“We Are Lakota” Campaign Exploits Children: Parents demand tax increases to shrug their responsiblity
Taylor Mirfendereski from Channel 9 in Cincinnati did a nice article about the upcoming Lakota Levy of 2013 as the new campaign launched. She interviewed members of both sides of the tax increase argument which is highlighted below. Lakota’s new campaign this time is the marketing slogan “We are Lakota” and the angle they are playing is obvious, the inclusion of “community” spirit to encourage voters to feel they are part of the team by voting for the levy. Again the common mistake the pro levy crowd makes is they only react to the causes of tax increases. They never ask why conditions are the way they are, they simply respond with a desire to raise taxes. One of the carrots Lakota has dangled out in front of parents is the promise of more busing to earn votes back from people like the women mention below.
Kim Reber is a mother of three daughters and is a levy supporter. Reber lives within two miles of the school district and has to transport her children to school each day.
She said the success of the levy is critical for convenience reasons and for the success of her children’s education.
“A lot of things that kids need to develop and to grow are being taken away gradually and kind of falling apart. Lakota is known for being excellent and without funding, they cannot maintain that excellence,” Reber said.
She said the stakes are so high for her family, she’s even considered moving if the levy doesn’t pass.
“When I came here, I came here because of the schools. I’m not seeing that the schools can maintain their excellence given the lack of support from the residents,” said Reber.
Some residents say they will never support a Lakota school tax hike because they don’t think enough money is going directly to the students.
Graeme George, an 80-year-old Liberty Township resident, is a staunch opponent of school tax levies.
“We can’t influence the cost and benefits and make improvements because the unions are too much in control. We can’t work with the teachers and the school board and the public because the unions come in,” he said.
George is a member of the anti-levy group, No Lakota, which says it has plans to actively campaign for the levy’s failure once more.
Bob Hutsenpillar, a Lakota district resident and No Lakota member, said he will also vote against the levy because of “wasteful spending” towards teacher salaries.
“What they are asking for to give to students is a very small percentage of the levy,” Hutsenpillar said.
But Willms said taxpayer contributions to teaching salaries are essential for the successful operation of any school.
“We have 900-plus teachers. You have to understand what schools do. They have teachers who teach kids. It’s a service industry, so of course a bulk of your budget would have to go towards your employee,” she said.
The actual article from Taylor Mirfendereski can be seen at the link below complete with pictures:
http://www.wcpo.com/news/education/lakota-school-district-pushes-for-levy-after-three-time-failure
People like Kim Reber moved to a nice community like Lakota for the schools, but that is not all the community has to offer. Reber doesn’t ask the question “why are the teachers making over $60K per year, she simply wants a free education for her children and assumes that the cost of her home was all the payment she had to contribute to the task. Parents like her assume that “WE” means everyone, that I, Graeme George, Bob Hutsenpillar and other NO voters are responsible for raising Kim’s children. This is the same mindset of Hillary Clinton’s ridiculous notion of “it takes a village” mentality. No, it doesn’t. It takes a mom and a dad caring for their own family, and not asking a community to cover higher taxes just to throw money at a teacher’s union that is already over paid.
The Lakota Levy is supported by the kind of people who do not want to take responsibility for their own children—but rather want Hillary Clinton’s “We Are Lakota” type of message insinuating that we are all in this together—the raising of children. The presumption that children are the only aspect of a community is dangerous, and will lead to short lived prosperity when those children grow up and move away never to return because taxes prevent them from moving back to Lakota to raise their own families. The levy supporters at Lakota are again short-sighted, selfish, and lack fiscal understanding. They are happy to parade around with signs on a Saturday afternoon pulling on people’s heart strings hoping to win votes by exploiting their own children so to take the responsibility away from their own parenting, instead of asking the hard question of……………why.
The lowest part of the whole ordeal is seeing parents stick their children out in public carrying signs such as can be seen in Mirfendereski’s article. The parents should be ashamed of themselves. I can’t imagine telling a child they are required to stand with a pro tax sign to cover for the lack of effort by the parents who are hoping to save the cost of transporting their children to school, or even the extra cost of private instruction, with a collective tax increase. If parents really want their children to have a good education, why aren’t they willing to pay for it? Why do they expect the other property owners of Lakota to care for their children? We are not Lakota. They are, and they simply want a hand out for something that is their unmanaged problem to cover an effort they are too lazy, or cheap to handle themselves.
Rich Hoffman
Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE. CLICK HERE!
