A Split in a Well-Known Lobbying Firm?
The lobbying firm of Foxley and Pignanelli has agreed to represent Parents for Choice in Education and its pro-voucher agenda at the Utah Legislature this year, but only the Foxley part of the firm will be lobbying for that cause.
Doug Foxley, a Republican insider, and Frank Pignanelli, a former Democratic legislator, teamed up several years ago to lobby for clients at the Legislature, using their bi-partisan affiliations as an attraction to clients.
The firm already contracts with Overstock.com, and was recently told by Overstock's owner, Patrick Byrne, he wants his contract lobbyists to also work for Parents for Choice in Education and its tuition-tax-credit cause, which Byrne has heavily funded.
But Pignanelli is known as a public education supporter and worked hard in the recent election for several Democratic legislators who were targeted by Parents for Choice in Education in a particularly vicious direct mail campaign.
So Pignanelli will have nothing to do with the lobbying for Parents for Choice in Education, and will not participate in the compensation paid to the firm for that lobbying contract.
Foxley's role in lobbying for the voucher cause is interesting because it wasn't that long ago that he teamed with the Utah Education Association on a campaign for a ballot proposition that asked voters to approve a heavy tax on radioactive waste, with most of the tax proceeds going to public schools.
Because Parents for Choice in Education and the UEA are at direct odds, Foxley now is the enemy of his former teammate during the campaign for that ballot proposition.
Cheers,
Paul Rolly
Doug Foxley, a Republican insider, and Frank Pignanelli, a former Democratic legislator, teamed up several years ago to lobby for clients at the Legislature, using their bi-partisan affiliations as an attraction to clients.
The firm already contracts with Overstock.com, and was recently told by Overstock's owner, Patrick Byrne, he wants his contract lobbyists to also work for Parents for Choice in Education and its tuition-tax-credit cause, which Byrne has heavily funded.
But Pignanelli is known as a public education supporter and worked hard in the recent election for several Democratic legislators who were targeted by Parents for Choice in Education in a particularly vicious direct mail campaign.
So Pignanelli will have nothing to do with the lobbying for Parents for Choice in Education, and will not participate in the compensation paid to the firm for that lobbying contract.
Foxley's role in lobbying for the voucher cause is interesting because it wasn't that long ago that he teamed with the Utah Education Association on a campaign for a ballot proposition that asked voters to approve a heavy tax on radioactive waste, with most of the tax proceeds going to public schools.
Because Parents for Choice in Education and the UEA are at direct odds, Foxley now is the enemy of his former teammate during the campaign for that ballot proposition.
Cheers,
Paul Rolly
12:42 PM
| 
12 Comments:
Glad to see Pignanelli has some common sense. He's wise to steer clear of Byrne.
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, someone could be supportive of vouchers AND be supportive of public schools? What the hell does a tax on nuclear-waste have to do with vouchers or tuition-tax credits or charter schools or the Carson Smith scholarship???
It's becoming apparent that you suffer from the same disease as President Bush, in that you see everything in black and white. You're either for it or against it.
You also seem to suffer from the same closed mindedness that you're more than willing to accuse all Republicans in Utah County of having.
No wonder you're so paranoid.
Good luck with that.
Vouchers would come out of Public Schools, at a cost greater than the cost saved removing that sudent from the system.
-Bob
Not true, Bob, and for several reasons.
Education costs are largely variable, not fixed as your post implies, and we are not talking about one single student but thousands of students so don't tell us "schools don't save any money when they lose ONE student."
Fixed costs are not a consideration in growing districts like Alpine, Tooele, Nebo, et al because there are no fixed costs with schools that haven't been built yet or teachers that haven't been hired.
In districts with declining enrollment like SLCSD, schools can be consolidated, which has been going on for several years. Therefore, combined with natural demographic-driven enrollment declines and transfers to charter schools, enrollment declines due to vouchers will allow schools to be futher consolidated.
If the fixed cost argument had any validity, then growing districts like Alpine would be harming declining districts like SLCSD. However, the declining enrollment urban districts are better off than the growing suburban districts, especially with regards to property tax increases.
On average, the voucher amount will be less than $3,000 while Utah districts are spending more than $6,300 per student per year (including debt service and capital costs).
