I didn't know much about this fellow during the voucher debate, but he has shown what he is made of since vouchers were shot down.
Mr. Patrick Byrne, founder and CEO of Overstock.com asserts that Utahn's who voted vouchers down are child-hating, racists. He now states that he will bank roll any candidate who can defeat Huntsman -- even a communist.
"I think that he, as a governor, he's house-sitting in the governor's mansion to the day Utah elects an actual governor. I don't care if he's communist. I wouldn't care where he was politically. If any opponent emerged, he would have my unqualified support."
I'm curious as to why this fellow was so emotionally invested in vouchers (other than his 2.7 million dollar contribution to the effort) did he see a possible monetary gain, was he beaten as a child in his public school, or as (I suspect) he is simply a jerk.
He might be a good part of the reason that vouchers were shot down, he made the debate personal and dirty rather than a valuable forum to pursue quality, innovative education reforms.
That is my last post on vouchers, I promise.
Showing posts with label vouchers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vouchers. Show all posts
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Vouchers -- Thats All I Have To Say About That
It's over.
I hope innovative education reform innitiatives don't die with it, but at least the annoying UPS and PCE ads will stop. The UPS ads with the teacher with the annoying Utah soccer mom accent was driving me insane, and up until few weeks any time a PCE ad came on I wanted to shoot the television.
I hope innovative education reform innitiatives don't die with it, but at least the annoying UPS and PCE ads will stop. The UPS ads with the teacher with the annoying Utah soccer mom accent was driving me insane, and up until few weeks any time a PCE ad came on I wanted to shoot the television.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
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?
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?
Saturday, October 20, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
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!!
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!!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Vouchers -- Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report
Ric Cantrell has provided me with a full breakdown of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report. I don't know that this complete of a copy has been published anywhere. Take a look. I think it provides some clearer insight into one of -- if not the most important arguments in the voucher debate. I will do the same after the extended tax filing deadline passes tonight. I may need a couple of hours to brush up on price elasticity of demand, however I look forward to doing some (hopefully) useful analysis of this issue.
If vouchers will do (provide overall savings to the public school system, while providing taxpayer choice of how and where to educate their children) what proponants believe they will do, than vouchers deserve favorable consideration. However, if their is no financial or class size benefit to the public school system while subsidizing private schools than vouchers are a bad idea and should be voted down.
To me this is the issue! Everything else is noise.
If vouchers will do (provide overall savings to the public school system, while providing taxpayer choice of how and where to educate their children) what proponants believe they will do, than vouchers deserve favorable consideration. However, if their is no financial or class size benefit to the public school system while subsidizing private schools than vouchers are a bad idea and should be voted down.
To me this is the issue! Everything else is noise.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, October 08, 2007
PCE -- Possibly HB148 and HB174's Worst Enemy
So PCE hasn't done a very good job in bringing to light the positive aspects of vouchers. They started out with a proven winner, associate the opposition with the far left, a campaign strategy that led to John Swallow being elected to the House of Representatives over Jim Matheson..... oh wait a minute he was beaten soundly. Apparently the accusation is out that PCE is paying spam bloggers, one swashbuckling spam blogger in particular.
I'm wondering when are they going to lay out a real campaign. The money spent on TV ads so far have been a waste. The pirate is a waste. If the referendum 1 election result is dependent solely off of the quality of the political campaigns only I'd have to say I would expect Utahn's for Public Education could win in a walk.
This organization has made me feel rather hopeless regarding the chances for Referendum 1 to pass. Spend some money on making arguments regarding the benefits of vouchers, benefits of competition, savings to the education system, reduced public school class sizes, right of self-determination by parents of Utah's school children. Do something! Pay me to blog about the benefits of vouchers, at least I would make some points about the actual issues. Enlisting the disingenuous buccaneer in such a valuable cause to me is insulting.
Hattip Jeremy and Bob Aagard
I'm wondering when are they going to lay out a real campaign. The money spent on TV ads so far have been a waste. The pirate is a waste. If the referendum 1 election result is dependent solely off of the quality of the political campaigns only I'd have to say I would expect Utahn's for Public Education could win in a walk.
This organization has made me feel rather hopeless regarding the chances for Referendum 1 to pass. Spend some money on making arguments regarding the benefits of vouchers, benefits of competition, savings to the education system, reduced public school class sizes, right of self-determination by parents of Utah's school children. Do something! Pay me to blog about the benefits of vouchers, at least I would make some points about the actual issues. Enlisting the disingenuous buccaneer in such a valuable cause to me is insulting.
Hattip Jeremy and Bob Aagard
Friday, October 05, 2007
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.
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.
