$9.3 million was approved by the Utah legislature for use on vouchers until it went to referendum and was voted down. So what’s going to happen to the money? It’s not going to public education because that’s not where the money came from. But again, voucher opponents and many teachers led a lot of people to believe that it did. They still want the money… Fat chance!
It’s going back to the general budget where it came from and will likely be used for building roads. It just goes to show how false those “vouchers take money away from public school” ads were that used the teacher of the year as their poster celebrity. I guess they’ll have to start running new ads that say “roads take money away from public schools,” so vote them down.
14 comments ↓
By the way, did you know that 100% of the Utah state income tax you pay goes directly to public education? Did you know that the legislature has allocated record increases in the public education budget for the last few years? And what’s changed as a result? Are we really supposed to believe that if they were to add that $9.3M to their $3.5B budget (a mere 0.26% increase in funding) it would make a lick of a difference? I bet we could double the budget to $7B and we’d see no increase in the quality of public education.
Russell,
You have some interesting points about this whole voucher debate here; however, as a public school teacher who argued against vouchers from a purely ideological point of view (they’re a prime example of fascism), I resent being called a liar. I also resent the argument that vouchers are about school choice. They aren’t. What they are is government money being used to force competition. That’s the textbook definition of fascism. It’s not about choice; it’s about force. Why counteract force with force? I will readily admit that public schools have huge problems; however, the problems we face largely come from too much government regulation. Adding a government-regulated “scholarship” program to the mix won’t help. I’m not sure that it would make things worse, but more government meddling in education definitely won’t make it better. Why not work toward real change, not meaningless change that will lead to more government intervention, not less?
@ Jeff
I appreciate your comments, but forced competition isn’t fascism so much as the government (the state) placing its interests above that of the individual/society. Force is the side affect of ensuring the ideology.
Where you’ve gone wrong is when you state that it’s government money. It’s not. It’s public money acquired from tax payers, and we’ve appointed people (representatives) to allot it for the use of the public good. And it’s not being used to force competition so much as it is allowing those tax payers the choice of where their education tax dollars are used in educating their own children. Public schools have a monopoly on those dollars right now, and yes, many teachers were flat out telling lies about how the voucher system worked. Just plain untruths about it. They were so far off, that it only took a few seconds to often realize that many of them never even read the Referendum. They just spouted off the crap they heard spread through the PTA and via their teacher lounges.
I will agree with you that schools have big problems and that the government over regulates (because it’s taxpayer money not government money). Public school is a government-regulated “Scholarship” as you call it. So, I don’t see what your point is on calling a voucher the same thing. There would have been less “government meddling” with the vouchers, which is why you heard those bogus ads from Utah’s teacher of the year saying “no oversight.”
forced competition isn’t fascism so much as the government (the state) placing its interests above that of the individual/society. Force is the side affect of ensuring the ideology.
I’m not sure I understand this point. It sounds like you’re defending government-sponsored competition, but I’m not sure.
Where you’ve gone wrong is when you state that it’s government money.
That’s just semantics. In a perfect world that may be true, but the way it works is that whatever the government funds, via tax money, it regulates. Spending more of the tax payer’s money on education (and spreading that to private institutions as well) will increase regulation, not decrease. People who support private schools (myself included) should run from this idea. I don’t think it would affect public schools much at all, but I do think that it will allow government meddling in the private schools that receive this funding.
And it’s not being used to force competition so much as it is allowing those tax payers the choice of where their education tax dollars are used in educating their own children.
It’s not their “education tax dollars.” It’s a separate fund set up to provide scholarships based on income level. I really see it as no more than a welfare program, a handout if you will. If a program like this were to work, it would all have to come from the same fund, allowing schools to compete. This voucher bill doesn’t do that. Also, you tout the idea of choice. This bill only allows for the wealthy to have that choice, as you noted in one of your posts. A $3000 voucher isn’t going to allow too many students to change their school. All it will do is allow the students who can already afford alternative schooling to receive a government kick-back for doing so.
many teachers were flat out telling lies about how the voucher system worked. Just plain untruths about it. They were so far off, that it only took a few seconds to often realize that many of them never even read the Referendum. They just spouted off the crap they heard spread through the PTA and via their teacher lounges.
There was crap being spouted by both sides. I can admit that my teacher’s union spouted crap. Can you admit that your side did too?
