District may shutter another campus
Education: Much will hinge on May 18 sales tax election
Wed, 03/24/2010 - 00:31
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Herald/Review
SIERRA VISTA — Just a month after voting to close Apache Middle School, the Sierra Vista school board learned it may face shutting an elementary school if the May 18 sales tax hike fails. Even if the measure passes, a school closure would likely still be on the table to deal with budget reductions the following year, according to Superintendent Brett Agenbroad, who gave a budget update during the board meeting on Tuesday.
If you find a correction for this story, please contact our editorial department
Related Terms:
Family Fun This Week
|
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 05:30 - 07:00
|
|
Sat, 02/18/2012 - 09:00 - 12:00
|
|
Sun, 03/11/2012 - 04:30 - 07:00
|
|
Fri, 03/16/2012 (All day) - Sun, 05/06/2012 (All day)
|
|
Thu, 03/29/2012 - 10:00 - 12:00
|
|
Mon, 04/23/2012 - 09:00 - 16:00
|
|
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 10:30 - Fri, 05/01/2015 - 10:30
|
I am sorry you feel I am ignorant. What I think you are failing to recognize
is the difference between allowing and compelling religion in whatever form.
I am assuming you are a Christian given your references. So would you be okay
with a Jewish administrator or a Muslim guiding your child in prayer? If you
are tied to a particular denomination would you be satisfied if someone of a
very different denomination were to specify the religious activity? There are
no decisions that prevent voluntary religious activities that are similar to
ours. I do not feel I have spoken ignorantly. I am sorry you feel compelled
to accuse me of it. There probably is no more room for discussion.
I do not “feel” you are ignorant. You have shown it. The whole point of my
comment was that the more Government (and your precious unions) gets involved
in the education of our children, the more our children lose. Whether or not
you choose to accept it, this country was founded on Biblical Christian
beliefs. Ever since government stuck their fingers in education, God has been
pushed further and further away. My comments are directed at the National
situation, not just Sierra Vista. They want Jesus out of Christmas, Easter,
Good Friday, Thanksgiving…you name it. Even our cemetarys. Yet it is ok to
teach Muslim holidays and beliefs or spiritualism. Despite the words of the
Liberal Messiah, this IS a Christian Nation. Those of you who choose to stick
their heads in the sand in the name of “tolerance” will one day reap your
just rewards, as will those of us who steadfastly maintain our faith in the
TRUE Messiah, Jesus.
I see that you have a well-considered position but we disagree on a few
points. I can’t accept your argument that the primary role of gov’t is
defense of the nation. The Constitution names that role fourth, between
“insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”
Regarding defence, the constitution concerns itself more with militias and
allows apportionment of monies for standing armies for no more than 2 years.
We need a military but, as Ike warned, it is swelling out of control because
it is the biggest pork barrel in history and anyone who questions it is a
traitor. Clearly, this notion of “defense” bears examination as well. WW2
Marine defended this country. The use of US military power since then has
been less cut and dried. We should “defend” against financial ruin.We can and
should reduce our expenditures enormously and be completely safe. Our house
is on fire and we are ignoring the blaze. Instead, we’re ----- because the
firefighters are getting overtime.
Do you understand the difference between promote and provide? Apparently not
because promoting the general welfare does not mean the government provides
it. …
You’re noting the relative placement in the Preamble and many have taken the
“promote the general welfare” to mean just about anything. It is important to
read the rest of the Constitution, court precedent, and most importantly, the
Federalist Papers, which brings insight into the logic of the founding
fathers. Going back to your original concern, the current financial
situation, our downfall will come when people try to sell the idea that
Promoting the General Welfare means just that - welfare. The left will try
and convince that it means giving everyone free access to medical care, free
prescription drugs, unlimited unemployment benefits, free college education,
saving people from expensive balloon mortgages, subsidies for buying new
cars, free high-speed internet, and on and on. See how slippery that slope
is? How will it continue? How will it end? The money pot is already dry.
