Why I Support Vouchers for Rich People

I posted earlier about the lame mailer from Utahns for Public Schools. I want to expand a bit on why that seemed so lame, and why I think vouchers for rich people are a great thing and why I think they'll help everyone--even especially the public schools.

It's all about Oreo cookies. :) According to Steve U., if we have a switch rate over 1%, we'll save money with the voucher system. Money saved means more money available to allocate to public schools. But suppose that we DON'T see a greater than 1% switch rate. In this case the voucher program will "lose money." I have to put that in quotes, because I don't think paying for education is losing money.

You see, ANY switch rate, no matter how small, will mean fewer children in public schools and more resources available per student. (That's true even if we end up spending more money from the general fund on this voucher experiment.) It is in our best interest to encourage people to take children out of the public schools if they are able to bear that burden. It really can benefit all the children who remain. Anybody chanting the chorus of "smaller class size" should concur with this argument.

It may be true that vouchers won't help poor kids get into private schools. Many budgets are just too tight to spend extra money for things that could be had for free in the public system. But suppose the voucher is the needed incentive to get 1% of rich people currently in public schools to switch to private schools. Voila! We will then reach the point where the vouchers are a net financial gain for the public school system. At that point, we're actually helping ALL the public school kids, poor or rich.

We do lots of things with taxes to create incentives for businesses. We do this not because we want to subsidize the business, but because we want to incentivize behaviors we like. We want businesses to server people in poor areas. We want businesses to build in struggling parts of the city. None of these incentives are inappropriate for a local government in my view.

The argument that we shouldn't give vouchers to rich kids--even when doing so will help poor kids--is to cut off our nose to spite our face. I'll be voting in favor of referendum 1.

Spiteful: Utahns for Public Schools Ad

I received an incredibly petty ad in the mail from Utahns for Public Schools. Perhaps you did too. Since it illustrates a point that been bugging me about the voucher debate for a while, I decided to address it--not because I believe anyone reading this is available to be swayed in the voucher debate (we've become pretty well informed here in the bloghive), but because I want to make a broader economic point.

In summary, the ad says, "Since every kid can't make use of a voucher, nobody should get a voucher." This is spiteful.

Should we insist that because every adult can't get a Pell Grant (they are only for people below a certain income), nobody should get one? Should we say that because every company can't compete for government aerospace contracts (you have to be a big enough company--and in the aerospace business--to get one), that no company should get government aerospace contracts? Would we insist that no one can use cell phones at home because some people live too far from a cell phone tower to get reception?

If I'm not harmed because you get a benefit, I should rejoice in your opportunity. Utahns for Public Schools does the opposite. This is spite. The ad preys on this worst base emotion that is truly counter-productive. It is the emotion that says, "If I can't finish first, no one else can finish."

[Note: I tried to find a link to this ad on the UTPS website, but I only saw their video ads linked there. If you've got a link, I'd love to add it.]

Chief Justice John Roberts at BYU

I got the opportunity to attend the forum lecture by Chief Justice John Roberts at Brigham Young University today. The forum was well-attended; from my vantage point it looked as if almost all the regular seats were taken, with very little spill-over to the bleacher seats. When the Chief Justice entered, everyone stood--not an honor given to most forum speakers, at least in my memory. During the preliminary business, one thing stood out to me--Justice Roberts sang along with the opening hymn "Praise to the Lord". I thought that was a nice touch.

Justice Roberts began his talk by referencing President and Sister Samuelson's beginning-of-the-year devotional talks. In his address, President Samuelson asked BYU students to read a book about the Constitution of the United States. Justice Roberts "assigned" more reading--the Constitution itself. The bulk of his address focused on the Constitution and the intent of the founders in mandating the separation of powers. The founders knew it would inefficient to have federal powers held in three separate groupings (the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary), but they preferred it that way, anyway, seeing the separation as a check against the kind of tyranny they had rebelled against.

Even for all that, the judiciary does not have the type of power the other two branches of the government have (neither "the power of the purse nor the power of the sword" he quoted during the Q&A following the forum). Justice Roberts told a humorous story about how the first federal building built in Washington DC, was the White House (executive). Then the Capitol Building was completed (legislature). And the third building...was the Patent Office. The Supreme Court didn't get their own building until 1935--before that, they met in the basement of the Capitol.

