May 19, 2008

In this issue:


And the Idea Became Legislation and Dwelt among Us and We Beheld Its Provisions  

If you do not see that the title to this story is a play on the opening lines of the book of John in the Bible, then perhaps you should have had an elective class in Bible when you were in high school.  Well over 90 percent of Tennessee's school systems offer no elective class in Bible history and literature.  According to a high percentage of college literature and history professors, not known for Biblical orthodoxy, students that do not know the content of the Bible are at a disadvantage in understanding history and literature.

Students who do not know the content of the Bible are at a disadvantage in understanding history and literature.

So, Senator Roy Herron (D-Dresden) and Rep. Mark Maddox (D-Dresden) teamed up to pass SB 4104/HB 4089 that would allow the Tennessee Department of Education to create a curriculum for an elective class in Bible that could be taught by all high schools.  Early on, Family Action of Tennessee and Tennessee Eagle Forum were critical of the bill, fearing ties to the ACLU and the impact of the bill on those few school systems already teaching Bible using their own curriculum.

When ties to and possible support by the ACLU happily proved unfounded, the sponsors then began to work on allaying fears that the bill would create just one state approved curriculum for every school, thereby effectively forcing schools, happy with their current programs, to conform or stop doing what they were doing.  Seeing the concern, the sponsors worked for an amendment that actually improved current state law in a significant way - they put into state law a provision stating that all Bible classes currently being taught were "state approved curriculums."  Now not only are those schools using a curriculum protected, but any other school wanting to use one of the existing curriculums can do so without having to get further state approval.

What this means is that if Department officials ever want to squeeze every school into a one-size-fits-all Bible curriculum, they will have to go through the legislature.  As one who, during my Senate days, has tried in vain to "undo" what Department officials have done through its rule-making powers, this is a positive protection.  So, if you know the story of Joseph, you might could say that what could have been used for evil has now been used for good to encourage many a high school student to increased Biblical literacy.

Cigarette Tax Money for Schools Goes up in Smoke

Last year the Governor proposed an increase in the tobacco tax to help fund elementary and high school education. As the session wound down last year, the 42 cent tax was said to be needed to fund an infusion of new money under new legislation creating the "BEP 2.0."  The term "BEP" stands for "Better Education Program."  The original BEP funding formula (now called "BEP 1.0")"was created in response to our state Supreme Court's ruling on education funding in favor of rural school systems.  But when that formula then left urban schools in a bind, the legislature came up with "BEP 2.0." The cigarette tax was needed to provide the additional money needed to fund BEP 2.0.

After all, just like tobacco use, doing that kind of thing is just a bad habit we've come to expect from government.

Well, with the budget shortfall, BEP 2.0 got the budget axe.  After all, with BEP 2.0 there was no court ruling to require that it be funded like there was with BEP 1.0. So the tax remains though the program goes unfunded.  The cigarette tax money is just part of the general revenue available to fund the budget.

Of course the cigarette tax to fund the BEP 2.0 was understood to be a declining source of revenue anyway since everyone also hoped the large increase would deter smoking, resulting in less revenue.  And while the total tobacco tax collected year-to-date is up slightly from last year, the total is $50 million less than the projected amount they actually budgeted to spend.   Oops!

But probably no one thought the BEP 2.0 would have to drop its dependence on the cigarette money "cold turkey." And surely no one thought that passing a tax to fund one thing would preclude the government from using the money for something else in a pinch.  After all, just like tobacco use, doing that kind of thing is just a bad habit we've come to expect from government.  Wonder if they'll ever kick the habit?

David Fowler