Best Tounge n' Cheek Comment of the Month -- Vouchers
Very Sincere Hattip to Alienated Wannabe,
With the voucher vote coming up, I have been trying to muster up the energy to get back into the debate. I'll probably start writing heavy on the issue after the extended tax deadline on October 15th. Till then read the bills (which are available on this blog and almost any other Utah blog) analyze some of the pro's and con's (if possible without being sucked into the BS that UPS and PCE have peddled) and make as informed a decision as possible as to what will most benefit Utah education. Now for the comment of the month, Rob was announcing UPS anti-voucher signs had arrived and how to order some to which fellow voucher supporter AW replied:
"For those interested, I am also taking orders for my PRO-VOUCHER yard signs. I borrowed my son's crayons and made them myself. They are really cool looking, and they have catchy slogans like the following:
1) Edward Kennedy, Nancy Palosi, Moveon.org, Joseph Stalin and Charles Manson are all opposed to school vouchers. Don't be like them. Join our 90% plus Active Mormon Legislature, an enthusiastic Governor Jon Huntsman, and the Hosts of Heaven in voting to protect our noble Utah law granting parents the choice in deciding how to best educate their children. Support vouchers! (A bit on the long side, but I am confident that passing motorists can catch it all if they read fast.)
2) Vote for vouchers, or be damned!
3) Don't be like all those dumb public-school-educated L-worders out there. Vote for vouchers!
4) What would Ronald Reagan do? Vote for vouchers!
5) Satan's plan is to take away your choice, just like the anti-voucher evil doers. You are either for us or against us. Vote for vouchers!
6) The Utah Axis of Evil: The UEA, the Utah Democratic Party, and Rocky Anderson -- all opposed to vouchers. Need I say more?Or, my personal favorite:
7) Go ye out from among the wicked. Vote for vouchers!
Please place your orders on my blog. I look forward to hearing from you. Working together, we can protect the rights of Utah parents to raise their children according to what they think is best. That is all I want.
Love,
A.W.
That comment made my day!
Seriously, if you vote against vouchers your going to hell.
With the voucher vote coming up, I have been trying to muster up the energy to get back into the debate. I'll probably start writing heavy on the issue after the extended tax deadline on October 15th. Till then read the bills (which are available on this blog and almost any other Utah blog) analyze some of the pro's and con's (if possible without being sucked into the BS that UPS and PCE have peddled) and make as informed a decision as possible as to what will most benefit Utah education. Now for the comment of the month, Rob was announcing UPS anti-voucher signs had arrived and how to order some to which fellow voucher supporter AW replied:
"For those interested, I am also taking orders for my PRO-VOUCHER yard signs. I borrowed my son's crayons and made them myself. They are really cool looking, and they have catchy slogans like the following:
1) Edward Kennedy, Nancy Palosi, Moveon.org, Joseph Stalin and Charles Manson are all opposed to school vouchers. Don't be like them. Join our 90% plus Active Mormon Legislature, an enthusiastic Governor Jon Huntsman, and the Hosts of Heaven in voting to protect our noble Utah law granting parents the choice in deciding how to best educate their children. Support vouchers! (A bit on the long side, but I am confident that passing motorists can catch it all if they read fast.)
2) Vote for vouchers, or be damned!
3) Don't be like all those dumb public-school-educated L-worders out there. Vote for vouchers!
4) What would Ronald Reagan do? Vote for vouchers!
5) Satan's plan is to take away your choice, just like the anti-voucher evil doers. You are either for us or against us. Vote for vouchers!
6) The Utah Axis of Evil: The UEA, the Utah Democratic Party, and Rocky Anderson -- all opposed to vouchers. Need I say more?Or, my personal favorite:
7) Go ye out from among the wicked. Vote for vouchers!
Please place your orders on my blog. I look forward to hearing from you. Working together, we can protect the rights of Utah parents to raise their children according to what they think is best. That is all I want.
Love,
A.W.
That comment made my day!
Seriously, if you vote against vouchers your going to hell.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Parents for Choice in Education Recent Campaign ad a Big Miss
Okay -- I'm all for vouchers. However I was extremely disappointed with the only pro-voucher ad I have seen here in Sant George. I found the closest version I could on YouTube. This ad is about as pathetic as John Swallow's (I think that was the name of the loser who ran against Matheson a few years ago) negative attack ads that tried to align Matheson with Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy (ahhh!). Swallow's campaign failed miserablely then, and if this type of ad is the only kind of ammo PCE is going to use in the voucher debate Referendum 1 may fail miserably as well.
Although I disagree with the anti-voucher crowd, I give them an A for keeping their campaign focused on the issues. (Even if I find many of their cited issues moot and invalid)
Anywho, that was just my small rant for the day and I hope that the PCE leaders take another look at their ad campaign. There are many positives of the voucher plan other than "conservatives support vouchers, and if your against vouchers you are flaming liberal or a pinko Commi!" Last of all -- please PCE, don't bring Mormonism into the debate like Paul Mero alledgedly did.
