Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Why Brother Cookie Monster Loves Vouchers
Centerville Citizen is a Democrat: More Oreos for the Eyres
Wonder why Richard Eyre is making those dumb Oreo ads? Seems the Eyres should disclose the fact they are planning on openning a chain of private schools to be subsidized by Utah's new voucher law if it takes effect. More Oreos for the Eyres.
"Early voucher bills may move us only slowly toward separation. They may include provisions that temporarily prolong the power of unions, school boards, and other remnants of the socialist regime; limit the number of students who can participate; set voucher amounts too low; and place restrictions on qualifying schools. But once established, those programs will be broadened.
Vouchers offer a halfway house to wean the public from their addiction to government provision of education. By removing institutional barriers to privatization and setting in motion a dynamic that ensures further movement toward competition and choice, vouchers are a necessary step toward complete separation."
Joseph Bast
President, The Heartland Institute
Brother Cookie Monster and PCE doesn't just want your Oreos, they want your Chips Ahoy, and Nilla Wafers too.President, The Heartland Institute
The list of PCE lies keeps piling up
It has become pretty obvious that the leadership of Parents for Choice in Education is ethically challenged.
Here's another lie to throw onto the pile:
The World, According to Me: PCE's lie about UEA Convention
Here's another lie to throw onto the pile:
The World, According to Me: PCE's lie about UEA Convention
KSL takes issue with Parents for Choice in Education Flyer
KSL TV Takes Issue with Flyer
October 30th, 2007 @ 12:37pm
Marc Giauque, KSL Newsradio
The Statement
October 30th, 2007 @ 12:37pm
Marc Giauque, KSL Newsradio
KSL Television is taking issue with a flyer that the company says implies Eyewitness News produced, or helped to produce, the pro-voucher ad.
The flyers center around a story aired in mid-October, aimed at putting some claims in the voucher debate to the "Truth Test."
A mailer being sent to voters thanks KSL and includes the company's logos. KSL Television News Director Con Psarras says the flyer suggests the station supports Referendum 1. "It's ironic that we do a ‘truth test,' the intent being to distinguish between spin and actual fact, and the people who like what we did in that story take our material and spin it out of context," Psarras said.
The station has now put a statement on KSL's Web site clarifying that the news department is taking no position, either for or against vouchers.
The flyers center around a story aired in mid-October, aimed at putting some claims in the voucher debate to the "Truth Test."
A mailer being sent to voters thanks KSL and includes the company's logos. KSL Television News Director Con Psarras says the flyer suggests the station supports Referendum 1. "It's ironic that we do a ‘truth test,' the intent being to distinguish between spin and actual fact, and the people who like what we did in that story take our material and spin it out of context," Psarras said.
The station has now put a statement on KSL's Web site clarifying that the news department is taking no position, either for or against vouchers.
The Statement
On October 17, 2007, KSL 5 Eyewitness News aired a report evaluating the truth of certain claims made in recent political advertisements. One portion of this report evaluated ads being aired by both proponents and opponents of Referendum 1. In the story, KSL took no position for or against Referendum 1, and no position either for or against Referendum 1 was intended to be implied by the story.
Recently, an organization that supports Referendum 1 sent out a direct mail flyer quoting portions of KSL's news story as support for that organization's views about Referendum 1. KSL believes that the flyer implies that KSL itself produced, or was at least involved in producing, the flyer. This is not the case.
Indeed, the KSL Editorial Board has aired an editorial stating that it is opposed to Referendum 1. KSL strongly encourages all citizens to carefully and independently research this and other political issues before casting their votes at the polls.
Recently, an organization that supports Referendum 1 sent out a direct mail flyer quoting portions of KSL's news story as support for that organization's views about Referendum 1. KSL believes that the flyer implies that KSL itself produced, or was at least involved in producing, the flyer. This is not the case.
Indeed, the KSL Editorial Board has aired an editorial stating that it is opposed to Referendum 1. KSL strongly encourages all citizens to carefully and independently research this and other political issues before casting their votes at the polls.
Can you believe anything they say?
Remember the e-mail that went out from the Free Capitalist Project, and Parents for Choice in Education field managers Brandon Dupuis and Jim Speth that said, "if you provide your field manager with a minimum of 25 names of persons who have committed to voting for Referendum 1, and those persons actually vote, you can earn $10 per person. That’s $250 for the 25 names, plus an additional $10 for every name after that."That same day a retraction was sent out that stated,
"It was simply incorrect and misrepresents the Free Capitalist Projects' grass roots efforts. Neither Parents for Choice in Education nor the Free Capitalist Project will ever provide incentives that appear to pay people to vote."Well guess what? Last week Mr. Brandon Dupuis, himself, called one of our State Party interns and offered him the very incentive that Free Capitialist and Parents for Choice in Education claimed they would never do .
So what is it PCE? Are you buying votes, or not?
Anyone who wants more information can call the Utah Democratic Party at 801-328-1212.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Weekend Voucher News in Utah
Huntsman lukewarm on voucher support
By Glen Warchol
The Salt Lake Tribune
If you own a television, you've probably seen the commercial of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. at a Capitol press conference endorsing Utah's school voucher program facing a Nov. 6 referendum.
"Referendum 1 is important to me," says Huntsman, who signed the school voucher into law. "Smaller classrooms, more money in support of those classrooms. I think that's a pretty good deal."
What you don't see is the part of the press conference in which Huntsman tells Utahns it is OK to vote against vouchers.
Milwaukee a telltale for Utah's vouchers?
17 years after the program started, some see success, others failure, and it is still as polarizing as ever
By Lisa Schencker
The Salt Lake Tribune
MILWAUKEE - At one Milwaukee private school, students in coats and ties eagerly volunteer to multiply fractions at the board.
At another school downtown, teachers recently weren't paid for two months, and running the school was a day-to-day struggle.
Rolly: Huntsman's tepid support for vouchers may bring him challengers
Paul Rolly
Huntsman, after months of sitting on the fence, even though he signed the two pro-voucher bills sent to him by the Legislature, finally agreed to participate with voucher supporters in a press conference Oct. 17, just three weeks before the election. He said he would vote for vouchers, but still urged his constituents to follow their conscience.
Voucher spin doctors edited his comments as best they could and now are using them in their latest TV ads. But if it turns out to be too little too late, they may blame Huntsman for not stepping up sooner.
Learn more about vouchers
By Amy K. Stewart
Standard-Examiner staff
The Standard-Examiner asked a series of questions to head spokeswomen of the main organizations representing either side of the school voucher proposal:
Voucher group buys full-page ads to counter News story
Article said to distort how affordable tuition really is
By Lee Davidson
Deseret Morning News
The main group promoting state vouchers to help pay private school tuition bought full-page newspaper ads Friday seeking to counter a Deseret Morning News story that evaluated whether vouchers would truly make tuition affordable.
The newspaper had reported Thursday that even if voters approve giving $3,000 a year per child in vouchers to non-wealthy families, they would still need on average another $4,800 or so per child to pay typical private school tuition in Utah.
Parents for Choice in Education bought full-page ads, costing $8,400, Friday in the News and Salt Lake Tribune complaining...
Op-ed: Research indicates they don't improve student performance
By Kim R. Burningham
Most Utah voters realize the wisdom of doing everything possible to make Utah's public schools even stronger. Consider the following five points of analysis showing details of Utah's fundamentally flawed voucher law with its many loopholes and unanswered questions:
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Rep Roz McGee: Is it time for a legislative ethics advosory commission?
The Utah Legislature is proposing a mechanism to evaluate the performance of judges, and, most important, on how to present solid information to voters for judicial retention elections.I serve on the Judicial Retention Election Task Force, which will be recommending creation of an independent commission. The commission would use responsible, nonpolitical processes for evaluating the performance of judges. It is my belief that public confidence in government is fostered by such scrutiny and reporting.
Perhaps legislators should take a similar approach for legislators.
