Reader comments
Vouchers or not, families will be fine

The point about Republicans screaming about a government social program giving $6,000 to a family making $150,000 is interesting. Making such a point assumes that the money is the government's (that all money is the government's). That is, in my opinion, a pretty arrogant assumption. In my view what is really happening is the government is saying, "If you will take your kids out of our classroom we will give you SOME of the money back we have taken from you."

Interesting commentary. So what about that family of 8 who makes $150,000 that never intended to go to public schools in the first place? Right now, we're paying $0 for that family because they exercised their choice to go somewhere else.

But with this voucher bill we'll be paying out for them, too, as all private school students are phased in. The cost of paying vouchers to those who would have gone to private school anyway far exceeds the savings attributed to the switchers.

The impartial analysis points to this fact. In year 13, for instance, we'll be paying out $71 million dollars but only saving at most $28 million.

Over the first 13 years of the program we're looking at a NET COST to the taxpayer of 260 million dollars.

This the same legislature who couldn't find 2 million dollars to help blind, elderly, and disabled folks get preventative healthcare.

This is the truth that Parents for Choice in Education doesn't want you to hear. This bill saves nothing - it costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

I think both sides of the voucher debate have researched their core support group for the words that will send their message most effectively to their supporters. I've noticed that the pro-voucher side seems to use fear as a prime motivating message while the anit-voucher side uses more hope and faith in the present system to state their point. I think it's sad that we have to use fear of a public education system to justify our points. I look at what's happened since our country has taken it upon itself to educate all citizens in a public education setting and all I can see is how were are the greatest, most open country in the world. I also see that where there are problems in public schools, you have people working to solve them within the system. In otherwords I see faith in ourselves. I know I'm going to vote NO on referendum 1 because I believe in public schools and in families who have faith in their own abilities to raise good children within the system.

How about a tax cut instead? If the state government has that much extra money floating around, we're being overtaxed. Then individuals can pay for private schools if they choose to. A tax cut is real choice.

Interesting and informative column. I'll be voting NO on the initiative, too. One thing Bob failed to mention is that, due to Utah's income tax laws, a family with 8 kids probably isn't paying any income tax. So by using vouchers they would be leaching money out of the system.

Vouchers or not, families will be fine. I am not as confident.

The Nov. 6 special election will have costly and possibly far-reaching consequences. It is not for nothing so much money is being poured into campaigns for and against.

I know it seems far-fetched but as far as I can tell the so-called nationwide "school-choice" wants to kill America's K-12 public school system and privatize it. Vouchers represent a more or less politically acceptable first step toward that long-range, radical goal � or at least that�s what their leaders have said.

Just before the Supreme Court in 2002 upheld an Ohio voucher program, Joseph Bast, president of the pro-voucher, global-warming disbelieving, uber-conservative Heartland Institute, wrote that he considered voucher programs to be springboards to the long-range goal of privatization. "Soon, most government schools will be converted into private schools or simply close their doors. Eventually, middle- and upper-income families will no longer expect or need tax-financed assistance to pay for the education of their children, leading to further steps toward complete privatization."

As of March 2007, eight Utah lawmakers sat on Heartland's �Board of Legislative Advisors�, including Utah Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble.

Vouchers or not, families will be fine. I am not as confident.

The Nov. 6 special election will have costly, possibly far-reaching consequences. That�s why so much money is being poured into campaigns for and against.

It seems far-fetched the so-called nationwide "school-choice" movement wants to kill America's K-12 public school system and privatize it. Utah�s expansive program and others already in place in other states represent a more or less politically acceptable first step toward that long-range goal � or at least that�s what their leaders have said.

Just before the Supreme Court in 2002 upheld an Ohio voucher program, Joseph Bast, president of the pro-voucher, global-warming disbelieving, uber-conservative Heartland Institute, wrote that he considered voucher programs to be springboards to the long-range goal of privatization. "Soon, most government schools will be converted into private schools or simply close their doors. Eventually, middle- and upper-income families will no longer expect or need tax-financed assistance to pay for the education of their children, leading to further steps toward complete privatization."

As of March 2007, eight Utah lawmakers sat on Heartland's �Board of Legislative Advisors�, including Utah Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble.

I see vouchers as a way of providing competition to the public education establishment. Unfortunately the pro-voucher media campaign in Utah is an example of retrograde Utah conservatism. Vouchers have "had it" in Utah. Congratualtions Sutherland.

Vouchers have ALWAYS been a national issue. Mr. Bernick, for you to pretend that East coast liberals and the ACLU aren't betting on this fight in Utah is incredibly naive, dishonest or intellectually bankrupt. They have a long track record of supporting the defeat of vouchers in state after state. They only lay low this time around because they know their names carry too much baggage for Utah.

Mr. Bernick, your bias is showing... or is that just your ignorance?

I won't vote on this at all. The people who send their kids to private schools can afford it. They want to pull money from the public schools, which they have paid through taxation. Tough luck. I'm retired and must pay property taxes for public schools too, without having a say about it. What's good for the goose.....

Private schools already compete with public schools for students. Propping up bad private schools with taxpayer dollars won't make them any more competitive.

