"And remember to be a compassionate conservative - step over the homeless, not on them."

This is the second part in a series of posts on Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act or comprehensive school voucher program.

I recently received a mailer from the pro-voucher lobby entitled, "VoteFOR1" in seasonal orange and black. The mailer is two pages, front and back, and includes a number of arguments as to why the state's voucher program should be approved. It makes a number of arguments which I will address - and destroy - in turn.

1. "Facts: Referendum 1 is targeted to benefit low - and middle-income families."

At first I accepted this argument. The voucher bill does give money on a graduated basis - the less you make, the more you get. I believed this argument based on the mailer sent out by the State Elections Office which included a graph showing several income levels, ending in $150,000. Since there was nothing in the pamphlet to the contrary, I assumed that if a family made more than $150,000 then they would not qualify for a voucher. I was wrong. Section 806 of the bill states that if you make, "Greater than 250% of the income eligibility guideline" you will receive a minimum of $500/per student. That means that even if you make $10,000,000/year, you will qualify for at least one $500 voucher per student. This is not a program designed to benefit "low and middle income families".

If the program really were aimed at the less fortunate, it would have an income cap - something like $150,000, as I had assumed. If the program has a cap, then the money that would have gone to those making more than that (which is actually a substantial number of families) could be used to supplement the already too-meager proposed vouchers to be given to Utah's poorest families. The State Legislature isn't interested in helping poor Utahns get a choice. If they were, they would have designed a better program.

The Pro-voucher lobby also states in their pamphlet that, "average K-8 private school tuition in Utah is about $4,000 per year", citing the study found here. Being the huge nerd that I am, I read the study. On p. 29 of the .pdf (table 5), the researchers listed the "mean" cost of private schools in Utah as $6,246. I may be wrong, but I believe that 'mean' is the same as 'average', leading me to the conclusion that the pro-voucher lobby has misrepresented the research they cite. The meager $3,000 voucher will not even cover half of the cost of the average private school in Utah. In fact, according to the same study, it will only barely cover the cost of the state's cheapest private schools.

2. "Referendum 1 provides better accountability for both private and public schools by holding schools accountable directly to parents instead of bureaucrats."

This claim is just precious. The pro-voucher lobby provides the following justification for this fiction:

Parents in Utah care about their kids and are capable of choosing good schools with good teachers that meet the needs of their own children.

Aside from the condescending tone, this argument has three major flaws. First, it assumes that even if private schools proliferate, parents will be able to find and enroll their children in a school that meets their needs better than a public school. Enrollment in private schools is (and almost certainly will not be) guaranteed by a voucher.

Second, it assumes that as parents enroll or remove their students from schools that schools will be responsive. This idea of marketplace correction has never been proven to work in a school setting (see the report listed above, as well as the other sources from the mailer). In fact, it seems more likely to fail because if schools can choose between a privately or a publicly funded student, they will choose the private one to avoid having to jump through regulatory hoops.

Finally, it assumes that Utah needs a voucher program to make public and private schools accountable to parents. If they are relying on market theory, private schools are already accountable to parents (with no state oversight) and allowing easier transfer between public schools will create the same accountability.

The mailer goes on to state that:

Local principals and administrators [of public schools] will answer to parents, instead of just bureaucrats.

The support they provide for this claim is that "Wisconsin's scholarship program led to increased local control and parental involvement." This will only happen in Utah if the State Legislature and local school boards change their policies - there is no requirement that they do. Furthermore, this is the only example they provide of increased local control out of the five other voucher programs they cite.

In reality, the "oversight" established by Referendum 1 (HB 148) is nothing beyond the accountability already built into the market and the requirement that a CPA certify every four years that voucher funds are being tracked separately. (See Sec. 807.) There is actually far less oversight over private schools than public schools and there is no accountability.

3. "Scholarship programs like Referendum 1 already exist in several states across the country."

This is patently false. No scholarship program of this magnitude or breadth exists anywhere in the country. That's why it has drawn so much national attention. That is also why it faces such serious Constitutional issues. The major hurdle it faces is a challenge based on the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The controlling Supreme Court case is Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 US 639 (2002). In that case, the Supreme Court asked the question of whether this type of voucher program, which allowed money to go to private religious schools, constituted an impermissible establishment of religion. The Court addressed the question of whether the program was enacted for the primary purpose of establishing religion and whether or not such establishment was its primary effect.

The Court decided that it was not enacted for the primary purpose of establishing religion, relying on the state of the school system:

There is no dispute that the program challenged here was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system. Thus, the question presented is whether the Ohio program nonetheless has the forbidden "effect" of advancing or inhibiting religion.

The Court thus relied upon the "failing" state of the school system as a non-religious justification for the program - Utah's situation is much different. Utah's schools are among the best in the nation and the pro-voucher lobby will have a hard time showing that Utah's schools are "demonstrably failing." Rather, this program will likely appear to be little more than a thinly veiled attempt to subsidize private religious schools - especially in light of the conclusions reached by the study cited above (finding that Utah's religious climate will be the driving force behind private school enrollment). Cleveland's program provided up to 90% of the funding for any private school - giving greater weight to the justification that it is aimed at giving choice to poor families. Because Utah's program provides such a low level of funding, it is unlikely that this defense will hold water here.

