Jordy Blog

Binding Utah Delegates to McCain

I blogged that this was happening, and now it’s happened.  I liked David’s Garber’s summary of the Utah GOP’s delegate bait and switch so much that I got permission to post it its entirety:

———————————————-

It’s official! This morning, by a vote of 70 supporters to 12 opponents, Utah’s state Republican Party’s Central Committee voted to adopt a proposed new “standing rule” that would apply a new twisted interpretation to our party’s by-laws–an interpretation that will now bind our state’s set of Republican national delegates to vote for McCain rather than Romney on their first national convention ballot.

Here is the precise text of this new standing rule:

Standing Rule

This Standing Rule has been adopted by the State Central Committee of the Utah Republican Party and shall be a binding rule of the Utah Republican Party unless and until superseded by a change in the Constitution or Bylaws of the Utah Republican Party, or by a subsequent standing rule adopted by the State Central Committee expressly revoking or modifying this Standing Rule:

It is hereby ruled by the State Central Committee of the Utah Republican Party that:

1. An ambiguity exists in the meaning of “the candidate” as it is used in Bylaw 7.0 (B) that is sufficient to have generated public controversy among Party members over the meaning and effect of Bylaw 7.0(B); and that

2. Each reference to “the candidate” in Bylaw 7.0(B) is hereby interpreted to mean a person who is a candidate for nomination on the first ballot at the National Convention at the time of that ballot, according to the rules of the Republican National Committee and any rules adopted by the National Convention; and that

3. Bylaw 7.0(B) does not require that the Utah National Convention delegates and alternates be allocated to or bound to vote on the first ballot for a person who does not meet the definition of candidacy defined in part 2 of this Rule; and that

4. Bylaw 7.0(B) does require that the Utah National Convention delegates and alternates shall be allocated to and bound to vote on the first ballot for “the candidate” as defined in part 2 of this Rule, who has received the most votes of the statewide vote in the Utah Republican Presidential Primary.

RULED this 23rd day of August, 2008, by the State Central Committee of the Utah Republican Party, meeting in South Jordan, Utah, in the presence of a quorum.

Funny that they never noticed this “ambiguity” before–they seemed pretty clear about what it meant during our state convention when they tried to have this rule suspended.

I wrote this story for some friends on MySpace to try to explain what happened:

Utah’s GOP Leaders Defeat Utah’s GOP Rules

This morning marked the end of a long war between Utah’s GOP leaders and Utah’s GOP voters/delegates/rules over whom our national delegation will support at our national convention next week.

Utah’s GOP Primary: “Okay, it’s time to vote, Utahn Republicans! Which of these candidates do you prefer to become your next President?”

Utah’s GOP Voters: “Well, 89% of us reckon that we prefer that conservative-talkin’ LDS guy with the nice hair!”

Utah’s GOP Rules: “According to us, based on these primary election results, Utah’s Republican national delegation will be bound to cast 100% of their votes for Romney on their first national convention ballot in September.”

Mitt Romney: “Meh, my Presidential campaign is hopeless, with McCain’s friend Huckabee drawing votes away from me. So, I’m suspending it and becoming McCain’s biggest cheerleader, instead. *buttsmooch* I now want all of my national delegates to vote for McCain to the extent that the law/rules will allow. Now, what is thy bidding, my master?”

John McCain: “Muhahahahahahaha!!! Now, more than 51% of all national delegates will be voting for me! Next, I want to assimilate the other 49%, as well, so that I can enjoy a big everyone-loves-McCain-fest in September. Hey, Utah, gimme yours!!!”

Utah’s GOP Rules: “Sorry, McCain, but we don’t allow that–they’re bound to Romney, as the voters decided, and that’s final.”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “Whoa, not so fast, you darn rules! No worries, John, we won’t let those pesky rules stop us from getting you whatever it is you want. Hey, state delegates, we need 2/3 of you to vote to suspend these annoying party rules so that our national delegates can be free to vote for McCain, instead.”

