Supporters minimize the increase
To the Editor:
It’s as if schools follow a script when trying to get a school bond passed. First, a crisis, and urgent need. Then there are testimonials.
Supporters push the millage using standard arguments: “It’s for the kids.” They minimize the increase. It’s equated to cups of coffee, doughnuts, whatever — a pittance. They find any possible way to characterize the proposal — it’s a renewal; and the extension is anything but an increase.
This bond is for $41,085,000. The minimization argument ignores the cumulative effect of one tax increase (23.92 mills to 25 mills) piled on top of another. Rather than a cup of coffee, why not cite something like a breath of air? Tax payers could give up one breath per day for the Sept. 13 vote and be all right. But by the time we give up more breaths for local, state and Federal taxes for this, we end up blue in the face.
If it is such a pittance, why can’t adjustments possible be made; maybe do without some of the “wish list.”
Tax payers are making adjustments and doing without things. If we tax payers are inclined to give Duncan Public Schools more money for remodeling and renovations, why not a pay-as-you-go sinking fund? When one bond ends and we tax payers owe zero (Duncan, 1998) and a new bond begins that is an increase. Paying 23.92 mills this year for the current bond and paying 23.92 mills for a new bond is an extension. This new bond will extend it to a higher amount, 25 mills — i.e., tax increase.
Also, the annual transportation expenditures do not further academic excellence, such as technology, additional teachers for advanced placement classes in English or government.
Jan Preece Gaddis
Why spend money we don’t have?