Sandstrom v. Robles

This week Stephen Sandstrom (R-Orem) unveiled his proposed AZ-styled illegal immigration bill. In the days leading up to the unveiling, the Senator claimed to be collaborating with Democratic Senator Luz Robles on a "carrot and stick in front of the horse type proposal" to provide an incentive for would-be illegal immigrants to opt for coming to Utah through legal channels instead of illegal border crossing. However, the Robles contribution is noticeably absent from the "Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act", and her news conference on Monday explained why.

On Monday she blasted the Sandstrom proposed legislation which not only requires police to become unofficial ICE agents, but also deputizes all state governmental agencies and employees to identify and turn in names of suspected illegal immigrants (i.e. the Stowell proposal). She pointed out that the Arizona law has already been challenged and stricken in Federal court and that a Utah law would undoubtedly face a similar fate at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars. Sen. Robles confirmed that she is working on a alternative to Sen. Sandstrom's proposal but that she would not have it ready to be unveiled until next month. She also confirmed that Sandstrom is willing to work for a compromise immigration bill that may be more acceptable to both sides of this issue.

The Sandstrom law is worse than the Arizona law. The Arizona law merely required the police to act in a duel capacity as unofficial ICE agents, but Sandstrom is in effect deputizing the entire Utah state payroll as unofficial immigration enforcement personnel. Theoretically, schools may be bound to send names of suspected illegal immigrant families to law enforcement. This type of "iron fist" enforcement creates so many potential problems, not only constitutionally, but financially, logistically, and bureaucratically that it can make some of the most seasoned policy wonk's heads spin.

Although Robles proposed legislation has yet to be unveiled, I prefer it to the unmitigated crap that Stephen Sandstrom laid at the feet of xenophobic voters who he hopes represent a majority of voters in this state. Is there any doubt that he is posturing as a potential tea party Congressional candidate in 2012?

Sandstrom -- Tries to Sweeten, But Then Throws Excrement on His AZ Style Law

In a DesNews article that is tracking the developments behind Sandstrom's (R-Orem) Arizona style law recently noted three changes to his bill that are of interest. One in particular is fairly positive, and the other is fluff, and the other proposal stinks to high heaven.

First, Sandstorm is now collaborating with Hispanic state senator Luz Robles on providing an incentive for legal migration with streamlined permission for worker visas. Although it is another example of states attempting to usurp Federal jurisdiction, it is a step in a better direction from the "pin a yellow star on them" Nazi-esque policy that Sandstrom was originally pursuing and that Arizona already tried to mandate. It will be interesting to see how, and if, the state of Utah can make guest worker programs a reality without the cooperation and mandate of the Federal government.

The second change is language that specifically outlaws racial profiling:

Second, Sandstrom, R-Orem, said he is trying to take extra measures to ensure that his bill will not allow racial profiling. "It specifically prohibits racial profiling. It's the first time in state law we've actually specifically prohibited racial profiling," he said.

The only problem is in enforcement. I have known more than one Utah police officer that has admitted that they can find cause to pull any motorist over in five minutes. Except for in the most blatant and (quite frankly) ludicrous circumstances, there is no way to enforce racial profiling laws against police officers. The nature of this law requires racial profiling. If a police officer has the urge, that officer will have no problem finding cause to pull over a brown skinned motorist. Although I appreciate the attempt to sweeten the bills overpowering stench, like a pubescent boy, Rep Sandstrom needs to be reminded that Brut Aftershave over BO generally makes for stinkier-musky BO.

The final change is the addition of language introduced by Sen. Dennis Stowell (R-Parowan) that allows state workers to rat out suspected illegal immigrants. Glen Warchol's recent blog post quoted the duo as follows:

Stowell:"We need to set up a process where the employees can go and feel safe. That they're not going to violate any laws."

Sandstrom explained the paranoid-snitch section of his law to ABC 4 News: "If [state workers] suspect that somebody is fraudulently attempting to gain benefits here in our state, they have to turn over those names to law enforcement."

