I Think I found a Blue Stater

A reader of the Star Ledger felt compelled to write a Letter to the Editor about a recent Paul Mulshine column. I'm sure that Mulshine is more than capable of defending himself and I'll let him, but I haven't heard drivel like this from anyone since I left the great liberal bastion of college. Since these links go away I've decided to post the whole letter here.

Hewitt Lessons in education Paul Mulshine ("Rival plans for tax relief both miss the point," Oct. 4) confuses the doctor with the disease when he calls the New Jersey Supreme Court the main source of the state's property tax crisis.

The justices did not take over distribution of state income tax by judicial fiat. They did so for a legal and common-sense reason: The state for decades has been violating its own constitution by allowing an unfair system of paying for education.

The court has consistently held, in case after case over three decades, that a system that relies mainly on local property taxes to fund local schools discriminates against children in urban areas, where there is too little taxable property to adequately fund education.

In contrast, comfortable suburban districts -- where I suspect Mulshine lives -- have considerable leeway in taxing well-heeled denizens who want the best for their children and are willing to pay, but expect state aid to boot.

Mulshine does a disservice to readers in failing to explain why the court is playing Robin Hood.

The fact is the court is simply upholding the state constitution's guarantee to provide a thorough and efficient education to all students.

Students in poor districts are being shortchanged because under the current system, their municipalities lack the tax base to support education properly, while rich suburban districts can get all they need with hardly a groan.

It's all about who pays for the poor inner city kids' schools, since city dwellers can't and suburbanites won't. The sad fact is: Any system that relies on local property taxes to fund schools is unfair.

Mulshine is right in urging reform. But no tax reform can succeed legally or otherwise until and unless it addresses this inequality, which has prevented generations of children in poor urban districts from getting their constitutionally guaranteed right to a decent education.

It's a shameful reality that gutless politicians have turned their backs on for years. It would be laughable were it not so tragic for kids.

If the court is robbing educationally and economically entitled rich districts to give to the poor, it's because our political leaders haven't had the stomach to take on an unjust educational funding system that deprives the already helpless of the chance to acquire a decent education -- and with it a shot at bettering their lives -- while giving the Millburns and Saddle Rivers of the state a free pass.

If the state assumes responsibility for education, as the constitution declares, then it should put its money where its mouth is, and pay all education costs.

As for your high-handed pundit, I thought journalists were supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. In calling for tax relief -- code for tax breaks for landowning classes -- while ignoring the plight of the undereducated underclass, Mulshine is missing the point. Perhaps the Fourth Estate has its own estates to tend.

Clearly the writer jests. Newark, an abbott district, has managed to find $200 million for a hockey arena that no one will use. Shouldn't the city be putting education in front of sports? Does he not know that Newark and Jersey City pay more per student than virtually every other school district in the state with abysmal results. Perhaps he should read Enlightens excellent post federal funding for education or Ken Adams' equally outstanding two part review of test scores and school spending. link