During the past decade, efforts to expand ethical safeguards (examples include campaign finance reform or an election commission) have met with resistance. A Salt Lake Tribune editorial and lobbyists have added fuel to a "fire of discontent," and a conflagration could come at any moment if we don't soon act on ethics reform. It is better for us to be prepared than to act only in a crisis.
An example might be last month's Utah State Board of Regents' internal review of former Utah College of Applied Technology President Robert Brems and then of Mountainland Applied Technology College President Clay Christensen, which raised serious ethical questions. One of the findings questioned actions by some legislative leaders.
Some may view revisiting this reported indiscretion, which may or may not have been undertaken by "two unnamed state senators," as a red herring. Instead, this offers us an opportunity to quell public mistrust by finding ways in which citizens can work together with officials to keep us on the up and up instead of allowing this cloud to continue to hang over our members.
The Utah Constitution limits the establishment of an independent enforcement commission. Only members of the Legislature have the authority and the responsibility to oversee and hold to account fellow members. Establishment of an ethics advisory board or commission, however, could provide comforting transparency to our constituents and could certainly pass constitutional muster.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, such commissions exist in some form in 39 states and have jurisdiction over the legislative branch in 33. Most commissions are composed of citizens or public officials appointed by the governor or other leaders. Twenty-four states forbid public officials from serving on ethics commissions.
Currently, an official investigation of a Utah state legislator can only be initiated when a minimum of three members from that legislative body request it. These complaints have been few and far between, as there are understandable challenges to policing our own colleagues.
Perhaps we legislators have opened ourselves up to mistrust by not finding a way for the public to help review possible ethics breaches.
Instead of taking umbrage at the suggestion of such an independent board or commission, we as legislators might take comfort by involving members of the public, ethics experts and others in this opportunity for mutual education and dialogue in the arena of ethics.
An understanding of the positive role of interest groups as advocates for the public should also be a part of the discussion.
I believe that the public and legislators alike would be well served by becoming partners in ethics reform.
* REP. ROZ MCGEE represents House District 28, Salt Lake City, in the Utah Legislature.
Join Former President William Jefferson Clinton in Salt Lake City, Utah
Bill Clinton to visit Salt Lake City
In honor of Hillary's campaign for the White House
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2007
3:00 PM
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH-UNION BALL ROOM
TICKETS $50
In honor of Hillary's campaign for the White House
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2007
3:00 PM
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH-UNION BALL ROOM
TICKETS $50
This week's blognetnews.com rankings
Utah's Most Influential Political blogs
Put your BNN blog rank on your blog.
Thanks Again!
The Miller Kids: Proof That Love Breaks the Bonds of Space, Time, and Logic
In the physical world there is a universal truth that presumes that one plus one equals two (1 + 1 = 2). However, I say that the three Miller kids are proof that in the world of love, mathematical logic can fall apart completely.
Sometimes, when I'm frustrated by events, situations, or personalities that attempt to dictate that one plus one most certainly equals two; I take a moment to reflect on the reality of the world that my wife and I live in. A world where one plus one equaled three (1 + 1 = 3).
Or, is it five? I guess that depends on our own point of view.
Sometimes, when I'm frustrated by events, situations, or personalities that attempt to dictate that one plus one most certainly equals two; I take a moment to reflect on the reality of the world that my wife and I live in. A world where one plus one equaled three (1 + 1 = 3).
Or, is it five? I guess that depends on our own point of view.
With every best wish,
The Utah Amicus
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Giuliani claims he could end illegal immigration in three years
There are countless examples of how modern-day conservatives prefer preaching their ideology rather than looking for common sense solutions. Nowhere is this more evident that on the divisive subject of immigration.
The latest salvo from the Right came from Rudy Giuliani, who claims he could end illegal immigration in three years if he were elected president by increasing enforcement at the Mexican border. (Click here to read the CNN report.)
The mayor claims, "It can be done. It is not impossible. You can do this, you can stop them at the border." He said expanding the border force is the same strategy he employed as mayor to lower New York's crime rate, and that adding border agents could have similar results on immigration.
Really. I imagine Rudy's plan will have a tremendous effect on stopping the illegal immigrants from Peru, Guatemala and Bolivia, not to mention from the nations of Eastern Europe and Asia. I imagine it will be especially effective in stopping illegal immigrants from Ireland; it is estimated there are over 200,000 of those. Half of all illegal immigrants come from nations other than Mexico. And how accommodating of the Mexican illegals to not think of getting on a boat in Matamoros and sailing 20 miles north to come ashore on a beach in Texas, or to come up with other ways to get around the militarization of a small portion of the US border. And what a huge effect this will have on the 40% of Mexican illegals that come here on legal visas and simply stay when the visa expires.
I think Rudy is smarter than this. Unfortunately, it appears he is following in the footsteps of Mitt Romney and saying anything to pander to the Far Right wing of the Republican Party.
Improved border security has to be part of a comprehensive solution to immigration, but it won't be the most important part. Since the beginning of human society, if you have shortages of a commodity that is in high demand, you will get a black market in that commodity. That is exactly what has happened with labor in certain sectors of our economy. And like other black markets, from Prohibition to the current War on Drugs, enforcement-only solutions will never work. Put a system into place that helps employers to find legal workers, so they don't have to smuggle in illegal ones, and your illegal immigration problem will evaporate.
It's as simple as that.
The latest salvo from the Right came from Rudy Giuliani, who claims he could end illegal immigration in three years if he were elected president by increasing enforcement at the Mexican border. (Click here to read the CNN report.)
The mayor claims, "It can be done. It is not impossible. You can do this, you can stop them at the border." He said expanding the border force is the same strategy he employed as mayor to lower New York's crime rate, and that adding border agents could have similar results on immigration.
Really. I imagine Rudy's plan will have a tremendous effect on stopping the illegal immigrants from Peru, Guatemala and Bolivia, not to mention from the nations of Eastern Europe and Asia. I imagine it will be especially effective in stopping illegal immigrants from Ireland; it is estimated there are over 200,000 of those. Half of all illegal immigrants come from nations other than Mexico. And how accommodating of the Mexican illegals to not think of getting on a boat in Matamoros and sailing 20 miles north to come ashore on a beach in Texas, or to come up with other ways to get around the militarization of a small portion of the US border. And what a huge effect this will have on the 40% of Mexican illegals that come here on legal visas and simply stay when the visa expires.
I think Rudy is smarter than this. Unfortunately, it appears he is following in the footsteps of Mitt Romney and saying anything to pander to the Far Right wing of the Republican Party.
Improved border security has to be part of a comprehensive solution to immigration, but it won't be the most important part. Since the beginning of human society, if you have shortages of a commodity that is in high demand, you will get a black market in that commodity. That is exactly what has happened with labor in certain sectors of our economy. And like other black markets, from Prohibition to the current War on Drugs, enforcement-only solutions will never work. Put a system into place that helps employers to find legal workers, so they don't have to smuggle in illegal ones, and your illegal immigration problem will evaporate.
It's as simple as that.
Davis residents urged to run for office on Dems ticket
B Y LORETTA PARK
Standard-Examiner Davis Bureau lpark@standard.net
FARMINGTON — Democrats urged Davis County residents to find out where their taxes are going and to run for office on the Democratic ticket.
More than two dozen people attended the Davis County Democrats tax issue forum at the Davis County Memorial Courthouse on Thursday. In attendance was Davis County Assessor James Ivie. No other elected officials were present.
“It’s time to elect Democrats,” said Rob Miller, vice chairman of the Utah State Democratic Party. He ran against Bret Millburn in 2006 for Davis County Commission.
Miller said there is no leadership in Davis County because taxes are increasing.
Miller said Davis County residents are snubbing good candidates for office because they are Democrats, not Republicans. Mitt Romney, a Republican, is facing similar snubs nationwide because he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Utah LDS members want the nation to accept Romney, but in Davis County, Democrats –– no matter what faith they are –– do not get elected to office, Miller said.
He was followed by former Davis County Commissioner J. Dell Holbrook, the last Democrat elected to a county office.
