In my time of blogging, I haven’t taken a shortcut and simply reposted someone else’s comments about an issue. Until now.

Goldy, the prolific blogger at Horsesass.org, posts thoughtful, provocative, obnoxious, insightful, passionate, argumentative, smart, well researched, mean-spirited, funny, vulgar and/or crazy statements every day.

And I mean that in a good way.

Regardless of his rough mouth, his post today on levy-equalization is extremely important and 110% on target in that it raises a profoundly serious public policy and philosophical issue.

Levy-equalization is the policy of the state government ensuring that property ‘poor’ districts (rural, low property value areas) receive additional funding from Olympia to ‘equalize’ the education with property ‘rich’ districts (Seattle, Eastside, etc.). It’s one of the most important education policy questions facing our state; it goes to the core of the state’s ‘paramount duty’; it touches on our politics, our policies and our future direction.

Goldy nailed it.

His post is copied here in it’s entirety:

“There is one cut in Gov. Gregoire’s preliminary all-cuts budget proposal that the Seattle Times opposes:

The proposed cut the governor would buy back, and that we would, too, is in levy-equalization money for public schools. This is money that keeps a minimum level of schooling in property-poor districts. This page has long believed that the first and best social program is education.

Hmm. I agree that levy-equalization is good public policy. Unfortunately, I wonder if it’s bad politics?

The problem is, many of those “property-poor” districts who benefit most from levy-equalization are also those whose voters most reliably oppose giving state government the necessary taxing authority to pay for things like, you know, levy-equalization.

Understand, this is money that comes out of the pockets of taxpayers in property-rich (?) districts like Seattle and the Eastside suburbs. And for the most part, we don’t mind, because we’re good progressives who support progressive policies like levy-equalization. But when the rest of the state won’t allow us to tax ourselves to pay for the level of education our children want and need, well, that kinda throws a kink in the whole social contract thing.

So perhaps, if the state cuts off levy-equalization, maybe folks in these property-poor districts will think twice before voting against the tax hikes necessary to pay for it? Perhaps the loss of crucial levy-equalization money might create a broader statewide consensus supporting adequate K-12 education funding? Perhaps subsidies like levy-equalization undermine support for tax structure reform the same way Medicare undermines support for health care reform amongst the elderly?

Perhaps.”

(End of Goldy’s post).

Early in the 2010 Legislative Session we will be faced with a vote on levy equalization. Goldy’s question is not a theoretical, distant or rhetorical concept. If I vote for Seattle’s best interests it has the unintended but real consequence of hurting kids in property poor districts across the state. This is where the burden of governing is not so cut and dry.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.