Public school is a government-regulated “Scholarship” as you call it. So, I don’t see what your point is on calling a voucher the same thing.
My point is that you oppose public school for doing the same thing as the voucher program you support. It seems inconsistent.
There would have been less “government meddling” with the vouchers, which is why you heard those bogus ads from Utah’s teacher of the year saying “no oversight.”
This statement contradicts itself. Either the adds were right, and there won’t be oversight, or the add was “bogus,” and there will be government intervention. Right now, government can’t regulate private schools. Once you allow them to help pay for them, they have the “right” (in quotes because I really don’t think it’s their right) to regulate it. Please explain to me how it will create less interference.
What I keep hearing from the pro-voucher side is the idea of choice. I absolutely agree that we should have choice in education. I’d even support giving every dime of the money raised for education back to the taxpayers to spend on any form of education they choose. What I don’t support is creating another government program to give handouts to people who can already afford the choice that they are requesting. There is a better way to do this.
…did you know that 100% of the Utah state income tax you pay goes directly to public education?
Source, please?
I’d even support giving every dime of the money raised for education back to the taxpayers to spend on any form of education they choose.
This is the method I support. Make education like a school cafeteria: a la carte.
Oh wait, school cafeterias are subsidized by the government. Nevermind.
I have to admit, this sounded off.
Fascism? Sounds like you made up that definition (courtesy of dictionary.com):
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
Democratically voted in state representatives voting for vouchers (the first round) and the populace deciding the voucher issue (round 2) is far from fascism.
Refusing the vouchers gives more power to the government than allowing vouchers. Fascism actually sounds more like the anti-voucher camp as they went out and stole signs from those supporting vouchers and painted critics of it with a broad brush of “hate speech” and “fascism”; and fulfilled the definition of fascism: “forcibly suppressed opposition and criticism”.
Vouchers are capitalistic, offering the public choices and competition. Eliminating capitalism and competition and making capitalism and competition more difficult is called bull shizism…
And, it sounds like you need a history lesson. The dictionary.com definition is too narrow. It sounds like the definition that neo-conservatives use to justify the gross misnomer, “Islamic fascist.” The Macintosh version of World Book Encyclopedia gives this, much better, definition:
Fascism rose in Europe as a counter-movement to communism. Whereas communism is government controlled corporations, fascism is corporate controlled government. You’ll also note in the above definition that fascism has “strong control of industry and labor by the central government.” This control took the form of government forcing competition between corporations, which is what the voucher program pretends to do. My calling it fascism is very accurate.
No, it’s not. It’s proof that voters know better than to allow fascism into their state. Also, since vouchers were defeated by 70% of the voters, it shows a huge disconnect between our elected officials and the voters that elected them. Maybe it’s time to throw the bums out. That kind of disconnect between the voters and the elected officials is really, really scary. What else are they doing that the voters don’t approve of?
Refusing the vouchers gives more power to the government than allowing vouchers.
That’s a huge assumption that you’ve given with absolutely no evidence to support it. I argued the opposite above with evidence. You must disprove my argument before even considering taking the leap you took here.
Come on. Both sides were horrible in their use of hate speech and dishonest rhetoric. I know it’s hard to see that in a cause you support, but it’s true. For instance, Patrick Byrne called voters in the state “stupid” and “insane” for their votes against vouchers. He also said that we don’t care about our kids in Utah. How is that for hate speech? Also, those who aren’t in power using hate speech and crappy rhetoric doesn’t even fit your narrow definition of fascism, where the rulers “forcibly suppressed opposition and criticism,” so your argument is weak at best.
Finally, this gem:
You need to study capitalism. If the government is the entity making the business decision or “forcing” competition, it isn’t capitalism. Capitalism demands a market free of government regulation and interference, neither of which is the case here. For a great resource on the definition of capitalism, read Ayn Rand’s masterpiece Atlas Shrugged. It should enlighten you. Furthermore, the voucher program didn’t take any funds from public schools, so it would actually benefit the schools to lose a few students to vouchers, allowing them to spend more money on fewer kids. If we assume that the schools are failing and are therefore losing students to vouchers, why reward them with more money for fewer students? Isn’t that the opposite of competition? Don’t vouchers actually reward schools for failing by lowering their population without lowering their funding? Also, Byrne claims that this program would only affect .3% of students. How is that giving choice and the benefit of competition to all Utah students? How is that capitalism?