“Every damn one of you has to live within a budget,” Holbrook said. He took to task the current and past commissions for not living within their budgets.
Holbrook said projects such as the jail, flood control and the Davis Conference Center did not need to happen.
“There was never a double digit task increase while I was in the commission,” Holbrook said. “It was not all my fault. There was one other commissioner who said we’d live within our means.”
Holbrook said it’s time to get rid of the one-party system in Davis County.
Less than a dozen Democrats in Davis County have run for office in the past 10 years, he said.
Having a dominant Republican party “is not healthy,” Holbrook said.
“Show up and raise hell,” Holbrook said.
Holbrook said Davis County residents need to ask county officials where the money has gone that was earmarked for flood control following the floods in the 1980s, and for paramedic services.
He also said that since he left office, the salaries of the commissioners and other elected officials have tripled.
Chris Martinez also ran for commissioner as a Democrat. He doesn’t understand why residents blindly elect Republicans without checking their backgrounds.
“This county is not doing very good as it is right now,” Martinez said.
Martinez works with senior citizens and has heard a lot of complaints.
Martinez said the county is not attempting to get corporate businesses to set up shop here. Ron Mortensen, co-founder of Citizens for Tax Fairness, showed how county agencies have increased property taxes over the past four years.
“The county said they had to increase it by 138 percent because past commissions had not raised it by incremental amounts,” Mortensen said about the proposed tax increase in 2004 that was not passed.
He is opposed to the quarter-cent sales tax that will be on the Davis County ballot.
“If this project is so critical, why not shift funding from less critical government programs or impact fees,” Mortensen said.
Mortensen said he is also opposed to Bountiful’s recreation, arts and parks tax because it does not benefit every resident.
He suggested that he is working with others for solutions to the property tax issue. Some of those solutions include voting down the RAP and transportation taxes, controlling spending and taking the school district off of property tax. Funding for school districts would be through sales taxes.
More than two dozen people attended the Davis County Democrats tax issue forum at the Davis County Memorial Courthouse on Thursday. In attendance was Davis County Assessor James Ivie. No other elected officials were present.
“It’s time to elect Democrats,” said Rob Miller, vice chairman of the Utah State Democratic Party. He ran against Bret Millburn in 2006 for Davis County Commission.
Miller said there is no leadership in Davis County because taxes are increasing.
Miller said Davis County residents are snubbing good candidates for office because they are Democrats, not Republicans. Mitt Romney, a Republican, is facing similar snubs nationwide because he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Utah LDS members want the nation to accept Romney, but in Davis County, Democrats –– no matter what faith they are –– do not get elected to office, Miller said.
He was followed by former Davis County Commissioner J. Dell Holbrook, the last Democrat elected to a county office.
“Every damn one of you has to live within a budget,” Holbrook said. He took to task the current and past commissions for not living within their budgets.
Holbrook said projects such as the jail, flood control and the Davis Conference Center did not need to happen.
“There was never a double digit task increase while I was in the commission,” Holbrook said. “It was not all my fault. There was one other commissioner who said we’d live within our means.”
Holbrook said it’s time to get rid of the one-party system in Davis County.
Less than a dozen Democrats in Davis County have run for office in the past 10 years, he said.
Having a dominant Republican party “is not healthy,” Holbrook said.
“Show up and raise hell,” Holbrook said.
Holbrook said Davis County residents need to ask county officials where the money has gone that was earmarked for flood control following the floods in the 1980s, and for paramedic services.
He also said that since he left office, the salaries of the commissioners and other elected officials have tripled.
Chris Martinez also ran for commissioner as a Democrat. He doesn’t understand why residents blindly elect Republicans without checking their backgrounds.
“This county is not doing very good as it is right now,” Martinez said.
Martinez works with senior citizens and has heard a lot of complaints.
Martinez said the county is not attempting to get corporate businesses to set up shop here. Ron Mortensen, co-founder of Citizens for Tax Fairness, showed how county agencies have increased property taxes over the past four years.
“The county said they had to increase it by 138 percent because past commissions had not raised it by incremental amounts,” Mortensen said about the proposed tax increase in 2004 that was not passed.
He is opposed to the quarter-cent sales tax that will be on the Davis County ballot.
“If this project is so critical, why not shift funding from less critical government programs or impact fees,” Mortensen said.
Mortensen said he is also opposed to Bountiful’s recreation, arts and parks tax because it does not benefit every resident.
He suggested that he is working with others for solutions to the property tax issue. Some of those solutions include voting down the RAP and transportation taxes, controlling spending and taking the school district off of property tax. Funding for school districts would be through sales taxes.
Flawed Utah voucher proposal fails as a market solution
Proponents of the Utah voucher bill are quick to ignore the bill’s faults such as poor accountability for public funds, unnecessary high cost, and its failure to help most low and middle-income families. For most voters, any one of these flaws is sufficient for them to vote AGAINST the bill.
Ironically, however, the bill also fails as a market solution. Let’s review:
As the impartial analysis in the Voter Information Pamphlet indicates, the skyrocketing costs of the Utah bill as it is phased in would come from paying vouchers to those who never intended to go to public schools in the first place. Such choices are pre-determined. And, as any economist will tell you, subsidizing pre-determined choices does not create competitive pressure since it does not alter any outcomes. These parents have already made up their minds to send their children to private schools. There is no point in handing out vouchers to them since it does nothing to influence other schools to improve. We would be racking up hundreds of millions of dollars in new, unnecessary expenditures and receiving no competitive benefits whatsoever in return. This makes no sense.
But what about the switchers, proponents ask? Let’s begin with those switchers who would have switched anyway without a voucher. Again, we would be paying out vouchers for no reason. As it stands now, any competitive pressure induced by their departure is already realized. With vouchers, this market force doesn’t change. The only thing that’s different is that we would be spending money – millions of taxpayer dollars – unnecessarily.
So, that leaves us with the switchers who would leave because of the voucher. By now, we would have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars just getting to the point where we might see some competitive forces at work. Was it worth it? Do public schools actually improve because of vouchers?
Not really. Multiple studies show that vouchers do not make public schools better. Just this week, yet another study – this time from a conservative thinktank – underscored the Milwaukee voucher program’s disappointing real-world results. And in the New Zealand program, poorly performing schools simply became worse as they ended up with larger concentrations of difficult-to-teach students. Lawmakers, committed to seeing their market forces experiment work, ignored these schools for years. But it didn’t work and in the end lawmakers had no choice but to intercede and to invest in these schools.
Returning to our scenario - remember, by now we would have spent hundreds of millions of dollars needlessly paying for predetermined choices just to get to the point where a few switchers might exert some competitive pressure. In the bill’s impartial analysis, given the price elasticity of demand, the Legislative Fiscal Analyst determined that about 3 students per school per year might switch because of the voucher. This small switch rate is completely insufficient to force whatever improvements proponents claim the bill will generate.
So this leaves proponents with only one remaining scenario to talk about – more switchers!
With the flaws in the bill becoming clear and with the cost vs. savings argument debunked, we’re now starting to see the “more switchers” argument surface. Senator Bramble recently said:
“One way to avoid higher income and property taxes is to offer parents the option to have their children move into the private sector and take some pressure off our public schools. That's what the voucher plan is all about.” (Emphasis added)
Proponents, including the bill's sponsor, are now making the case that somehow we must increase the switch rate far in excess of the impartial analysis; they’ve even raised the specter of tax increases if we don’t. Wishful thinkers are now flooding the blogs and debates with their own wild personal speculations of enormously higher switch rates.
But how does this actually happen? How do we convince MORE families to LEAVE the public schools? And if motivating more families to LEAVE is necessary for the bill to become effective, what does this mean for our public schools and the students they serve?
Remember - it took hundreds of millions of dollars just to get to the point where we must now wish for thousands upon thousands of additional public school students beyond the impartial numbers to LEAVE our public schools just to recoup the massive opportunity costs on the chance that the bill might exert market forces so it might create some competitive pressure so our schools might improve in spite of overwhelming research showing that this hasn’t worked when it’s been tried before.
