The October 1st edition of the Janesville Messenger was chock full of the right-wing idiology (correct spelling) that I’ve come to expect from them.
One article written by Jim Lyke and titled “Opposition to referendum may be shortsighted” was generally about his experience when he attended a Madison chamber of Commerce meeting intended to halt the growth of taxes. Lyke wrote that a Republican state senator from Milwaukee (whom he refused to name) said that Democrats were opposed to his taxcut plan and then stated “Well, they even supported a school referendum – so they must be communists.”
Referring to the $70.8 million Janesville School District referendum which would tax every homeowner an additional $103 a year for the next 10 years, Lyke feels it is shortsighted to oppose a tax just because it’s a tax. He also writes that since Forward Janesville fought against a county sales tax but endorses the property tax hike for the schools, it must be good.
Because the republican Lyke supports the School referendum he wrote that he was offended by his fellow Republicans “communist” comment. Promoting higher taxes to pay for improvements and services is the kiss of death for many politicians, particularly since Republicans have used high taxes as a political weapon against those dastardly tax and spend democrats. But now since Lyke, Forward Janesville and a few others want to tax and spend, they are looking for ways to get around the very same mantra they have beat up democrats with. They have even gone so far as to hire a marketing firm to convince voters to vote themselves a hefty tax increase. You see, when Republicans tax and spend it’s a sound investment and “capitalistic” in a good way. But when democrats tax and spend, Republicans view it as socialism or worse yet a “hand-out” or what the Republican senator from Milwaukee calls those kind of taxers and spenders, they're “communists.”
Contrary to all expectations it turns out, the Janesville Property tax hike is endorsed by those tax freeze Republicans.
10 comments:
You are wrong, Jim Lyke is not a Republican. Far from it. He is a nice guy but very liberal.
I may be wrong on this one, but his article which I thought was well written, leaned way too far for business. Liberals tend to view taxation as an investment in human progress and community, not in a "capitalistic" way. Plus, he made a point that he was wearing a "red shirt" at the meeting. And liberals, progressives and Democrats in Lykes position would have mentioned the senator by name in his article and not protect his identity. If Lyke is a liberal, I would definitely welcome that. But first he needs to start writing like one.
Louis is right. Lyke was offended by the "communists" statement because the state senator implied that people who support school referendums are communists. Lyke pointed out his red shirt to the senator to say 'Hey, I'm a Republican and I support a school referendum, does that make me a communist too. Read the article again.
It's for the children.
Big difference between the concerns of business and the concerns of children. Only capitalists wonder "whats in it for me"?
It seems republicans favor giving our children the best enviroment to learn in and to be able to have the best education availible. So, these children can thrieve in society and not be dependent on government programs.
I was expecting that comment. But it is the Democrats who want to give the children the best environment possible as the Republican state senator said," those(democrats)people who are against his taxcuts also voted for a school referendum, therefore they must be communists. We are swinging both ways here.
I strongly believe Republicans promote local tax increases, so in that aspect you can say they support expensive school referendums thereby giving the kids the best education possible. But I also strongly believe that Democrats expect every child should have excess to the same great education anywhere in the country, regardless of race, location or economic class. Unless you are living in Lake Forest, Ill or Beverly Hills, California, many local taxpayers cannot afford it. Public schools are a government program, they must never be privitized. The Federal tax revenue is the equalizer.
Louis: Jim Lyke here. I was tipped off that there was some commentary posted here regarding my article supporting the Janesville school referendum, so I felt compelled to check it out.
First of all, thank you for reading my column. It's nice to know I'm not wasting my time every two weeks sitting in front of my PC. To have my commentary discussed and blogged is flattering in any context.
I don't expect everyone to agree with the referendum. $103 a year is a chunk. In a perfect world, school improvements like this wouldn't need to be slapped onto people's property taxes in the first place. (If you read my October 15 column, I think you'll see what I do favor in terms of funding education.) But my past employment at Forward Janesville led to my working with the school district a lot, and I see what they are up against. The high school facilities have issues, big ones. They're not asking for unreasonable improvements. But I acknowledge that, unfortunately, the expense involved is a monster. Reasonable people can disagree on whether they wish to support that or not.
You state that my article leans too far for business. Guilty as charged. I worked for eight years for a business organization, so I have that perspective.
That said, however, I am definitely NOT a Republican or a member of any political party. In fact, I voted for Ralph Nader for President not once, but twice, but I'm certainly not a Green either. I do not feel that any one party reflects my beliefs. In general, my social views lean liberal and my fiscal views lean conservative. But that's neither here nor there, I suppose.
As far as the 'red shirt' story in the article, I was just commenting on the irony of being labeled a communist while wearing a red shirt, nothing more. I forgot to mention the 'hammer and sickle' on the back. Just kidding.
And I wasn't 'protecting the identity' of the senator in the article. I didn't think it was critical to the article and I figured if anybody really cared, they might be able to figure it out by my general description of his district. Plus, I was conscious about potentially stirring up a hornet's nest. But since inquiring minds want to know, it was State Sen. Glenn Grothman.
If nothing else, I hope that answers some of your questions. Thank you for reading the column. I don't expect everyone (or anyone) to necessarily agree with my viewpoints, but I hope you'll keep checking it out.
Thank you for your comments, Jim.
I don't enjoy labeling people and everybody it seems has their own definitions regarding liberal/conservative usage.
I do tend to analyze articles and their writers in an attempt to expose the truth or their motivation.
I also view "liberal economics" as a hallmark of the new republicanism that has swept the country. When I see somebody promoting deregulation, corporate taxcuts and higher local taxes - liberal does not come to mind.
I did read your Oct.15th article, and again, supporting a higher state sales tax as an answer to lower property taxes is not the answer. If governor, I too would have shelved the results of the blue-ribbon panel. I believe the ad-valorem process of assessing property taxes is antiquated if not improper and must be changed.
Thanks, Louis. I know a lot of people didn't like the idea of the sales tax to fund education because they were skeptical about whether it would really lower property taxes. Personally, I think the sales tax is a fairer tax for this purpose, and protections could have been written into the law to assure that property owners saw relief. But I respect your thoughts and a healthy discussion of the issue.
I suspect there are several issues - particularly on the national political level - in which we would be in complete agreement.
Post a Comment