Deseret News | Reader comments: There's a lot riding on next week's voucher vote

Reader comments
Bob Bernick Jr.: There's a lot riding on next week's voucher vote

Cliff | 7:52 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007

I think Bob is right on top of this issue. I totally agree with him regarding whether the legislature can restrain themselves from NOT listening to the rejection vote on vouchers, and re-introducing legislation to assist in the removal of egg from their collective faces. When you stand this legislative strong-arming activity right next to the strong-arming activity of the soccer stadium, you start to get a sense of the total lack of control and balance in our legislative branch. As an intimate observer of the last 25 legislative sessions, I know that the sick imbalance of power, brought on by a chronic and lengthy one party state system, has supplanted the interest of the state's citizens with the interest of a handful of highly partisan republican thugs.

VOTE | 9:26 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007

Mr. Bernick is right. Don't assume anything, go and vote.

wrz | 9:31 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007

Instead of the $500-$3,000 voucher allowance, the program should fully fund private school tuition. Nothing else if fair. My kids go to a Park City private school at $65,000 a pop and I could certainly us some help. I've tried other cheaper schools, including public schools, but nothing seems to meet my kids' needs.

Comments continue below

Spanish Fork | 10:22 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007

A big difference between the city votes and the voucher vote is that if we don't like the elected officials we can get rid of them in four years. Vouchers are like any other entitlement, and if we don't like it, unlike the mayor, we won't be able to ever get rid of them. Even a powerful incumbent will eventually retire or die, but not so with entitlements. Entitlements grow and live forever, long past their usefulness. Bob said, "Vouchers should stand or fall on their own merits." This would be nice, but like the terminator, once an entitlement is created, it will do everything possible to preserve itself, even if it goes bad.

Slacker 7 | 10:37 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007

As usual, Bob has written an excellent, nonjudgmental piece on the voucher situation. He is truly the voice of reason/reality. My problem with the pro voucher group is that they are attacking the state's public education system which, as everyone knows, has never been close to fully funded by the arrogant, elitist, GOP dominated legislature. I personally would take a more serious look at vouchers if the legislature increased the public education budget for the next 3-5 years. At the end of that time, we would have a better feel for where the system needs improvement, and could tailor an alternative like vouchers to better address those shortcomings and better meet the needs of Utah children.

Battleground | 11:55 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007

No matter what way the voucher vote goes next Tuesday, Bob is absolutely right, it will not be the end of the issue.

If PCE comes out on top, then the pro-voucher legislators will work to expand the program in the upcoming legislative session. Furthermore, the PPS people will immediately sue using more NEA money.

If PPS wins, then legislators will simply take the failed bill, tweek it, and file it again next session with even more PCE money flowing in to support then and their cause.

The voucher issue has now become part of our public consciousness and will never end. Utah has become a battleground.

wrz | 12:47 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007

Both "Spanish Fork" and "Battleground" make excellent points.

This thing, though it will likely be defeated this round, will return again and again. And once finally passed will grow until the voucher covers the total private school tuition. You heard it here.

Orem | 1:03 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007

Thank you, Bob Bernick, for a thoughtful piece. If these voucher bills are such a good thing, why are they stirring up so much contention in once peaceful neughborhoods and families? Could it be that our public education system, with all its warts, is worth fighting for? I believe so. At least it's ours. We need to stop blaming our schools for problems that have roots in our families.

Concerned | 2:23 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007

I also think that Gov. Huntsman will lose alot of credibility no matter which side wins. The Governor did not act in the best interest of the taxpayer. He has tried to play both sides but will loose trust from both sides. I thought he was sworn to uphold the Utah Constitution which forbids the use of tax money outside the public education system. How sad and disturbing if we have to look forward to a long and divisive law suit.

John | 3:30 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007

Typical of the mentality and scare tactics of the anti-voucher group is the statement by Concerned that: "the Utah Constitution forbids the use of tax money outside the public education system". Unfortunately, many uninformed people believe irresponsible and untrue statements such as this. In response to Orem who writes: "If these voucher bills are such a good thing why are they stirring up so much contnention in once peaceful neughborhoos (SP) and families?" Could it be that the power of the NEA and UEA is being challenged and they are fighting back like cornered animals? And another (of many) irresponsible statements in this blog comes from Spanish Fork who tries to equate Vouchers with Entitlements. That is about as far-fetched and silly an argument as I have ever read.

wrz | 12:20 a.m. Nov. 3, 2007

"Typical of the mentality and scare tactics of the anti-voucher group is the statement by Concerned that: "the Utah Constitution forbids the use of tax money outside the public education system". Unfortunately, many uninformed people believe irresponsible and untrue statements such as this." - John

Possibly not, John. But what it does say is:

Article, section 4 - "... No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, EXERCISE or INSTRUCTION, or for the SUPPORT of any ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENT."

Jack | 2:30 p.m. Nov. 5, 2007

To wrz: I'm sure that our friends in the Office of Legislative Research considered your concern when they did a consitutional check on HB 148 and found no apparent problems.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.