There is a story going around about how Kay, a single mom in Manchester, isn’t eligible for an Education Freebie Account (EFA) because she’s $90 over the income cutoff.

The conclusion reached by the author of the story is that we should have universal eligibility for EFAs.  But that’s backward.

First, note that cut-offs based on ‘income’ have always been kind of a goofy thing, and not just for the reason illustrated in the story.

Instead of setting up hard limits, why not have a sliding scale?  Have parents fill out the usual forms for financial aid (which have been refined over decades), and if they’re eligible for only a little help, give them a little; and if eligible for more, give them more.

Second, what counts isn’t ‘income’, but disposable income, and also assets.  The question has to be:  Once you’ve accounted for other necessities, how much can you come up with — not just from your income, but by selling off luxuries — to put towards the education of your own children?

This should also be the approach to public schools, by the way — which are a form of assistance, but one that’s handed out indiscriminately.  You should contribute what you can to the education of your own kids, and only if you fall short should the burden be shouldered by your neighbors.

(We have someone in our town who, freed of the requirement to come up with the $50,000 or so that our town was paying each year in tuition for her children, has been able to put that money into real estate.  So, she now owns several properties in the area, effectively gifted to her by taxpayers — one of whom had to have his daughter take out a personal loan to pay his school taxes.)

The answer isn’t to make public schools and EFAs handouts to people who may not need them. The answer is to make both into means-tested programs, with parents contributing as much as they can.

(You want to see school costs rolled back?  This is how you do it, with parents suddenly leading the effort instead of fighting it.)

Note that sliding scales for assistance aren’t a new idea.  We already see it with certain kinds of tax deductions and credits that phase out according to net income rather than gross income.  The more you make, the less assistance you get, and vice versa.  If you make enough that you don’t need any assistance, you don’t get any.

As far as Kay’s situation is concerned, the fact that $90 is the difference between no assistance and full assistance is ridiculous, but not in the way the author implies, and the solution isn’t the one he suggests.

The proper way to avoid this problem (and a lot of others) isn’t universal eligibility for EFAs but means testing for both public schools and EFAs.  They’re both forms of welfare and should be treated as such:

Four Simple Rules for Funding Education

The post Make Welfare … Welfare again appeared first on Granite Grok.

Informative post in NH-NeverTrump Journal about how OUT-OF-CONTROL “education” spending is in New Hampshire. I am … and have been for some time … so sick and tired of listening to the Sununu-bots/GOP-bots/Ayotte-bots repeating “New Hampshire Advantage,” “don’t mass up New Hampshire,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

New Hampshire SPENDS MORE on a per-pupil basis than virtually every other State in America.

And WORSE, our teachers are underpaid compared to other States because we pump so much money into the CRT/DEI/grooming bureaucracy. But what “conservatives” in New Hampshire are really good at (perhaps the ONLY thing they’re good at) is PRETENDING … pretending that Sununu, Ayotte, Morse are conservatives, pretending that a conservative can win in CD-2, pretending that New Hampshire is fiscally conservative, pretending that many, many school districts aren’t engaged in pushing CRT/DEI/grooming.

The LINK.

The post Calling New Hampshire “Fiscally Conservative” Is Such Gaslighting appeared first on Granite Grok.

Car manufacturers make little, if any, money on EV sales. A dearth of charging stations discourages new buyers, who are also put off by high sticker prices. Sales of new electric vehicles have dropped off, as have used resale values. Manufacturers nevertheless proclaim these machines are here to stay and that they will keep making them regardless of whether consumers are willing to buy them. This upside-down sales plan may prove troubling for carmakers and consumers alike.

An Unusual Business Model

If traditional business models were in play, manufacturers would presumably produce cars that buyers desire rather than seek to create a market that doesn’t exist. However, in the ideological milieu of climate change urgency, the corporate tail seeks to wag the consumer dog, fueled by massive state and federal subsidies, EPA regulations that penalize gas-powered vehicle manufacture, and relentless propaganda that EVs will save the world. This tension between buyer and seller will unfold over time as either a win for green technology as sales improve or a loss for carmakers as buyers favor gasoline over electricity for transportation.

Car manufacturers have entered into an adversarial relationship with the majority of their customer base. One recent poll reported that 46% of respondents claimed they were unlikely or very unlikely to buy an EV. Of the electric units currently sold, 78% are categorized as “premium” or high-priced models. Mainstream American buyers are discouraged by high prices, range anxiety (fears of running out of power), and a lack of charging stations. Wealthier buyers are more likely to afford home charging stations as well as fancier chariots. It is unclear how manufacturers propose to bridge this stubborn divide.

Charging stations remain a sticky wicket for most buyers. Although the Biden administration pledged $7.5 billion to install charging stations nationally, to date there are only about 40,000, and a quarter of those are in California. The Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory counsels that at least 180,000 charging stations will be required by 2030. This chicken-and-egg competition between EVs and the stations needed to charge them will continue until sufficient charging facilities have been installed, which industry advocates claim will help EV sales turn the corner.

