Ayotte dissembles on school funding

Gov. Ayotte responded to the recent ConVal ruling by saying: “New Hampshire is top 10 in the country when it comes to funding our children’s education….”

That may be true when combining local and state dollars, but it hides the truth: New Hampshire ranks 50th in what the state itself contributes to public education. Local taxpayers — not the state — are footing the bill.

In towns like Newport, Claremont, and Charlestown — where incomes are below average and nearly half of students qualify for free and reduced lunch — property tax rates are among the highest in the state. Yet these communities often have fewer resources per student than high property value towns with much lower tax rates. They also serve students with greater needs but lack the local revenue to fully support them, resulting in poorer outcomes and long-term economic consequences.

The ConVal ruling confirmed what many already knew: the state’s $4,100 base adequacy grant is not constitutionally sufficient. The court ruled it must be at least $7,300 — and made clear that the state, not local communities, is responsible for funding an adequate education.

It’s worth noting that New Hampshire is the seventh wealthiest state in the country. Gov. Ayotte’s comment avoids this reality. If she truly wants to deliver a “best-in-class” education to every child, she must acknowledge the deep inequities in our current system — and that opportunity should never depend on a child’s, or taxpayer’s, zip code

Kathy Hubert

Newport

Clarity on Piper’s stance

On July 1, Grafton County Commissioner Wendy Piper — who represents Enfield, Lebanon, and Hanover at the county level — informed the public that she would be leaving the Democratic Party in favor of the Republican Party. She explained to us in no uncertain terms that the deal breaker, for her, is that the Democratic Party cares too much about the rights of trans kids and immigrants for her tastes. To Ms. Piper I can only say thank you: Thank you for telling us exactly who you are. I, for one, will not forget it come election day.

Richard Ford Burley

Lebanon

Is this what we want?

Are you worried that the U.S. isn’t at war with enough countries? That too many people have health insurance, and enough to eat? That the national debt is too small?

If so, President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have the answer: a new war with Iran, and a bill that will make the biggest cuts ever to Medicaid and food stamps, while adding a record $5 trillion to the national debt.

The Republicans know what they want. Is it what you want?

Jim Matthews

Hanover

An unconstitutional act of war

President Trump’s bombing of Iran was shockingly unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution were emphatic that, unless the United States is attacked first by another nation, Congress must approve the initiation of war. Most experts now agree that the president also may act without Congress’s approval in the face of a credible threat of imminent attack. The Founding Fathers knew that wars are highly unpredictable and potentially catastrophic, and that, except in immediate self-defense, a decision to engage in war must be based on the collective judgment of both the President and Congress. No U.S. President until now has ever argued otherwise.

What about military operations short of war? In recent years, several Presidents have sent troops overseas on missions of very limited scope and duration without congressional approval. These have usually targeted terrorists or responded to attacks on American military forces, as in Yemen and Syria. The bombing of multiple government targets inside Iran, however, is unarguably an act of war, even if the attack is not repeated and the risk to U.S. military personnel is only slight.

Even if Trump’s attack made strategic sense — a matter on which experts disagree — we must not forget that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was halted by a 2015 agreement overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and that President Trump withdrew from that agreement in 2018, prompting Iran to restart the program. In other words, Trump helped create the threat that he now says justified the attack.

Stephen Dycus

Strafford