Although I disagree with the anti-voucher crowd, I give them an A for keeping their campaign focused on the issues. (Even if I find many of their cited issues moot and invalid)
Anywho, that was just my small rant for the day and I hope that the PCE leaders take another look at their ad campaign. There are many positives of the voucher plan other than "conservatives support vouchers, and if your against vouchers you are flaming liberal or a pinko Commi!" Last of all -- please PCE, don't bring Mormonism into the debate like Paul Mero alledgedly did.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
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?"
"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?"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Vouchers -- The Ad Hominem's Continue.......
Rob at the Amicus posted the latest of posters from (I believe) Utah Democrats. This one is a winner. This poster is titled "White Flight," in reference to Southerners use of tax-funded private schools in the early days of desegregation as a means of continuing segregation despite Brown v. Board of Education. The picture incorporates images of white folks marching with the confederate flag in protest of desegregation. So what is the intent of this poster......
A commenter tried to defend the poster with the following:
"nowhere do I see any comparisons of voucher supporters to "racist, Confederate flag-waving segregationists from the 1950s South.' "
I'm afraid I don't bite on the poster, or the anonymous commenter's defense of Utah Democrats. Despite the lack of language affirmatively calling voucher supporters racists, it doesn't take a genius to see that the "racist" implication is (to say the least) mildly being suggested. The clever use of negative images (the Confederate flag) is a subtle but clever way of calling someone a racist without actually saying it.
What else are voucher opponents telling us using this argument, lets pause and think about this?
1.)Utah's voucher program is designed to benefit the lowest income students: The script regarding poverty is that it effects minorities first and Caucasians last. So, the reasoning behind "White Flight" fails the first test. Utah's voucher plan is designed (following the White Flight" logic) to benefit minorities first. The poster shows that voucher opponents don't embrace the state's move to provide equal opportunity for less advantage minorities to choose the best suited schools for their children.
2.) Utah schools are succeeding in spite of themselves: One commenter and many voucher opponents have stated in opposition to vouchers that vouchers can serve no purpose with a school system that is flourishing. However, these concerns about "white flight" (not considering the racial stereotyping involved here) show that voucher opponents fear strong students leaving public schools. If Utah's public schools were as great as voucher opponents like to believe, then what difference does it make if strong or weak (minority or Caucasian) students make up the student body. It is a unintended admission that Utah schools succeed in large part to the quality of the students and parents (and some teachers) and in less part due to the bureaucracies which run Utah's schools.
3.) Utah Democrats are perpetuating racial stereotypes: Since we are going to (however subtly) through around accusations of racism. It seems to me, that the Utah Democrats are perpetuating the myth or stereotype that minority students are less apt or able to achieve in academics. Taking seriously the wild assumption that due to vouchers alone Caucasian students will leave Utah schools in droves large enough to constitute the catch phrase "White Flight"; why is there an issue with which students leave a system that is excelling in its job to educate all students? They are, however ambiguously, demonstrating a (in most cases mild) belief in certain racial stereotypes.
The Daily Herald rightly awarded this a "Buffalo Chip Award". Excrement from a large free roaming herbivore seems like an accurate depiction of this piece from the Utah Democrats. Please bring back some intelligent dialogue on this issue.
A commenter tried to defend the poster with the following:
"nowhere do I see any comparisons of voucher supporters to "racist, Confederate flag-waving segregationists from the 1950s South.' "
I'm afraid I don't bite on the poster, or the anonymous commenter's defense of Utah Democrats. Despite the lack of language affirmatively calling voucher supporters racists, it doesn't take a genius to see that the "racist" implication is (to say the least) mildly being suggested. The clever use of negative images (the Confederate flag) is a subtle but clever way of calling someone a racist without actually saying it.
What else are voucher opponents telling us using this argument, lets pause and think about this?
1.)Utah's voucher program is designed to benefit the lowest income students: The script regarding poverty is that it effects minorities first and Caucasians last. So, the reasoning behind "White Flight" fails the first test. Utah's voucher plan is designed (following the White Flight" logic) to benefit minorities first. The poster shows that voucher opponents don't embrace the state's move to provide equal opportunity for less advantage minorities to choose the best suited schools for their children.
2.) Utah schools are succeeding in spite of themselves: One commenter and many voucher opponents have stated in opposition to vouchers that vouchers can serve no purpose with a school system that is flourishing. However, these concerns about "white flight" (not considering the racial stereotyping involved here) show that voucher opponents fear strong students leaving public schools. If Utah's public schools were as great as voucher opponents like to believe, then what difference does it make if strong or weak (minority or Caucasian) students make up the student body. It is a unintended admission that Utah schools succeed in large part to the quality of the students and parents (and some teachers) and in less part due to the bureaucracies which run Utah's schools.