Utah’s GOP State Delegates: “Wait, you want us to throw out our rulebook and nullify our primary? Just to please that awful McCain?! HECK, NO!!!”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “Dang, this won’t be as easy as we’d hoped. Darn those state delegates! Why must they be so devoted to those silly party rules rather than us? Hmmm, we need a different strategy to deliver those votes to McCain…”

Utah’s GOP Rules: “Forget about it, guys. As long as it’s up to us, Utah’s national delegates MUST cast their first set of ballots for whichever candidate received the most votes in Utah’s primary election. And that was Romney by a landslide. Sorry.”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “Hey, that’s it!!! We’ll just redefine what the meaning of the word ‘IS’ is! Er, ‘candidate.’ Let’s see, hmmm… Let’s say that ‘the candidate who received the most votes in our primary election’ does not apply to candidates who suspend their campaigns once the primary election is over! So, although Romney was initially ‘the candidate who received the most votes’ with 89%, since he suspended his campaign, he no longer counts–and, so, McCain has now became ‘the candidate who received the most votes’ with only 5%. Once we pervert these rules, those darn rule-respecting Utahns can follow them AND still give us what we want! Why didn’t we think of this devious scheme sooner?!”

Utah’s GOP Rules: “Hey, that’s not what those who wrote us meant to…”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “SHUT UP!!! You’ll mean what we say you mean! Now, central committee, we need you to vote to approve our new screwy interpretation that we’ve invented so that it will serve as a new standing rule for our party.”

Utah’s GOP Central Committee: “Okay, 85% of us say, hey, whatever you want, boss.”

Utah’s GOP Leaders: “Hurrah, we won!!! Eat that, voters and delegates! As you can see, your votes only count when we like the outcome. We, not your silly rules, are the supreme power in this party! Bwahahaha!!!”

So, in less than two weeks, despite the fact that 89% of Utah’s Republican voters wanted Mitt Romney (not Juan McCainnedy) to be their next President, and despite our party rules that we all assumed would bind our national delegation to support our primary election winner, our national delegation will presumably vote for McCain, instead, thanks to these underhanded machinations of our party leaders.

I’m tempted to produce some sort of flier about this subject, mass-produce it, and then deliver a copy of it to every likely voter in my area. Unfortunately, I’m too broke at the moment to spend much at any copy centers. But I hope that some of y’all will consider doing something like this, though. Our Republican neighbors need to know what schmucks are running their party and, unless they hear it from us, they may never hear it at all.

———————————————-

I also liked these comments from Lowell Nelson:

The new “standing rule” passed 70 to 12. It binds the Utah delegation to the convention-election candidate who received the most votes in the primary election. But it was introduced as a clarification (not a change to a bylaw), and passed with a simple majority instead of the two-thirds required to amend a bylaw. Dishonest. Lacking integrity. Sad day for the GOP and the Utah electorate…

Thus, in my view, party leadership was able to CHANGE Bylaw 7B WITHOUT proper notice and WITHOUT requiring a 2/3 majority vote. In doing so, they arbitrarily determined that the second-place finisher in the primary was also the second choice of the electorate (which is illogical to me). Effectively, this change repudiates the will of 265,000 Utah Republican voters and a majority of the state delegates, and replaces it with the will of a relatively few party leaders.

It wouldn’t have been so bad if delegates had been released to vote for whomever they liked, but this political chacanery to force Utah GOP delegates to vote for John McCain (who got less than 5% of the vote) is nothing short of political BS. Worse still is that the results of this “standing rule” created as result of political expedience will have long-reaching effects perhaps not considered by the State Central Committee.

If you liked this post, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Utah to Monitor Gas Prices

The Deseret News is reporting that Governor Huntsman has ordered the Utah State Department of Commerce to monitor gas prices.