Utah's voucher program is ill-conceived and poorly executed. The pro-voucher lobby has misrepresented the facts and ignore glaring problems in the program. Hopefully, Utahns will demonstrate how great our public school system is and vote against Referendum 1.

"Ringy-dingy"

In case you can't tell by the content of my many ramblings, I am generally in favor of the government getting involved in regulating private industry. However, because of the crazy rantings of an Alzheimer's sufferer who is now the undeserving namesake of countless government buildings, people think that I'm stupid for tolerating the large government bureacracy. What they don't understand is that for every overweight lazy bureaucrat suckling at the teat of the American taxpayer, there are many overweight lazy private employees suckling at the teat of the American consumer. Fortunately for both groups, Americans generally have two or more teats.

Many people seem to think that the government would function better if it were run more like a business. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "If I ran my business like the government, I'd go out of business!" I've got news for you: you do.

The government is not one single entity. It is actually many different entities that usually operate completely independent of each other. Rather than think of the government as one huge entity, think of it more like GE - America's largest corporation. GE has many divisions that operate in many varied industries from jet engines to NBC. No doubt, GE also wastes millions of dollars a year because of inefficiency, has many indifferent or even corrupt employees, and has difficulty keeping their stockholders happy.

A more personal example of this happened a few years ago when I needed to get prior authorization from my insurance company for some medications. Through the course of more than a week, I made countless phone calls, was on hold for many hours and almost didn't get the medicine I need to stay healthy. And this wasn't even that large of an insurance company!

In fact, at this very moment, I am listening to a story of someone who needed to get a car insurance claim processed by State Farm and had a very hard time getting it done.

Really, it doesn't matter if the organization is private or public, the result is the same - the larger it gets, the more inefficient it gets. That's just the way of things.

So, to all of you Reaganites that long for smaller government and less regulation of private industry (especially deregulation and loosening of antitrust laws), I ask you to imagine a world in which all private industry is consolidated in one bloated whole. Imagine trying to get your money back then.

"I'm afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer."

The presidential primaries are now getting into full swing several months before the primaries even begin. The candidates are well on their way to leaving Lady Liberty quite unsatisfied. I've decided it's time I said something about it.

I have little to say about the Democratic side of things. I like Hillary, Barack, and John (Edwards, that is). Any one of them would make a fine candidate and they all have policy positions that I can respect even though we may disagree a bit.

However, the Republican horserace seems to be disproportionately filled with asses. I don't hate all the candidates equally, but I do have a favorite and a most hated. However, the middle candidates (McCain, Huckabee, Brownstreak, I mean Brownback, Paul, etc.) are really too insignificant to make a difference, so screw 'em.

I happen to agree with the polls on who should be the frontrunner for the nomination (from a Republican point of view): Romney. He's smart, charismatic, relatively experienced (historically, governors make better presidents), white and rich. He just has one problem: he's a Mormon.

Mormons have historically been discriminated against by members of other Christian faiths because of their unique beliefs. Countless media have been produced on this subject, so I won't belabor the point here. This discrimination and stigma still exists today. Romney's presidential run has brought over a century's worth of feelings about Mormons to the forefront of public discourse. In both an effort to combat this stigma and seizing a great opportunity to increase dialogue about their faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) is going to release a number of ads aimed at calming others' worries about the religion.

Having a personal stake in how the LDS Church is perceived in the media, I actually look forward to opportunities to change other's negative stereotypes about Mormons. However, this must be done carefully in order to avoid a negative impact on the LDS Church.

The stated position of the LDS Church is one of political neutrality. It does not endorse candidates or parties, and as much as possible tries to stay out of government activities, while encouraging members to participate on an individual basis. In my opinion (look out!), this position is both prudent (to avoid losing tax-exempt status) and doctrinally sound (there is more than one way to promote Christianity and obeying the commandments). My concern is that unless the Church is careful about how and where it strikes at ignorance, it may appear that the LDS Church is endorsing the candidacy of Mitt Romney. If the Church only runs ads in states or areas where Romney needs a little boost, that could be perceived as an endorsement. Or, if he wins the primary and the Church steps up its ad campaign it could also appear that the LDS Church is implicitly endorsing Romney.

I hope that during this election and, [ugh] the possible Romney presidency to follow, the Church can handle its public relations in such a way that it can avoid such negative perceptions. Failure to do so could cause serious damage to the reputation of the Church, and call into question the individuality of its members. Reasonable people can differ about how to apply their beliefs in their own lives, and I don't want other people thinking that I only think what my church tells me to think.

I said that I had both a favorite and a least favorite candidate for the Republican nomination. It's clear that my favorite is Romney (heaven forbid we should live in the days of the Brownback Crusades), but my least favorite is Giuliani.

Do I want to live in Rudy Giuliani's America? I'd rather be raped by an entire herd of buffalo than endure one second of listening to that horse's ass.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir?" "Indeed I do, only I seem to have left it on your mother's nightstand."

