Public Meeting Summary (Ben Rush)

I haven't actually posted any of the stuff I've done for Ben Rush in awhile so I thought I'd post the summary I wrote yesterday. Not one of the better things I've written but, meh, whatever.

Present at the meeting were State Representatives Clyde Kersey and Vern Tincher and State Senators John Waterman and Timothy Skinner. They were asked to discuss the proposed budget for the years 2009 and 2010 for the state of Indiana.

All four legislators communicated great frustration that the budget plan they saw as sufficient for the coming two years was not passed. First blaming the Republicans for not properly supporting their budget proposal, they quickly changed the direction of the fingers they pointed, giving full blame over to Governor Mitch Daniels.

They said with a touch of disdain that the Governor did not approve the 2% increase to public school funding and the 1% increase to public university funding that they saw as important. He would like to see money taken from schools and placed in a “rainy-day” fund.

In the midst of an economic crisis, Daniels' desire to take about $84 million out of education and place it in a “rainy-day” fund is a wise one. But the Representatives and Senators at the meeting adamantly apposed this. Stating that education is the future of this nation, they see fit to pour more money into Indiana’s schools. However, they do not stand behind their claim that education is the future. Senator Skinner made it clear that, as a teacher at a public high school, he was greatly against alternative forms of education such as homeschooling or attending a private school. If education is truly their focus, would they be so opposed to alternative forms?

Throughout the entirety of the meeting, everything ultimately was brought back to public education. When discussing their annoyance with Governor Daniels for wanting to pull funding from education, they voiced fears that such a fund cut would force schools to lay off teachers adding to the unemployment rate. It was suggested that the fund cut could affect things other than teacher salaries. For example, extra curricular activities like sports. The response indicated that this was, in their minds, an impossibility. Saying that the taxpayers desire their children in sports and cutting sports funding would cause an uprising.

It is clear from the meeting as a whole that the budget they desire to create is not truly in the best interest of the people of Indiana. It is instead based on the wants of these politicians.