I agree funding has to come from somewhere and the people that want programs to do so. The questions that come before us are what (what kind of tax), why (why we need this or that program, and is that program constitutional)

 

If people do not like taxes they should be able to cut programs, hense money saved.

 

That case in Va, they never really cut any program did they, so funding still had to take place. For what programs!

 

 

State dollars in education on the local level were cut. Budgets had been built on the tradition of receiving those funds. So schools in our County Government began to make up for it by bigger class sizes, combining specialty work into one person that thins out the quality of the job. We cut funding to many of the arts programs in the schools. Field Trips are now a luxury at only certain levels of the education process and some of those traditional ones have been cut back to few and far between.

 

But the key is that to take away one income source (Federal) means we have to come up with close to the same funds in order to just get the basics done. For example if you cut Federal dollars for local education, where will that money come from next year?

 

Will we just do away with Special Education programs? Alternative schools? Vocational education? Governor's Schools?

 

How about athletics? Many athletic programs get some serious funding from school budgets, what if we did away with those because we aren't getting state and federal dollars we used to get?

 

What about school lunches for children who qualify for "free lunch?" We could lower that qualification level or do we do away with it? Those are Federal dollars I think.

 

What about transportation costs for the schools?

 

As for Virginia, if you check out any organizations that examine how state governments function, they usually are in the better than average catagory.

If we could get the Federal government to reduce its bloated budget and fund only those items constitutionaly mandated (which is not going to happen), the states could fund those projects that are closer to home.

I oppose about all tax increases, but if they come they should be as close to home as possible. 1st at the city or county level where it effects your home local the most, then at the state level and last at the federal level. The closer to home the better, it effects the local taxpayer and the taxpayer has a better chance of watching over how the tax dollars are spent.

If we could get the Federal government to reduce its bloated budget and fund only those items constitutionaly mandated (which is not going to happen), the states could fund those projects that are closer to home.

I oppose about all tax increases, but if they come they should be as close to home as possible. 1st at the city or county level where it effects your home local the most, then at the state level and last at the federal level. The closer to home the better, it effects the local taxpayer and the taxpayer has a better chance of watching over how the tax dollars are spent.

 

 

That sounds like a great plan to me. The only problem would be convincing the local populace to have their local taxes raised. Even for noble causes like education, many localities seem willing to fight sometimes the most modest of increases.

 

I agree with you that this would be the ideal.

Personally I’m ticked off about how much of my 2008 wages went to the government, 24,000 dollars (and some change) to be exact. And I’m in no position to be giving that kind of money up, and how much of that do you think I will get back? If I’m lucky maybe $7,000. It wouldn’t be as bad if I knew the money was being spent wisely however we all know it isn’t, there are way too many Americans that are dependents of the government that IMO shouldn’t be, and that number continues to grow.

Another thing that makes me upset about having 24,000 dollars of my hard earned money taken is that other countries do more with a lot less money. I recently heard a report (can’t remember the specifics) that talked about how much we spend per student as opposed to other countries and the number was staggering yet we constantly score worse than those countries who spend less, go figure…

Personally I’m ticked off about how much of my 2008 wages went to the government, 24,000 dollars (and some change) to be exact. And I’m in no position to be giving that kind of money up, and how much of that do you think I will get back? If I’m lucky maybe $7,000. It wouldn’t be as bad if I knew the money was being spent wisely however we all know it isn’t, there are way too many Americans that are dependents of the government that IMO shouldn’t be, and that number continues to grow.

Another thing that makes me upset about having 24,000 dollars of my hard earned money taken is that other countries do more with a lot less money. I recently heard a report (can’t remember the specifics) that talked about how much we spend per student as opposed to other countries and the number was staggering yet we constantly score worse than those countries who spend less, go figure…

 

The number is slightly over $9,000 (in terms of Federal Spending per student)

State dollars in education on the local level were cut. Budgets had been built on the tradition of receiving those funds. So schools in our County Government began to make up for it by bigger class sizes, combining specialty work into one person that thins out the quality of the job. We cut funding to many of the arts programs in the schools. Field Trips are now a luxury at only certain levels of the education process and some of those traditional ones have been cut back to few and far between.

 

But the key is that to take away one income source (Federal) means we have to come up with close to the same funds in order to just get the basics done. For example if you cut Federal dollars for local education, where will that money come from next year?

 

Will we just do away with Special Education programs? Alternative schools? Vocational education? Governor's Schools?

 

How about athletics? Many athletic programs get some serious funding from school budgets, what if we did away with those because we aren't getting state and federal dollars we used to get?

 

What about school lunches for children who qualify for "free lunch?" We could lower that qualification level or do we do away with it? Those are Federal dollars I think.

 

What about transportation costs for the schools?

 

As for Virginia, if you check out any organizations that examine how state governments function, they usually are in the better than average catagory.

 

I think this is where cuts should be made first!

If we could get the Federal government to reduce its bloated budget and fund only those items constitutionaly mandated (which is not going to happen), the states could fund those projects that are closer to home.

I oppose about all tax increases, but if they come they should be as close to home as possible. 1st at the city or county level where it effects your home local the most, then at the state level and last at the federal level. The closer to home the better, it effects the local taxpayer and the taxpayer has a better chance of watching over how the tax dollars are spent.

 

I hope that you are wrong, I just joined the Libertarian Party because they believe the above ideas. I recommend everyone to look into it.