However, consumer complaints about charging reliability compound the availability problem. Increasingly, claims of environmental benefits are dented by revelations that lithium mines and aluminum smelting for EVs adversely impact the ecosystem. Grid capacity to meet the demands of those theoretical 180,000 stations is also in question. Consequently, resale values have plummeted for existing models.

New EPA tailpipe emission rules effectively mandate that 56% of all new car sales will be EVs by 2032, yet that percentage far exceeds current sales levels. Inflation remains sticky, the economy is wobbling, and President Biden just slapped Chinese EVs with a 100% tariff. In such a climate, the competition for car sales appears to be less between consumers and manufacturers and more between policymakers, regulators, and money printers.

The EV Future

General Motors and Ford still need to make a profit in EV sales, and both companies seek to design more affordable vehicles with broader model options. Despite slumping sales and high pricing, GM CEO Mary Barra claims the company remains committed to a 100% electric car fleet – regardless of how many Americans still want to buy a gas-powered car. GM claims it plans to sell exclusively electric models by 2035.  Historically, consumers have driven product demand, but today’s manufacturers have put the cart before the horse. According to Ford CEO Jim Farley, “the journey on EVs is inevitable, in our eyes.” And a GM spokesperson told NPR: “Although the rate of growth has slowed recently, EV demand is clearly moving in the right direction.”

It may be that manufacturers can successfully dictate demand for future car purchases to their customer base. Should the economy decline, food and housing inflation persist, charging stations remain a pipe dream, and reliability of vehicles and chargers continue to be problematic, the best-laid climate plans of carmakers may leave behind showrooms full of new EV museum pieces while workers are laid off and consumers favor affordable, vintage, gas-powered transport. This showdown will determine the outcome of the current tension between car manufacturers and their reluctant buyers, which one observer aptly described as “a troubling gap between expectations and reality.”

 

John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.

The post Is EV Manufacturing Exceeding Demand? appeared first on Granite Grok.

If you submitted an Op-Ed and we didn’t publish it (yet), there’s a good reason. Our stable of contributors (Groksters) has been cranking out a lot of material. Last week, I addressed this (to some degree) by dropping a lot more content than usual, but I’m reluctant to do it again.

When we exceed a certain threshold for updates, people stop clicking and reading. Put another way, it doesn’t increase traffic, and fewer people will likely read your content. Upcoming site design changes might mitigate that, and on that point, the design team tried uploading a test version of the new site to the new server. There were some issues, and they are working them out.

Anyway, new site – soon. I hope. And the home page layout is different from anything we’ve ever done before. The goal is a wider appeal to broader audiences across New England and the Nation. We’re Still GraniteGrok, but we’ve sorted things so people can get to what they want to ‘Grok! —New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Regional staff, National Stuff, and Global Stuff. They each have their own section on the home page and their own “page behind that,” and while some topics will cross categories – and the stuff up top will be the most recent, it’s … different.

I hope you like it. We also expect it to be quite a bit faster than the old one. I have not seen what the mobile version looks like, but once this is up and stable, debugged, tweaked, and seamless, we’ll move on to the mobile app, and that shouldn’t matter so much.

Fundraising.

The economy sucks, and we appreciate you giving what you can when you can, but I am obligated to bring it up a lot because this only works if we raise enough funds. Last year, we did well, but we did not raise enough, and I had to take part-time work to make up the difference. It is work I can mostly do from home. But I do it for several hours every day, so I am not free to do any of the reporting from Concord or event hopping I’d hoped to do. The session is over, so there’s that, but the campaign season has jump-started at the State level, and we will miss out on most of that, events, and so on.

I’m fine if you don’t care about us reporting from campaign events, but there are other stories we won’t be able to chase or follow up on. I get a lot of stuff I can’t commit to because of the time required to do it properly. I don’t have it.

We’ll get there at some point, just not this year and not yet.

We are currently raising funds for fiscal 2025, and we have a long way to go. It is mid-June, and we’ve got about 13% of what we need. At a minimum, we need to get to 60%, which is what happened last year. The recently updated ads to fundraise have resulted in some response, but since neither Skip nor I is any good at this part, it is a problem. And everyone is asking for money: campaigns, non-Protifts, Activists, and us.

If you are good at this fundraising thing, we could use your help.

Other Business

There is no word yet on whether we will attempt another Groktoberfest this year. Planning will have to start soon, and as noted above, we need to find ways to cover expenses. It’s an election year, so we’ll see what the venue situation looks like and what the costs are. We did make some money on last year’s event, so it is worth looking at.

And, as always, Thanks for reading!

 

The post Op-Eds, Fundraising, and Updates appeared first on Granite Grok.

“Representative” Jessica Grill … remember her bitter clingers? The “State Rep” is either actually a thirteen-year-old who lives on TikTok or who aspires to be a thirteen-year-old who lives on TikTok. The “State Rep” who ideates about having sex with older men on her X.

Well, here she goes again. Dropping “F-bombs’ on her X, presumably to try to convince herself that she is just so young and hip and cool.

The post Manchester Is “Represented” By The Dumbest People appeared first on Granite Grok.