Teachers' petition raises more questions

I regret that I have not had the chance to respond to the front page story about the teachers union gathering 80,000 signatures on their petition (Aug. 31 Appeal). For that I apologize. The true misfortune is that Elaine Lancaster received front page coverage on her views, while this letter will be on page 6, if published.

First, I hasten to point out that 80,000 is a dismal showing considering that there are about 22,000 teachers in Nevada. If each one, their spouses and their best friends or parents each signed, it would total 88,000! As for the 80,000 who did sign, how many did so because the signature collectors simply told them, "it's for our children and their education" (like I was).

Second, I would like to point out that Ms. Lancaster, herself, admits that the average Nevada teacher earns only $2,000 less than the average California teacher. When one considers the approximately 9.8 percent state income tax of California, it appears that Nevada's average teacher actually earns more than their peers over the hill! We won't even consider the cost of living index for California.

Third, in mentioning that "only the income over $50,000 a year will be taxed," she neglected to mention that any business, trust, bond-holder, landlord ... virtually anyone earning so much as $1 in or from the state of Nevada ... will have to file state income tax forms no matter what the profit or loss!

Fourth, also absent is any reference to the fact that their "Education Fairness Act" holds the general fund of the entire state hostage. The act, as part and parcel thereof, states that fully 50 percent of the entire general fund must be dedicated to k-12 education. Currently, 37 percent is dedicated to education. What will the state general fund do to replace the funds that used to go to higher education and other programs? What increase in property taxes must be levied to make up the difference? Or are we simply to cut other vital services to accommodate teachers' raises?

Fifth, the act stipulates that most of the money generated must go toward reducing class size and thus hiring more teachers. If successful, where will the money come from to build the additional classrooms and other support buildings and supplies?

Since Ms. Lancaster is so very fond of comparing our schools to California's, let's talk about their "overcrowding, low test scores, toxic school sites and fractious leadership (quoted from Nevada Appeal Sept. 4, 2000).

Teachers are forced to spend their own money to purchase necessary supplies. The good ones are sorely underpaid and under appreciated. But taxing business is not the answer. Office Depot and Target both have programs that donate millions of dollars to schools nationwide. Local businesses donate or participate in programs that amount to millions of dollars worth of food, money, time, shadowing, internships, etc. To tax business would obviate those donations to be sure.

If the populace of Nevada elects to tax business, it will destroy the incredible contributions already made, create a state "IRS" and income tax, deter business from locating here, thus eliminating jobs for the kids in those schools. It will be the most damaging private agenda legislation ever created by a union for the selfish benefit of its members. I suggest that every person who signed the petition, unaware of its true impact, contact their county registrar to get their name removed from the petition.