While the adults who are not in the room play “whack the mole” and “starve the beast’, those adults who are in the room (teachers) and the young people whose future is at stake (students), pay the price.
On Nov. 6, Hawaii voters will be asked, “Shall the legislature be authorized to establish, as provided by law, a surcharge on investment real property to be used to support public education?”
Loud and forceful opposition to this measure by the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Realtors and the counties is to be expected.
The Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors, rarely if ever support any tax increases for any reason. This is who they are, and I get it. That is their position, and they are certainly entitled to it.
The county as well is driven by self interest, seeking to protect its primary income source, which is property taxes. I get that too.
Everybody looks after themselves and I get it, but I do not agree or embrace it. I certainly don’t agree with using hyperbole to mislead and scare the public into opposing a worthy effort to support public education.
The concerns expressed by the proposals opponents are centered on the fear of the unknown, and project out worse case scenarios.
When the opponents state “there is no guarantee this money will go to education,” they are being less than forthright. Like most big lies, there is some truth to this statement because in life there are no guarantees. The law can be changed, budgets can be altered, and nefarious means can be used to subvert the language in the constitution.
SB2922 which created the proposed constitutional amendment says clearly: “… revenues derived from a surcharge on investment real property pursuant to section 3 of article VIII shall be used to support public education.”
The ballot question itself says, “Shall the legislature be authorized to establish, as provided by law, a surcharge on investment real property to be used to support public education?”
Should the Legislature attempt to divert the funds from public education, or attempt to “supplant” the funding by decreasing what presently comes in from other sources, you can be sure that teachers, parents, and students across the state would sue. You can also be sure the legislators who supported such an effort would be targeted and would lose their next election.
Of this, I am 100 percent certain.
Yes, the legislature does this fairly frequently with other funds, but unlike the others, the particular purpose of this surcharge “to support public education” is embedded in the state constitution.
The truth is that a law implementing the intent of the proposed Constitutional amendment has not been written and will not be written until the amendment passes.
The Constitution provides the basic framework and the legislature provides the details. While those details are always subject to change, the legislature cannot change the fundamental purpose of “using the funds to support public education.”
Based on the legislative history preceding this effort, the clear intent is to levy a tax surcharge on “high end” investment property that has minimal impact on local residents. The targeted investment property in past discussions at the legislature have been very expensive homes owned by investors that either sit vacant or are used as part-time residence’s or vacation rentals. Legislators could easily exempt all investment properties that are used for long term rentals, or as has been proposed, tax only those properties valued at $1 million or more.
Another increasingly popular argument against increasing funding for public education is based loosely on the fact that a large school system requires a large bureaucracy, and large bureaucracies are inherently inefficient.
I will be the first to agree that yes the Department of Education can and must improve its operations.
However, a strategy of “starving the beast” by refusing to increase funding for public education until “they fix the DOE” is shortsighted and will only perpetuate the arguments of those who claim the public education system is failing. Of course, the more you starve the system of resources, the worse it will perform.
Increasing funding for our schools, while increasing efficiencies at the DOE is the dual path and strategy that must be followed if we are to continue making meaningful improvements in public education.
To borrow briefly from a piece I wrote a few weeks ago on this topic:
“The legislature and the public has been playing a game of “whack a mole” for a long, long time, effectively dodging the question and responsibility of properly funding Hawaii’s public education system. They say no to increasing the General Excise Tax (GET), they say no to raising tourist taxes (except for rail, of course), they say no to taxing sugar drinks, and they say no to legalizing and taxing cannabis. In the past they have said no to taxing retirement income and casino gambling and/or a lottery (all bad ideas IMHO) have never gotten off the ground.
“Whack the mole, pass the buck, and kick the can down the road is how our state has dealt with funding public education, and we all should be a little ashamed of ourselves for letting that happen.”
Somebody has to step up, support, and actually pay for the public education system our children deserve. That somebody, is all of us.
I am voting yes and I encourage you to join me.
•••
Gary Hooser formerly served in the state Senate, where he was majority leader. He also served for eight years on the Kauai County Council and was former director of the state Office of Environmental Quality Control. He serves presently in a volunteer capacity as board president of the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action (HAPA) and is executive director of the Pono Hawaii Initiative.