Justice Roberts spoke about the United States Constitution has endured for 220 years. Although it has grand words and lofty ideals, that alone does not make it important. Without an independent judiciary to enforce those grand words, Roberts said (he may have been quoting), they are nothing but a cruel joke. The court case of Marbury v Madison established that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the Supreme Court interprets that law. This power underscores the need for an judiciary that is unafraid to make unpopular decisions, without fear or favor.

According to Justice Roberts, our country is unusual in that we only have ONE Supreme Court. Other countries may have a Constitutional Court in addition to other courts which settle tax, civil, and other types of cases. Justice Roberts sees that as a definite advantage, in that the justices don't spend all their time contemplating lofty notions and esoteric ideals. Many of the cases they decide have real-time consequences, and this keeps them grounded.

He finished his address by encouraging the audience to read unbiased histories of our country. Praising James Madison, fourth president of the United States and key framer of the Constitution, Justice Roberts recommended the Federalist Papers as a good place to start reading up on the Constitution.

As an example of a modern counterpoint to James Madison, Justice Roberts praised Rex Lee, Supreme Court litigator and past president of BYU. Rex Lee "balanced family, church, and private and public service". Justice Roberts told a story about a case he argued before the Supreme Court against President Lee. When he told his client that the ruling was unanimously against them, the client asked "Why did we lose 9-0?". Justice Roberts replied, "Because there are only nine justices."

Justice Roberts' remarks were interesting, informative, and amusing. He mentioned Utah, BYU, or Mormon pioneer history several times, giving his address a local flavor that was enjoyable. The audience gave him a standing ovation, and the applause lasted several minutes (the Chief Justice seemed a little embarrassed by this, but it was well-deserved.) This was one of the best forums I've attended.

Hiram Bertoch: Utah Voucher Flyer In My Mail

A blogger who doesn't normally comment on politics has put up a reaction to a flyer he received in the mail from Parents for Choice in Education.

Utah Voucher Flyer In My Mail

It doesn't appear that Hiram allows comments on his blog (which looks bad in Firefox, BTW), so you're welcome to comment here if you like.

Feeling Like a Mormon Democrat: Yet Another Voucher Post

I'm not a Democrat, but being a voucher supporter in Utah may be the closest I'm going to get to feeling like a Mormon Democrat. You're embarrassed to be on the same team with certain other people on your side of the issues, but you stay because that's where your convictions lie.

Honestly, I haven't read many positive things about Parents for Choice in Education. They don't seem to be running a clean campaign. Yet they are on the right side of the issue. I'll pull the lever for vouchers because they are a good idea, not because I'm pleased with the way they've been marketed.

Even if vouchers end up costing the state more money, that would be more money spent towards educating kids and I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. (Aren't people always saying we should be spending more on education?) However, I suspect that vouchers will save money for the state and that that savings can be used to increase per-pupil spending in the public schools.

To be honest, I don't understand why public school teachers don't like the idea. Surely, the student population in Utah will continue to grow, meaning that the vouchers will only slow the growth. I don't think there is even a remote possibility that vouchers will cause a public school to close or shrink due to lack of enrollment.

After having looked carefully at the issue (as a non-lawyer), I have absolutely no worries about the constitutionality of the voucher measure. It is clearly legal under the Utah constitution. A reading of the Utah constitution that would prohibit vouchers would also prohibit payment of salaries to government workers who would pay tithing on that money. COL Takashi put a terrific analysis of the issue in a comment on a blog and now I can't find it. But I was thoroughly persuaded.

Anti-voucher arguments about government subsidies are also totally bogus. We've made a decision as a society to entirely subsidize the education of children. That ship has sailed. With vouchers, we're letting some people volunteer to chip in some extra money toward the education of their own children rather than having the state pay the whole bill. I support vouchers because they addresses the unfairness in our current system that some parents pay for the education of their children twice. Rich or not, that isn't fair. Let's fix it with vouchers.

Harry Reid at BYU

I just returned from watching Harry Reid present a forum address at BYU. I really liked his presentation. In the introduction by President Samuelson, we got the usual rundown on life history and previous church callings. I was surprised to hear that Senator Reid's church callings included only High Priest Group Instructor and Home Teacher. Either lots of callings were left unmentioned, or Senator Reid's public service has limited his opportunities for church service. I don't mention that by way of laud or jeer, but only to say it was interesting.

