Utah Taxpayers Association: Great At Fiscal Policy…Bad At Political Sniping
UTA has a post up this morning criticizing voucher opponents for doggedly standing in the way of those who have forced this unwanted program onto Utah’s taxpayers. They state:
Voucher opponents, confident that they will prevail in a popular vote, are demanding “Let the people decide on vouchers”.
What they really mean is “Let the people decide on vouchers, unless they vote in favor of vouchers. Then let the courts decide.” Everyone knows that, if vouchers are approved by the voters, many of the same people and groups who are yelling “Let the people decide” will wait a full two nanoseconds before yelling “Let the courts decide.”
Most voucher opponents will not abide by a decision of the people if the voters support vouchers. Here’s how the 5-step process works.
1. Let the Legislature decide? Yes, unless they decide to support vouchers.
2. Let the people decide? Yes, unless they decide to support vouchers.
3. Let the state courts decide? Yes, unless they decide to support/uphold vouchers.
4. Let the federal courts decide? Yes, unless they decide to support/uphold vouchers.
5. Let voucher opponents decide? Yes, even though they are a minority, there are enough of them to justify stopping the program.
Unfortunately their narrative is a little bit off.
In 1988 Utah gots its first real taste of the “school choice” debate with a ballot initiative to give tax credits for private school tuition. The initiative failed miserably at the ballot box. Since then numerous “school choice” bills (at least nine by my count) have been brought up in the state legislature in an effort to implement vouchers or tuition tax credits. All of these failed. Finally, after a year of intense lobbying by out of state pro-voucher groups and half a million dollars in campaign contributions for pro-voucher candidates in the 2006 elections a voucher program was passed and signed by the governor. It seems to me that voucher supporters, not skeptics, are the ones willing time and time again to ignore the will of the voters on this issue in their crusade for government subsidies for private school attendees.
UTA’s accusation that anti-voucher activists won’t honor results of the referendum ballot is especially ironic considering recent Republican plans to ignore referendum results if things don’t go their way at the ballot box. The May 18 Deseret Morning News reported:
Curtis, R-Sandy, laid out the hard political facts concerning the voucher issue this past week to his House Republican caucus.
And the bottom line is this: Not only will legislative Republicans do nothing now to try to resolve the voucher issue before citizens vote on one of the voucher bills this coming November, even if voters statewide call for repeal of vouchers at the ballot box, the Legislature may end up not acting on their vote — and a form of vouchers would stay in place.
UTA has been great about providing fiscal data about the voucher program in an effort to defend their support. I think their advocacy for vouchers runs counter to their purpose of defending Utah’s taxpayers from needless government programs and expenses but it is clear from the economic arguments they’ve made that they are arguing in good faith for vouchers as being good for tax payers. Unfortunately their rhetoric in the post they put up today is not very well informed and unnecessarily spiteful. UTA should stick to what they’re good at (defending taxpayers from expansive government) and not stoop to petty political sniping.
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
While I don’t doubt that one or two lone gunmen would try litigating vouchers out of the way if HB 148 is upheld at the polls, the idea that the whole of the opposition will get behind such a lawsuit is just plain silly. I’m sure most of the loose cannons could be talked down anyway.
I don’t like that the legislature is going to try and force HB 174 to stand in as a replacement should HB 148 fail in November. I think it’s too flawed to be able to stand on its own, especially in light of the excellent questions raised by the Board of Education. If voucher proponents are serious on getting a program in place, they should back off on HB 174 and wait to see what happens with HB 148. If the latter fails, table the issue for 5 years or so and re-evaluate it then. (I figure that the record increases in education funding will either show increases in public school performance or huge wastes of money. If the latter, there’s a stronger case for vouchers.)
On a side note, I picked one heck of a fight with the UTA over iProvo last month that leaves me thinking that as a group, it’s very one-track in its thinking. It’s all crunching numbers to come up with a final conclusion with little else included in the analysis. I take most of what they say with a grain of salt.
Comment by Jesse Harris — May 24, 2007 @ 10:23 am
You are being very naive in thinking that the voucher opposition would not try to challenge this in court if voters approve vouchers. Kim Burningham, one of the most vocal voucher opponents, was asked by Rep. Greg Hughes on Take Two whether he would want to take this to the courts if the people voted yes. Burningham would not commit one way or the other.
Either the UEA or PTA or LWV or one or more of their proxies would challenge the constitutionality.
Comment by Andrea — May 24, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
I would be shocked, shocked!, if the organized opposition or one of their proxies would commit to refraining from a court challenge if the people approve vouchers.
Comment by Andrea — May 24, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
Andrea,
Utahns don’t want vouchers. For nearly 20 years subsidies for private education have been rejected again and again by right thinking legislators and voters in our state. If the electorate changes their mind in November (not likely) it represents a major change in electorate opinion. I want to specify this point because voucher proponents are acting like they are entitled to their program even if the electorate is opposed…even if the constitutional referendum process instructs them to back off. When Curtis threatens to ignore the results of the referendum if it doesn’t go his way and act as if HB174 is the law of the land it really should shock all of us. In the face of 20 years of opposition from the majority of Utahns this Republican leader is willing to implement vouchers anyway. That seems like a much bigger deal than the fact that UEA or whoever might sue if the referendum doesn’t go their way.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — May 24, 2007 @ 3:50 pm