For a Laugh

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3 - Hold implementation of HB1001 until after June 2008, with a provision that HB1001 is repealed or implemented depending on the outcome of the November vote.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.

Mitt Romney has bigger Fish to Fry in Regards to Anti-Mormonism

Hat tip -- JM Bell

After a week where we heard much ado about Al Sharpton's Anti-Mormon comment. It appears that there may be a much more potent and venomous anti-Mormon sentiments from the Christian-right. This shouldn't really be surprising since much of the Christian community in this country has somewhat of an obsession with criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as not being a Christian religion. (I always found this view to be paradoxical for them, given the incredible lengths that the LDS Church has taken to provide some of the greatest charity work on Earth. I guess they missed that part of the New Testament.)

A Mr. Bill Keller (An ex-convict who was convicted of insider trading turned televangelist -- a man who recognizes that there are vast amounts of money to be made in the service of god. Once a swindler always a swindler.) stated that "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" Mr. Keller continues,

"Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell....Those who follow the false teachings of this cult, believe in the false jesus of the Mormon cult and reject faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, will die and spend eternity in hell. Romney getting elected president will ultimately lead millions of souls to the eternal flames of hell!"

After making all of these above statements, he piously goes on.

"Please take some time today and pray for Mitt Romney and all those who have been deceived by the lies of the Mormon cult. The fact is that unless they renounce those lies and turn to faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, they will die and spend eternity in hell. Pray also for these Christian leaders who have for whatever reason, foolishly aligned themselves with Romney. Pray the Holy Spirit will convict them and that they will renounce Romney and find a candidate to support who will hold to Biblical values. There is no excuse, no justification for supporting and voting for a man who will be used by satan to lead the souls of millions into the eternal flames of hell!"

The sad thing is I'm sure there are people who revere this man as being a man of God. Wow! If his hateful-rhetoric really was true Christianity, I'm glad to be a pagan. Comparatively of his view of Christianity, and the LDS view of Christianity this an affirmation of a famous quote of Joseph Smith "if we (the Latter Day Saints) go to hell we will turn the devil out of doors and make a heaven of it." As for Mr Keller, his ministries operate as a 501(c)(3) with over 2 million dollars of donations (here is a link to his 990) you will not find much of his donations funneled to charitable causes like disaster relief, humanitarian aid, or anything like that. The 501(c)(3) funnels nearly every dime into his television programing (BK Media) and from there I can only guess. If anyone is curious you can learn alot about religious and charitable organizations on Guidestar.Org. I'm curious is anyone in the IRS 501(c)(3) unit paying attention to this fellow. He certainly bends (nearly breaking it off) the political neutrality rules of IRC 501(c)(3).

To make a long story short. I'm sure there are many more Christian conservatives like Mr. Keller out there. The distrust that Southern Christians have for Mormons most certainly is still a large hurdle for the Romney campaign. I would like to believe that most people wouldn't vote for Romney because he might be flimsy in his support of conservative social issues (or if a Democrat because you oppose conservative views) rather than hateful rhetoric used by dishonest-swindlers who have discovered a niche by cloaking themselves in the Bible.

Health Benefits, Equality, and the 2008 Presidential Election

Every campaign year many campaigns use accessible, affordable, and equitable health care as a campaign promise. If we can or are to make health coverage equitable and obtainable for everyone, the question is how? I am of the school of thought that this should be done without us dragging our efficient and advanced free market health care system to the depths of Canadian health care or as Pete Ashdown once erroneously said the efficient model of VA hospitals. (Do we really want Walter Reed Medical Center's infamous building 18 to become a norm of American Health Care?)