Gerrit Gong, an official at the university, spoke in a devotional a while back and related the following story that I was reminded of today.

We have all had experiences where we tried to be helpful and weren’t. I once arrived early for priesthood meeting. Thinking I could help ready our classroom, I erased the blackboard dense with writing. As he began our lesson, our dedicated instructor said, with surprise but without criticism, “I came early and put our lesson on the board, but somehow it’s been erased.” The class turned out fine, but I remember the forbearance of our priesthood teacher who, incidentally, is today’s U.S. Senate majority leader.

Harry Reid had taken a lot of heat among conservatives for his comments about losing the Iraq war at the time that Brother Gong made his remarks. It served as a reminder then that even when we disagree with someone, they rarely wear a hat that is all black. Today's address by Senator Reid served as a similar reminder.

Brother Reid talked about the challenging moral conditions that surrounded him as he grew up and the near reverence that his non-religious family had for FDR. After relating some touching stories from his life, including how he eloped with his wife and gained the love of his Jewish parents-in-law, he turned to the "Mormon Democrat" question. He provided a simple and familiar list of reasons he believes the ideals of the Democratic party are in line with Mormon beliefs. His first applause line came when he referred to the Iraq war as a foreign policy blunder. He received his second applause line when he acknowledged that some people view it differently.

The crowd was very respectful as I had hoped. He enjoyed a hearty welcoming applause when he stood up, and a small percentage of the audience gave him a standing ovation as he finished. Thanks to Brother Reid for spending some time with us. If you would like to view the address, you can catch it on BYU-TV for the next two weeks or so. (You have to skip in about five minutes on that link to get to the actual forum assembly.)

Campaign Finance Folly

I'm steamed about campaign finance laws that limit the amount of money people can contribute to political parties or politicians. They are an affront to the constitutional protection of speech. (I fully support mandatory disclosure of donor names and amounts.) People trying to get around the artificial limits on campaign contributions have resulted in a host of undesirable effects.

John Fund passed along a report that renewed my frustration. People feel the need to concoct all sorts of shenanigans to circumvent the absurd campaign finance laws.

Mr. Hsu later became one of Mrs. Clinton's top bundlers--powerbrokers who collect many small donations for delivery to candidates. He brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars to her and other Democratic causes. The Wall Street Journal reports that many of the contributions came from "people who had no prior history of political giving or obvious means for paying."

Take the Paw family of Daly City, Calif., which is headed by a mail carrier who makes $49,000 a year. Members of the family have given almost $300,000 to politicians, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, since 2004, often on or about the same days that Mr. Hsu gave money. The U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether any Hsu donors were illegally reimbursed for their contributions.

I regret that we've created a market for people like Hsu. Reports are now coming in that Clinton will return all the money associated with Hsu. She shouldn't have to, but she really has no choice.

Of course, John McCain is a mastermind behind this reform. It will give me pause in supporting him if he is the GOP candidate.

Baptizing Illegal Immigrants

I was quite surprised to read the following in an extended draft[1] of a biography of President Spencer W. Kimball.

For Spencer to express an opinion baldly and expect compliance was rare, but years later Francis Gibbons remembered such an incident because it was so unusual. In a joint meeting of the First Presidency and the Twelve to consider whether illegal aliens should be baptized, some of the brethren supported the position of not baptizing illegal aliens. After hearing all the views and the reasoning behind them, President Kimball said, “I think they should be baptized.” That ended the discussion.

I think I would have been among those arguing the opposite position, but an essential part of my faith is seeking to recognize and follow those whose spiritual vision may exceed my own. President Kimball was unquestionably such a man.


[1] Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball (Working Draft) by Edward L. Kimball, chapter 4 page 3. This version of the book is available on the CD that accompanies the printed version of the book and was also distributed to BYU Studies subscribers.

Shifting Views on Education?

I just read, in the online magazine Slate, a fascinating article about teachers and the slowly changing perception the public has about them:

High-pressured and punishing—of such macho qualities is social cachet often built in the world of work. Nowhere in Tyler Heights or Stuyvesant, in Perlstein's and Klein's portrayals, do you hear anyone touting the familiar (female- and family-friendly) perks of the profession: the long summer months off, the seasonal breaks, the 3 o'clock dismissals, the heartwarming kids. Teachers' unions never get mentioned, nor do bonuses. The scene is more reminiscent of, say, the Union army, beset by struggles and squabbles within the ranks, yet striving to make slow headway on divisive home ground.