That’s just politics as usual, but I’m alarmed by how many people here in “conservative” Utah are commenting that they want the government to step in and “do something” rather than just “monitor”. It’s like we’re all living in some fantasy land where socialism works…

Attention people: price controls only ruin your quality of life. Prices that are artificially low cause shortages, and shortages mean hoarding, rationing, and long lines at the pump. Some days you just won’t get any. Do you seriously want that?

We should be thankful that the State is only “monitoring” for now. Ideally it wouldn’t be monitoring at all, because that’s a slippery slope –especially because political motives are involved. Plus, “monitoring” could be easily be done by an activist group or a not-for-profit –and they could do it without spending your tax money. That said, I will be interested to read the DoC report; I just wish it were generated by someone else and on someone else’s dime.

By the way, where were the government monitors a couple months ago when Utah enjoyed the lowest prices in the nation?

Prices fluctuate. If they’re unfair to either party, the market will insure that they become fair. That’s how free markets work. No intervention is necessary; in fact, intervention is almost always counterproductive.

Utah, the nation, and the world need a healthy dose of Econ 101. We shape our governments by our will, and if the voting public is ignorant of basic economics, our stupid will may well lead to our own demise.

I highly recommend Sowell’s Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy to anyone who wants an excellent treatise on economics, especially as it pertains to government.

Bush Signs “Mortgage Relief” Bill

Thank goodness our “limited government” Republicans are here to bail us out of the negative economic results of big government through the use of even more big government.  Socialized housing, here we come.

FISA Vote Tomorrow

One of my friends sent me the following email:

Tomorrow, our Senate will vote on H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which the House of Representatives recently approved. You can read Ron Paul’s observations about this bill here. Please urge Senators Hatch and Bennett to vote against it…

If our “limited government” Republican leadership passes this, they deserve to get kicked out of office.  That said, I shutter to think of the alternative.

Have you contacted your senators yet?

Utah Primaries Today – A Vote for Chaffetz

I had the opportunity to see the Cannon, Leavitt, and Chaffetz campaign speeches at both the Utah County and Utah State Republican Conventions.  When it became clear through successive rounds of voting at the state convention that David Leavitt wasn’t going to win and that even Cannon would probably lose outright to Chaffetz at convention, all sorts of funny business started happening. It was like watching a large wounded animal give its last throws of life before submitting to defeat.

So what did Cannon do?  He colluded with Leavitt to get the votes of Leavitt delegates, which by itself is fine; but in order to get the message to Leavitt supporters, Cannon and Leavitt broke party rules against signage in the conference center twice: the first time by having Leavitt volunteers march right through the convention holding giant Cannon signs, and second by hanging a large handwritten sign that said “Leavitt supports Cannon” at the top of the stadium.  Both acts received tremendous booing from the audience and calls from the Chairman to maintain order and cease the disruptive behavior.

It struck me to see how unprincipled and disparate the two losing major republican candidates really were.  But in the end they got their message across.  The final vote after Leavitt was eliminated was 59% for Chaffetz and 41% for Cannon, with Chaffetz lacking only 9 votes from the 60% required to win the republican nomination outright.

And so, the vote went to primaries, where money and name recognition generally give a major boost to incumbents.  Those primaries are today, and polling suggests that the nomination could go either way.  I’m going to vote for Chaffetz, and if you’re a registered Republican in Utah Congressional District 3, I hope you do too.

Although I didn’t agree with the whole thing, here are some gems from the Chaffetz speech (video):

I believe the best hope for our people, for our families, is to return to those core conservative principles of fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and a strong national defense.  We’ve abandoned those principles…  Republicans had the house, the senate, and the presidency, and quite frankly, we blew it.  We did not do the heavy lifting on the issues that matter most.

When Mr. Cannon took office, the budget was $1.5 trillion.  Today it’s $2.9 trillion.  That’s unacceptable, and we cannot sustain that.  We have a $9.3 trillion debt.  Last year alone we paid $429 billion of interest on that debt.  That cannot stand.