However, health care coverage in this country is no where near accessible, affordable, and equitable for all Americans. For instance small employers health coverage is extremely unaffordable due the way group plans are written -- the smaller the group the bigger the per employee premium is. In many cases it is worse than that, employers who can't afford the extremely expensive small group plans leave their employees purchasing health care as individuals. Here is where the income tax code currently falls short of providing the desired equity we Americans so desperately seek. From a taxation standpoint, if you are covered by an fairly large employer-sponsored plan you receive pretty solid benefits, otherwise you may are hosed one way or another. Here is a breakdown of Health care and taxation:

Employees Covered by Employer

-- No income tax on premiums paid from wages
-- No FICA and Medicare tax on premiums from wages
-- No State income tax on premiums from wages
-- Employees of a large employer receive coverage at very little cost
-- Employees of a small employer pay significantly larger premiums.

Self-Employed Coverage

-- Premiums are deducted from Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)
-- Nearly the same effect as employee's covered by an employer.

Employees who have to cover themselves

-- Premiums are not deducted from AGI
-- Taxes are paid for FICA and Medicare on wages used to pay premiums
-- Premiums can be deducted as a severely limited itemized deduction (A floor of 7.5% of AGI in most cases taxpayers do not have enough medical expenses to deduct)

In this regard President Bush's recent health care tax proposal in the 2007 State of the Union address, would be a step in the right direction. The proposal plans use the Internal Revenue Code to allow those taxpayers who self-fund their own health insurance would pay no FICA, Medicare, or Income tax on the wages used to purchase health insurance. The change would also require those who benefit from larger-employer plans to recognize some income on some of the premiums covered by their better large-employers health plans. The proposal would level the playing field between those who have large-employer health care coverage and those who have pricey small-group or self coverage. This is one of the most innovative ideas I have heard regarding health care. Due to the fact that the rabid anti-war movement has the Bush administration on the ropes regarding Iraq, a meaningful and innovative domestic policy change like this has little chance of passage.

I do hope to hear more innovative ideas like this from the current field of presidential candidates on both sides of the isle.

(P.S. I wrote an similarly titled earlier post that was inspired by a year-old OneUtah post, which I erroneously and unbelievably thought was current. I guess that's what happens when you live in a cave for the 1st four months out of the year.)

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.

SLC Council overrides Rocky's veto of the Skybridge

While Rocky and his staff may have (on taxpayers dime) prepared a mountain of evidence for the utterly meaningless "SMACK DOWN" with Sean Hannity, he once again fails to have a meaningful impact on the affairs of the city he officially (however occasionally)manages. In another indictment of Rocky Andersen's ineptitude (or apathy) as mayor, the SLC council has overridden Rocky's veto of a proposed skybridge in the LDS church's downtown reconstruction project . It is somewhat pathetic, this one of few acts Rocky has actually made recently in regards to city planning, infrastructure, and management, and he fails to make his influence stick here.

Oh well. I'm sure he is as excited as everyone else is for his term to finally end, so he can take his rightful place as a (certain to be) iconic left-wing poster-boy. I really have found many of the candidates for mayor in SLC to be refreshing changes to the divisiveness of Mayor Andersen.

"The Mormons" -- ERA and the Church's Opposition

I received this email from my uncle regarding "The Mormons" documentary on PBS. My uncle was an Attorney for Senate Republicans untill a couple of years ago, his career included assistance in drafting legislation like the Defense of Marrages Act and other key pieces of conservative legislation. He is currently working with a conservative group that is working to maintain traditional marriage.

I thought this email provided some insightful reasoning into the Mormon Church's opposition to ERA, and is useful to the dialouge produced by the recent PBS documentary.

"I did not see the first night's episode, but I did see all of the second. I thought it was excellent.

I write, though, to say something about a subject I know something about, namely the Equal Rights Amendment. Persons interested in the Church's position can find it in an extensive booklet that the Church published, and, if I recall correctly, included as an insert in the "The Ensign". Rex Lee's book, "A Lawyer Looks at the ERA" also acquired a sort of authoritative status, although not official.

The Church did not oppose the amendment for reasons given in "The Mormons" by a professor of political science, which more or less boiled down to what he saw as the Church's interest in keeping women barefoot and pregnant. He gave sort of a standard p.c. blurb.