This addition to Sandstrom's bill smells to high heaven. When I first heard of the Stowell proposal, I joked that Sandstrom and Stowell should combine proposed bills and throw in the re-opening of Topaz Internment Camp as a jobs measure. Unfortunately, I can see now that such proposals aren't that far-fetched. Given Herbert's lack of a spine and his pre-session promise to sign the immigration bill that the Lege puts on his desk, Sandstrom and Stowell's proposal may very likely be signed into law this year.

Therefore I recant my last post's jocular position. Don't re-open Topaz Internment Camp!

Immigration -- Stowell Raises Sandstrom's Crazy in the Beehive State

Not to be outdone by Senator Sandstrom or Arizona, Utah state Senator Stowell (R-Parowan) is considering legislation that would allow state employees to rat out illegal immigrants. I'm assuming he received many of the same types of emails that Governor Herbert received after "List-Gate" suggesting that the crusading Utah DWS employees deserved medals rather that firings and possible criminal charges for making the list.

Maybe Senators Stowell and Sandstrom can work on a joint bill and add the reopening of Topaz Mountain Internment Camp, after all they're going to need holding areas when we round up 120,000 people. It could be part of a jobs package and lets not forget that Governor Herbert has already said he'll sign off on an immigration bill next year.

To all people of Mexican or Latin decent -- I apologize for the xenophobic protectionists that are trying to intimidate you from the marble halls of the Utah State Capital.

Update: Sandstrom is throwing the Stowell proposal into his AZ-style law.

If Buttars' Faux Pax Created So Much Ire, I'm Surprised This Flew Under the Radar

The Trib had an article about Buttars getting back to work -- he is quietly trying not to say anything else that would raise the eyebrows of the public. One comment from Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem caught my attention regarding a bill to create a registry for minority-owned businesses that would help them compete for federal, state, and private contracts set aside for such businesses, a bill which she and Buttars both opposed.

"It seems like the white male is such a burden or frustration to society. I really have angst with the growing discrimination towards the white male family-oriented Christian male. I'm just really frustrated with that."

To me, that seems like a much more racially charged comment than Buttars "This baby's black" comment -- you can almost see the robes and pillow cases. Are you serious? Especially here in Utah, where in many parts of the state there is ne'er a minority to be found.

I agree that pursuing affirmative action policies likely isn't the best remedy -- unless there is a problem is bad enough. (i.e. documented cases where a minority was denied a bid for no discernable reason other than race) However, to suggest some kind of a problem with white, male, Christian business owners being discriminated against, here in Utah, is a blatantly exaggerated fabrication.

In a side note, Buttars wisely refused to comment on his opposition to the bill.

Chris Buttars is My State Senator

So I saw a post on The Bloghive about looking up Chris Buttars on Wikipedia, and so I looked him up on Wikipedia and discovered that my new home happens to be in his voting district. What fun!

I don't think I would be the man to run against him (Peace, anon.) although as I stated in a previous post I've thought about it. I guarantee that I will be volunteering to help who ever does run against Buttars -- Republican or Democrat. I don't think there should be anymore delay in Bro. Buttars' full-time church service on the fabulous streets of San Francisco or in the Big Easy -- The field is white and already to harvest.

The State Senate's Attempt to Thwart Benefits for Domestic Partners

Okay, when the nefarious Rocky Andersen pushed the "domestic partners benefits" idea I viewed it as a proverbial "F#@* off" after Utah passed Amendment 3. However, I'm not so sure that the right is right in this matter either. The 1930's throwback Chris Buttars and a cast of bloated social conservatives are pushing to stop a SLC registry to help domestic partners qualify for health benefits. The Right's argument against the registry is that it is in opposition to the states ban on gay marriage, and that as Buttars says "This is nothing but an open checkbook ... (the) 'repugnant' registry attempts to define a class, and therefore, it don't fit." he went on to say, "Some people may disagree with me, but since America was born, marriage is the cornerstone." While I agree that marriage is a critical cornerstone in our society, I cannot accept that idea that monogamous individuals, in a fully committed relationship, cannot enjoy any legal rights of their commitment.

