Sunday's Star-Bulletin editorial, “;Tax hike not the solution,”; misses the mark from both an educational and economic perspective.

First, it should be noted that furloughs were not proposed by the Hawaii State Teachers Association, but by the governor, who wanted 36 furlough days for all state employees. Through cuts instituted by the state Department of Education and negotiations with the DOE and state Board of Education, the furlough days were reduced to 17. Teachers were the first state workers to agree to a pay cut because they understood the state of the economy and were willing to make the sacrifices required to manage the state's economic crisis — even though they were already working many more hours than they are paid for.

Before the new contract started, surveys showed that the typical teacher in Hawaii spends $1,000 out of pocket, with no reimburse-ment, on supplies and materials for their classrooms and students, including the lunch money, field trip fees and other incidentals provided for children whose families cannot afford them. Many also willingly work an average of 15 hours a week after school and on the weekends that they are not paid for.

Under the new contract, the average teacher took a pay cut of $500 per month. And they continued to sacrifice in other ways. Teachers at 186 schools voted to give up their professional development and planning days to increase instructional days.

Teachers also voted to change bell schedules to extend instructional time in their classes, even though that meant more work done at home when classes were over. And in the agreement with the DOE and Board of Education, the HSTA changed more of its own planning days to instructional days. So, let's be clear about who cares enough to go the extra mile.

With regard to the tax question, the Star-Bulletin may be on the side of the well-to-do, but it is on the wrong side from an economic perspective. While the Tax Foundation of Hawaii provides a useful service, we expect Lowell Kalapa (its president) to oppose most tax proposals. That's his mission. That's why the Tax Foundation membership funding comes almost exclusively from businesses and affluent individuals.

If you want to get an economic analysis, ask an economist, not Mr. Kalapa. Carl Bonham, a member of the State Council on Revenues and an economist with the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, recently noted that we are not going to cut our way out of the state's budget deficit.

We believe the HSTA proposal can make a significant difference in generating revenue needed to address Hawaii's shortfalls and thereby enable our state to maintain vital services.

The proposal by the HSTA seeks to do this in the most responsible and effective way, not by making the wealthy bear a heavier burden than others, but by asking them to do their fair share. After all, Hawaii tax laws and government incentives are largely designed to support and encourage these individuals and the businesses they own. Consequently, they have the smallest tax burden of any income group at present.

Increasing state revenues will enable many state workers to keep their jobs and continue buying goods and services from local businesses. This demand will enable our state's businesses to keep their doors open and their employees on the payroll.

Other tax measures, such as raising the general excise tax, could provide the necessary revenue, but would further tax the less affluent 80 percent of the population who, unlike the wealthy, are facing job losses and foreclosures and are struggling to make ends meet.

Is asking the wealthy to bear the same tax burden as the least well off really asking too much?

———

Wil Okabe is president of the Hawaii State Teachers Association.