Just for a little background, ERA applies only to "state action" and most employment is in the private sector; additionally, the civil rights statutes (particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) forbids sex discrimination in employment in the private sector, and latter was amended to include state governments. During the ERA debate the Supreme Court had already brought sex discrimination within the scope of the 14th Amendment. The professor's claims about employment and opportunity are simply mistaken in my judgment.

If you want to know why the Church opposed ERA (I am giving my opinion) take a look at a recent decision by a Maryland trial court in which that State's marriage law was held unconstitutional under the State's ERA. (The case is now pending at the State's highest court, awaiting a decision.) Maryland has an express statute saying that marriage requires a man and a woman. The judge said this was sex discrimination because, for example, a man could marry a woman but not a man and this distinction is simply based on the sex of the partner. In many other cases now being litigated, marriage is challenged as being a form of sex discrimination.

Marriage is not the only problematic area; abortion is another (and there are others, sports teams and the military draft, to name just two). Years ago, "Dialogue" (isn't it the "Journal of Mormon Thought"?) published an article of mine on this subject. At the time, the editor of "Dialogue" was a member of this Ward, a supporter of ERA, and possibly the wife of the Bishop (if not, it happened later when he was ordained). Perhaps she still supports ERA; you can ask her. Arlington Ward was a hot bed of liberated women. Still is. At that time, though, some feelings ran hot.

(You want to be a radical woman? Try being a stay-at-home mom and see if society doesn't think you are either (a) weird, (b) ignorant and uneducated, or (c) under the thumb of some benighted patriarch.)

I do not believe the claim (or implication) in "The Mormons" that Sonia Johnson was excommunicated for "supporting" the ERA. Sonia Johnson was a member of this Stake (at the time, it was Oakton Stake) when she was excommunicated, and although we never get to hear the Church's side of these disputes, we do know that Sonia Johnson had advocated that persons not welcome "Mormon" missionaries until the Church changed its position on ERA. Now, if you tell the world not to hear the message of our missionaries for any reason whatsoever, you are, in my judgment, putting your membership at risk.

Sonia Johnson has gone on to become a leading Wiccan (unless I am confusing my pagan sects), and her recent books give evidence of where her heart and mind have gone. Her soul has followed -- or perhaps vice versa.

I would like to know more about the professor of classics on "The Mormons" who says she was excommunicated for her feminist writings. I, for one, was impressed by her. The thing is, we'll never know why the Church acted (through her stake president).

Here's my summing-up: I regard the Church's stand on ERA as one of the more powerful recent evidences of divine inspiration within the hierarchy. That stand was, in my judgment, the work of prophets and seers. Law consists in large part in forecasting (or guessing) what courts will do in the future. I count the Church's position as a brilliant job of constitutional lawyering.

We are in the midst of a world-wide revolution on sex/gender (if you think there are just two sexes/genders you haven't been keeping up). This comes on the heels of the largely successful revolution on sex/the act. ERA was ("is" -- it's still around and being urged in the states), in my judgment, a weapon in these revolutions. A religious organization that can issue the "Proclamation on the Family" would have a problem with the Equal Rights Amendment, and with some (not all) of the hopes and goals of some (not all) of the advocates of that amendment."

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.

Deadline for Taxes

Here I am at 1:30 AM, and I am no longer productive working so I thought I would throw out my last minute tip.......

1. File an extention -- This is something that many people are afraid of, but remarkably it can provide many benefits. Some positive benefits include -- more time to save money to make deductible traditional or SEP IRA contributions for 2006, sanity for your accountant, lower audit risk (although denied by the IRS) statistically extended returns have a slightly lower audit rate. The major con is a two edged sword -- extending lentghens the statute of limitations 6 months, providing the IRS more time to audit and you more time to amend returns an collect refunds. Although the extra 6 months to the IRS examination department is daunting, the extra time to claim refunds on amended returns can be invaluable in some cases.

