Saturday, January 28th, 2006...7:47 am
A Missive From One of the Legion of R-Cubed Fans
Funny how many people read this blog. I recieved a note from Barrett Marson, who works as the Director of Communications for the Arizona House of Representatives:
Tedski, I read your blog every day and do so love it. You may remember me from being the legislative reporter from the Daily Star for a couple years and also remember that I left to join the ranks of the PR.
Anyway, you have said several times that the corporate tuition tax credit is a “massive tax give away,” and that is not the truth. The tax credit is applied against what a company owes the state. So, if ABC Printing owes $500,000 in income taxes to Arizona, it can decide to give $500,000 to a tuition organization and nothing to the state. Or it can give $250,000 to a tuition organization and $250,000 to the state. However, it is not saving one red cent. Its stockholders, owners or employees get no financial benefit from sending the money to an STO versus the state. The company owes the exact same money. It’s just a question of where that money goes. Also, the state would save money because the company’s dollars would pay for a child’s education. The money would follow the student. Children not in public schools would obviously not receive the $5,000 or so that the state spends per pupil. Now, if yer just havin’ fun and spinning it the other way, by all means, go ahead and keep spinning away. I love honest debates. So be honest. You can still be intellectually honest and have fun at someone else’s expense. Its just better when its true. I still enjoy reading your stuff. I just like it when you are right.
Thanks and have a good weekend.
Barrett Marson
Director of Communications
Arizona House of Representatives
Ouch! Got me there.
To be fair to Mr. Marson, he’s got a really difficult job selling this thing. He was given a pig and some lipstick, and his employers expect him to enter it in beauty contests.
As to the my characterization of the credit as a “give away,” he is correct that this would be money that the buisinesses would be spending the money anyway. Point taken, it’s not like this money can go to paying for a trip to Vegas. Although, since the money is not going into the general fund, and the money is going to something the corporation wants to do, in a way it can be called a give away. For example, if XYZ Inc is donating $200,000 to a STO regardless of the credit but then claim it, is it a give away since the money would have been spent anyway? If the Republicans can call not cutting taxes a ” tax increase”…
However, I’ll go ahead and stipulate to Marson’s argument. Can I call it a “massive wealth transfer” instead?
I’ve got a couple of reasons for this one. For one, my understanding is that the credit applies to a donation to any school’s scholarship program. This will be a boon for already well-endowed schools in Phoenix and Tucson that have a high profile and the mechanism for asking for large donations. The Brophys and St Gregorys can raise a lot of money with this, whereas less well known and newer schools would not benefit. The lion’s share of this money would go to schools that are already well heeled. Schools in smaller and poorer communities without a large corporate presence could recieve no benefit at all.
Notice that this money will go to schools that don’t serve the community, English language learners, that this bill is supposed to serve. Full disclosure: I attended St. Gregory High School, a private Episcopal school here in Tucson, on a scholarship even. I don’t remember a single English language learner being served by our school, although we had some students who said “like”, “harsh” and “bogus” too much. There is nothing in this bill to encourage these schools to start English language learner programs in return for taking the donations to their STOs.
Even with the lower $50,000,000 cap on the credit, this still blows a pretty large hole in the budget. The argument was made (even more strenuously under the first, “uncapped” bill) that we shouldn’t assume that everyone who can will take the credit. As we saw with Alt-Fuels (not that long ago, really), to plan correctly we should assume that everyone who can will take the credit. This is where the figure of $850,000,000 came from in the original bill.
So, that is $50,000,000 that is not budgeted for. So, where does that money come from? In the past, the legislature has had two solutions to budget shortfalls: cutting programs entirely or mandating that local governments take over responsibility. So, this $50,000,000 could be made up for in longer lines at when you want to get a driver’s license, overcrowded lower division classes at ASU or maybe even higher local taxes. It isn’t a cut, but to make up for a reduction in money recieved from corporate taxes, working families will be asked to make up the shortfall.