The simplest (and to me the most logical) way to solve this issue is to provide a contractual remedy to these individuals -- i.e. civil unions, or some other binding contractual agreement (I have a hard time with the semantics of calling gay unions as marriage) Individuals would have contractual obligations to one another, and they also could enjoy legal benefits of their union. However, we here in Utah said no to that idea based on true religious and moral objections (I regrettably voted for Amendment 3 for those very reasons). However, this has left those members of the population who are in committed but (for the purposes of Amendment 3) unaccepted committed relationships in a position of inequality with the straight unforgiving majority of this state. For this purpose, SLC's move to provide benefits between domestic partners is somewhat commendable. (To me, the term "domestic partners" is perhaps a bit too broad and might ultimately be too costly. The term domestic partners leaves me to wonder how many straight same-sex roommates will adopt a "Chuck & Larry" approach to benefits in SLC, not to mention the undue expense of allowing uncommitted same-sex couples the same benefits of married individuals. A hetero-sexual couple isn't willing to marry, than they shouldn't be accorded the benefits of those who are in marriages.)

I think the Senate (and more appropriately the Senator from WJ) should butt-out. If there should be any objection the city's domestic partner benefit plan, it should be due the over broad inclusion of all domestic partners -- although we all know the plan would stand no chance if it were in behalf of HOMOSEXUALS IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS exclusively.

The problem here in Utah is there should be a difference between religion and government. While I view homosexuality as a repugnant sin, I don't accept the idea that these individuals should be treated as unequal according to the law. Marriage should not be broken open to allow gay unions, but some sort of legal binding arrangement needs to introduced as an equalizer for Gay and Lesbian community.

Wrongful Conviction Reimbursment Proposal

There is a proposal being floated to reimburse wrongfully convicted prisoners 40,000 dollars for each year they were wrongfully imprisoned, and an additional 30,000 dollars if the individual was on death row. One of the positive features that is being touted about this bill is it will avoid multi-million dollar lawsuits from those who are wrongfully convicted.

This proposal is flawed to say the least.

First -- The attempt to value the loss of reputation, time, and freedom at a mere 40,000-70,000 dollars a year is offensive. That proposal is like a restaurant, that through poor sanitation and hygiene of employees, results in a food poisoning case that kills someone trying to settle damages with a lifetime pass for free food at any of the offending restaurants.

Second -- In many cases, wrongful convictions are the result of poor or rushed police work. This type of malfeasance by law enforcement causes irreparable damage to a person. Limiting the rights to seek damages, and limiting the compensation that these people can receive is unfair to say the least.

If we are trying to set some sort of opportunity cost benchmark of what wrongfully convicted individual could have made on the outside we need to be a little more optimistic. I have a client who was let out of prison three years ago, and he has made over a 100,000 dollars a year since his release. I don't think it is too much to expect that individuals who are robbed of freedom should be compensated a little more handsomely than average, especially those who are wrongfully put on death row.

Vouchers -- Will the REAL Legislative Fiscal Analyst Please Step Forward?

In my last voucher thread, Rep. Urquhart stated that the voucher math is rather straight forward. However, judging from the debate the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's report has created in the blogosphere I would respectfully disagree.

I would like to offer top posting to the Legislative Fiscal Analyst to explain the results of his report regarding HB148 and 174. However, if blogging on the issue in a private site is unacceptable, than I wonder if there could be some other opportunity to have the man who came up with the numbers explain the report, and respond to questions about the report to anyone in the blogosphere. I will fully admit that there may be something that I am missing in the math, but if that is the case than I know I'm not alone.

I would like to ask if Ric Cantrell, Steve U., or some other blogger on Capital Hill could help set up such an event?

Rangel & the AMT

One of the most daunting issues facing American taxpayers is the alternative minimum tax. This piece of the American Internal Revenue Code came about in 1969, when Congress heard testimony that 155 wealthy individuals paid little or no tax in 1966 (the average inflation-indexed income of the 155 individuals would be near 1 million dollars today) Instead of fixing the problems in the regular tax code, Congress introduced a new tax system based on adding certain regular income tax adjustments or deductions back into taxable income. (extremely vague description) If the AMT is lower than the regular amount of tax than no AMT is owed otherwise the difference is added onto to regular amount of tax and the taxpayer pays AMT in full.

This has been one of the most poorly crafted pieces of the Internal Revenue Code. For starters it was not adjusted for inflation so therefore it is affecting more and more of the middle class taxpayers, it disallows deductions for state and local income taxes creating a double taxation effect in some cases, and many other serious problems.

