Guest opinion: What if we stopped supporting education?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 13, 2019 12:18 p.m.

    Conceptually this is a good idea. But I don't like the example. I would not have voted for any of the specific initiatives you proposed because they are "motherhood" objectives that sound good but lack any any verifiable direct correlation to student performance. For example, I am unaware of any scientific analysis or study that says that 20 is the magic number of students in a class to optimize student performance. And when you are dealing with an gullible voter base, it all comes down to marketing. We become vulnerable to motherhood (what sounds good) instead of what really will do some good. The gullible public will fall for just about anything and before you know it, we will have a hefty tax burden and nobody knowing why. After all, each item sounded good.

    My wife manages a grocery budget but she doesn't allocate a certain amount for milk and a certain amount for vegetables. She adjusts each time she shops based on the needs for that week and to maintain a good balance of staples so we have flexibility and variety in our menus. Each item she purchases sounds good by itself but she can only manage the budget with the big picture in mind.

  • Strider303 American Fork, UT
    Feb. 13, 2019 9:05 a.m.

    I agree that specificity in expenditure of public funds is an excellent idea. It would drive the debate to specific goals and, brace yourself, accountability of those who are charged with carrying out the mandate that goes with the funding.

    Too often a "committee", the people seeking to organize a horse from raw material and produce a camel, gets the money and no strings so they may or may not fulfill the intent, vague though it may be, of the legislation that produced the funds.

    A set time frame for accomplishing that specific goal should also be included.

    This would require the legislature to write more specific laws and leave less to "staff", require names on legislation, debate in open committee and clearer legislation and thereby less legislation over all to be bantered about to die in committee, wasting paper, time and emotional energy.

    Good idea, probably won't happen. Sad.

  • GrainOfSalt Draper, UT
    Feb. 13, 2019 8:48 a.m.

    Excellent opinion. I agree 100%!

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Feb. 13, 2019 8:39 a.m.

    Yeah, but that makes too much sense. Plus, it doesn't allow for our legislators to steer money to their pet projects, usually run by legislators and their families.