raising taxes, for the third consecutive year.  The $28 billion was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican.

            Pennsylvania’s fiscal year 2013 budget restarts the long phase-out of the capital stock and franchise tax.  This onerous tax, which has been in the process of being gradually eliminated since the 1990s, is in addition to the state’s corporate income tax, leaving the Keystone State with the highest corporate tax burden in the world, thereby making it difficult to maintain or attract business to Pennsylvania.  The budget also increases spending on education.  Pennsylvania now spends more on education than ever before, despite the end of the Obama stimulus that was allocated for education (the end of which made it appear incorrectly to critics that spending had been cut by Corbett).

           Left undone, among other matters, are three major issues: transportation funding, pension reform and liquor privatization.  These issues are expected to be taken up by the legislature in the fall.  

Italian Economic, Fiscal and Political Developments

           This post is a compendium of significant recent stories reported by ANSA, the Italian news agency.  Other than CNBC, which has been following political and economic developments in Italy because of the European Monetary Union crisis, against which Italy, as the Eurozone’s third largest economy, is a firewall, there has been little reporting in the American media on the subject.

            In economic and fiscal developments, Italy has been removed from “deficit watch” status by the European Union, along with the harsh measures concomitant with such status, as its deficit is projected to drop a tenth of a percent below the 3% of gross domestic product threshold.  The spread between Italian and German bonds continues to be well below 300 basis points.  The grand coalition Government will delay increasing the value-added tax, while it has reached no decision on eliminating and refunding the real estate tax, which was a key demand of the center-right.  The Government is cracking down more on tax cheaters and those who fraudulently receive pensions.  Meanwhile, the government paid tens of billions of euros worth of bills it had owed businesses, which is expected to have an economically stimulative effect.  Italy is enduring its worst recession, characterized especially by unemployment among the youth.  A plan for addressing youth unemployment with a mix of spending and tax incentives was announced by the Government.  The plan also includes more aid for Southern Italy.

            In political developments, the government appointed “sages” to recommend electoral reform.  Parliament approved a measure to study reforming the Italian Republic’s electoral process.  Among the ideas being considered are the following: changing the nature of the Senate, the upper chamber, as a check on the house to a regional assembly; changing the allocation of seats in the Chamber of Deputies, the lower chamber, and the direct election of the president.

            The unprecedented center-right-left government has survived former Premier Silvio Berlusconi’s legal troubles.  He leads the center-right party, which is critical for the stability of the government.

Cinfici Helps Balance the Reading School District Budget to Avert a State Takeover

           Since I was sworn in as Reading School Director on May 8 to fill a vacancy on the Board of Directors, I have been preoccupied with the passage of a balanced budget for the Reading School District.  I am sorry that I was unable to post more frequently during this time, as the process required my intense focus to close a $13 million shortfall without raising taxes.

           I am pleased that although I did not agree with all of the provisions within the District’s budget for fiscal year 2013-2014 that begins July 1, the Board was able to pass a balanced budget of over $212 million on Friday, June 28, before the legal deadline of today.  The failure to pass a balanced budget on time would have resulted in the state declaring the District, which is already in distressed watch status, as a distressed school district, which would have allowed the state to dictate its finances totally through a financial recovery officer or receiver.  Although a state takeover would likely have resulted in better fiscal responsibility, the principal of local control would have been lost and local input of the spending of locally-raised tax dollars thereby nullified. The District would also have been financially stigmatized with an even lower credit rating and its prospects of ever recovering and permanently exiting distressed status bleak.  I believed that as long as local control existed, the Board must exercise its fiduciary responsibility to pass a fiscally-responsible budget.  I am pleased that the Board appears to have achieved this goal.

           The Reading School District Administration had presented a plan immediately after my swearing in to close a projected budget deficit of over $13 million dollars that included the highest real estate tax increase allowable by law for the second consecutive year, without building up any significant budgetary reserve. Some of its plans did not appear to the Board of Directors to be well considered while many other initiatives to save money or increase revenue were left on the shelf as not ready. The Board exercised its fiduciary responsibility by exemplifying the value of local control by working its way through the Administration’s proposals to cut student programs or services, taking out what we thought too damaging to students or that was too impracticable or inefficient for our particular district by offsetting them with our own proposed cuts, without raising taxes and by placing $2.5 million in budgetary reserve.

           I am proud to have helped assist the District at this critical time. I noted to the Board, however, that its work is not done, as additional savings and increased revenue (other than by raising taxes) are necessary to build up the budgetary reserve to the recommended level of $10 million, as the District likely will need to use at least some of it because of certain foreseen anticipated expenses or losses of revenue or because of unforeseen contingencies.  I am eager to begin to promote various ideas for additional savings and increased revenue.

           In the meantime, I look forward to a break in the meeting schedule and possibly being able to post more frequently.