This will be the first of many posts in the next two weeks about how totally retarded Utah's proposed voucher law is. My main quarrel with the voucher law is that it reflects an attitude of either defeat or contempt for public schools. On the one hand, legislators and some citizens might feel that public schools are no longer functioning and must be supplanted by the private sector. On the other hand, another group (possibly consisting of the same people as the first) feel that public schools are indoctrinating our children in evil ways, teaching them to be godless, hateful, and liberal.

Both of the above attitudes reflect bigotry and blindness about public schools. While it may be true that in other places (cough, Mississippi, cough) their school systems aren't as good and that drastic changes are necessary. However, in Utah, our school systems are doing pretty darn good (in spite of being grossly underfunded). We have many high schools that rank in the top 500 in the country. I am the third of six children to graduate from Davis High School (in Kaysville) and 5 of the 6 have attended or graduated from college or graduate school (the sixth isn't old enough yet). Our public schools are doing just fine, and if anything, need additional funding, not less funding.

As for the other group, those who hate what is being taught, I say, screw off. Public schools teach the curriculae given to them by the school district and state legislature. Both of those bodies consist of publicly elected officials who are responsible to the people. If you don't like what is being taught, either elect new officials, or get a religious exemption to certain teachings. If that isn't enough, home school them or send them to a bigotry, I mean, private school but don't expect the state to foot the bill. It's your problem, you find a solution.

So choke on that.

The Constipation Party, Part I

I'm going to be honest: I really hate the Constitution Party. I hate what they stand for, I hate their logic and ironically, I hate their bigotry. However, rather than just make those blanket statements and go on to raise ire against them without actually making any arguments (cough cough, Sean Hannity), I am going to take the key points of their platform and refute them using actual logic, reason and evidence! Let's get to it.
The Mission Statement of the Constitution Party reads as follows:

The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

My first quarrel with this statement is that they believe that creating a one-party system is advantageous. I categorically disagree with this idea. The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances so that power could not be consolidated to the detriment of the people. That worked for about 10 minutes. Not long after the Constitution was ratified, the Founders (no, not shapeshifters bent on dominion of the galaxy) formed political parties to gain support for their respective views of government. While that is a natural progression of politics, it unfortunately allows for circumvention of checks and balances (if you don't believe me, please look at how well the system worked from 2001-2004) . No matter what, I like to see some give and take in politics which doesn't seem to happen in a one-party system. (I do acknowledge that this criticism would probably extend to the "mission statements" of almost every political party.)

My second quarrel with this statement comes from this line:

and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

First, "American" jurisprudence came (and still comes) largely from British jurisprudence, not the Bible. If you doubt me, just Google, "Blackacre." (The "Bible" has really only existed since King James and British jurisprudence goes back much further than that.)

Second, I'm not sure if they understand what "common law" is. Common law is the concept of looking back at similar cases when deciding current ones. For example, if historically courts have treated the house as property of both spouses independent of who pays for it, then modern courts will use that rule in deciding cases.

This is completely different from statutory law. Statutory law is based on laws, or "statutes" passed by a legislative body. Statutes supersede common law. The Constitution is a statute. So, if they are using the traditional definition of common law, they are saying that the Bible should supersede the Constitution. While that may not sound like such a bad idea to some people, I believe that it is. It is very difficult to turn the principles of the Bible into viable jurisprudence. How do you codify, "turn the other cheek" or "love thy neighbor as thyself"?

Additionally, the United States is not a theocracy. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids the creation of a theocracy ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."). Maybe the Constitution Party thinks that the Amendments weren't supposed to be part of the Constitution. Or maybe they're just stupid.

We live in a religiously diverse society in a country founded on the rule of both statutory and common law. I believe that this is what the Framers sought to create and I'm proud of the many great Americans who have helped keep it that way. The Constitution Party seems to have made it their mission to undo all of that. Fortunately, they are too small and insignificant to be effective in their mission. Thank heaven for the FEC.

(I admit that this post is a little more juvenile than my usual fare. However, it is still a step up from what I was thinking of doing, starting with the title, "The Constant-pooption Party." Now that would be quite a party!)

"You can't fool us. We're from the 'Learn to Fart' state. "

I have long been bothered by so-called "patriots" who display the American flag in disrespectful ways. Since (the) September 11th, Americans have been showing their solidarity and patriotism by more prominently displaying the American flag. I am not opposed to this; quite the contrary. I like to see people develop a sense of solidarity and unity. America is great because great and everyday people have worked hard to make it that way. Our flag is a symbol of that.

However, there are some people who don't appear to fully understand the significance of the flag as a symbol. These people allow their flags to be dirtied, faded, mutilated and destroyed, yet continue to display them. I'm talking about people who display flags from their cars. We've all seen them, the small plastic versions flying from a plastic pole attached to the top of a window. Flying flags from your car subjects them to the elements and winds exceeding 60 mph, causing them tear and fade. If you really want to show your support for our country, don't do it by mindlessly destroying the flag. Give it the proper respect that it deserves. Display it on the inside of your car or find some other way of showing your patriotism.

Or maybe you could vote once in awhile. Either way.

For the record, I support our Constitutional right to burn flags, which I see as an entirely different issue.