Ironically, the money could come from cuts in ELL and ESL programs…
Still unaddressed are the other problems with this bill. Even without the credit, the bill sets up a poorly concieved system to meet the needs of English language learners. It seems that this is just an excuse for the Republicans to set up a tax credit that they have not been able to sneak by the Governor before.
18 Comments
January 28th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
You’re too nice about this Ted.
The plan is basically corrupt. It is indeed a “massive tax giveaway” to private interests. How many more times do we need watch crony capitalists selling their supply-side crap to the public before we can call it what it is? How many more times do we get to watch money come out of our pockets and out of our communities only to flow to wealthy private interests such as “tuition organizations” and end up in the campaign coffers of corrupt Republican supply-side crooks?
Mr Marson, sell your snake oil somewhere else. The wealthy don’t need welfare, our public schools do. Stop shilling for the fat cats and their selfish, greedy, destructive agenda.
Resign, get a real job, get a life, give a shit, or GO AWAY.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I’ve got to go with Slim on this one. It takes money out of state coffers, dollars that could go to our public schools, and channels it to Brophy or some other madrassa. It stinks.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Mr. Marson pretty much says where that $50m shortfall will be. in his letter, he states, “The money would follow the student. Children not in public schools would obviously not receive the $5,000 or so that the state spends per pupil.”
That 50 million dolllars going to private schools will be made up in cuts to public schools “since those children are not in public schools.”
So we’d better hope at least 10,000 ELL students take advantage of that credit.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
There are two scenarios. First the Public Schools of Arizona are producing a superior product. If this is the case they have nothing to worry about because not that many parents will really want to send their kids to Brophy or St. Gregorys. So many students will stay in the government (sorry public) schools that they will have plenty of money left.
The second scenario is that the government schools are providing such a mediocre to poor educational experience that once given the chance parents will send their kids almost anywhere else. The kids will flee faster than rat getting off of a sinking ship.
The first case is self correcting, enough kids stay, plenty of money left. In the second scenario, why would you want to keep funding a program that the people it is intended to serve don’t want or value the service ?
January 30th, 2006 at 9:14 am
It never ceases to amaze me how little people like ‘johne’ understand the way the world works. Johne assumes this is a perfect world and 1) everyone who wants to go to Brophy and St Gregory’s can or will get in, 2) these parents who are dying to get their kids into those schools have the time and the means to get their kids there every day, 3) those kids who get stuck in public schools either want to be there or don’t care enough about education to want to move (ergo, it’s their own fault if they’re ignorant).
First, I would think these free market people would be the first to recognize that high performing schools like B and St.G are that way because they have a highly selective admissions program. In other words, they cherry pick the smartest and most talented students. They aren’t likely to change that behavior with the addition of vouchers. Accordingly, not everyone who wants to send their kid to these schools will get them there.
Second, many, if not most, of the parents of children who are in public schools cannot afford to drive their children to those schools every day. In case you hadn’t noticed, johne, private schools rely on the parents to get their kids to school. So, kids in Buckeye or Mesa would have to travel over an hour every day to get to Brophy. I’m sure similar analogies could be made for St. Gregory’s. That obstacle alone is enough to prevent kids from using vouchers, even if they had them.
…and i’m not even talking about RURAL areas. Pray tell, johne, what do those kids do for an education?
Finally, as Ted said before, we need to properly fund and elevate ALL our public schools if we expect even the lowliest of children to be able to function in this society and 21st century economy once they become adults.
January 30th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Anonymous, you make some good points but none of them answer my central question. Why not leave it up to parents to make the final decision where their kids go to school. In the rural areas where there are few options most kids would stay in the public schools and if vouchers were in place the money would stay in the public school with the kids.
Say a parent in Mesa was not able to drive to Brophy but wanted something different than the local public school. They may want to send their kid to a local Christian school. What is wrong with that if the child does better at that local alternative to the public school ?
Your final statement that we need to properly fund and elevate our schools is fine. Why does it only have to be the public schools ? What is it about public schools that is so sacred that the money cannot follow the students to whatever school the parents and student choose ?
