Oh you mean like

buying votes - (http://wasatchwatcher.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=313),

push polls - (http://wasatchwatcher.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=268),

fake "town hall" meetings -
(http://www.wasatchwatcher.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=303),

giving us enron style accounting justification -
(http://www.wasatchwatcher.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=322),

and threatening the U for releasing a report on vouchers - (http://www.wasatchwatcher.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=323).

Before voucher supporters start telling us about brainwashing they need to take a deep long look in the mirror..

Or maybe voucher supporters just don't call it brainwashing...instead they call it winking - (http://utahamicus.blogspot.com/2007/11/uncle-don-miller-on-utahs-referendum-1.html).

Wow - what a condescending piece.

"rational, fair arguments"

And then he says:
"If you doubt the ability of parents to act in the best interest of their children, you may want to vote against vouchers."

Yes yes - that's a rational and fair argument.

How is insulting people who don't agree with us rational and fair?

"If you believe the increase in private schools will further fragment Utah society, you may consider a negative vote."

Ah, yes, another rational and fair argument.

"But if you do vote against Referendum 1, you should be aware that you are voting for the status quo in Utah education as well as a somewhat higher future tax burden."

Oh, and yes, the "boogeyman" argument. Don't support the status quo - support change - no matter the consequences. So, even if the voucher program is not perfect (or even good) - support it, because it changes the status quo - which is bad.

I will agree that the status quo with regards to education is bad - but do we go and vote for change just for the sake of change?

Is that a rational and fair argument?

So basically, the rational and fair argument is that if you're opposed to vouchers, it's because you don't trust Utah parents to act in the best interests of their school aged children.

And, if you are opposed to vouchers, it's because you believe that private schools will fragment Utah's society.

And, of course, if you oppose vouchers - any future property tax hikes - are YOUR fault.

Please - this guy is a professor? Of what? Propaganda?

Read the circular funding route in the bill. The district loses $3800 in MSP forever. They get mitigation monies making up the difference from the voucher for 5 years, an average of $17-1800 for five years. They are not "made whole!"

AND 90%+ of the money remaining in the district is already tied up in capital construction costs and teacher salary. That money is not cookies that can be "redistributed" around the rest of the class. Schools lose money EVERY voucher, even with the mitigation money.

I have a mailer from this week in my hand claiming $1 billion savings and touting the $7500 - $2000 = $5000. All provable lies, but hidden in the roundabouts of the bill or PCE's bogus USU study. Click my name and see blog from Nov. 2.

UtahTeacher,

Where do you get your facts? I read the USU study and thought it gave some very true and interesting points and remains neutral. No one has been more manipulative in this whole race than the UEA. I know that both sides have done their fair share of stretching the truth but PCE has only been fighting to keep up with the competition. And why do we not trust those that almost definitely know more than we do about the issue. The legislators that decided to pass the bill had studied this option for years and while I don't think they ever came near a conclusion that is perfect, they did come up with something that will create a small change for the good. All the economics professors that I have talked to or heard from are saying that this would be largely beneficial to the financial side of the issue which makes it very hard for me to give any credit to your claims.

You're telling me that you read this study from the research section of PCE's website:
http://www.choiceineducation.org/documents/USUTuitionTaxCreditStudy.pdf

You read in the Executive Summary on pg. 6 that they estimate the marginal cost per WPU in 2002-2003 was $8675...when the actual WPU for that year was $2116 and their capital-cost-including “total per student” was just under $6000? I quote:

“But, this is then also the value that state and local districts can be expected to save from public school appropriations if a single student leaves a publicly funded school...This figure significantly exceeds per student spending...This is to be expected and is a natural result of school district managers doing their job well.”

Huh? I'll agree that school districts are more efficiently run than the state gov. gives them credit for, but creating "magic money" through efficiency? State funding was about 56% of total funding in 2005 and I am assuming somewhere in that ballpark in 02-03. So even accepting their premise that when a student leaves the school, a given district can stop paying over a thousand dollars worth of committed teacher's salary and stop using another thousand dollars committed to ongoing construction, where does the extra $2675 come from? Whatever these economics professors have told you, I don't accept a $1 billion dollar savings based on creating money out of thin air. I would call those claims fraudulent.

The claims of "saving" the difference between the voucher and $7500 are deceptive for the same reasons. Local bonds are almost completely committed to fixed construction costs. The bill only saves the state MSP, about $3800 this year. For 5 years of mitigation, the district receives the difference between MSP and average voucher, estimated $2250. The cost of the voucher is put back into the Uniform School Fund, NOT local districts and the withheld MSP after the 5 years never leaves the Uniform School Fund. http://le.utah.gov/%7E2007/bills/hbillenr/hb0148.pdf Lines 309-315.

The bill is dense legalese. The study is 149 pgs. The only reason more people don't question the funding is because no one reads the materials.

The economics are always confusing in these types of debates. So here are two facts:
1) Tax payer dollars will directly support religious institutions.
2) Private schools legally discriminate against accepting students they don't want (whatever the reason).

And that makes me go "hmmmmmm".