Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Monday, May 14, 2007Pro-Choice Rally Word on the street is that a group of parents who hope for a voucher program will be gathering at the Capitol Plaza tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon.We'll be in Executive Appropriations but the always-vigilant SenateCam is now centered precariously on a pile of books on the windowsill, looking east across the Capitol Plaza. To log on . . . Username: life
posted by The Senate Site at 6:36 PM | Link
|
Radio Free SenateYour Government 2.0 Lab
Keep in TouchCurrent Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
8 Comments:
The only time the Senate Site will promote a pro-choice rally. Interesting, how Republicans are in favor of only some choices, but not others.
Also interesting how Democrats (like Davis D.) are blind to their hypocrisy. I would submit that the statement ("In favor of some choices, but not others") applies equally to all parties, including Democrats. In fact, doesn't it apply to everyone?
Prioritization is telling. Are democrats now saying parents can be trusted to "choose" whether a baby lives or dies but can NOT be trusted to choose that child's elementary school? Give us a break. Crap like that is the reason you can't be, and should never be, elected in Utah.
To Gus and the Senate Site,
If you won't listen to reasonable Democrats, how about a couple of well-respected fellow Republicans?
Two voucher bills, one big mess
Mel Brown and Kay McIff
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:05/12/2007 01:22:48 PM MDT
What an unfair mess. By happenstance, we ended up with two competing rather than complementary school voucher bills. The first represents the actual will of the Legislature. The potential consequences flowing from the second do not. They constitute an acknowledged mistake - the result of a political accident.
Yet voucher advocates seek to hold on to the ill-gotten gain.
The irony is that the people can readily overturn the first bill in a referendum vote if they decide it's a mistake, while the admitted mistake stemming from the second bill is claimed to be beyond the reach of the people. There is no rhyme or reason in that. It simply undermines the democratic process no matter how innocently it may have arisen.
How did we get in such a mess? The "main" voucher bill, House Bill 148, received an open and fair debate. It carried the House by a single vote. The "amendment," House Bill 174, passed in the waning hours of the final session without committee hearings, public input or floor debate. It was portrayed as a cleanup measure largely benefiting the public education community by providing funding and supervisory powers.
Pitched in these protective terms, the amendment garnered broad support from voucher advocates and opponents alike.
When the dust settled, voucher opponents learned, to their great dismay, that they had been blindsided. What was characterized as a shield had become a sword, seized upon by voucher advocates in an effort to emasculate the right of the people to decide the fate of school vouchers in a public referendum.
How unfortunate. How unfair. Even voucher advocates should feel squeamish about how voters will react to this backdoor approach.
In this strange twist, where unintended consequences and a political accident have risen to a higher level than the legitimate product of a fair and open debate, to whom can the people look for protection?
Some say the courts. Perhaps, but why not look to the elected representatives in the other two branches? Can we "punt" because the problem arose inadvertently and was not intentionally created? Is public duty so thin that it stops short of correcting political accidents?
The answer ought to be no. The governor has fixed Nov. 6 for the referendum vote. To assure a definitive outcome, the governor should call a special session to consider a simple bill repealing HB 174, and then re-enacting the same provisions effective if the referendum fails.
This is the political high road. It delivers what was intended by all and restores integrity to the process. No one should want more nor less.
There appear to be other major benefits and no real downsides from taking this approach. First, it is befitting of statesmen to unwind a political accident of their own making. Second, HB 148 is restored to its intended station as the primary bill, with HB 174 supplementing and not undermining.
Third, it assures the voters (opponents and proponents alike) a clean, straight-up vote on the merits. Fourth, we demonstrate respect for a constitutional process which had its roots in the Legislature only a few years ago and which has been properly invoked through an enormous effort by the citizenry. Fifth, the expensive, divisive and uncertain lawsuits growing out of the flawed legislative process go away.
How can we tacitly endorse resorting to the courts to determine the "real legislative intent" when we already know the answer? Could we in good conscience quietly stand by while arguments are made to the courts which are contrary to what we know to be true?
It's a poor plan to expect the courts to unravel all of this, especially when the other two branches have the power to solve the problem up front in a remarkably simple, fair and straightforward manner.
---
* REP. MEL BROWN, R-Coalville, is a former speaker of the House of Representatives. REP. KAY MCIFF, R-Richfield, is a former district court judge and member of the Utah State Board of Regents. Both Brown and McIff voted against HB 148 but in favor of HB 174.
Two comments:
Ric- "who hope for a voucher program" should be changed to "who wonder why the State Board of Education is not following the law".
Anonymous-
The term "well-respected fellow Republicans" is a stretch when speaking of Mel Brown. Let me give you some other areas I do not agree with Mr. Brown, marital fidelity and political ethics.
Gus, I am in favor of school choice; parents should be free to send their children to whatever school they want to send them. However, when they choose a private school, they choose to pay for that themselves and should not expect taxpayer benefits for going outside the taxpayer-subsidized system.
I also don't exactly consider myself pro-choice, because I find such a label (and pro-life), stupid and demeaning to both life and free choice. Maybe if we thought about the consequences to our choices a bit more, we would make better choices. This applies to school choice, parental obligations, and voting in general.
Anon. 11:54,
I honestly cannot believe you are so quick to impugn the integrity of a fellow Republican, elected official and former speaker of the Utah House just because he disagrees with you. I guess its easier to do that than to address the merits of the arguments.
The merits of which argument? The school choice? No. Do not care to argue about it.
The usage of "well respected" as a point to prove another point? Yes.
I have not impugn his integrity. I have not said one thing about any actions he may or may not have taken. I simply said I do not agree with him and I challenge your assesment of the respect he commands.
The fact that your mind went to his "integrity" is telling. Do you have more to add about his "integrity"?
Thanks Davis Dijeridu, for the classy response. There's room in the sandbox for everyone. For as long as we can stand it, let's all play nice.
Remember what the boss said.
(The boss, not the Boss.)
Post a Comment
<< Home