Does this sound like a winning strategy?
But even if all of that does happen, just where does that leave the overwhelming majority of students who remain in our public schools? If the goal is to convince students to LEAVE the public schools, then what possible motivation would these lawmakers have to improve our public schools? If we improve our schools, we reduce the demand to leave. If we reduce the demand to leave, we reduce the switch rate. If we reduce the switch rate, the bill becomes an expensive failure. Why on this green earth would we set up a scenario in which the success of one program hinges on the failure of another? Why would we sacrifice the quality of the public schools where 96% of our children attend just to make them SO BAD that thousands of additional families would WANT to leave, just so we can say this bill was not a failure?
This bill makes no sense. Let’s vote it down and work together to craft real solutions that benefit all Utah schoolchildren.
Ironically, however, the bill also fails as a market solution. Let’s review:
As the impartial analysis in the Voter Information Pamphlet indicates, the skyrocketing costs of the Utah bill as it is phased in would come from paying vouchers to those who never intended to go to public schools in the first place. Such choices are pre-determined. And, as any economist will tell you, subsidizing pre-determined choices does not create competitive pressure since it does not alter any outcomes. These parents have already made up their minds to send their children to private schools. There is no point in handing out vouchers to them since it does nothing to influence other schools to improve. We would be racking up hundreds of millions of dollars in new, unnecessary expenditures and receiving no competitive benefits whatsoever in return. This makes no sense.
But what about the switchers, proponents ask? Let’s begin with those switchers who would have switched anyway without a voucher. Again, we would be paying out vouchers for no reason. As it stands now, any competitive pressure induced by their departure is already realized. With vouchers, this market force doesn’t change. The only thing that’s different is that we would be spending money – millions of taxpayer dollars – unnecessarily.
So, that leaves us with the switchers who would leave because of the voucher. By now, we would have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars just getting to the point where we might see some competitive forces at work. Was it worth it? Do public schools actually improve because of vouchers?
Not really. Multiple studies show that vouchers do not make public schools better. Just this week, yet another study – this time from a conservative thinktank – underscored the Milwaukee voucher program’s disappointing real-world results. And in the New Zealand program, poorly performing schools simply became worse as they ended up with larger concentrations of difficult-to-teach students. Lawmakers, committed to seeing their market forces experiment work, ignored these schools for years. But it didn’t work and in the end lawmakers had no choice but to intercede and to invest in these schools.
Returning to our scenario - remember, by now we would have spent hundreds of millions of dollars needlessly paying for predetermined choices just to get to the point where a few switchers might exert some competitive pressure. In the bill’s impartial analysis, given the price elasticity of demand, the Legislative Fiscal Analyst determined that about 3 students per school per year might switch because of the voucher. This small switch rate is completely insufficient to force whatever improvements proponents claim the bill will generate.
So this leaves proponents with only one remaining scenario to talk about – more switchers!
With the flaws in the bill becoming clear and with the cost vs. savings argument debunked, we’re now starting to see the “more switchers” argument surface. Senator Bramble recently said:
“One way to avoid higher income and property taxes is to offer parents the option to have their children move into the private sector and take some pressure off our public schools. That's what the voucher plan is all about.” (Emphasis added)
Proponents, including the bill's sponsor, are now making the case that somehow we must increase the switch rate far in excess of the impartial analysis; they’ve even raised the specter of tax increases if we don’t. Wishful thinkers are now flooding the blogs and debates with their own wild personal speculations of enormously higher switch rates.
But how does this actually happen? How do we convince MORE families to LEAVE the public schools? And if motivating more families to LEAVE is necessary for the bill to become effective, what does this mean for our public schools and the students they serve?
Remember - it took hundreds of millions of dollars just to get to the point where we must now wish for thousands upon thousands of additional public school students beyond the impartial numbers to LEAVE our public schools just to recoup the massive opportunity costs on the chance that the bill might exert market forces so it might create some competitive pressure so our schools might improve in spite of overwhelming research showing that this hasn’t worked when it’s been tried before.
Does this sound like a winning strategy?
But even if all of that does happen, just where does that leave the overwhelming majority of students who remain in our public schools? If the goal is to convince students to LEAVE the public schools, then what possible motivation would these lawmakers have to improve our public schools? If we improve our schools, we reduce the demand to leave. If we reduce the demand to leave, we reduce the switch rate. If we reduce the switch rate, the bill becomes an expensive failure. Why on this green earth would we set up a scenario in which the success of one program hinges on the failure of another? Why would we sacrifice the quality of the public schools where 96% of our children attend just to make them SO BAD that thousands of additional families would WANT to leave, just so we can say this bill was not a failure?
This bill makes no sense. Let’s vote it down and work together to craft real solutions that benefit all Utah schoolchildren.
BECKER RESPONDS TO BUHLER’S LATEST NEGATIVE ATTACK
Becker Welcomes Buhler’s Belated Entry Into the Discussion of Downtown’s Future But Declines to Engage in Similar Negative Tactics
Growing the “24/7” Population Downtown: Becker would expand downtown housing options for all income levels. “We shouldn’t forget that downtown is an important Salt Lake City neighborhood. A stronger residential presence and a larger around-the-clock population is the lifeblood that can bring new life to the bricks and mortar downtown,” Becker said.
(Salt Lake City) -- After another round of negative attacks from Dave Buhler – this time concerning downtown – mayoral candidate Ralph Becker stated that he welcomed Mr. Buhler’s ideas concerning downtown, although they came rather late in the campaign.
“Reinvigorating downtown as the gathering place for the region is one of my highest priorities. That’s why I released my detailed blueprint for downtown over two months ago – before the primary,” Becker said. “I’m pleased that Dave Buhler decided to join the discussion about downtown this morning.”
Mr. Buhler’s press conference included several negative jabs at Mr. Becker. Hoping to end the campaign on a positive note, Mr. Becker declined to respond in kind.
“Everywhere I go I hear that people are getting a bit weary of Dave Buhler’s negativity and attacks,” Becker said. “I can’t control how he conducts his campaign. So today I’d rather focus in a positive way on how we can improve the downtown area over the next four years.”
Key points of Becker’s “blueprint” for downtown include:
Bringing Art & Artists Downtown: Becker would make public art a priority, by fully committing to efforts like Percent for the Arts and architectural competitions (such as the one that led to the design for the downtown library). Becker is also optimistic about the effort to save and restore the Utah Theater by re-envisioning it as a center for the Utah film industry.
Locating Major Cultural and Government Facilities Downtown: Becker will work to ensure that major commercial and state developments are built downtown, rather than in locations that encourage sprawl. “As mayor, I’ll operate under the principle that ‘if there’s only one in Utah, it belongs downtown,’” Becker said.
Downtown Nightlife: Becker would work to revise laws that restrict the location and number of restaurants, bars and similar businesses downtown. “Downtown Salt Lake City should be Utah’s hub of culture and nightlife. To make that a reality, we need to revise current laws that artificially limit the economic and entertainment options downtown,” Becker said.
Implement Downtown Rising and the Downtown Transportation Plan. “These are excellent plans now in place or in the adoption process, and they provide a template to return downtown to the vibrant center is should be,” says Ralph. “I will work with the business community, residents, and other organizations and institutions to get there within a 5-10 year period."
Thursday, October 25, 2007
PCE's fuzzy numbers
From: Voucher funds limited
$3,000 could cover less than half of typical tuition
By Lee Davidson and Tiffany Erickson
Even if voters approve giving $3,000 a year per child in state vouchers to help non-wealthy families pay private school tuition, families would still need another $4,800 or so per child to afford typical annual tuition in Utah.
That suggests that vouchers — the center of this year's biggest election battle — might give many needy families only weak-to-moderate help toward truly affording typical private school tuition. However, vouchers could cover all tuition costs at a few schools at the cheaper end of the spectrum.