Keep in mind also that local property taxes are not tied to enrollment which means that districts keep their property taxes when enrollment shifts to charter schools, private schools, or other public school districts.
Before anyone says "what about people who don't have kids? Where's their voucher?", consider the following.
1. Currently, taxpayers on average -- including childless taxpayers -- pay about $6,300 per student (actually $6,309 in FY2005) in Utah. This includes debt service and capital costs (not normally reported in the media) but excludes non K-12 programs. A voucher will be less than half that amount which is a savings for everyone, including childless taxpayers.
2. The argument that "vouchers are unfair because childless taxpayers don't get a voucher" really attacks the premise of taxpayer funding of education in the first place. If vouchers are unfair to childless taxpayers, then taxing childless taxpayers to fund public education would also be unfair. An educated population benefits all taxpayers, even if the education is funded through vouchers.
It's hard for some to understand things from the point of view of childless couples.
Vouchers are different in that they are a govt. subsidy of a personal choice. I still pay for city lights whether or not I have them. I still pay for city water whether or not I use it. I still pay for most of my taxes in a GENERAL sense whether or not I use it.
But that's not the meat of the matter to me. With that subsidizing of that person's personal choice, one is asking OTHERS to pay for that personal choice. The money that the person "saves" still comes from others since it is a shared cost.
To me and others like me, who have wanted to have children for years and haven't been able to, for those who have the PRIVILEGE of raising children to complain about a "lack" of "choice" and then to expect us to pay for their percieved lack is both insulting and demeaning. They ALREADY have that CHOICE of raising children, the most wonderful choice one could have. I haven't seen anyone in line ready to pay for my "lack" of "choice" that I have been waiting for for 13 long years.
If you have reasonable circumstances and have ever played Santa to children, heard a child's first words, seen a child's first steps, helped a child learn to drive a car, helped a child learn to ride a bike, helped a child with homework, said a prayer with a child, and so on and so on, you have PLENTY of choices that a lot of us who have no children just wish we had and should not be complaining that you don't.
I'll spend Christmas with my little Christmas tree and few little presents under it with my dogs and cats. But I will also be dropping off gifts to many wonderful neighbors. I will be remembering the real reason that I celebrate Christmas and the sacrifice HE made for us.
I also remember the many things I have to be thankful for. I DO hope to have that opportunity and privilege to raise a child someday. I will work towards it and it will be a sacrifice for sevetral more years to make it possible. Nonetheless, I will not be asking for other people to pay for my personal choice, I will do it on my own.
I know that many with children will say this has nothing to do with vouchers. Yet, it has anything and everything to do with it. If we took a little more time to see what we do have than what we don't, then maybe we would complain a little less.
My parents (and my brothers and sisters) already realize(d) they DO ALREADY have a choice on what kind of lives their kids will lead, how they are educated, what values they will be taught, and so on and so on and have determined that THEY will be the biggest influence in their kids' lives. My parents taught us how to deal with situations that would come up and we were able to.
I know it's hard for some with kids to understand the perspective. I have found few that do. When I have that opportunity to raise a child, I will NOT be complaining about it as I will be spending too much time thanking my Heavenly Father and telling that child how much I love him or her and how thankful I am for having him or her in my life.
Only,
You call vouchers subsidizing choice, but all taxpayers -- including the childless -- are already subsidizing the education of children in public schools. Public education exists because most families would not be able to cover the costs of educating their children using only their own finances.
A voucher would simply be a smaller subsidy since the voucher amount would be less than the amount you and all other taxpayers are spending on children currently in public schools.
Since the voucher will be means-tested, most of the recipients will be low-to-moderate income families who are currently not attending private schools. Also, since children from low income families are *generally* more difficult to educate, vouchers won't be creaming the best students.
It is STILL subsidizing of a PERSONAL choice, no matter what one says and another welfare subsidy to boot. The rest of us still pay for the subsidy for someone else's PRIVATE choice.
There's a difference.
The "low-income" argument is used and if it was ONLY geared towards that population, then maybe it might have a lot of merit. Having seen the rhetoric of many voucher liberals over the years, I don't think that's the case.
One forgets that the YEAR AFTER they start attending the private school, the money would be covering those whom tax money would not be spent on otherwise.
Let's work together to make ALL school choice schools.