Mr. Cannon voted in favor of No Child Left Behind.  I want to repeal No Child Left Behind; there should be no Department of Education.

Here’s my favorite misleading statement from the Cannon campaign video:

[Chris Cannon]  has told the Federal Government to stay out of our schools.

Well, Cannon may have told the Federal Government to stay out of our schools, but that’s certainly not how he voted.  No Child Left Behind meddles with our schools in unprecedented ways.

If you want to do a last minute check on the issues, here is the Chaffetz platform.

Incidentally, you are also allowed to vote between Mark Walker and Richard Ellis for as the Republican nomination for State Treasurer.  See their campaign speeches here and here.

Get out and vote!

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Yesterday, a leftist pig friend of mine asked what I’ve been doing lately besides right-wing blogging.  Rather than answer his question here (because I answered it elsewhere), I’ll return his jest and just ask: can’t we all just get along?

Here’s a letter from an organization my “leftest pig” friend no doubt admires.  It’s a letter with which I agree 100%.  In fact, this letter is so important that I’ll “waste my time” blogging about it just to make sure that you read it. Are you ready?  I’ve temporarily obfuscated the names of the (sometimes) innocent to keep my “right-wing nut” readers from jumping to conclusions and discrediting the content based solely on the author. Here goes:

Dear XXXX Supporter,

Despite the outrage coming from a broad coalition of concerned citizens, by tomorrow night the House of Representatives will vote on whether or not to gut the Constitution and give immunity to phone companies who broke the law and spied on Americans.

We have to act now. Even if you’ve emailed, called or visited your members of Congress about FISA, we need you to contact them again today.

Congress is moving so fast and so secretively that we only got a copy of this bill this morning. I can tell you it’s horrible. It contains vacuum cleaner style surveillance that sweeps up the phone calls and emails of Americans. And it’s blatantly unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that this is legislation that benefits a few of our country’s largest corporations while taking away basic rights from the rest of us. And it is unacceptable.

I’m going to spend the rest of the day on the phone calling Capitol Hill trying to stop this bill. I hope you will spend whatever time you can to make the voice of freedom heard in Congress — make calls, ask your friends and family to call — please do whatever you can.

Put Congress on notice that the American people don’t want a “compromise” that sells out our rights. Act now. We’re hearing the vote is tomorrow, so we could have less than 24 hours.

Believe me, no matter what happens, the XXXX will continue fighting this — if necessary, in the courts.

Thank you for all you have done through this fight. Your dedication has truly inspired me and all of us at the XXXX. Now, let’s hit the phones!

Thank you,
Caroline Fredrickson, Director
XXXX Washington Legislative Office

What is the name of the “leftist pig” organization with which this “right-wing nut” blogger nut so readily agrees?  Why it’s none other that the ACLU of course; and even though they refuse to defend my constitutional right to bear arms, the ACLU is dead right on this issue –and they’ve been dead right on a number of other issues as well.

So what’s my point?  Too often we turn our brains off when hearing an important message just because it’s delivered by someone we’ve already labeled as a leftist pig or a right-wing nut job.  “Liberals” do this to Bush all of the time.  “Conservatives” do it to the ACLU just as often.  It’s like we’ve been programmed to judge a message solely by the messenger, discrediting the content altogether; and no amount of good logic can compensate for our need to aways agree (or always disagree) with so-and-so.

If conservatives are are always pushing for limited government, why in the world do they want to give big government unlimited access to American citizens’ phone records?  And how is it that the supposed “big government” democrats are the ones fighting against this?  Seriously, think about it.  I think our desire to identify with and support our constituents while disagreeing with and thwarting our political rivals often times inhibits our ability to just use our noodle –and we’re all worse off for it.  (No, I don’t think my good friend is guilty of this sheepery; I just draw on his toungue-in-cheek question to prove a point.)