2. Pay the State of Utah on time -- If you owe tax on your return, payment on the deadline is important. Remember an extention only extends the time to file, not pay! However, if you owe both the Federal government and the State of Utah and cannot afford to pay both -- pay Utah in full on time. Utah's penalty for not paying on time is 10% or 40 bones, if you owe less than 400 dollars or less you could have as much as a 40% penalty for $100 tax or a 400% penalty for $1 tax for not paying on time! Ouch! The IRS is much kinder and gentler on this issue, the Federal penalty for not paying on time on extention is .5% a month up to 5% of the tax owed. Both carry a 8% interest factor. Moral is pay Utah on time or suffer the consequence.

I'll be signing off untill the 18th.

Happy Filing.

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.

"Wayne Holland & Utah Amicus call Parents for Choice CHICKEN!" --- A Response From the Utah Amicus

Rob posted this in response to my previous post:

"The word "Chicken" was not actually used but it will do for now.

Republican leadership strong-armed HB 148 through the House. Please remember that it only passed by one vote.

When Democratic Senators tried to amend the bill their concerns and amendments were ignored. Why? Because Republican leadership understood that HB 148 might fail in the House on the second go-round, a chance they were not willing to take.

If vouchers go to a vote, and if vouchers pass I will be the first one to move on. However, if organizations and associations like the PTA, the UEA, and Utahns for Public Schools are not able to bring in the required signatures needed to move forward with the referendum, then we have a different problem and situation.

ARTICLE VI
Section 1. [Power vested in senate, House, People.]

(1) The legislative power of the State shall be vested in:

(a) A Senate and House of Representatives which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of Utah; and
(b) the people of the State of Utah as provided in Subsection (2).

(To see a complete ARTICLE VI check out The Utah Amicus)


If the guidelines for gathering signatures for the referendum petition are unobtainable then the citizens of Utah must realize that the Utah State Legislature is jealous of their power, and that the legislature has put into law a statute that takes away the equal vested power that the people of Utah are constitutionally guaranteed.

It is my hope that this is not the case. And, as I stated above, if the good people of Utah are allowed the opportunity to vote on this matter, and if the people vote to sustain vouchers then I will be the first person to say, "the people have spoken."

Now let's talk about how the people voted this last election cycle on vouchers.

PCE targeted several seats in the legislature including Rep. Sheryl Allen's seat. The people of Utah voted against those voucher candidates, and yet, those incumbents that were in safe districts still decided to strong-arm HB 148 through the legislature.

A minority (PCE) who support tax dollars for private academies purchased HB 148 from the majority Party. So when you say the people have spoken through their elected officials you are not actually telling the entire story. How many safe legislators actually campaigned on the voucher ticket?

Thanks for advancing the dialogue, and thanks for allowing me the same opportunity.

By the way, when I call someone a chicken I usually put photo of a chicken on my blog or say, "Bawk, BaWK!"

With every best wish,

The Utah Amicus"

Thanks, Rob.

Wayne Holland & Utah Amicus call Parents for Choice CHICKEN!

Rob posted on comments made by Wayne Holland regarding Parent's for Choice, lack of support for the voucher referendum. The Amicus poses the question, "If PCE is so confident about the opinions of Utahn's regarding HB148, why does the group focus so intensely on preventing the vote on the voucher referendum." Here is my answer, they don't want a vote on vouchers because they already have the bill passed by the elected state legislature. (Pretty Simple)

Although, I personally feel a vote is never a bad idea (this is America). I'm guessing PCE really doesn't care what a vote would bring on this issue, because a vote holds nothing but uncertainty. Keeping the bill off of a ballot will certainly keep the voucher system they and I desire in progress.

I appreciate the schoolyard antics, but everyone knows (as polls cited by both sides suggest) polls provide little certainty of how an actual vote will turn out. For all I or PCE knows voter turn out on the special election might be small due to apathy (I've been surprised talking to people how apathetic many people are to this issue), and the decision could be made by a minority of voters who will represent who knows which side of the voucher issue. PCE is as wise as I assume Utahns for Public Schools is, they will fight for the sure thing -- keeping HB148 off of a ballot.