I have commented on Charles Rangel, and his expressed desire to repeal the AMT. In a recent news letter from the National Association of Enrolled Agents it appears that serious AMT reform is likely not going to be a menu item this year with leaders from the House and the Senate both introducing additional 1 year inflation patches. However the house is still working on a massive reform package that will, among other things, include an elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Some of his other initiatives include, expending the child tax credit, the earned income credit, and the standard deduction, all tax provisions that are beneficial to middle and lower income taxpaying families. The article also mentioned nearly 1 trillion dollars in tax increasing offsets. I would assume that this would include increasing the capital gains rates back to their pre-Bush levels. This would be a bad move, taxing savings and investments heavily is not the right idea, as we enter a phase in American history where retirees will outnumber workers by a significant margin, and our Social Security system is still in peril of being broke before this era is complete, we need to keep as much savings and investment income in the hands of American taxpayers as possible.

Now the AMT also adds another element to the voucher issue. It was brought up at the end of my last post that it may be better if we support school choice to get the law enacted now and have the legislature fix the flaws in the legislation later. For me though the AMT is like a bright red flag against this kind of approach, Jeremy from Jeremy's Jeremiad eloquently stated the problem in earlier comment on this blog:

"I'd love to be able to buy the idea you guys have proposed that there is a possibility that the voucher program could be made to disappear if it is a flop. The problem is that I can't think of another example of an entitlement program that was easily revoked after government started handing the money out...even when the vast majority of beneficiaries were wealthy types who didn't need the entitlement in the first place.

This plan is a great example of a possible perfect storm of government waste that can't be undone. If things go poorly and only 2-3% of public school students use the vouchers do you really think Republicans will agree the experiment they've invested so much political capital in is a failure? They'll let it go another 10 years. By then all the rich kids who never would have been in public schools in the first place will be receiving vouchers (and they likely won't be the small $500 subsidies the program currently hands out to wealthy people...some legislators are already apologizing for how small those vouchers are). Will the Republican legislature be able to count on many of its rich donors to go along with revoking the state entitlement that helps pay for their kids private schools?"

That is what I finally have seen as the end result of the HB 148 and 174 voucher plan. If bad law is enacted, it becomes institutionalized and entrenched. In my experience government may see the error of past legislation, but usually it isn't until there have been years of waste and misappropriation. Even after lawmakers see the error it is difficult to remove the error because of constituents who now view the "experiment" as an entitlement.

I would rather (however unlikely this may be) that lawmakers revisit the proposal, find a means of making vouchers a truly cost-efficient means of providing school choice to taxpayers while creating savings for public schools.

Vouchers -- Humble Pie

I have been swamped at work still finishing off returns from the 2006 filing season. (I have two days left thanks to an underhanded trick of the trade) :) As the month begins to progress work has continued to pile and I'm doubting that I will have the time to complete the earth shattering, in-depth analysis I was hoping to be able to present before the November vote.

I have been reviewing the LFA report again and again, and I have hit a paradigm shifting roadblock in my support of vouchers. I do still believe vouchers would produce a fairly decent net savings for the first few years (savings ranging somewhere near4-6.2 millon or in a worse case scenario a loss) , but there will come an equilibrium within 5 to 6 years where the savings break even, and when vouchers fully implement in the 13th year and onward vouchers will inevitiably begin to net annual losses. One might argue about the ambiguities of savings from private school student who would have gone to private schools with or without vouchers and the students who may attend private schools because vouchers make the difference, however it is impossible to get around the fact as time goes by (especially after year thirteen) all students in private schools will be receiving voucher money (whether or not they wanted or needed vouchers to incentivize them out of the public school system).

Judging from the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report, from year 13 (and I assume from then on) vouchers will net annual losses between $43,088,978 and $59,492,020. There may have been some options that could have alleviated this undesirable effect of subsidizing students who were "no-matter-what-the-cost" private school bound such as requiring a 1 or 2 year period of public school attendance for voucher eligibility. However, with the exception to the eligibility of current Utah-residing, school-aged students no such requirements were included in HB148 or 174.

