PLAY THE VOUCHER WINKING GAME
Wink, wink -- vouchers benefit the poor
Our legislative leaders are pushing vouchers out of concern for the poor -- wink, wink. It's just a temporary stroke of bad luck for the poor that for over 5 years our legislative leaders have refused to provide a paltry sum of $164,000 to provide eyeglasses and eye exams to 60,000 of the state's poorest residents. Nevermind that at the same time these business elite first lawmakers were ignoring the state's poorest residents, they nevertheless were eager to hand over $35 million in tax money to build a soccer stadium for a group of millionaires, demonstrating again that the well-healed are their foremost constituency until they discovered how claimed concern for the poor might serve to sell vouchers.
There will be savings -- wink, wink -- even though few of the poor will switch
There will be savings -- wink, wink. Just don't pay any attention to the fact that the impartial legislative fiscal analyst believes that over the first 13 years the program could cost the state a total of $324 million. Nevermind that no savings will occur because the analyst believes that only 0.4 percent of our public school students will want to or be able to switch to private schools. Hence, please ignore the fact that the program will overwhelmingly end up subsidizing private school tuition for the well-healed elite (keep an eye on the favored constituency) who would send their kids to private schools in any case. Consequently, instead of serving the poor and saving taxes as voucher supporters claim, the analyst believes that few will switch and by the 13th year the program's yearly costs will be between $43 and $60 million.
Influx of orphans refuted by the Governor
In addition to winking, voucher supporters are resorting to classic fear tactics with talk of the need to triple taxes due to a large influx of new students which also merits a double wink. Nevermind that this tax increase claim isn't valid unless all the new students also happen to be orphans -- a winking highly unlikely event. The fear claim ignores the fact, readily acknowledged by Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., that the influx of new students will be accompanied by an influx of new parents who will work and naturally expand the tax base.
To provide information on how Utah's tax base supporting students has been expanding, in 1990 there were 48 students per 100 working adults. By 2010 there will be only 36 students per 100 working adults. Clearly, voucher supporter's talk of the need to triple taxes is winking ludicrous, but they were winking when they said that weren't they.
Poor students will have a choice -- wink, wink
Vouchers do give poor parents real choice -- another double wink. Just don't pay any attention to the fact that most private schools in Utah cost more than $8,000, while voucher amounts range from $500 to $3,000 and don't include bus transportation and free hot lunches. Nevermind that is why so few, especially the poor, will be able to or want to switch to private schools
Finally, the coup de grace, voucher won't create Warren Jeff type schools and private school accountability is strong -- wink, wink, wink
-------
The Voucher Winking Game has been trademarked by Don L. Miller
There will be savings -- wink, wink -- even though few of the poor will switch
There will be savings -- wink, wink. Just don't pay any attention to the fact that the impartial legislative fiscal analyst believes that over the first 13 years the program could cost the state a total of $324 million. Nevermind that no savings will occur because the analyst believes that only 0.4 percent of our public school students will want to or be able to switch to private schools. Hence, please ignore the fact that the program will overwhelmingly end up subsidizing private school tuition for the well-healed elite (keep an eye on the favored constituency) who would send their kids to private schools in any case. Consequently, instead of serving the poor and saving taxes as voucher supporters claim, the analyst believes that few will switch and by the 13th year the program's yearly costs will be between $43 and $60 million.
Influx of orphans refuted by the Governor
In addition to winking, voucher supporters are resorting to classic fear tactics with talk of the need to triple taxes due to a large influx of new students which also merits a double wink. Nevermind that this tax increase claim isn't valid unless all the new students also happen to be orphans -- a winking highly unlikely event. The fear claim ignores the fact, readily acknowledged by Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., that the influx of new students will be accompanied by an influx of new parents who will work and naturally expand the tax base.
To provide information on how Utah's tax base supporting students has been expanding, in 1990 there were 48 students per 100 working adults. By 2010 there will be only 36 students per 100 working adults. Clearly, voucher supporter's talk of the need to triple taxes is winking ludicrous, but they were winking when they said that weren't they.
Poor students will have a choice -- wink, wink
Vouchers do give poor parents real choice -- another double wink. Just don't pay any attention to the fact that most private schools in Utah cost more than $8,000, while voucher amounts range from $500 to $3,000 and don't include bus transportation and free hot lunches. Nevermind that is why so few, especially the poor, will be able to or want to switch to private schools
Finally, the coup de grace, voucher won't create Warren Jeff type schools and private school accountability is strong -- wink, wink, wink
-------
The Voucher Winking Game has been trademarked by Don L. Miller
12 comments:
I wish there was an award for best voucher post-- this would be a contender. Great post.