That is according to calculations and research by the Deseret Morning News. The figures are similar to state tuition averages calculated by the anti-voucher Utahns for Public Schools.
More...
Governor Jon Huntsman Jr.'s opinion on Utah's Referendum 1
"Whatever you think is right, whatever you can justify, is the right answer for you."
The governor also said he loved the public schools his own children attend and they would remain there.
Source: Salt Lake Tribune 10/17/07
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Did Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne say that 60% of Utahns are Bigots?
From the Salt Lake Tribune article,
Voucher issue heats up in latest debate
by Glen Warchol
"It's not about accountability. it's about bigotry,"Mr. Byrne, please read the following definitions:Patrick Byrne
BIGOT: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
ACCOUNTABILITY: the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions
How could you confuse these two words Mr. Byrne? Maybe the next definition will help you better choose your words in the future.
HYPOCRITE: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue
With every best wish,
The Utah Amicus
So-called “parental choice” may not improve schools, conservative think tank study finds
SALT LAKE CITY – Vouchers just got harder to sell, says Wayne Holland, chair of the Utah Democratic Party.“Utahns demand that their education tax dollars be spent wisely. They demand accountability,” said Holland. “And now we see what can happen without oversight: bad schools and little change for the better.”
Holland was referring to study released Tuesday in Milwaukee that suggests school choice isn’t a powerful tool for driving educational improvement.
Perhaps more surprising than that conclusion is the fact that the organization issuing the study is the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, a conservative think tank that has supported school choice for almost two decades, when Milwaukee became the nation’s premier center for trying the idea.
“We had expected to find a wellspring of hope that increased parental involvement in the Milwaukee Public Schools would be the key ingredient in improving student performance," wrote George Lightbourn, a senior fellow at the institute. But “there are realistic limits on the degree to which parental involvement can drive market-based reform.”
Even some of the most ardent supporters of school choice in Milwaukee have backed away from advocacy of the purest version of the idea – in which there is little government oversight of schools and parental decisions in a free market dictate which schools thrive, according to Alan J. Borsuk writing in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Howard Fuller, a prominent supporter of voucher and charter schools in Milwaukee, has changed his position. He now believes that strong government oversight of voucher schools is needed, according to Borsuk’s report.
Asked whether the voucher program was leading to improvements in the achievement of students in Milwaukee, as was once expected, Fuller said: “I'm one of those people who believes that we may have oversold that point. . . . I think that any honest assessment would have to say that there hasn't been the deep, wholesale improvement in MPS that we would have thought.”
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Davis County tax forum to span political ideology
BOUNTIFUL — Davis County Democrats will hold a tax issues forum on Oct. 25 in County Commission Chambers at Davis County Memorial Courthouse.The meeting will feature speakers representing a wide range of political views but who share concerns over the direction Davis County officials have taken tax policy the past seven years. With county residents reeling from assessments, another county commission tax increase, another school district tax increase, and a ballot question asking for another sales tax increase, the forum will allow residents to voice opposition.
Everyone is invited to attend.
Leading the discussion, answering questions, and asking questions themselves will be:
Rob Miller — Vice Chair of the Utah State Democratic Party, 2006 Democratic Nominee for County Commission, Seat A (The main plank of his platform was a pledge to vote against any and all tax increases during his first term); lead author of www.utahamicus.com.
J. Dell Holbrook — Davis County Commissioner from 1990-1994; the last Democrat to serve on the County Commission and the last commissioner of any party to vote against a tax increase.
Richard Marchant — former Utah State Tax Commissioner
Ron Mortensen — Co-founder of Citizens for Tax Fairness , a grassroots organization dedicated to controlling taxes and spending. In an August 15 op-ed, Mortensen argued that the all-Republican delegation of Davis County's elected representatives can be labeled "tax-and-spend liberals." Mortensen was a Republican candidate for Utah House District 20 in 2006.
At the end of the evening, the forum will be opened for discussion of possible next steps, which could include but are not limited to:
Encouraging more people to run for office themselves;
How to make county and local government more transparent and open to public input;
How residents can become more involved in elections and voting at the county level.
Event Details are:
Davis County Democrats Tax Night
Oct. 25, 2007, at 7 p.m.
Davis County Commission Chambers
Davis County Memorial Courthouse
28 East State Street
Farmington, Utah 84025
Oct. 25, 2007, at 7 p.m.
Davis County Commission Chambers
Davis County Memorial Courthouse
28 East State Street
Farmington, Utah 84025
For more information, contact:
Richard Watson
Chair, Davis County Democrats
rjwatson@afstores.com
801-292-6772
Brett Garner
Secretary, Davis County Demcorats
brettLG@gmail.com
801-573-4759
Tests reveal high chemical levels in kids' bodies
Before you open this link, be forewarned: If you have kids or grandkids, this will scare you to death.
The Paul Mero Caption Contest!
The setting is a meeting of a segment of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in Bermuda earlier this month. During a break in our sinister planning, we walked across the Mid-Ocean Country Club golf course to view the ocean. This Catholic priest (from Warsaw) and I were walking back to the meeting.
Caption contest: what caption best fits this photo? The winner (or loser) gets lunch with the two of us!! Best, PTM Btw, this priest is a really great guy…I would hope we can be humorous without denigrating him or his Church. He would laugh at this.
Rob says, "Paul's buying, I'll pick the restaurant!"
And, "Why are we assuming that anybody wants to go to lunch with us, Paul?"
HAVE FUN!
Monday, October 22, 2007
This week's blognetnews.com rankings for Utah's Political Blogs
Utah's Most Influential Political blogs
1. THE UTAH AMICUS
2. JM Bell - Militant Progressive
3. KVNU's For The People
4. Mark Towner's Political Spyglass
5. The SideTrack
6. The Deseret Spectacle
7. The Third Avenue
8. Pursuit of Liberty
9. Green Jello
10. The Senate Site
11. Part of the Plan
12. Out of Context (Utah Politics)
13. Utahania
14. Weber County Forum
15. Davis County Watch
16. GenRolly Speaking (Paul Rolly)
17. Utah State Democratic Party
18. El Cartoonista
19. Obiter Dicta by Steve
20. Reach Upward .
Check out, blognetnews.com!
Thank you!
KSL Rejects Vouchers
From The KSL editorial board:
The KSL Editorial Board has thoughtfully considered the views presented by opponents and proponents of school vouchers, and has come to the conclusion that a broad taxpayer supported voucher system should not be implemented in Utah.
Our opposition to vouchers boils down to a fundamental question: Is Utah's public school system broken and in such disarray that doing something as radical and unproven as directing precious tax dollars toward private schools, many of them parochial, the answer?
We think not!
It is not a question of school choice since parents already have a variety of options in Utah. Any parent who so chooses can send a child to a private school, or a charter school, or a different public school! School choice is not the issue!
A vote against vouchers must not be interpreted as a vote for the status quo. Make no mistake about it, there's plenty of room for improvement. Still, contemplate what could be accomplished if the energy that has been directed at vouchers could be redirected toward implementing reasoned, effective and adequately funded reforms in the tried and tested public school system.
In KSL's view, that's where the focus of Utahns ought to be. Let's reject vouchers and work toward making changes that will benefit all Utah children for generations to come.
The KSL Editorial Board has thoughtfully considered the views presented by opponents and proponents of school vouchers, and has come to the conclusion that a broad taxpayer supported voucher system should not be implemented in Utah.
Our opposition to vouchers boils down to a fundamental question: Is Utah's public school system broken and in such disarray that doing something as radical and unproven as directing precious tax dollars toward private schools, many of them parochial, the answer?
We think not!
It is not a question of school choice since parents already have a variety of options in Utah. Any parent who so chooses can send a child to a private school, or a charter school, or a different public school! School choice is not the issue!
A vote against vouchers must not be interpreted as a vote for the status quo. Make no mistake about it, there's plenty of room for improvement. Still, contemplate what could be accomplished if the energy that has been directed at vouchers could be redirected toward implementing reasoned, effective and adequately funded reforms in the tried and tested public school system.