Idealogically, I do agree with the philosophy of allowing taxpayers a say in how their tax dollars are used to fund the education of their children. The one size fits approach to public education needs innovation and options. Charter schools are a great menu item in our education mix, and I believe providing more accessibility to private schools would also provide another great option for students who need a non-traditional approach to their education needs if it could be done without creating an additional drain from Utah's taxpayers and from the already underfunded public schools system. However, referendum 1 doesn't succeed in this point. After the 13th year and beyond it would be a drain on the public coffers, and I'm afraid it would be viewed as nothing more than another entitlement program.

If HB148 or 174 would have had a provision forcing voucher recipients to enter public school for at least a year or more before being voucher eligible, the thirteen year savings to loss issue may have been solved. This is not the case, HB148 would have its beneficial savings for a season but in the long-run would become a drain of Utah's tax dollars. I hope that if and when Ref 1 is voted down the Legislature reconsiders the issue, and looks at how to resolve the 13 year crunch.

Regretfully, I think I will be dropping my support of referendum 1 with the forlorned hope that the idea doesn't die permanently in this state. If this damages my credibility -- so be it. The idea is good, but the plan's execution has that 1 major flaw for me. This paradigm shift has not been an easy one for me to embrace.

I blog for myself. I find clarity in writing and verbalizing my opinion, and often I find out through my writing that I am wrong.

Have fun everyone!!

Vouchers -- Thoughts on the New Approach the Legislature Should Take When they Pass Another Voucher Bill in a Few Years

I'm close to throwing in the towel on referendum one due to the abysmal way PCE has conducted the campaign to support vouchers. I can only do so much and reach so many people on my humble little blog. Now I do plan on completing the spreadsheet I have mentioned previously, and I do continue to write in support of Utah's voucher bill. However, Utahn's for Public Schools have ran a very visible, well-planned, efficient, and (judging from the visibility and efficiency) well-funded campaign, while Parent's for Choice has conducted a inefficient, visibility-lacking, possibly poorly-financed, and definitely poorly-managed campaign. I feel rather hopeless for the chances of Referendum 1's passage.

Given the relative hopelessness of the current situation, I thought I would convey a little advice should the Legislature decide to pass a repackaged voucher-type bill in the distant (or not so distant) future. The HB148-174 voucher bill had always faced one major challenge even if the referendum never came to the ballot and/or the referendum passed on Election Day -- separation between church and state. Arizona has a voucher plan that uses tax credits. Many voucher opponents feel this law was passed under false pretenses, although I don't know how anyone couldn't understand the law's intent given that the tax credit was issued only to private school students because they go to private schools. I digress. Given that the funds from the refundable credit are given first to the taxpaying parent, then to a School Tuition Organization (STO) than the STO awards the scholarship to the student at the private or religious institution of the student's choice. The tax credit was deemed constitutional during its only court challenge (Kotterman v. Killian -- Arizona Supreme Court). It appears that the main factor that made Arizona's tax credit survive judicial scrutiny it the buffer of the STO between the State of Arizona the taxpayer and the religious tuition-receiving educational institutions.

Utah's current voucher plan did not have any such buffer, and I would guess has (possibly had) a strong chance of being deemed unconstitutional.

However, tax credits are like blood in a shark tank to tax fraudsters, and such a plan would carry a heavier added cost of policing the plan to make sure abuse is limited. However, I believe a tax credit would have been a better engine for vouchers to overcome the hurdle of separation between church and state.

Vouchers -- Financial Analysis "Its About the Money"

This is a revision of the post I wrote last night.

Yesterday I was reading some comments at Steve Urquhart's blog and I noticed there seems to be confusion on how much savings there will or will not be from voucher implementation. I spent some time last night writing a spreadsheet model based on certain assumptions (no currently attending private school students could receive vouchers, only students switching from public to private, out of state move ins, and new kindergartners will receive vouchers -- 100% savings per voucher issued) however I realize a large flaw with my assumption due to the fact that many new students (out of state move ins, and new kindergartners) many not have ever gone to public schools without vouchers. As far as my calculations go I don't really see any circumstances where there would not be a net financial benefit to public schools because of voucher implementation, however I haven't figured out how to account for the money that isn't saved due to voucher receiving students who never would have attended public school without vouchers. I would like some help making the model as accurate as possible -- if interested in collaborating or if you just want to access the spreadsheet please email me. If anyone knows how to make a Google spreadsheet open for anyone to view and alter please tell me. The idea with the spreadsheet is that anyone can alter the variables and see the net effect on savings from those changes.

