Harris County Wants a Raise

Like many other government entities, Harris County is feeling the impact of the recession. Property tax collections have declined and the county has had to dip into its reserve fund. Where the county has historically maintained reserves amounting to about 15 percent of its budget, it will enter the next fiscal year with a cushion of about 1 percent. County officials are warning that a tax increase must be considered, though they made the usual promises to look into cutting spending.

The Chronicle reports that Precinct 4 Commissioner Jerry Eversole believes that a tax increase cannot be avoided:

"You're absolutely wasting time if you think we can maintain this budget without a tax increase," he [Eversole] said. "If we can get through 2011, we damn sure aren't going to get through 2012. So somewhere along the line either this (budget) has to be cut or we've got to talk about a tax increase."

After the meeting, Eversole said he does not favor a tax increase, but that it has to be on the table along with options for spending cuts.

Unlike private citizens, the county government has an ATM--tax payers--that never runs dry. It can spend beyond its means and then simply demand, at the point of a gun, that tax payers replenish the bank.

Commissioners, eager to show that they are on the side of tax payers, tossed out a few suggestions for meager cuts: ending car allowances and take-home cars for county employee and conducting a study to privatize the county jail. Nobody suggested cutting any of the improper county services that comprise a large part of the budget.

For example, the 2009-2010 budget includes $990 million for toll roads and $437 million for flood control. Even if we concede that privatizing infrastructure services isn't going to happen soon, the county's bloated budget contains plenty of other targets for spending cuts. More than $28.5 million was budgeted for public health and environmental services, $27.3 million for libraries, and $130.9 million for youth and family services. Of course, cutting spending in these areas would require Commissioners to not only grow a spine, but to also reject the morality of altruism.

So long as they believe that individuals have a moral obligation to sacrifice for others, they will continue to fund things like public health, libraries, and youth services. Until they recognize the moral right of each individual to his own life, the pursuit of his own happiness, and the wealth that he creates, they will continue to rob tax payers to pay for the needs of others. And that won't occur until voters refuse to be self-sacrificial milch cows.

Why is the Chronicle Surprised?

Absent rational principles, virtually any issue can be confusing. Absent rational principles, it can be almost impossible to identify a connection between events. Absent rational principles, we get editorials like that in Tuesday's Chronicle. Subtitled "The State Board of Education is still politicizing our children's textbooks," the editorial seems surprised that political considerations are a part of a government agency.


The paper's dismay results from refusing to recognize the essential nature of the board. Government is an agency of force, and the State Board of Education is no exception. Its edicts are imposed upon public schools, teachers, and parents by force. That competing interests want to control the use of that force for their own ends should not be surprising. Indeed, it should be expected.


As with other issues, such as Metro, the Chronicle wants us to believe that the problem is not an improper government agency, but rather those in charge. If only board members put aside their personal views and did what is best for the state's public school students, such issues would not even be raised. That simply isn't going to happen when so much political power is at stake.


If the Chronicle wants to see politics taken out of education, then it should advocate for government to get out of education. Politics and government are inseparable, a fact that continues to escape the paper's editorial writers. And that is precisely what we should expect from those who reject rational principles.

Non-fundamental Change at HISD

On Sunday the Chronicle ran an OpEd optimistically titled "Reinventing education in Houston." From the title, one would expect the article to reveal some kind of revolutionary idea. Instead, we simply got more of the status quo.


The article states:

HISD has not been waiting passively for someone to provide an answer; it has the will, the leadership and the support to transform the district into a model for the rest of the nation. The board of education, Superintendent Terry Grier and the HISD team have the courage and expertise to step outside the comfort zone and take the necessary but often controversial actions to bring about fundamental change, like linking teacher pay with their performance based on reliable data and making continued employment contingent on ongoing improvement. That level of accountability also applies to the quality of the leadership of principals and central office staff. 

Consider what is regarded as "fundamental change": Holding teachers, principals, and staff accountable. Granted, this might be new in the realm of public education, but it can hardly be considered fundamental change. HISD will remain a political institution, subject to the vagaries of educational bureaucrats in Austin and political pressure in Houston. Taxpayers will continue to be forced to support public schools, whether they are happy with the results or not. Parents--particularly those in lower income brackets--will continue to have limited educational choices for their children. How is this "fundamental change"? It brief, it isn't. HISD is simply tinkering with details while throwing out another promise.


Consider what is regarded as holding teachers, principals, and staff accountable: Basing their pay on student performance. And who will determine student performance? The same bureaucrats and administrators that have been promising change and improved performance for decades. The "customers" of public education will have little, if any, input other than putting political pressure on those same bureaucrats and administrators. This is precisely what has been occurring for decades, and can hardly be considered "fundamental change."


If HISD truly wants to do something revolutionary and do something that would truly serve as a model to the rest of the nation, it would begin putting itself out of business. It would begin taking measures to get government out of education.


Doing so would benefit taxpayers who would no longer be forced to support a failing public educational system. Those who want to voluntarily support education would be free to do so, and they could choose to support those schools who produce results with which they approve. They could hold schools accountable by withdrawing their financial support if they are unhappy with those results.


Parents would benefit by having the freedom--and the resources--to choose how their children are educated. If they are unhappy with the content of that education, or the results, they would be free to hold the school accountable by moving their children to a different school.


Competent and talented teachers and administrators would benefit because they would have the freedom to command higher salaries. Those who value their services would be willing to pay higher prices for results, but nobody would be forced to do so.

Fundamental change does not mean tinkering with the details of public education. It means abolishing public education.