In KSL's view, that's where the focus of Utahns ought to be. Let's reject vouchers and work toward making changes that will benefit all Utah children for generations to come.
Is “free market health insurance” a nonsense phrase? - Part 2
In Part 1 last week, I presented an argument that America’s current system of public and private health insurance was socialism at its worst, since it transfers responsibility for health care from the individual to society in a way that provides few mechanisms for restraining demand or cost. (Click here for Part 1.)
In the final installment, we will look at two opposing paradigms for replacing the current unsustainable one.
To start with, we need to confront head-on one of the most disingenuous and dangerous phrases ever uttered by a politician: “We don’t want a system that rations health care”. Of course we need to ration health care. An economy cannot provide unlimited resources for any function lest it bankrupt itself in the process. And make no mistake, the current American system does ration health care. We provide access only to the well-to-do, the very poor, the elderly, and working families lucky enough to have an employer that provides it. Oops, I forgot one category – our system also grants one-time access for catastrophic illness, as long as you are willing to accept bankruptcy in return. A rational method to control the amount of our national wealth that goes to health care is critical to our economic survival. Of course, the current system isn’t rational, and so we see yearly increases in health care outlays far in excess of inflation, which every honest analysis predicts will eventually bankrupt the country, especially given our aging population.
The first alternate paradigm we will look at is a true free market system. For this to work economically (in other words, to provide a mechanism for limiting waste and excessive profits), you have to re-establish a link between the payer and the consumer. In drastic terms, imagine a system where health insurance was completely eliminated and the only health care provided was what the consumer was able to pay for out of his or her own pocket. Since almost no one can afford to individually pay for things like drugs or hospital visits at their current rates, the cost of these products and services would have to fall precipitously or demand would evaporate. This would cause a tremendous upheaval to providers of health care, but the market would do its job.
Would such a draconian step be feasible? Probably not. But some basic steps would be absolutely necessary to re-create the link between consumer and payer. The tax system that encourages employers to provide health insurance would have to be eliminated, and families would have to be made responsible for purchasing their own so-called “health insurance”, without subsidies. Any economist will tell you subsidies are anathema to free markets. Medicare would have to be eliminated, and possibly replaced with a monthly lump sum to retirees that could be used to purchase their own health care. Most importantly, Medicaid would have to be eliminated, together with laws that require hospitals to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay. So-called “charity health care” is poison to a true free market system. Calling it “charity” is a farce; hospitals force paying customers to subsidize non-paying ones, and it gives people the option of avoiding responsibility. Free market discipline requires denial of access to those who cannot pay. Any breach of that critical principle causes the whole thing to fall like a house of cards, because it removes the key ingredient of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. Those who propose free market health care reform who do not also advocate denial of access to those who cannot pay are either being dishonest or lack understanding of how free markets work.
The second alternative is what I call the police/fire protection paradigm. Our society has decided that access to police and fire protection should be universal. Such services are funded by a single payer (state and local governments) where representatives of the people set yearly budgets for the police and fire departments. Once the police chief gets his yearly budget, there is nothing he can do to increase the amount of money he has to work with, so he must make the most efficient use of that money. Speaking in precise terms, society rations the resources used for police and fire protection through the budgeting process, allocating money to entities responsible to provide the service, and combines this with oversight of the function by elected officials responsible to the voters.
Is this as economically efficient as a true free market system? No, but it seems to work okay. Our local police and fire departments are run by competent professionals, the police and firemen are dedicated, and our elected officials do a pretty good job of oversight. These services are provided to communities across America at a reasonable cost to society. The public is not crying out for free market police or fire protection, where each family would have to contract with a private security service.
Admittedly, the details of using the police/fire protection paradigm to providing health care services would be more complex. But there is clear evidence that with a few functions in a free market economy, this paradigm is the correct one. Even conservatives tacitly admitted this when the first thing they did after the terrorist attacks in 2001 was fire the private security firms at our airports and replace them with the Transportation Security Administration.
So, which is correct for health care from an economic sustainability standpoint? The free market paradigm, or the police/fire protection paradigm? To me, the answer to this is very simple. It goes back to a simple question: Is society willing to make individuals responsible for their own health care expenses, including the indispensable step of denying access to those who cannot afford it? If the answer is yes, free market health care is the most economically efficient way to go. However, if the answer is no, then Adam Smith’s invisible hand has just been cut off, and the market paradigm ceases to function – which is the system we have now. In that case, the police/fire protection paradigm is the most economically efficient – and the correct – model.
This has nothing to do with bleeding heart liberalism, by the way. These are the cold, hard economic facts.
Given this analysis, which paradigm do you think makes the most sense?
In the final installment, we will look at two opposing paradigms for replacing the current unsustainable one.
To start with, we need to confront head-on one of the most disingenuous and dangerous phrases ever uttered by a politician: “We don’t want a system that rations health care”. Of course we need to ration health care. An economy cannot provide unlimited resources for any function lest it bankrupt itself in the process. And make no mistake, the current American system does ration health care. We provide access only to the well-to-do, the very poor, the elderly, and working families lucky enough to have an employer that provides it. Oops, I forgot one category – our system also grants one-time access for catastrophic illness, as long as you are willing to accept bankruptcy in return. A rational method to control the amount of our national wealth that goes to health care is critical to our economic survival. Of course, the current system isn’t rational, and so we see yearly increases in health care outlays far in excess of inflation, which every honest analysis predicts will eventually bankrupt the country, especially given our aging population.
The first alternate paradigm we will look at is a true free market system. For this to work economically (in other words, to provide a mechanism for limiting waste and excessive profits), you have to re-establish a link between the payer and the consumer. In drastic terms, imagine a system where health insurance was completely eliminated and the only health care provided was what the consumer was able to pay for out of his or her own pocket. Since almost no one can afford to individually pay for things like drugs or hospital visits at their current rates, the cost of these products and services would have to fall precipitously or demand would evaporate. This would cause a tremendous upheaval to providers of health care, but the market would do its job.
Would such a draconian step be feasible? Probably not. But some basic steps would be absolutely necessary to re-create the link between consumer and payer. The tax system that encourages employers to provide health insurance would have to be eliminated, and families would have to be made responsible for purchasing their own so-called “health insurance”, without subsidies. Any economist will tell you subsidies are anathema to free markets. Medicare would have to be eliminated, and possibly replaced with a monthly lump sum to retirees that could be used to purchase their own health care. Most importantly, Medicaid would have to be eliminated, together with laws that require hospitals to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay. So-called “charity health care” is poison to a true free market system. Calling it “charity” is a farce; hospitals force paying customers to subsidize non-paying ones, and it gives people the option of avoiding responsibility. Free market discipline requires denial of access to those who cannot pay. Any breach of that critical principle causes the whole thing to fall like a house of cards, because it removes the key ingredient of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. Those who propose free market health care reform who do not also advocate denial of access to those who cannot pay are either being dishonest or lack understanding of how free markets work.
The second alternative is what I call the police/fire protection paradigm. Our society has decided that access to police and fire protection should be universal. Such services are funded by a single payer (state and local governments) where representatives of the people set yearly budgets for the police and fire departments. Once the police chief gets his yearly budget, there is nothing he can do to increase the amount of money he has to work with, so he must make the most efficient use of that money. Speaking in precise terms, society rations the resources used for police and fire protection through the budgeting process, allocating money to entities responsible to provide the service, and combines this with oversight of the function by elected officials responsible to the voters.
Is this as economically efficient as a true free market system? No, but it seems to work okay. Our local police and fire departments are run by competent professionals, the police and firemen are dedicated, and our elected officials do a pretty good job of oversight. These services are provided to communities across America at a reasonable cost to society. The public is not crying out for free market police or fire protection, where each family would have to contract with a private security service.
Admittedly, the details of using the police/fire protection paradigm to providing health care services would be more complex. But there is clear evidence that with a few functions in a free market economy, this paradigm is the correct one. Even conservatives tacitly admitted this when the first thing they did after the terrorist attacks in 2001 was fire the private security firms at our airports and replace them with the Transportation Security Administration.