I believe vouchers provide a powerful means of increasing per student spending in state of Utah. By allowing parents the right to take a portion of the money the state was going to spend on their kids for education elsewhere, the remaining funds can be stretched to help increase per student spending on the kids that stay in public school.

I also believe giving taxpayers the right to determine how their tax dollars are used to educate their children is the right move. I don't believe the one size fits all model of education for which most public schools operate is best for all Utah children. Charter schools are a fantastic asset to the state's educational menu. Vouchers provide another menu item for parents to tailor how best to meet the educational needs of their children. Vouchers also can save money for public schools to improve education for public school children.

Utah's public schools are great, I am product of them and I pretty sure that most of my children will be schooled in public school as well. However I believe vouchers are a worthy experiment that can help improve Utah education in many aspects.

Vouchers -- Jeremy's Arguments

I have appreciated that Jeremy has stuck with the voucher debate here. In my last voucher post Jeremy commented and eloquantly laid out a notable and powerful argument against vouchers. The argument isn't one that I can truly refute. Although I disagree with him (depending on his definition of "wealthy types") on who will be the majority beneficiaries of vouchers and his assumption that vouchers for wealthy students will grow much beyond levels currently prescribed; I cannot refute his concerns about what happens if the plan flops.

"I'd love to be able to buy the idea you guys have proposed that there is a possibility that the voucher program could be made to disappear if it is a flop. The problem is that I can't think of another example of an entitlement program that was easily revoked after government started handing the money out...even when the vast majority of beneficiaries were wealthy types who didn't need the entitlement in the first place.

This plan is a great example of a possible perfect storm of government waste that can't be undone. If things go poorly and only 2-3% of public school students use the vouchers do you really think Republicans will agree the experiment they've invested so much political capital in is a failure? They'll let it go another 10 years. By then all the rich kids who never would have been in public schools in the first place will be receiving vouchers (and they likely won't be the small $500 subsidies the program currently hands out to wealthy people...some legislators are already apologizing for how small those vouchers are). Will the Republican legislature be able to count on many of its rich donors to go along with revoking the state entitlement that helps pay for their kids private schools?"

Vouchers -- Steve Urquhart's Proposal

On Steve Urquhart's blog he has laid a couple of proposals in overcoming the confusion with the 2 voucher bills. Basically his proposals are this:

1 - Hold a Special Session and through HB148 and 174 out the window.
2 - Pass a new HB1001 with basically the same language as HB174 (the bill that was created as a compromise between voucher advocates and foes)
3 - Hold implementation of HB1001 until after June 2008, with a provision that HB1001 is repealed or implemented depending on the outcome of the November vote.

I like the proposal. It provides the citizens of this state with one law that can be voted on up or down. I don't know that it will keep the two loudly opposing voucher lobbying groups from taking the results of the November vote to the courts, but it at least settles the ambiguity of having two virtually identical bills not being subject to the same referendum voting requirements.

All this would have been helpful when the legislature was originally considering vouchers. But it is better late than never.

Vouchers -- The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs

It is time to start talking about vouchers. A few weeks ago Utah Policy.com had a link to the results of a study conducted by the Milton Friedman Foundation regarding the financial impact different voucher programs across the country. It was an interesting read. This study suggests that voucher programs in most areas have saved school districts money, and in districts that didn't experience savings those voucher systems have been revenue neutral.

The study is worth reading. I was going to take the time to do a thorough written analysis of the study, but I have since decided it would be better to recommend reading the study results for yourselves.

Yes, the study was conducted by the Friedman Foundation (a group that voucher adversaries like Craig at the Amicus would marginalize simply because Milton Friedman was a voucher advocate) however, as the study leader states in her introduction, the fact the group who produced the study supports vouchers shouldn't invalidate the scientific methods that were applied in reaching the end conclusion of the study.

Read it. This is a valuable piece in the voucher debate.