Point is calling the opposition chicken is certainly dramatic, but it really isn't going to get this debate anywhere. I haven't heard, is the petition going to have enough signatures in time?

P.S. Although I support the voucher bills that are under scrutiny, I agree with the Amicus that vouchers should come to a vote that will be honored by the state legislature and the governor.

St. George -- America's Fastest Growing Community

I learned that my town is the fastest growing community in the United States. It is always interesting to receive any "#1" distinction, but I wonder if St. George is handling the growth. According to Yahoo, St. George's median house price for new homes has dropped 48% at 299,900 and the overall median price is still nearly 400,000 -- very pricey for anyone looking for starter homes. Washington County School District cannot attract enough teachers to this county, and from what I understand the fire and police departments are experiencing similar woes respectively. Another subject of irritation for me is the roads and public services in this town, as my visiting brother-in-law put it, "St. George is a big city without the infrastucture."

I wonder what the coming months and years will have for St. George. I have a feeling that they maybe quite painful.

A vast number of locals who have purchased homes recently are in ARM's or negative ammortization loans. I have recently heard many stories of clients who have been approached about predatory lending arrangements, or clients that know people who are in predatory lending arrangements. I had a mortgage officer-client who discovered over 18 of his neighbors had signed into the infamous Franklin Squires ponzai scheme. As a reference, the scheme goes like this: Franklin Squires basically arrange to buy houses at above market prices and give a kickback to the buyer. They then offer (or rather require) for the buyer to invest the borrowed money with their company to keep their ponzai scheme going.

I fear that there may be many foreclosures eminent in this the fastest growing town.

Heritage Foundation -- Tax Increase

I got an email from my mother this morning linking to a YouTube video of "Heritage in Focus", these are short 2 minute episodes about various current issues. Some might call these videos "propaganda," but this one was fun, my cousin is the announcer in this episode.

I agree quite strongly with the Heritage Foundation on this subject. Surprisingly, under George W. Bush revenues in the US Treasury have reached some of the highest highs in recent decades and it has happened without tax hikes. (Apology -- this is information I heard during a tax practitioner conference and I don't recall (or am too lazy to) recall the sources) It would appear that one of the largest contributing factors in increasing revenues is one of the strongest efforts in history to give the Internal Revenue Service the needed resources to close the tax gap. The Democratic party rhetoric that the Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy is very misleading, I have seen a vast majority of my client-taxpayers, and I would argue most people have, benefited under the tax cuts enacted during the past 6 years. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent!

Update: I received some criticism on this post, and I wrote as if I had nothing but praise for the Bush Administration fiscal management of our nation. Federal spending by Bush and the formerly GOP Congress has been inexcusably high especially on earmarks and nonessential, entitlement, non-defense programs. However, I disagree that tax cuts are the problem. If we would have had a GOP congress that would have stuck the fiscal conservatism GOP'ers claim to embrace (low taxes and low federal spending) the current debt/deficit situation could be much different. If congress and the President reigned in non-essential spending (I believe) a balanced budget would occur.

I have at times in my life believed in Santa Claus so why not believe Congress and the President can stop its addiction to over-spending.

I hope that lowers the critically high propaganda levels of this post. I posted this more because I thought it was neat that my cousin was in the video.

Rocky V. Hannity -- Celebrity Deathmatch: Blowhard Brawl

Blowhard Brawl is on !!!!

Despite my disdain for Rocky Anderson, I think within ten minutes he will leave Hannity in the dust. I don't say this because I feel Rocky is right or that I feel that Bush should be impeached, I just don't think that Hannity will be able to handle a verbal assault that he can't hang up on with his patented "Get off the phone, you big dope!" recording.


May 4th
8:00 PM

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).

The New Tax System -- Legislature Briefing

(Hattip The Senate Site) This just in. the legislature released a briefing of the effects of the tax reforms enacted in the last session.

The Utah Taxpayers Association also posted an updated analysis of what does tax reform mean to a family of four.

Take a look.

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.