Back to the Wood Shed
House leadership, in a closed door meeting, made the decision to put the controversial voucher bill before the House Education Committee, already stacked with pro-voucher legislators, on Tuesday and then set a time-certain date for Thursday at 10:30 a.m. for the bill to be heard on the House floor.
Leadership reiterated that on Tuesday in the House Replublican Caucus, telling everyone there the bill would be heard on Thursday at 10:30 a.m.
But guess what?
No motion was made in the House on Wednesday to set aside Thursday at 10:30 a.m. to hear the bill that would give parents tuition tax credits for sending their children to a private school at a cost to taxpayers of about $14 million over the next two years.
Why?
Word around legislative halls is that Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, does not have the 38 votes necessary to pass the bill and he won't put it on the floor until he does.
The pro-voucher factions have been working overtime to pressure, cajole and threaten the half dozen fence-sitters into voting for the bill. But the pro-voucher folks don't have a great track record when it comes to persuasion. They put more than a half million dollars into several legislative races last fall and, in the general election, lost every one.
Cheers,
Paul Rolly
Leadership reiterated that on Tuesday in the House Replublican Caucus, telling everyone there the bill would be heard on Thursday at 10:30 a.m.
But guess what?
No motion was made in the House on Wednesday to set aside Thursday at 10:30 a.m. to hear the bill that would give parents tuition tax credits for sending their children to a private school at a cost to taxpayers of about $14 million over the next two years.
Why?
Word around legislative halls is that Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, does not have the 38 votes necessary to pass the bill and he won't put it on the floor until he does.
The pro-voucher factions have been working overtime to pressure, cajole and threaten the half dozen fence-sitters into voting for the bill. But the pro-voucher folks don't have a great track record when it comes to persuasion. They put more than a half million dollars into several legislative races last fall and, in the general election, lost every one.
Cheers,
Paul Rolly
3:37 PM
| 
9 Comments:
Rolly,
Why do you hate vouchers so much?
This post has been removed by the author.
Just sounds like truthful reporting UC. Nothing more.
I send my child to private school and I don't mind paying taxes for private schools. But I find all of this hullaballo fascinating. I make a solidly middle class income, but am a single parent. My one child's full tuition is 30% of my income (I do receive a partial scholarship, but that does not cover uniforms, lunches, extended care programs, or other fees.) The voucher I would be eligible for in the proposed scale would cover 8% of the tuition I currently pay after scholarship(again not taking into account any of those other items.)
So really, let's not pretend that these vouchers would send kids running to private school.
I meant paying taxes for public schools.
If pro-voucher people are saying that vouchers will allow more school choice, lillith just proved them wrong.
A voucher covering 8% of tuition for a family who is already paying 30% of their income to the private school is a joke.
Really, what is the point?
Who are vouchers really going to benefit?
Thanks Allie. You actually asked the question that I was getting to. The scale in this morning's paper put the voucher closer to 20% of what I pay, but apparently I would not be eligible because I have already invested 7 years (and around $60,000 in tuition) in private education. Huh? Only new students will be eligible. I don't understand why only new families.
There must be some agenda here that I am not seeing. Would someone please explain it to me? While I would love a tax credit, it isn't going to benefit me. It is unlikely to benefit new families who can not afford the tuition (even with a voucher). So I repeat Allie's question, who are vouchers going to benefit?
Lilith has exercised her choice, she is NOT paying any extra taxes. We ALL pay for services that we don't receive directly, in fact, the great majority of my taxes is that way. She has CHOSEN to not participate in the system.
Nonetheless, it will be the REST of us subsidizing personal choices for vouchers. And if we ask if we can have a say into how or where the moneys are spent, what will be the answer?
It's also an affront to those who have not been able to have chidren--to tell them--"I need YOU to pay for my children to enjoy extra privileges and my personal choice because my child and I have a "lack" of choice." I wonder how many of the voucher folks would want to subsidize those with no children.
And do not OTHER parents, such as those in public schools have expenses for lunch, clothes, and otehr things too? Why do those with private school children deserve to have their extra expenses subsidized over them? Do not many other parents with children in public schools spend a lot of time with their children too? Why is one entitled to have a personal choice subsidized at the expense of the other?
lillith,
my apologies though. You are the kind of private-school parent who I'd be GLAD to support because you dont' make things too political and do not have to brag how "superior" you are. You sound like a well-meaning parent.
Post a Comment
<< Home