Is the point of funding education to educate children or is it to protect a huge government bureaucracy from competition ? You said that Brophy and St. Gregorys “cherry pick the smartest and most talented students.” Why are these students leaving the public system in the first place ? If public schools are so great how come the smartest and most talented even consider leaving ? What about the rest of the kids ? The ones who aren’t the smartest or most talented, must they be forced to stay in the public system ? Not everyone can get into Brophy, but some may want to attend a non-public school down the street from the public school you want to force them to attend. Are only the rich and well connected entitled to educational options ?
January 30th, 2006 at 10:45 am
There are 2,300 charter schools in the U.S. and over 500 of them are in Arizona, I have a hard time believeing that the family in Mesa couldn’t find one nearby. You can’t throw a rock without hiting a charter school in this state. I went to both public and private schools growing up. The years that I went to private school were ok. The class size was small, and the teaching was ok but nothing special. All of the students came to school fairly prepared for school, and that meant that the teachers didn’t really have to be all that stellar. We were going to learn anyway. The main reason that my parents chose those years for private school was for the religious education. They knew that if they wanted that, then they needed to pay for it themselves. I think that all this talk about private schools needs to be a little bit more honest. People who are pushing this want to pay for religious instruction using community funds.
PS - all the real Tucsonans know that Special Projects High School is where all the best and brightest went.
January 30th, 2006 at 10:54 am
oh, last post was a different anon from the above anon….
January 30th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Yeah…Special Projects…It’s now called University High School…and its a public school that routinely graduates Flynn Scholars, National Merit Scholars and gets its graduates to the best colleges.
It has even produced one of this year’s congressional candidates…I’ll try not to mention her name…:)
January 30th, 2006 at 10:56 am
If there are so many charter school options in Mesa than what is there to fear from vouchers for religious schools ? What is wrong with religious education if the parents choose that for their children. If the state and the super-state (the Federal Government) drive God out of the public schools, thus installing the region of secular humanism, should not people of faith, rich and poor, have options for their children’s education ?
Are you saying that it is fine for wealthy believers to send they kids to a religious school but poor believers are stuck going to the local god-less public school ?
January 30th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Tedski is correct; University High is a great program. The true test of greatness is competition. Let vouchers follow the students and then see where the parent and kids choose to go.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
johne,
Your questions suggest an argument that relies on a fundamental misunderstanding - that there is no way to improve public schools, so we should just abandon them and let the private sector do its job.
First, I do not think that anyone (certainly not myself - anonymous #1) believes that the public schools are the best they can be right now. But it does not follow, that becuase it needs improvement, it should be abandoned.
Why, you ask, should we work to improve public schools instead of letting people choose their own private school? Because the community (read: all of us are in this together, whether we like it or not) needs an educated citizenry to survive. We need a good public education system the way we need good public road system. Because we cannot do it on our own.
We do not need to fund private schools because that is a job for the “free market” to provide. The mistake people make in this argument is that their tax dollars should follow their child. The taxes we pay are not for our own selfish benefits, but for the benefit of the community.
And finally, there are many reasons why children leave the public school system, including primarily religious reasons. Why should a child who is Jewish or athiest have to turn to Catholics or Episcopalians to educate their child? And why should we have to fund it?
January 30th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
johne -
I guess you really didn’t get the memo on this. It said, SCREW YOU, YOU DISHONEST, DISINGENUOUS, MEAN-SPIRITED ASSHOLE! WE WILL NOT SUBJECT OUR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION TO DEGRADATION BY YOUR TRANSPARENT, FUNDAMENTALIST, SUPPLY-SIDE AGENDA!