3.) Utah Democrats are perpetuating racial stereotypes: Since we are going to (however subtly) through around accusations of racism. It seems to me, that the Utah Democrats are perpetuating the myth or stereotype that minority students are less apt or able to achieve in academics. Taking seriously the wild assumption that due to vouchers alone Caucasian students will leave Utah schools in droves large enough to constitute the catch phrase "White Flight"; why is there an issue with which students leave a system that is excelling in its job to educate all students? They are, however ambiguously, demonstrating a (in most cases mild) belief in certain racial stereotypes.
The Daily Herald rightly awarded this a "Buffalo Chip Award". Excrement from a large free roaming herbivore seems like an accurate depiction of this piece from the Utah Democrats. Please bring back some intelligent dialogue on this issue.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Vouchers -- Censorship by the Davis County Clipper
This is a pretty cool cartoon.
I can't believe it wasn't printed by the Davis County Clipper, it is probably one of the most insightful local politcal cartoons I have seen.
I can't believe it wasn't printed by the Davis County Clipper, it is probably one of the most insightful local politcal cartoons I have seen.
Vouchers -- Let the Ad Hominem Arguments Begin
It started a few weeks ago, with a local article where SLC's NAACP chief Jeanetta Williams equated Utah's voucher program with segregationism. Today, Rob over at Utah Amicus took the ad hominem arguments another direction. In Rob's post today he posted a video of Friedman arguing for the legalization of drugs with the caption, "Does this mean PCE will start a group called, Parents for Choice in Drug Legalization?"
I had been hoping that these type arguments wouldn't become part of such an important debate. However, I guess I was naive in my hopes. The one bright spot in hearing these poorly crafted arguments coming from the anti-voucher corner is that ad hominem attacks have always (at least to me) been a sign of someone being on the losing end of an argument.
BTW, I agree with Jeremy who commented, "I bet they would if they watched this whole video. Friedman was exactly right in arguing against our wasteful "War on Drugs". We've incarcerated a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth because of our government's foolish and obsessive focus on our idiotic drug policy. If you are trying to marginalize Friedman you should choose a different video of him. He's absolutely right in this one." Point is -- marginalizing voucher advocates like Friedman with poorly crafted ad hominem attacks does nothing to meaningful contribute to the debate, it makes those using these type arguments, like the argument in Rob's post, look like dirty mud slinging politicians. I hope people see through this crap.
UPDATE: Judging from the tone of comments it appears that readers think I am beating up on Rob too much. Rob's post was being used as an example. There are poorly crafted ad hominem attacks from the pro-voucher side as well. (i.e. the ridculous assertions of a 4th "education" branch of government and the charges of legislating from the bench after the Utah Supreme Court gave the same people making the afore mentioned assertions the decision they requested (not what they wanted)) I hope this levels out the post so that fans of Rob can stop feeling jaded.
P.S. I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack on Rob. I hold Rob in the highest regard.
I had been hoping that these type arguments wouldn't become part of such an important debate. However, I guess I was naive in my hopes. The one bright spot in hearing these poorly crafted arguments coming from the anti-voucher corner is that ad hominem attacks have always (at least to me) been a sign of someone being on the losing end of an argument.
BTW, I agree with Jeremy who commented, "I bet they would if they watched this whole video. Friedman was exactly right in arguing against our wasteful "War on Drugs". We've incarcerated a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth because of our government's foolish and obsessive focus on our idiotic drug policy. If you are trying to marginalize Friedman you should choose a different video of him. He's absolutely right in this one." Point is -- marginalizing voucher advocates like Friedman with poorly crafted ad hominem attacks does nothing to meaningful contribute to the debate, it makes those using these type arguments, like the argument in Rob's post, look like dirty mud slinging politicians. I hope people see through this crap.
UPDATE: Judging from the tone of comments it appears that readers think I am beating up on Rob too much. Rob's post was being used as an example. There are poorly crafted ad hominem attacks from the pro-voucher side as well. (i.e. the ridculous assertions of a 4th "education" branch of government and the charges of legislating from the bench after the Utah Supreme Court gave the same people making the afore mentioned assertions the decision they requested (not what they wanted)) I hope this levels out the post so that fans of Rob can stop feeling jaded.
P.S. I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack on Rob. I hold Rob in the highest regard.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Voucher Vote is in November
The Governor changes his mind on the voucher vote again. The vote will be on November 6, 2007.
At least it is sooner rather than later.
At least it is sooner rather than later.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)