1
n
1
0!
;
r
4
v
1 it
t
- 8
- 1
icon
n
';
i
si
.J
,
-.1
11
i
01
Qithur
hoppe
'(iasaww r.M
editorial ejpiMEsfi (pg
The golden rule
Sara Schwieder is a junior majoring in history and
journalism. She is the Daily Nebraskan editorial
assistant.
In the highly respected and innovative California
Supreme Court, a fascinating and potentially
far-reaching decision was made last fall concerning
the allocation of property tax monies to the public
school system.
The Court decided, in the Serrano vs. Priest case,
that schools in an area where land values are
high -and therefore property taxes are high-have an
unwarranted and an unequal advantage over areas
where property taxes are low, and that the incidental
value of the land upon which a school sits should not
have any relation to the quality of education the
children in that area receive.
Consider: A poor school district taxes its
constituents at the same rate as a rich district but
doesn't raise as much money as a rich district.
Therefore, it has less money to put into its schools
than the wealthier area, and subsequently has lower
quality education.
The case states that . . dependence on local
property taxes and resultant wide disparities in school
revenue, violates the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. . . . This funding scheme
discriminates against the poor because it makes the
quality of a child's education a function of the wealth
of his parents and neighbors.""
It is obvious: Every child ought to have the
opportunity for a good education. The present
system perpetuates poor people by depriving them of
the kind of education they need to be successful
members of society.
The case is strong and will undoubtedly be taken
to the United States Supreme Court. Should the U.S.
Supreme Court side with the California Supreme
Court, which seems likely, many states, including
Nebraska, would have to alter their tax structure.
An important point here: The California decision
does not forbid the use of property taxes to fund
schools. It merely states that revenue gathered by
property tax be more fairly doled out.
Several novel solutions have already been
suggested. 1) Continue collecting property tax, but
the state would distribute the money on a per-head
basis instead of to individual districts. That way,
every child gets the same amount of money and the
same quality education. A minimum of fuss is
required, and there would be no drastic political
changes.
2) Then there is a scheme to use any type of
taxing individual states prefer, but all the school
money raised would go into a federal government
coffer to be doled out equally among every child in
the country.
The only thing wrong with this idea is the fact that
whoever doles out the dough pulls the strings-we
would have effectively given up local control of the
schools. The public is notoriously touchy about the
whocontrols-the-school issue, and guesses are is that
most Americans would consider federal
governrnent-run schools a rotten idea.
At any rate, the whole issue is an important
matter: It could influence who gets elected (by what
kind of tax platforms they endorse), it could result in
big political changes between state and federal
government.
And most important of all, it has the potential to
start solving basic social inequalities in America,
which at this point is of critical importance to
everyone in this country.
The United States is a rich country, a country
haunted by its original promise of equal opportunity
for all. Battered, bruised and divided, America is just
beginning to understand the gut-level meaning of
200-year-old idealism.
(Note: The Serrano case has technically been
decided but is still pending in the California Superior
Court.)
Sara Schwieder
First the good news: Mr. Nixon's full
employment budget is going to wind up
in balance during the fiscal 1972!
And now the bad news: This means
the Government's going another $38.8
billion in the red-the biggest actual
budget deficit since World War II.
But don't worry about it. As
Commerce Secretary Maurice Stans and
other Administration officials explain it,
it's perfectly all right to go that much in
the hole because, fortunately, there are a
lot of people out of work.
You see, as Mr. Stans explains it, if our
six million unemployed had jobs, they
would be paying taxes and spending
what's left over. So there wouldn't be any
deficit.
In fact, if unemployment soars
between now and the end of the fiscal
year in June, we may even have a full
employment budget surplus! But let's not
be overly optimistic.
In any event, the Administration's
exciting fiscal concept not only cheers us
all, but it's done wonders for the jobless.
Take my friend, Kenneth Alexander, an
unemployed bell pepper stuffer.
No sooner had Mr. Alexander read Mr.
Stans' explanation than he went out and
charged a matched pair of water skis.
Mr. Alexander's wife, lone, expressed
surprise at his action. ("Now what have
you done, you meathead?" was the way
she expressed it.) But once he explained
the concept and assured her it had the
President's approval, she relented.
"You mean because you aren't making
$212 a week stuffing bell peppers you
can afford new water skis?" she said
suspiciously.
"Right!" he said. "They're no strain at
all on my full employment budget."
"What about me?" she said, getting
enthused. "If I were fully employed at
my old job as a gandy dancer, I'd be
bringing home another $186 a week."
"By golly!" he said, whipping out a
pencil. "That's a total of $389. We can
afford the payments on a matched
31 -foot Chris Craft to match our water
skis."
"Not to mention a matched mouton
stole," she said. "And don't forget our
five kids, none of whom is fully - or even
partially - employed, thank goodness.
Think of the take-home pay they're not
taking home."
"Good thinking! Let's see, 15-year-old
Philbert could make $100 a week as a hot
chestnut salesman while six-monthold
Philomena should bring in at least
cents an hour as a door stop. . ."
In no time at all, the Alexander family
wasn't making a fabulous $33,280 a
year. On an income like this they could
easily afford their new 5 12-bathroom
home, their condominium in Aspen and
their Mercedes-Benz camper.
The four older children enjoyed the
15-speed bikes they'd not earned for
themselves, while little Philomena cooed
happily in her ten-speed baby carriage.
They were a little disappointed when
they discovered they didn't have the
money for a Grand Tour of Europe. They
didn't, that is, until Mr. Alexander
cleverly quit not stuffing bell peppers and
became an unemployed plumber instead
- thus tripling the salary he wan't getting
overnight.
And, obviously, anybody with a full
employment income of $5S,328 a year
can afford a Grand Tour of Europe. At
least that's what Mr. Alexander's attorney
told the judge.
But as Mr. Alexander said glumly to
Mrs. Alexander on visiting day: "It seems
a guy who can believe in a concept like
that always winds up in the White House
or in jail."
(Copyright Chronicle Publishing
Company, 1972)
PAGE 4
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 1972