It is precisely the draining rigors of the job that are intrinsic to teaching's appeal, helping it shed its schoolmarmish taint, suggests Fortune in an article about TFA's popularity. "The program has been likened to a domestic Peace Corps, with long work hours and much emotional demand, so it's not for the faint of heart."

Read the whole thing--it's fascinating, and indicates that the exhausting, draining, but hopefully rewarding reality of teaching may actually start getting a little respect in the world.

A Relieved Reaction to the Sen. Craig Story

Today at work I saw the breaking news headline splashed across the top of the CNN.com website. "Sen. Larry Craig is stepping down from his committee assignments amid calls for his resignation from the Senate." I started frothing at the mouth in annoyance because I assumed that the partisan environment in Washington was driving these calls for Craig's head.

"How dare those Democrats who excused Bill Clinton's behavior peep a word about Senator Craig?"

I clicked on the first story, and to my immense relief, found that it was Republican senators--not Democrats as I initially assumed--calling Craig on the carpet. There is nothing in politics that bugs me more than excusing your own team's failings while condemning the same failings in your opponents. What a relief to see, at least in this instance, a departure from the usual partisan blinders.

Note: I don't know anything about Sen. Craig. I am making no defense of him here.

Smart Aleck Aside: I'll be waiting for those on the social left to be coming to Craig's defense with demands for tolerance of his alternative lifestyle. After all, who are the rest of us to tell a man it is wrong to cheat on his wife?

The Giuliani Dilemma

If Rudy Giuliani were the GOP nominee, I would have a difficult time pulling the lever for him. I'm totally creeped out by his personal life. There are those who would argue that the personal and the public are totally separate. I'd disagree with them.

Or maybe not. I've been watching the documentary "Liberty: The American Revolution" and I must admit that I'm not totally comfortable with all the things the patriots did and said. Benjamin Franklin is on our money, but fathered several illegitimate children. Would I vote for Ben Franklin if he were running today? I honestly don't know. I'm not sure where that leaves me with Giuliani either. I'll be watching and pondering.

KSL's confusing story about Israeli and Muslim Scouts

The headline: Israeli Scouts Don't Attend Planned Meeting with Muslim Scouts

A well-written headline--all the pertinent information present, right? There was a meeting planned, the Muslim Scouts showed up, the Israeli Scouts didn't.

The actual story under the headline is somewhat less well-written. Actually, it's rather confusing:

A very unique scouting event took place in Salt Lake this evening, but what was supposed to happen afterwards, didn't. Israeli Jewish scouts and Utah Muslim scouts did not meet.

Utah scout leaders had wanted the young people from Israel to meet a Salt Lake Valley troop of Muslims, but only their leaders came.

Utah Scouting stepped into international relations when members of the Friendship Caravan from Israel performed. The young men and women are Israeli scouts who tour the U.S. every summer.

These performances were supposed to take on interfaith importance, but they didn't. Apparently, this show of patriotism was a bit too much for the Muslims.

The Mulsim (sic) scout leaders, Palestinians, said it was nice to meet the Israeli scouts, but did not bring their young people.(emphasis added)

So, the style and construction of the headline seem to imply the Israelis didn't show. The second paragraph is just ambiguous. The last sentence makes it sound like it was the Muslim scouts that didn't show up. I'm still unclear on what happened, but apparently one scout group stood up another one.

Or something.

(I really don't care whether the Israelis or the Muslims were the no-shows--I have no comment about the religious/political subtext that probably underlies the event. All I know is the scout troops could have been Shakers and Wiccans, and it would still be a poorly written story.)

Hatch and Bennett on Immigration Bill Cloture

Tomorrow the U.S. Senate will revisit the immigration bill by voting on a cloture motion. If 60 senators vote "yes", then debate will resume and the bill comes ever closer to passing--a very bad idea in my opinion. The bill is long on rewards for illegal behavior and short on enforcement of current laws.

At any rate, Utah's senators haven't decided how they are going to vote in tomorrow's motion (as of Monday morning, when I spoke to their Washington office staff). If you are interested in this motion either passing or failing, you should consider giving them a call (or sending them an email) to register your opinion.

