Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Friday, March 16, 2007Crazy World, Episode 498
The Utah Taxpayers Association might actually support the voucher referendum because it would remove the mitigation provisions. In their view, that makes the program better. We disagree. Our intent is that the hold-harmless provisions be an integral part of the school choice program.
Their latest blog: ". . . would a repeal of HB148 be a bad thing for taxpayers? That depends. Repealing HB148 would not repeal vouchers because HB174 supersedes HB148. However, some elements of HB148 would be repealed, particularly so-called mitigation funds for school districts. This would actually make the voucher law better."Their problem: "How do we support the repeal of HB148 -- which improves the voucher law by getting rid of the so-called and unnecessary mitigation funds -- without sounding like we oppose vouchers?" Lunacy.
posted by The Senate Site at 10:56 AM | Link
|
Connect & EngageRadio Free SenateKeep in TouchTwitter UpdatesYour Government 2.0 Lab
Current Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
6 Comments:
This is not lunacy. This makes perfect sense. If the mitigation payments are unnecessary, then why have them in the first place?
The association's position is right on the mark from a policy perspective, but not from a PR perspective.
Here's what the UTA will say:
"Repealing HB148 is the right thing because it gets rids of unjustifiable mitigation payments"
Here's what the public will hear:
"The Utah Taxpayers Association opposes vouchers."
The public will not understand the message.
Anonymous #1:
Two reasons for the mitigation / hold-harmless provision. 1) to provide de facto class size reduction, and 2) to provide an increased comfort level to those who worry how the new addition to our education system will impact public ed.
If voucher amounts (including the amounts paid to families that would have sent their children to private schools without a voucher) are less than what districts (and the state) would have paid to educate those children who have left the district schools because of the voucher, then additional money will be available to reduce class sizes or increase teacher salaries.
Average voucher amount is estimated at a little over $1,900. In FY08, the state will spend more than $7,500 per student, most of which is variable and enrollment-dependent. After accounting for the students that would have gone to private schools without a voucher, the state still saves dollars. That means more money for school on a per student basis.
This post sounds like a cheap good-guy, bad-guy con. Regardless of the lameness of your stunt, it is the taxpayers who are being robbed via zero accountability of their tax dollars. The 'vote with your feet' mantra may be fine for parents (debatable) but such a sentiment ignores true accountability to the taxpayers of the state.
And, someone earning $250K/year does not need any money from the public coffers to send their child to an elitist private school since they would have done so without the V word. How does this possibly serve the public good?
Mitigation or no mitigation, this is a botched 'foot in the door' bill masking a much nastier agenda - to eliminate our public schools...exactly what ol' Milt had in mind.
My wife just called me at work and said, "Lunacy? Those are fighting words." She’s usually right, so let me esplain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
The UTA isn’t crazy. The situation is. Lunacy = a pro-voucher group may support an anti-voucher campaign, because the anti-voucher campaign makes the voucher program stronger.
That’s what I meant.
Post a Comment
<< Home