So, which is correct for health care from an economic sustainability standpoint? The free market paradigm, or the police/fire protection paradigm? To me, the answer to this is very simple. It goes back to a simple question: Is society willing to make individuals responsible for their own health care expenses, including the indispensable step of denying access to those who cannot afford it? If the answer is yes, free market health care is the most economically efficient way to go. However, if the answer is no, then Adam Smith’s invisible hand has just been cut off, and the market paradigm ceases to function – which is the system we have now. In that case, the police/fire protection paradigm is the most economically efficient – and the correct – model.
This has nothing to do with bleeding heart liberalism, by the way. These are the cold, hard economic facts.
Given this analysis, which paradigm do you think makes the most sense?
When Truth Prevails
Utah Bloggers Withdrawal Support for Utah Referendum 1
Pursuit of Liberty: Turning A Corner
Pursuit of Liberty: Turning A Corner
Between that financial drain and the gutter-politics associated with voucher support I can not support Referendum 1 in good conscience.Green Jello: Vouchers -- Humble Pie
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.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
A lack of leadership
Tilton brushes aside questions about dual interests
Lawmaker pushing N-power also is CEO seeking license for Utah's first nuke plant
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune
Main Entry: 2lack
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lak; akin to Middle Dutch lak lack, Old Norse lakr defective
Date: 14th century
1 : the fact or state of being wanting or deficient
2 : something that is lacking or is needed
Friday, October 19, 2007
Homer Too: Vouchers are not an educational issue
Don made the following comment:
"I vote that you put Homer on the front page again. His latest comment is truly remarkable!"
Since the vote was unanimous, here it is.
As this voucher thing is heating up Utah politics and as a public school teacher I want t
o repeat that this whole thing is not an educational issue. It is squarely a political issue and has been from the beginning. People have been teaching and learning for thousands of years in all different ways and under all different social systems.
The way our system of public education has developed is as uniquely American as, well, as are the values that constitute our society.
We propose the bold idea that as a public we ought to provide for the education of all of us together, attempting to break down the barriers that would deny someone the opportunities that our America envisions.
And then as a public, we pay for it. We want it, we pay for it. Just as we pay for any other public institution or government service or function we may want as a society. We the People means we decide--we also pay.
So, yes, Frank, cost does play a part in this, but when it's only about the cost, it ceases to be about purpose and values. Even in business with cost-benefit analysis becomes the driving force there is a danger that a worker, for example, becomes merely a cost on the balance sheet instead of a human asset to the company.
With all the Oreos and the million dollar memos floating around, I'm afraid the voucher arguments are beginning to sound rather crass and bottom-line oriented.
The danger in privatizing something that is essentially a social institution is that the profit motive and the winners and losers mentality of that all-important voucher icon, competition, will destroy the human side that is the essence of education.
Frank thinks I'm dismissing cost. That's a chicken or the egg argument. Which came first? the cost or the value? If it's cost, then education becomes a commodity--if it's value, then education is a goal, objective, and something that we work to improve and strengthen, and yes, pay for, together as a society.
It's more about priorities and competing values. And where we put our money certainly reflects our values as a society.
Next, are you kidding Frank? No choice in Utah compared to other states? The reality is the complete opposite. Utah's schools are so porous and ill-defined that boundaries don't seem to mean much for our system here. Actually many east-side schools in SL County wouldn't exist otherwise. Parents can and do choose all the time in this state.
Most states have city-wide school districts instead of our large regional mega-districts. Some states are very strict about controlling access to certain neighborhood schools and programs. In upstate New York they will send investigators to an apartment outside of a district even if you're building a house within the school boundaries.
I guess "real" choice for you means the public should pay for our private choices. I'm sorry, I may sound like a crazy liberal with this, but the conservative republican I am resists that kind of whiny, entitled grab of public money. We pay taxes as part of our responsibility in being a member of a larger society and then we live our own lives.
I don't get a tax refund for disagreeing with a war, I don't get a tax refund if I don't need or use police or fire protection, and I don't seek a water voucher if my choice is to use bottled water instead of the tap (sorry Rocky).
This is not about choice, not about money, not about some mythical monopoly (nope, I'm not a member), and not about savings or even cookies. It is about power and control. It is about the boundaries between competing spheres of power in our society--the private and the public. It's about control of the public treasury. It's about the unequal power in a stratified society used by some to further increase their incentives for fleeing the larger society. It's about controlling who our children might be educated with, and by whom, and about what things.
Finally, (I must say this has been quite a release since I'm busy teaching 198 high school students most of the time), I don't think that directing our debate to the larger concerns of the values that make us who we are as a society makes me a "lofty moralizer". I was hoping that considering the consequences of the money and power-driven decision-making we've been seeing in the legislature lately (nukes anyone?) actually makes us seem wise and deliberate.
Survival of the fittest really only works for the fittest. So what kind of society are we if that is our governing value?
United we stand, divided we fall. Why can't we work harder for and more committed to one of our most important institutions?
I hope that we can continue to revisit our wonderfully American governing values as we move our society into the future. I'm sorry if this polemic sounds over-dramatic when looking at the doomed voucher law, but honestly Frank, if it's not about values first, then what is it about?
As this voucher thing is heating up Utah politics and as a public school teacher I want t
o repeat that this whole thing is not an educational issue. It is squarely a political issue and has been from the beginning. People have been teaching and learning for thousands of years in all different ways and under all different social systems.The way our system of public education has developed is as uniquely American as, well, as are the values that constitute our society.
We propose the bold idea that as a public we ought to provide for the education of all of us together, attempting to break down the barriers that would deny someone the opportunities that our America envisions.
And then as a public, we pay for it. We want it, we pay for it. Just as we pay for any other public institution or government service or function we may want as a society. We the People means we decide--we also pay.
So, yes, Frank, cost does play a part in this, but when it's only about the cost, it ceases to be about purpose and values. Even in business with cost-benefit analysis becomes the driving force there is a danger that a worker, for example, becomes merely a cost on the balance sheet instead of a human asset to the company.
With all the Oreos and the million dollar memos floating around, I'm afraid the voucher arguments are beginning to sound rather crass and bottom-line oriented.
The danger in privatizing something that is essentially a social institution is that the profit motive and the winners and losers mentality of that all-important voucher icon, competition, will destroy the human side that is the essence of education.
Frank thinks I'm dismissing cost. That's a chicken or the egg argument. Which came first? the cost or the value? If it's cost, then education becomes a commodity--if it's value, then education is a goal, objective, and something that we work to improve and strengthen, and yes, pay for, together as a society.
It's more about priorities and competing values. And where we put our money certainly reflects our values as a society.
Next, are you kidding Frank? No choice in Utah compared to other states? The reality is the complete opposite. Utah's schools are so porous and ill-defined that boundaries don't seem to mean much for our system here. Actually many east-side schools in SL County wouldn't exist otherwise. Parents can and do choose all the time in this state.
Most states have city-wide school districts instead of our large regional mega-districts. Some states are very strict about controlling access to certain neighborhood schools and programs. In upstate New York they will send investigators to an apartment outside of a district even if you're building a house within the school boundaries.
I guess "real" choice for you means the public should pay for our private choices. I'm sorry, I may sound like a crazy liberal with this, but the conservative republican I am resists that kind of whiny, entitled grab of public money. We pay taxes as part of our responsibility in being a member of a larger society and then we live our own lives.
I don't get a tax refund for disagreeing with a war, I don't get a tax refund if I don't need or use police or fire protection, and I don't seek a water voucher if my choice is to use bottled water instead of the tap (sorry Rocky).
This is not about choice, not about money, not about some mythical monopoly (nope, I'm not a member), and not about savings or even cookies. It is about power and control. It is about the boundaries between competing spheres of power in our society--the private and the public. It's about control of the public treasury. It's about the unequal power in a stratified society used by some to further increase their incentives for fleeing the larger society. It's about controlling who our children might be educated with, and by whom, and about what things.