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental *system led by a dictator having complete power, *forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, *regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and *emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often *racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, *principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the *one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.”
Versus
“The form of government in Italy from 1922 to 1943, *under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. It was ruled by a dictator, with strong control of industry and labor *by the central government, great restrictions upon the *freedom of individuals, and extreme nationalism and *militarism. It was opposed to radical socialism and communism.”
Sounds like you need a reading and comprehension lesson. The definitions are identitical right down to the “history lesson”. You fail to prove how vouchers are fascist (dictatorial government restriction freedom of individuals and using extreme nationalism and mlitatism). Perhaps your Macintosh Encyclopedia definition is also from those vicious Neo conservatives…
There is no militarism, extreme nationalism, Benito Mussolini, strong control of industry, and freedoms placed upon individuals. The strong control of industry and freedoms of individuals sounds like the pro vouchers: you cannot take your money (‘cause it is the tax payer’s money) and go to a different school even if you think it would better serve your child’s education needs.
As far as forced government competition? That’s the problem, it isn’t the government’s money. It is the people’s money. You seem to forget this little phrase called “We the people”. Forced government competition makes it sound as if the government is competing with itself and what’s the worse that would happen? Schools would compete to offer better education to get more students and money? A little competition never hurt any industry and is what made America’s economy so great…whoever did it the best got paid and the public got the best product.
Capitalism from the evil neo conservative bible (dictionary.com):
cap•i•tal•ism (kāp’ĭ-tl-ĭz’əm) Pronunciation Key
n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Capitalism is the opportunity to choose (not the actual choosing). For example, if 99.7% of the people went to McDonalds and only .3% went to Burger King that doesn’t mean that there is no capitalism.
Also “Forced government competition” seems to be working well for the schools of higher education. The government subsidizes private universities and colleges as well as funds state schools. This “forced government competition” is a non-issue…unless you are the teachers union.
There is a difference between the fascism you describe and the fascism that I described. One is a political philosophy, the other an economic philosophy. I’m sorry you can’t see that. Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one point; however, there is plenty to discuss in the rest of your comment.
Please read comment #4 above. I address this issue there.
Did you read Ref. 1? The money for vouchers wasn’t going to come from the same fund as public education. Schools that lost students to vouchers weren’t going to lose funding. How is that competition? There is no downside for a public school to lose a student to a voucher the way Ref. 1 was written. The downside was to private schools who would, possibly, have to submit to government regulation. There is no competitive aspect to the referendum. None. Zero. Zilch.
BTW, I’m a capitalist to the bone. I’m a registered libertarian and a die-hard fan of Ayn Rand. Therefore, I love the thought of competition, even in schools. The problem is that this bill doesn’t do that. Again, see my above comment for a plan that I think will work, which, incidentally, is one of the few things Connor and I agree on.
The difference is that people who make the choices in your example can make a different choice. With vouchers, a very small percentage would be given a choice different from what they already have. If it’s capitalism, they should all have a fair (not equal, btw) choice. The point is that a $3000 voucher will allow very few students the option of attending a private school whose tuition is $15,000 a year. Those who can already afford private school will benefit from it, but those who can’t already afford it aren’t going to be able to make up the difference.
If you want a truly capitalistic system, all the money needs to go back to taxpayers, who can in turn spend it on whatever form of education they desire. Vouchers, especially as proposed in Utah, don’t even come close to that.
2 points to consider here:
1- Money follows college students to whatever institution they desire. It doesn’t with vouchers. That is a huge difference.
2- No teacher’s union on earth is making the argument I’m making here, so your smart-ass remark about the union just shows how uninformed you really are on the issue. My line of thought here comes from my libertarian leanings, not my NEA membership.
There is a difference between the fascism you describe and the fascism that I described. One is a political philosophy, the other an economic philosophy.
Whatever man, those two fascist definitions are identitical and you know it…they both talk about the government and it’s role in economy. And neither is a neo-conservative definition as you originally stated.
Regarding the competition I agree that the vouchers isn’t the perfect system, and you and I would probably have a relatively close opinion on what a more perfect system would be. I see the vouchers as a step in the right direction, starting to put more choice in the parents hands and an improvement upon the status quo. So I take it you aren’t satisfied with the current system, what is your solution? And remember it has to pass a vote by the population.