And still, my other arguments DO stand. I don't see anyone in line ready to subsidize my personal choice of wanting to have a child. The person who has the privilege to raise a child ALREADY has a lot of choice that seems like a distant dream to me at best. To want me to pay for their supposed "lack" of choice is debasing.
What's wrong with subsidizing a personal choice if it is less expensive to you and all other taxpayers than subsidizing children in a government monopoly?
The fact that you don't have children is irrelevant to this argument (even if you mention it a million times) because you are ALREADY subsidizing those who do have children in the public school. With a voucher, it would be less.
The "year after" argument is not valid since if the voucher were revoked, those students would return to public schools where you would be subsidizing those students again.
The subsidizing of a personal choice argument especially works here and your use of "government monopoly" as does my use of certain terms, indicates where our opinions lie. I don't want my tax dollars going to subsidize abortion either.
Then again, I want private schools to remain private entities and not have government money intrude on them.
The fact that I have children is COMPLETELY relevant to this argument, it's just in the normal political ones you see. It's just looking at it in a way that people normall don't. I pay taxes to the neighborhood schools as I do taxes to other entities. However, it becomes different entirely when vouchers are considered. It is STILL subsidizing of a PERSONAL choice. Again, YOU and others have one of the most fundamental basic "choices" and privileges there are--that of raising children. To say that some with children (especially those who are in reasonable circumstances) have some "lack" of choice and then expect others to pay for that "lack" is indeed not good. I have waited many, many years and will still have to wait many, many more to just have the basic "choice" to even raise a child. I'm nota victim, but neither are many who have the opportunity to raise children. I don't expect many to understand my position on this. That you brush it off seems to indicate you don't.
It's just one thing that I can't understand--that some of those who have that wonderful opportunity to raise children complain about some "lack of choice," the responsibility of the privilege, or something else about it. I KNOW it's not easy, but there are many of us who would love to be in their shoes.
The year after argument applies as well as they would not be supported by taxes if they were in private schools normally.
I think we can all work together to make ALL schools choice ones. Let's indeed change our ATTITUDES. It takes a little bit of time and effort, but we CAN do it if we try.
UTA, You are obviously dealing with an emotionally disturbed person in "only the toilet." I'm not sure you will get through regardless of the absolute logic you impose.
PS: I do not want anyone to think I was taking a cheap shot, it's just that based on this persons illogical, off topic ranting I really do think they must be disturbed in some way. It's ok, alot of good people are.
"UTA, You are obviously dealing with an emotionally disturbed person in "only the toilet." I'm not sure you will get through regardless of the absolute logic you impose.
PS: I do not want anyone to think I was taking a cheap shot, it's just that based on this persons illogical, off topic ranting I really do think they must be disturbed in some way. It's ok, alot of good people are. "
And what do you base this on? A few statements that are not in line with certain opinions? This is indeed one ofthe cheapest of cheap shots one could take. But that is okay. Like I said before, I rarely find people who understand it.
My points have been that those with children do indeed have "choice" already, in fact, one of the most wonderful privileges around. To complain of a "lack" of choice in that regard indeed amazing to someone who has waited a long time to even just have that most basic "choice."
Yes, it is "emotional" in the fact that the desire to raise a child is something I have indeed wanted my whole life. For someone with children in reasonable circumstances to say that they have a "lack" of choice and then to expect me to fund that personal choice is indeed amazing to me.
Go to Primary Children's Hospital and try to tell some of the parents there that you have a "lack" of choice and need them to pay for it.
As for "ranting." I am only pointing out a different angle. I DO RAMBLE for sure, but I have tried to refrain from saying things such as someone is "emotionally disturbed" as some would.
Actually, very little of what I have said has been off-topic. It goes to the very core of things, it just happens to be in a different format than we often hear.
We should all be thankful for what we have in life. I have many things I am thankful for. I am thankful that my own parents realized THEY ALREADY had the choice on how to raise us, what education we received, what values we are taught, and what degree of influence they have in our lives. Actually, this has been something present in my family on both sides for generations and it is great to see my cousins and siblings apply it too.
It is especially amazing to me that one can take a cheap shot such as that in light of the holiday season.
I do forgive you though. :)
We can ALL work together in education and in our communities to make a little difference in the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home