Finally, (I must say this has been quite a release since I'm busy teaching 198 high school students most of the time), I don't think that directing our debate to the larger concerns of the values that make us who we are as a society makes me a "lofty moralizer". I was hoping that considering the consequences of the money and power-driven decision-making we've been seeing in the legislature lately (nukes anyone?) actually makes us seem wise and deliberate.
Survival of the fittest really only works for the fittest. So what kind of society are we if that is our governing value?
United we stand, divided we fall. Why can't we work harder for and more committed to one of our most important institutions?
I hope that we can continue to revisit our wonderfully American governing values as we move our society into the future. I'm sorry if this polemic sounds over-dramatic when looking at the doomed voucher law, but honestly Frank, if it's not about values first, then what is it about?
Five years ago today...
my father, Michael Thomas Miller, passed away. He was 62 years old when he succumbed to the cancer he was determined to beat.He was the fifth son born to Dolores Cannon Miller Graves and Clyde Morrison Miller in Salt Lake City, Utah. When he was five years old his parent's divorced because of my grandfather's alcoholism, a disease that has brought much heartache, and enlightenment to both sides of my family.
Dad was raised with his five brothers, his mother, and his grandmother, Agnes Cannon, in a small two-bedroom home that still stands at 180 "J" Street in the avenues of Salt Lake City. During the summers dad and his brothers would sleep out on their front porch to give the boys more room. Dad's memory of their economic situation during that time was evident by dad's disclosure that his favorite dessert as a child was "sugar sprinkled on lettuce".
When dad was a teenager his mother moved to Point Loma, California to search out new opportunities. It was there that dad's mother met and married Thomas Gandy Graves.
My father struggled with high school, and in fact dropped out to join the Air Force where he served as an radar operator. After spending some time on small Japanese island, he was transferred to Winnemucca, Nevada where he met, and married my mother, Judy Gail Kendall, when he was released after four years of service with a honorable discharge.
After his discharge my parents moved back to what my grandmother would always say was our family's "center, Salt Lake City, where he found employment (with the help of his older brother Bruce) with KUTV Channel 2. He was a photographer, reporter, and a assignments and news editor.
He left KUTV in 1969 to serve as the Public Relations Officer for the Four Corners Regional Commission, and shortly thereafter, he became Governor Calvin L. Rampton's press secretary, and then served for two years as the "Guv's" executive assistant. It was during this time that my father and mother divorced. My sister Nicole was just a baby; I was five years old.
Soon afterwards my father married Jackie Brown, the daughter of former Republican vice chair, Helen Romney of Bountiful, Utah. They made their home in a small historic grainery that is still located on the corner of Main Street and Chase Lane in Centerville, Utah. Jackie and Dad had three additional children, Brighton, Michael, and Matthew. Jackie stills lives in the home they later purchased in West Bountiful, Utah.
When Governor Rampton decided not to run for a fourth term, my father became involved with Scott M. Matheson's gubernatorial campaign. Once Scott Matheson was elected governor, he appointed dad as the Executive Director of the State Department of Economic Development. In 1977 Dad left state government to join Skaggs Companies Inc. holding many positions including Vice President of Advertising, President of Skaggs Telecommunications, Secretary to the Board of Directors, Senior Vice President of Alpha Beta Stores, and advanced to the position of Chairman and CEO of Alpha Beta Company. In 1989 he became President and CEO of the Jewel Osco food and drug chain. From 1991 to 2000 dad served as President and CEO of the Skaggs Foundation.
My father also served as a Board Director of American Stores, The Scripps Research Institute, the Scripps Foundation, and the Utah Alcoholism Foundation. It was during the early eighties that dad served as Chair of the Utah Democratic Party.
Just before he retired he was awarded the St. Michael Recognition Award by the Catholic Diocese of Utah for his diligent service in the creation of the Skaggs Catholic Center schools. A statue of St. Michael stand s on that campus dedicated to my father.
Today I'm late for work (something my father would never have done) because I needed to write about dad today. What the above information doesn't tell you is how my father would help others who were not as fortunate financially as he was. He would often find others who were impoverished, or in despair, and he would find a way to help without them ever knowing whom it was that helped make their Christmas a little brighter.
I think is also important ( for me) to understand that even with all of his accomplishments, that his most important role was being our father, and that I couldn't imagine anyone else filling that role. When my son Sami cuddles up with me to watch a movie, or when we are spending time playing outside, I wonder if he feels the same way I did when I spent time with my father. I hope so, because it is those feelings true love that clings deep within my soul, and defines who my father was to me, even as an adult, five years after his passing.
Do you think they read The Utah Amicus in heaven? I hope so, because it is important for me to say today, Dad, you are with me everyday, and I am looking forward to that moment in time, or outside of it, when I can once again let you know that I love you, face-to-face.
Love breaks the bonds of time and space, and for that testimony, I am eternally grateful.
Please, have a wonderful day today, and thank you for taking a moment to help me honor my father, Michael Thomas Miller.
With every best wish,
The Utah Amicus
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Two Oreo Voucher Quotes
"The Oreos don't stay in the classroom; Greg Curtis eats them,"
"The Oreo doesn't stay in the classroom, they go into Greg Curtis's gas tank."
Head of Democratic National Convention, Utah Dems to honor Sen. Karen Hale
SALT LAKE CITY – The Rev. Leah Daughtry, CEO of the 2008 Democratic Convention, will speak at a Democratic event on Oct. 26 honoring former state Sen. Karen Hale.The annual Eleanor Roosevelt Award Luncheon celebrates the person who best personifies the ideals of Eleanor Roosevelt, who worked tirelessly throughout her life - as a Democrat, first lady and spokesperson for the United Nations – on behalf of the underprivileged.
“The award luncheon promises to be inspiring, entertaining and informative. It promises to be a perfect opportunity for the community to recognize Karen Hale’s on-going contribution,” said Robyn Matheson, chair of the event. “She embodies many of the qualities of Eleanor Roosevelt and serves our community and the Democratic Party with exceptional dedication and commitment.”
Background, Rev. Daughtry
Rev
. Daughtry was recently appointed CEO of the 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee. She had been chief of staff of the Democratic National Committee, in charge of managing day-to-day strategy and operations as well as the party’s faith outreach program.Among her many accomplishments, Daughtry served at the U.S. Department of Labor as assistant secretary for administration and management during the Clinton Administration. In that capacity, she oversaw the development of the department's management programs and policies, including responsibility for the department's $35 billion budget.
In addition, Rev. Daughtry is pastor of The House of the Lord Church in Washington, D.C., a member of the Board of Visitors of The Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College, as well as the Boards of Directors of The House of the Lord Churches, and The Randolph Evans Memorial Scholarship Fund. She has previously served on the Board of Directors of the National AIDS Action Council.
Background, Sen. Hale
Karen Hale has demonstrated her dedication to public service and the Democratic
Party in countless ways. She served with distinction in the Legislature, quickly becoming a champion for education and social services. Widely admired and well-liked on both sides of the aisle, Karen was a leader on many issues. She became a prominent voice on legislation addressing seatbelt safety, hate crimes, and political ethics reform. In addition, she has served on many legislative committees, task forces and commissions.Sen. Hale brought a voice of reason and compassion to issues ranging from transportation to urban trails to healthcare reform to the arts. Her mentoring of and raising funds on behalf of numerous candidates—and recruitment of enthusiastic youth to help them—continues to make a difference in Utah’s political landscape.
Event details
When: Friday, Oct. 26, 2007; 11 a.m. (private reception), 12 noon (luncheon and program)
Where: Sheraton City Centre Hotel, 150 W. 500 South, Salt Lake City
How much: $75 per person, $750 table host (10 tickets)
For tickets: (801) 328-1212, ext. 205
The luncheon will be open to the media and Rev. Daughtry will be available for interviews.
For more information visit www.eleanorutah.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)