Vouchers -- HB174 and the 500 Pound Gorilla in the Corner

I have read recent posts and articles about the State School Board's decision refusing to enact HB174 before the HB148 referendum vote, as well as calls for a special session to attach HB174 to the referendum vote. Steve Urquhart has recently made his opinion of a special session known quite clearly. Derek Staffanson recently commented on the bravery he felt the school board showed by refusing to enact HB174. While I don't necessarily accept the moral high ground that Mr. Staffanson gives to the School board president, I agree that HB174 shouldn't be ram-roded into action while the original substantive HB148 bill hangs in the balance of public opinion and an Election day vote.

I fully believe that there are many in the education establishment who have a solid, and biased agenda of keeping vouchers from becoming law. (they were successful in gaining enough signatures to force a referendum vote) The fact of the matter remains we are having vote on the issue, because there are either enough Utahns who either don't support vouchers, or enough Utahns who want to have more public dialogue on the issue before we are bound to it. It would nullify the democratic process to enact virtually the same law (HB174 was basically an Amendment to HB148 -- the law under scrutiny) before the voice of the people has been heard in a vote, or worse against the will of the people if the referendum is successful in repealing HB148.

While I fully agree with Rep. Urquhart on the merits of vouchers as an efficient, fair, and even handed means of education funding. as well as the need for the education establishment to declare a willingness to truly engage in the process. I strongly feel that voucher bill HB174 should be on hold until after the referendum vote coming this November, and should be repealed if the referendum vote is against the bills implementation.

Voucher Vote May Wait Untill February 2008 -- Are you kidding me!

(Hat Tip also The Third Avenue )

The governor and the legislature have apparently decided that a vote on vouchers (provided there are plenty of valid signatures) needs to wait until the 2008 presidential primary. So much for really wanting to have the voice of the people heard.

It seems that the Governor and the Legislature are either trying to bury this vote as long from now as possible to let the support garnered by Utahns for Public Schools cool, or (and I don't know if this logic really works) they are trying to keep this vote as far away from local lawmakers as possible.

Either way holding the vote out that long strikes me as a little shady, especially after the governor expressed his commitment to having a vote on the issue as soon as possible. Let the voucher bill stand on its merit, and let us have a spirited debate leading to this vote. It is disappointing to see the "Powers that Be" try to pull a win on this issue by pushing the vote as far away as possible in order to allow voter apathy to fester.

Bad Form Huntsman and Legislature.

Vouchers -- It Appears That There will be a Vote.

Utah Amicus, and Salt Lake Tribune are reporting that there are enough signatures to have a referendum vote on HB148.

Looks like vouchers will continue as a main topic here at Green Jello.

Vouchers -- Attorney General says "Voucher Vote Will Not Effect Program"

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has issued the Attorney General's opinion on whether HB 174 would be sufficient to keep the voucher plan in force if HB 148 is voted down through referendum. It seems that HB 174 will keep the voucher program active with or without HB 148. I'm not sure what this will mean regarding a possible voucher vote, a few days ago in a SLTrib article the Governor eluded that he would honor the result of a referendum induced vote with a qualifier regarding the opinion of Attorney General Shurtleff. With a voucher affirming opinion in hand, I wonder if the Governor's commitment to the will of the voters will waiver.

I had found an article that I wanted to introduce that presented some very logical arguments against vouchers made by Emily at Utah Amicus. Emily brought up very strong points about availability and cost effectiveness of voucher schools around the state:

"Vouchers are promoted as the solution to overcrowded schools. To relieve this pressure, there would need to be enough affordable private schools in Utah to absorb the demand for private schools that voucher supporters claim exists. But Utah doesn't enjoy a large number of private schools - let alone affordable ones.

A Google search of private schools in Utah shows Cedar City has exactly one private school listed on www.allprivateschools.org. With 16 students (all from out of state) it is a school for "at risk youth." Under the voucher law a school must have at least 40 students to qualify and at least one of the student's parents must live in Utah.

In Washington County, five schools are listed. The majority of these schools are for "at risk teenagers" whose parents live out of the state. There is neither significant demand for private schools in our region nor much capacity to relieve pressure on the public school system.