You’re right Cassandra, we’re on the road to financial ruin unless we cut
federal and state spending.
I note the relative placement of terms only to illustrate that the Const.
styles no #1 priority. I also find no signal importance in the term
“welfare.” I refered to the rest of the Const. and the Federalist Papers were
one half of an argument antecedent to ratification. However, F.P.#8 does
speak to this issue “The continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of
continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort
for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy
their civil and political rights…The institutions chiefly alluded to are
STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments.”
You’ve identified your own fallacy - “slippery slope.” We must cut spending
AND we must be willing to look at our biggest bill. Real conservative
economists (e.g. von Mises) note the drag of military spending on an economy.
Many resist this notion because they have defense jobs, but, as a jobs
program, it is inefficient.
Standing armies do absorb capital that is best invested in our markets. Thus
most (at least supporters of a free market, libertarians, and “real
conservatives”) would love to not have to support a standing army. However,
we do not live in isolation. To provide a stable, secure (and sovereign)
environment it is necessary to provide for the national defense. Look how our
porous southern border and the flood of illegal aliens has destroyed the
public school systems and health care systems in Southern California. You
can’t honestly believe our country can survive for any length of time with
only a militia to defend our national interests. We require a standing army,
the real issue up for debate would be what constitutes our national
interests. Did we need to go into Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Haiti(x2). Do television images of starving Somalis or Haitians require
the expenditure of my tax dollars? Remember, politicians squandered the Peace
Dividend of the 90’s.
Well there you go. Even though we are coming from very different places, we
arrive at the same point; though, your reliance, again, on the slippery-slope
fallacy obscures that fact. I’ve said repeatedly that we need a military, my
argument is with the proportion of spending that it commands. Eisenhower
warned us of exactly this in his farewell address; the military and attendant
institutions are the largest pork barrel in history and every congressionl
district in the country gets a taste. It’s also an enormous jobs program and
it’s wrapped in the flag, so questioning the budget is a almost illegal.
Really, if any other manifestation of gov’t were to “lose” $23 Billion, do
you think the public would stand still?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7444083.stm Our border is too porous and we gained
nothing from going to the Balkans, Somalia or to Baghdad. Politicians did
squander that peace dividend because the monster that we have created didn’t
lose its appetite when the USSR fell apart.
But you missed the point completely. The budget for the Dept of Defense needs
to be examined because the Defense Budget is where Congress likes to tack on
crap not associated with our defense (Museums, research, etc). What else
should the FEDERAL government be involved in? George Bush’s prescription
medicine give-away? NO. Dept of Education? NO. Why are tax payers in Arizona
helping prop up the subway system in New York City through Federal tax
dollars? You just don’t get it. That Peace Dividend was NOT spent on the Dept
of Defense but was thrown to every pet project every Congressman had. A
chance to cut the budget again thrown away. Show us where the Federal budget
ever had a REAL cut. Show where a Federal program - food stamps, school lunch
program, and on and on, have ever had a REAL cut in their budgets. Never. It
has never happened and the taxpayers are saying enough. You all who live to
give away others money will be disappointed by the elections this year.
What point did I miss? We were having a rational discussion and you have come
back with a rant. This is a whole school of red herring and, I must say, it’s
a little disappointing. Leaving aside the laundry list of perfidy, much of
which I agree with you upon, you say that the “Peace Dividend” was not spent
on the Dept. of Defense. Yet, when the USSR collapsed in 1991, the US spent
$316 Billion on defense (adjusted for inflation- $433 B now), and our present
military budget is right about $800B. It has nearly doubled. Do you honsetly
believe that it all went to museums? We are no longer facing a gigantic well
armed enemy with advance fighter aircraft and armored divisions. We are
facing a bunch of radicals with limited support who resort to low tech, low
cost measures. We could and should cut our defense budget by at least half
and give the taxpayers about $1400 per citizen. Won’t happen though. Watch
that F35 meeting at Buena tomorrow as the hogs sidle up to the trough.