Stop The Needless School Capital Projects to Cut NYS Deficit

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/States-Financial-Challenges-Continue-In-2010-136220418.html

Watch the television story at the link above, then read this blog post.

My alma mater, St. Lawrence Central, recently passed a capital project vote. It will supposedly perform some much needed improvements to school buildings and will undoubtedly include some frivolous, costly expenditures - widening the swimming pool for example.
Canton Central is poised to hold a similar capital project vote in the not to distant future. This one will include some "necessary" upgrades to the school's heating system. One has wonder why something as important as a heating system wasn't fixed sooner.
The Massena Central District, where I live, is finishing a capital project that seems like it started a decade ago and included a million dollar artificial turf athletic field and fancy scoreboard that flashes important messages around the clock and year 'round - like the vitally necessary "Seasons Greetings" art work we see up there currently.
But how many millions of dollars could NYS save if these capital projects were trimmed down dramatically or ended altogether?
Many, many millions, that's how many.
I worked for the NYS Senate for over 12 years for two different Senators: first Ray Meier, the Joe Griffo.
One time during the perennial budget battle I said something like, "Senator, I could trim a lot for money from the state's budget in a hurry."
"How?" the Senator asked. (I'm not going to say which one, by the way.)
I said, "Stop all non-emergency capital projects. If you roof is failing or part of your school was blown down by a tornado, then you can do a capital project. But if you want a new artificial turf field or wider swimming pool, it's not eligible for 90-percent-plus state aid. Would that save any money in the state budget?"
The Senator assured me it would make a huge impact.
Unfortunately, he never had the guts to put my idea forward though.
So, we continue with these follies. The architects design bigger and bigger projects to line their pockets, and district voters approve them because "it's free money. The state is paying almost the entire thing," we hear.
And "If we don't take this money and do the capital project, it will just go to someone else."
Well, that pretty much sums up the problem, doesn't it?
This money isn't free! We're paying for it! If it were eliminated, no one would get to waste it on middle schools, or bigger gyms, or fancy baseball fields.
Whenever I hear that stupid argument that someone else will waste it in their district if we don't waste it in ours, I hearken back to my childhood: "Why can't I?," I used to whine. "Everybody body else is doing it!"
To which my parents would predictably reply, "Well, if everybody else was jumping off a bridge would you do it too?"
Unfortunately, when it comes to capital projects, a whole lot of people are jumping off the bridge too and we're all paying for it.
Too bad my Senator never had the guts to put the idea forward, but it probably would have been voted down anyway. After all, somebody's going to spend it....

Why We Can't Legalize "Pot"

On a regular basis, I hear people say, "Why don't we legalize marijuana? It's no worse than alcohol and the government could use the money that would come from the taxes on it." Of course, the ones making the comment are probably regular consumers of the "herb."

You know, the argument seems pretty sound.

Pot isn't a "hard" drug and it is used recreationally by plenty of people. And there is the "medicinal" use of marijuana. (In reality, most of that is just an excuse to get stoned because it makes you feel better, although some symptoms are lessened by smoking some dope.)

Why not legalize it, tax it and bring its sale and use out of the shadows? Just like alcohol.

Because.

There is one HUGE difference between booze and pot, and that difference is why no reasonable person can support the legalization of marijuana.

Simply put, we have no way to measure the level of intoxication from smoking marijuana.

When Charlie tokes up, jumps into his car and hits a kid riding a bike, we have no way to know if Charlie smoked one joint or one ounce. How high is he? What do we charge him with if the kid dies?

So, until someone invents a test to quantify the how high a marijuana smoker is, we simply cannot legalize the substance.

Here's another difference between alcohol and marijuana: I can consume alcohol and not get drunk.

Can you smoke dope and not get high? If you can, why smoke it? I may enjoy the taste of a beer, but can anyone truthfully say he/she enjoys the taste of a doobie?

But that's an argument for another post.

Until we can measure the level of marijuana intoxication, the debate over legalizing pot is just a lot of hot air.... Or maybe it's smoke.