The idea that the school-choice movement and neocons in general are bent on doing away completely with public education is not so very far-fetched. Read what Grover Norquist has to say on the subject.

Craig, bad logic. We are paying nothing for their education? You are paying nothing. That family is paying taxes on $150k a year after write offs.

And for your scenario to work then the 8 children must all be 4 years old or younger because those already in the system are not eligibile for the voucher.

And what about this family. They get to pay taxes on $150k, they have 8 children under the age of 4 and they should get bent, right. They get to pay for your kids to go to the local Union school then they should get to pay again for their own kids to go to a private school.

Is this just class warfare? All people perceived as rich are the enemy? Anyone who steps out of line must be pounded back into line? We must all pay for others values and principles in education but holy cow if we think people should be able to choose their own values and principles in education.

Free agency works.

Slacker 7,
It all depends on how much income they have. They definitely won't pay as much in taxes as someone with the same income and no kids, but there seems to be a bit of a misconception about the tax breaks for having kids in Utah. Each kid is worth another personal income exemption, not an actual tax credit. Each personal exemption is for about $2500. Therefore, under the new 5% flat tax, each child is worth about $125 in actual income tax reduction.

That being said, if we use Mr. Bernick's example of the family of 8 (6 kids) making $150000, reduce their taxable income by $20000 for personal exemptions and maybe another $15000 for charitable giving (that's 10% for anyone who's curious ;) ) that leaves a taxable income of $115000 and a tax of $5750. If this family receives $6000 in private tuition vouchers, then they have effectively become a net drain on tax resources.

What ever happened to public education being a burden we ALL should share?

The current voucher law is horrible public policy. I am defnitely voting NO on Referendum One.

James,

You are simply ignoring the facts. A family of 8 (6 children, not 8 as you say) making $150K would be a net loss to taxpayers under the voucher scheme.

"Union schools" and "class warfare" are simply diversion tactics that have nothing to do with the bill. It's sad someone like you would be spouting out such useless rhetoric. You only bring up such things because the bill can't stand on its own. The Republicans I speak to are embarrassed by such disreputable tactics.

The bill will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and gives taxpayers no accountability for the results. Google "Florida voucher fraud" and see what I mean.

This is the worst school-choice bill in the history of the United States. It costs a fortune, does not hold private school businesses accountable to the taxpayers, and does nothing to improve the public schools where 96% of our children attend.

Vouchers? We don't need no stinking vouchers!

Voucher foes, led by State School Board Chair, Kim Burningham, continue to try to play the accountibility card on the voucher issue:
The radio ad, titled �Troubling,� focuses on accountability concerns regarding private voucher schools that receive public funds�no accountability for tax dollars.
While this is an old argument, it is �troubling�. It inherently indicates that parents (the voucher recipients) are incapable of making the right choice for their children. It indicates that government bureaucrats, not parents, know what is best.

Parents have full control of the vouchers. First, you need not get a voucher if your public school is doing a good job (most of us). However, we all know of children that have difficulties learning in our �one size fits all� system. If your son or daughter is struggling in a public school, you may opt for a voucher to help pay for a private school that better fits your child�s method of learning. Should a private school be inadequate, your money and the voucher walk (talk about instant accountability).

Further, parents using vouchers will typically be more involved and heavily scrutinize the school their child is attending. Remember, a voucher will often not pay the full tuition at the private school. That means parents will be opting for additional out of pocket costs rather than the already paid for public school.
I fully believe that parents will do what is best for their children. Public schools will serve most, but not all, of us and our children well (myself included here). However, we all know of neighbors/friends/family with children who need a more challenging environment, who require more discipline or individual attention, who are in a bad learning environment or on the verge of dropping out, or where other factors hinder their educational progression in a system designed to serve �most�.
While opting and paying for a private school to allow their child to excel may not be problem for the rich, it is for others. That is where to vouchers come in. Private schools will be within reach of those willing to make the financial sacrifice to ensure that their child can meet their full potential.

Explaining basic free market economics is a tough sale. It is far easier to allow government to raise one from cradle to grave.

And a family of 8, 6 kids or 8 kids makes little difference - paying taxes on $150k - apparently that is your tax money.

So it is fair for them to pay for your kids education then turn around and pay for their own children a second time?

The Union education community absolutely believes that all money in the state of Utah belongs to them. Let him put his kids into the system and it will cost roughly $45,000. So he takes his $6,000, leaves the remaining $39,000 in the system and the system loses money? Union book keeping again.

This is the exact same logic of when Democrats talk about giving a 7% raise to education, the Republicans in the end giving a 6% raise and then Republicans are evil because they cut education by 1%. Rerfusing to admit that funding increased by 6%. How many times have I heard this one.

Amazing!

This bill completely stands on its own, my faults aside. And the few GOP embarrassed by this debate; Sheryl Allen?

Bob, You are right. The families will survive, life will go on, and nothing will change. This is exactly what the NEA / UEA want, no change, except of course give us more more more money and we will fix things.

If the PPE were 10,000 what would change exactly?

Mark Towner