Senator Hatch: (202) 224-5251 email

Senator Bennett: (202) 224-5444 email

Trousers and Self-Deception

There is a judge suing a dry cleaner over a lost pair of pants. I'm sure you've heard about his $54 million suit against the dry cleaners. A blogger was interviewed on Olberman's show and MSN put up the video of the interview. He explained that the aggrieved party actually got emotional recounting his turmoil over the past two years, going so far as to ask for a recess whereupon he left the room with tears in his eyes.

Obviously, the emotions this man is feeling about his lost pants are real. But what is their root cause? I'm rereading C. Terry Warner's book Bonds That Make Us Free. It is one of those seminal works for me that changed the way I view the world and myself.

Warner teaches us that a lot of the feelings of anger and resentment that we have are evidence that we've deceived ourselves and are treating others inhumanely. As I listened to the blogger talk about watching this angry man in court talking about his pants, I couldn't help but conclude that he is trapped in negative emotions that he has unwittingly caused himself.

Early in the book (p. 23), Warner explains self-justifying stories.

We cannot betray ourselves without setting in motion all manner of emotional trouble. This is demonstrated by the experience of a businessman named Marty, in his early thirties, who told the following story:

The other night about 2:00 A.M. I awoke to hear the baby crying. At that moment I had a fleeting feeling, a feeling that if I got up quickly I might be able to see what was wrong before Carolyn would be awakened. It was a feeling that this was something I really ought to do. But I didn't get up to check on the baby.

The matter did not end there. Marty didn't quickly forget about this small episode. He couldn't have simply forgotten about it. Here he was, a man expecting himself to get up, thinking that his wife would benefit from his doing so, and knowing in his heart that it was the right thing for him to do. And yet not doing it. He had to deal with this dishonorable situation somehow. But how? How could someone like Marty get away with not doing what he knew he should do?

The answer to this question is very important to understand. Somehow, Marty had to minimize the obligation he was placing upon himself, or in some other way make it seem right not to do what he felt summoned to do. He had to find some other way to rationalize his self-betrayal.

Marty continued his story:

It bugged me that Carolyn wasn't waking up. I kept thinking it was her job to take care of the baby. She has her work and I have mine, and mine is hard. It starts early in the morning. She can sleep in. On top of that, I never know how to handle the baby anyway.

I wondered if Carolyn was lying there waiting for me to get up. Why did I have to feel so guilty that I couldn't sleep? The only think I wanted was to get to work fresh enough to do a good job. What was selfish about that?

From the instant he decided not to get up, Marty began to make it seem as if what he was doing wasn't his fault. ...He noticed irritating or difficult elements of his circumstances, such as Carolyn's failure to wake up. Maybe she was only pretending to be asleep, he thought, waiting for him to get up and take care of the problem. Such matters hadn't even crossed his mind before the self-betrayal. But now he suddenly could think of nothing else. He remembered things he would otherwise have forgotten entirely, such as Carolyn's not having changed the baby just before putting her to bed.

So here is the mental situation he created for himself: Just seconds before, as he had awakened to his infant daughter's crying, he had focused on the baby's need and , if only fleetingly, on the possibility of saving Carolyn from the inconvenience of having to get up. But now he focused on himself.

The feelings of frustration and anger that we feel are real, that's for sure. The surprise is that we are the cause of those feelings. The lie is that others are forcing us to feel that way. There are times when people abuse us, it is true. But we heap injury upon ourselves when we react in an accusing way. We only hurt ourselves more by hating!

I suspect the man suing over pants to the tune of $54 million is "stuck" in negative feelings and he probably doesn't know how to escape. If you talk to him, mention this book, would you?

Congressional Car Selection and Fuel Economy

Dana Milbank, in a Washington Post column last year, zinged several lawmakers for driving gas guzzling cars to events within easy walking distance of their offices. With gas prices back in the news this summer, I thought the article was worth digging up again.

Here are a few of the cars listed that Senators and Representatives had for trips across the street or a block away.

• Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chrysler LHS (18 mpg)
• House Republicans caucusing about gas prices, 8 Chevy Suburbans (14 mpg) idling outside the meeting
• Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), GMC Yukon (14 mpg)
• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Nissan Pathfinder (15 mpg)
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Ford Explorer (14 mpg)
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Lincoln Town Car (17 mpg)
• Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Chrysler minivan (18 mpg)
• Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Toyota Prius (60 mpg)
• Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Dodge Durango V8 (14 mpg)

There are lots more in the article, and Milbank has a lot of fun spinning them together.