The difference is that people who make the choices in your example can make a different choice. With vouchers, a very small percentage would be given a choice different from what they already have. If it’s capitalism, they should all have a fair (not equal, btw) choice. The point is that a $3000 voucher will allow very few students the option of attending a private school whose tuition is $15,000 a year. Those who can already afford private school will benefit from it, but those who can’t already afford it aren’t going to be able to make up the difference.
$15,000?! Did you make that up? The average Private School is $6000 as quoted by the PTA president in the Daily Herald. And I think families able to get half of that would help many (including autistic and special needs children who need private schools). I know some families who feel that the private school education is so important that despite their very low income they still send their kids to private schools. Even if noone switched I think it would be worth it to help these families, since they are already paying, through taxes, for education but not using it.
2 points to consider here:
1- Money follows college students to whatever institution they desire. It doesn’t with vouchers. That is a huge difference.
2- No teacher’s union on earth is making the argument I’m making here, so your smart-ass remark about the union just shows how uninformed you really are on the issue. My line of thought here comes from my libertarian leanings, not my NEA membership.
1. It is a start to a more competitive system and allows an easier transition to a more competitive system. Jumping from where we are now to what you would like is never going to happen.
2. Wasn’t meant to be a smart-ass (I liked that from you Mr. “Fascist History Lesson”) it’s the truth. Follow the money trail for the anti-voucher fight. It didn’t come from Libertarians, it came from the teachers unions. Your comment shows how uninformed you are…the teachers unions almost single handedly got this rejected (NEA put in $3 million and lots of man power- Deseret News). Your personal libertarian philosophy may support the anti-voucher movement but it wasn’t libertarian philosophy that was the base for the success of it.
So if not vouchers, what is the solution? You have stated a good case against them, but what is a better option (that can pass the public’s approval and dodge the NEA’s fight)? I don’t see the vouchers as an endall, but I do see it as a better system than the current, and a step in the right direction.
I just don’t think they improve anything at all the way the referendum was written. It seemed like a step sideways, not a step forward (or backward). I do think that the end effect would have been more regulation of private schools, but other than that, they wouldn’t have done much. I also think that we would find a lot of agreement on what the ideal would be.
I stand corrected; however, I imagine there are some $15,000 a year private schools, but it’s not terribly important to the discussion. Your point about special needs students is a good one. I would definitely support some kind of voucher for them (even if it came out of the road-building coffers–call me hypocritical
). Public school doesn’t offer much at all for special needs students, especially rural public schools like where I teach.
It’s a jump sideways not in the right direction. And, I know that the kind of change I’m calling for is unlikely, but people need to lobby for it if it is to ever have a chance. Call me an idealist, but I have a hard time voting for something that only pretends to do what I want it to do. The concept of vouchers sounds great; unfortunately, the way Referendum 1 was written, it didn’t do what it claimed to.
HA HA! I never claimed I wasn’t a smart-ass too.
True, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that the argument I’m using isn’t even close to the same argument the union uses. The way your comment was worded, it sounded like I was just “towing the union line,” which I most definitely am not.
The pro-voucher side spent just as much money, with it’s money coming from special interest groups as well. Pooling all of that money could have paid for the first year of the program without a dime coming from taxpayers ($8.4 million spent on the campaign by both sides–$5.5 million to fund the program for the first year). Maybe the pro-voucher special interest groups ought to start a scholarship program instead of using the money to try to get tax payers to pay for other kids’ private school.
Also, money doesn’t win elections. Just ask Howard Dean. It especially doesn’t win elections with a 70%-30% margin of victory. The NEA didn’t beat vouchers. The voters did. Once again, I think that it’s scary that there’s such a disconnect between our legislature and us, but that’s just me.
As for the union, I belong to the union just in case I get sued. We live in such a litigious society that I feel the need to protect myself and my family. The union offers me that protection. Most of what the union does I disagree with, but I send them my money dutifully every month because they can afford much better lawyers than I can. Fair enough?
I answer your questions about solutions in this post over at my blog. As far as radical change, we need to change people’s mind one at a time. That’s how change happens in America, one vote at a time.
Leave a Comment