My daughters basketball sign-up was this week. She attends a private school. On last year’s team she was the minority, she was white. Beside herself, three different ethnic minorities were represented on the team. I had eight girls on the team. Of the eight girls, three came from traditional two parent families. By this I mean mom and dad living at home. I am pretty sure a couple of girls wanted to play, but the parents had a hard time coming up with the minimal fee and then getting the girls to practice and then home again. There is one girl this year whose mother had to make that tough choice as to which child to send to private school and which goes to public. She has a child in each. The public school should work fine for the other child, but the mother would have rather he attended school with his sibling. A voucher would have made that possible. I doubt the girl will play this year because of the financial and time impact.
My point here; is that there are poor families who would benefit. I am not guessing at this. It is a fact. I also know there are families, making less than average income, who would clearly use a voucher if they had the opportunity. Again, I am not guessing, I know.
I can’t reach into everyone’s head and determine what they think private school is all about. I surmise that some think of it is some sort of rich white fraternity type thing with everyone dropping off their kids in Hummers and Beamers and then going home and trying to figure out a way to get poor white folk to pay for the private school. That is not the reality I see.
Eight girls on my team and in private school. How much is my team saving the public school system this year?—wink, wink. I would like to play in a second league this year and I am wondering, since we already gave to the public schools, perhaps the anti-vouchers crowd could come up with $500 to get me in another league—wink, wink.
I wonder how many arms will be twisted UEA and NEA union thugs - how many people work in fear if you oppose the union and vote for vouchers.
WINK WINK
Oppose vouchers and be called a bigot, wink, wink.
We can sketch a future history of education if voucher plans similar to those now being proposed are adopted. It seems safe to assume that public support for vouchers will continue to grow and legislative victories will occur with increasing frequency even if the election fails in Utah.
Once vouchers are shown to be effective even in the harsh circumstances of the inner city, middle- and upper-income families will press their elected officials for the same freedom to choose their children's schools in Utah.
A growing number of private school entrepreneurs and their investors will lobby to expand the program while simultaneously campaigning against the anti-competitive laws and policies that protect the public school cartel in Utah. School choice will spread to middle- and upper-income communities, and soon there will be statewide programs.
Utah public schools will diminish in enrollment and thus in number as parents shift their loyalty to superior-performing private schools.
The state school board in Utah, where it to continue to exist, will be reinvented to reflect the interests of taxpayers and consumers of education rather than public school employees and unions.
The new role of the Utah state school board will be to decide the amount of the vouchers, issue the vouchers to participating parents, and perhaps oversee the distribution of test scores and other performance-based consumer information. This information will empower and enable local taxpayers to decide how heavily to rely on taxes to support the education of their community's school-aged children.
Tax support for education will decline over time as the powerful interest groups (ie Unions) that today prop up spending on education lose the resources necessary to slow or stop the trend toward greater efficiency; demographic and other trends are also reducing public support for schooling.
While government spending on education will decline, overall spending on education may increase. One reason is that additional spending by the newly efficient and competitive schools will buy better academic results.
By getting government out of the business of producing, but not funding, education, vouchers bring us a considerable distance toward our goal of a complete separation of school and state. The argument for vouchers is robust, has plainly beaten arguments for monopoly, and enjoys widespread popular support. A voucher program touches off a series of structural changes to the education marketplace that, combined with emerging demographic trends, would spell the end of government's role in education.
Yep! it's about Fascism and destroying organized labor, which is always the first thing to go in a Fascist society.
Thanks for being honest about your true agenda.
Utahns for Public Schools has my endorsement. Parents for Choice has my forgiveness.
Don,
Your game? Cynical, shameless, and sad. I really am sorry that this is how you cheer on low-income minority students.
For all the back and forth between camps, and for whatever you guys say about PCE or us, we aren't cynical about life and the futures of our struggling neighbors.
HB 148 will help poor families. Period.
I wish Rob could have persuaded you folks to join us when we had Rep. Jason Fields, from Milwaukee, in town. He would have shared real examples of how it does work for real families.
Anyway, I hope you don't get weeks or months down the road, look back on this sort of "analysis" and wish you would have said something quite different.
Best, PTM
Paul,
Smoking opium is a crime.
Paul,
You say, "HB 148 will help poor families. Period." This is of course a half-truth at best. What you should say is "HB 148 will help some poor families, but not as many as we could help if we didn't feel it necessary to also subsidize the private education of many families who don't need any 'help' at all."
Very nice--in the end this is not about helping the poor, or about the children, or about saving the people from the evil government or unions. It isn't about choice, savings, competition, efficiencies, or even cookies.
It is about taking care of numero uno, and grabbing whatever of the public pie you can.
Homer gets it once again.
Post a Comment