Let’s leave education to teachers and experts, not the city
“The Best Way to teach your kids about taxes is by eating 30 percent of their ice cream.” — Bill Murray
The Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce recognizes the importance of investment in early childhood programs and has been a supporter of pre-K initiatives in New Mexico for many years. The Chamber has actively supported United Way of Santa Fe County, the New Mexico Early Childhood Coalition, the New Mexico Pre-K Program and other such organizations.
As recently as the summer of 2016, I spoke at a gathering of business leaders about the importance of early childhood education and the return on investment over the career of a student. A recent opinion piece correctly pointed out, “Better education in early childhood could close the achievement gap between rich and poor students, improve children’s reading and math skills, and eventually increase high school graduation rates.” I think we can all agree that this is true for all of New Mexico, not just Santa Fe.
The challenge lies in properly funding a pre-K initiative, particularly how and what to fund for it to be most effective. Revenue sources under discussion include taxes on: food, beverage, gasoline, beer, spirits or combinations of these. Another challenge is defining the role of private sector and nonprofit providers.
Other points to consider:
The new tax on sugar beverages is projected to raise $7 million a year. That’s $90 for every man, woman and child in the city or $400 for a family of four. Of course, not everyone prefers beverages with sugar and this regressive tax will most likely fall on the lower-income residents who do. Also, higher-income residents who don’t generally drink much soda will therefore hardly contribute to funding pre-K, even if they want to. Isn’t it the responsibility of all of us to pay for education?
Is it the job of the City of Santa Fe to be involved in managing education programs? We already have Santa Fe Public Schools, numerous private schools and day care facilities, and literally hundreds of nonprofit programs active in the education field.
The current legislative session is addressing many education-related issues, including pre-K and funding sources, which are drawing bipartisan support. Why is Santa Fe rushing into new legislation ahead of possible state action?
The ordinance proposes “support and resources to early childhood teachers” and “entities with expertise in teacher training” and “appropriate compensation.” While these goals are admirable, the details are yet to be defined.
Is this a tax grab or a health initiative? If health is the priority, let’s look at community-wide health programs and not rush to punitive taxes. Why target sugary beverages, some of which are produced locally, and not also other unhealthy items, such as ice cream, sopaipillas and doughnuts?
If revenue is the goal, then let us examine other potential sources and focus particularly on expenses. Many Santa Feans are not convinced that City Hall is running as efficiently as it should be. Also, how will the City fund the program when people stop buying soda?
Who will administer and collect the tax? How much of the revenue will be spent on bureaucracy, collection and enforcement?
Already, over 50 percent of Santa Fe’s workforce live and shop outside the city. Santa Feans also already travel to nearby reservations for cheaper gas and tobacco products. Adding $6 a case or $400 to a family’s tax burden will further incentivize out-of-town shopping and hurt local businesses.
Philadelphia is holding “a day of action” against their new sugar tax. What lessons can we learn from their experience, described as “hurting businesses, consumers and the poor.”
A 2-liter bottle of a soft drink will have an additional $1.34 tax added. If local beverage distributors are singled out for this tax, they will inevitably cut back on sponsorships, donations and other community support. The tax punishes local small businesses unfairly.
A special election is going to cost $80100K. Why not wait until the next regular election? The turnout for a special election is likely to be less than 5 percent.
Santa Fe Public Schools already has a shortfall of qualified teachers. Where will the 200 new teachers come from?
Will Amazon and other online retailers have to register as distributors in Santa Fe and pay the distributor tax? If the answer is “No,” why give them a competitive advantage over local business?
The local economy is barely recovering from the recession and Santa Feans are already faced with increased property taxes; increased utility rates, with more to come; a likely state gasoline tax; doubled parking rates; possible reinstatement of the food tax; increased recreation fees; hold harmless consequences; and threatened federal funding.
Is this the time to add another regressive tax to the local cost of living? Our community is facing some serious issues, some of which may be eased by city policy, but some do not fall under the city’s purview and need other approaches. Let’s leave education to the teachers and the experts, not to the City of Santa Fe. Let’s delay this expensive election until our community and its leaders have had a chance to discuss all sides of the issue and are well informed.