Signed,
Gov. Janet Napolitano
If you want to show that you sincerely care about educating our kids, why not propose vouchers that don’t take money away from public schools? That would be great! It would provide the school choice which you pretend to care so much about, plus, it would reduce the burden on our public schools and allow them to put money into many of the things that they currently struggle with, like buying pencils.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Reply to all,
You are the ones who don’t get it. One person wrote, “it does not follow, that because it needs improvement, it should be abandoned.” It has already been abandoned by large parts of society that used to support the public schools. Go visit Pusch Ridge Christian Academy, Casas Christian School, Catalina Foothills Church, etc. One person wrote “Why should a child who is Jewish or athiest have to turn to Catholics or Episcopalians to educate their child?” Smell the coffee, it’s about Evangelicals. The schools I mentioned above have a new building put up each week that I drive by (small exaggeration but not by much.)
Hey, my kid turns 3 this month. This is not my battle, I am just an observer stating a fact. Middle to upper-middle class Christian families are making other arrangements. I went to a fund-raising dinner last year at a Christian school and they raised (voluntarily) about $100,000 in one night. They actually are doing fine without state money. But be clear, since their kids are not in the public system, they are not highly motivated to fund it. Sorry to sound crass but people are not eager to pay for a service that they do not want.
You said, “it would reduce the burden on our public schools” What is the burden ? Educating a kid ? If the kid goes to a non-public school then there is one less burden for the public system to deal with. Sure, some money will leave the public system and follow the child to a non-public school but then the public school just had its burden lessened.
Slim, how am I being dishonest ? You called me a lot of words but I am being very frank and clear about my position. Also, your “CHILDREN’S EDUCATION” has already been degraded. Don’t take my work for it, check the AIMS scores. It’s all on the web - http://www.ade.state.az.us/profile/publicview Many of the scores are quite low for Category 1 student, those who are English proficient.
You can attack me and call me names but that will not change the facts.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:22 am
Anonymous #1 you are correct that “it does not follow, that because it needs improvement, it should be abandoned.” It also does not follow that because a system can be improved that you should force poor families, because they have no other economically feasible option, to send their kids only to a public school. Even if it is abandonment, why not let the parents make the choice. If parents want to send their kids to a non-public school then it is they who have abandoned the public system not me or the GOP. Let each individual family choose what they think about the public system. If it is worth saving and fixing people will stay. If it not worth it people will leave. The great thing about vouchers is that it empowers the people. Is that not democracy in action ?
If this is really about the rich then means test the vouchers. Poor people are eligible, rich are not. Or have a sliding scale. Poor get $8,000/yr. per kid to spend at any school they want. Middle class get $4,000/yr., rich get a voucher for $100/yr. so they can fill their Volvo XC90 gas tank once or twice as they drive back and forth from the foothills to central to drop their kids at St. Michael’s.
A voucher system in not about abandoning the public schools it’s about providing choices to underprivileged children (it does little or nothing for the rich since they already have the money to send their kids where ever they want.)
February 1st, 2006 at 12:30 am
Hey slim, here is a memo for you.
Send a big fat check to Toni Hellon because if she losses to Al Melvin in the District 26 Republican primary the State Senate will be one vote closer to overriding the Governor’s vetoes.
Signed,
Constantine
February 1st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
john e -
You either didn’t read my comment, or you’re the dishonest Republican shill you appear to be.
You want vouchers? You want choice? Great! Me too! But not at the expense of public schools.
Decreasing the number of children in a school doesn’t decrease the overhead of keeping the lights and the air on. How can you even talk about taking money away from public schools in the name of “choice”, when teachers are paying for classroom supplies and school buildings in poor districts are crumbling from lack of maitenance.
Vouchers! Vouchers! Rah! Rah! Rah! Uncrowd the classrooms! Set the children free!
Come on John! Our dream coalition is waiting for us! The only thing standing in the way is Republican insistence on paying for it out of money for the public schools.
February 1st, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Whoa! And just to underscore the hypocrisy and cynicism of Republican Conservative Compassion(TM), the US House cut $16 billion from education today. That’s $16 billion less for your voucher proposal, john. Man, there’s gonna be none of them children’s behinds left pretty soon now.
But I’m sure it’s all in the plan. We just need a little more discipline and accountability. Those AIMS test scores will have to come up sometime. We’ll show those ungrateful little rats. We just need to cut the budget a little more.
Leave a Reply