Baker claims that with vouchers, private schools will be "affordable to all Utah parents." It is not clear whether vouchers will lower the price of a private education enough to entice parents away from public schools, especially when the majority of Utah parents are happy with them.

According to the National Association of Independent Schools, the median tuition for its member private schools is $14,000. The maximum a low-income family could expect to receive under Utah's voucher legislation is $3,000. Assuming Utah's few private schools could approach the national median tuition, it is hard to accept Baker's claim that all parents in Utah could afford to send their children to a private school even if they wanted to."

I appreciate her points, (a) given that vouchers will be given only to students whose families are on the lower end of the income spectrum, a large number of those who are the intended beneficiaries of vouchers scholarships may still be priced out of private schools. (b) Even if private schools were affordable, Utah's established private schools likely don't have the capacity to accept enough voucher students to make a substantial dent in large class sizes. This is very true, as Emily stated regarding Washington county, there are a handful and a majority are schools for at-risk teens which (as I understand HB148) may not be qualifying vouchers schools due to this line in HB 148:

(3) The following are not eligible to enroll scholarship students:

186 (c) a residential treatment facility licensed by the state.

If this is true there is likely at no more than a couple of voucher eligible schools in Washington county, and none of these schools have a capacity large enough to accept more than a few hundred voucher receiving students.

Anyways, I haven't shifted my opinion regarding Utah's voucher law. Despite these arguments against vouchers, I think the problem of available seats in eligible private schools will be an issue only in the short-run and that many private schools will take on expansion to provide a greater number of available seats. I feel that although the price of private schools may be high for those receiving voucher scholarships, it is better to have the power given to taxpaying parents to have control over how their tax dollars are used to educate their children. Anti-voucher advocates argue that school choice has always existed, which is only a half truth. People have always been allowed to determine whether they would educate their children in public or private schools, but there has never been access to their tax dollars as funding to send their children to their schools of choice.

Thanks Emily, for providing some fresh reasonable arguments (fresh to me at least).

Vouchers -- To Vote and How to Vote

It appears that we are likely headed for a vote on vouchers. It appears that the governor and the legislature will honor the vote, despite the blunder of not putting both HB 174 and HB 148 on the referendum. The question becomes what issues should Utahn's consider when deciding how to vote on Utah's proposed voucher system. Utahns for Public Schools is the largest organization heading up the referendum opposing the voucher system, they believe that Utah's voucher system is merely a stepping stone try and abolish public schools in Utah. I had Craig Johnson, Utah Amicus contributor, and UFPS supporter visit Green Jello and he quoted some highly touted Christian conservatives, Republicans, the and even famous economist Milton Friedman as evidence for the voucher systems "real agenda".

Choice in Education, is the largest organization in support of Utah's voucher plans. They believe that vouchers will increase the quality of public and private education through the market forces. They have a section of their website devoted to dissuading individuals from signing the petition, the even are soliciting reported uses of public resources in contributing signatures.

So, the question is what is best for the school children of Utah? While I don't doubt that there are those like Milton Friedman who would like to see the public school system abolished, I don't believe that the Utah plan has the end of Utah public schools as its end goal. Despite, Mr Johnson's insistence that the Mitigation clause in the voucher proposal is "malarkey" I believe that Utah's voucher plan has been well studied and designed to be a value supplement to Utah's K-12 education system. Study the bills HB 148 and HB 174. The bills have provisions to make sure that voucher accepting private schools meet safety requirements, have educators that hold baccalaureate or higher degrees, and that these private schools have regular financial audits from Certified Public Accountants to ensure that ensure that state funds are not misappropriated. I don't see anything malicious against the public schools system in these pieces of legislation, and the rhetoric used by those opposed to the voucher plan is a little alarmist for the current situation.

Summary:
There are many anti-voucher groups, who are employing scare tactics to solicit support for the referendum. I'm not saying Utahn's shouldn't vote on vouchers, but I encourage Utahns to seek the facts of the voucher legislation that the state legislature approved. I would encourage groups like Utahns for Public Schools and Choice in Education to keep the arguments to the actual legislation, rather than using smear campaigns based on quotes from dead economist, right wing pundits, ex-school administrators, former UEA presidents, and support newly found support of deceased ex-President Ronald Regan.