Anyway, this letter demonstrates an issue that both parties should be able to rally behind.  Government should not be allowed to spy on citizens willy-nilly.  If they suspect a citizen of terrorism and want to tap the wires, they should get a warrant.  These measures are there to protect citizens against a government that, if left unchecked, would in due time become tyranical.

In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

     –Thomas Jefferson (via Quoty)

Please do as the letter suggests and contact your representatives in congress. We don’t need big government to get any bigger.  Because the FISA bill would jeopardize our liberty, both sides of the aisle need to come together and oppose it.

Party Differences in Taxation and Spending

I love this quote from Ron Paul’s most recent installment of his weekly column “Texas Straight Talk“.

While Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much in the long run.

Republicans who are concerned about increased taxation should be up in arms about the present value of future taxation that we make inevitable by letting the government live outside its means. You can’t lower taxes without lowering spending; you can only defer them –and deferring them to a future generation through debt is, in my opinion, even more immoral then overtaxing the current generation.

What is needed (for both parties) is to lower spending. That can be politically tricky since everything government does costs money, and no leader wants to be seen as doing nothing; but nothing is precisely what should be done at least 90% of the time. That’s one of the reasons the Founding Fathers, through a delicate system of checks and balances, made it so hard to get anything done. Yet we often, as voters, reward candidates who campaign on all kinds of ridiculous, expensive plans. (Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!)

Lowering spending, and in turn taxation, requires both that we mind our own business internationally and let people solve the own problems with their own money domestically. Right now neither major party as a whole can agree to do both, so Americans will have to pay the hefty price until we can bring about serious and meaningful change in American politics.

Voucher Supporters: Register Your Discontent

I’d like to encourage everyone who voted FOR referendum 1 to please go to the Parents For Choice in Education website and register as a supporter. If the voucher concept ever resurfaces to sees the light of day in Utah (and I think it will since we only needed to sway an additional 12% of voters), we’re going to need people on the ground to pass out fliers, place yard signs, and host neighborhood meetings in their homes.

There was just too much misinformation out there. The opposition spent millions of UEA dollars to send daily mailers and buy up something like 6x the TV spots, and those anti-voucher ads were full of lies. The only way you can combat that kind of FUD campaign is to have a groundswell of grassroot support, willing to do what it takes to make sure that every citizen has the facts.

Please sign up now so that next time we can know our supporters and better coordinate our efforts. Help us ensure that parent’s choice in education never gets railroaded by union special interests again.

This is not over.

Anti-Voucher Myths Debunked

The following is a response to a comment made on an earlier blog post. I address it here partially because of it’s length, but mostly because I think it would be generally beneficial to lots of people who have doubts about Referendum 1.

@ Clint

Actually Referendum 1 will divert money away from public schools. The money being allocated may not be in the budget but it should be and that is the point. We could use this money to help fix our public schools.

Referendum 1 will not divert money from public schools. Even if it did, it would amount to .0025% of the education budget. That’s nothing, and putting so little money directly into public schools would solve nothing. This is not about the money, no matter how badly voucher haters want you think it is.

It seriously makes no sense to give up on our public school system.

Who’s giving up? Public schools will certainly have their place. Public and private schools are not mutually exclusive.

This money could be going to increase teacher’s pay. If we increased what teacher’s made it would be more of an incentive to go into the education field. We would get brighter and more qualified teachers.

Oh yes, if that .0025% raise goes directly to the teachers (which it wouldn’t), people will be absolutely clamoring for those jobs.

Here’s a real idea: why not create a market for those jobs so great teachers can choose whomever pays the best. A bigger market means more competition among employers, more competition among employers means increased teacher pay, and increased teacher pay together with increased competition means better teachers. Those are economic facts; it’s as simple as that.

If that were the case [that "we would get brighter and more qualified teachers"], we would also be able to reduce class sizes.

This bill will reduce class sizes, and it’ll do it for much cheaper.

Our children do not deserve to just be a number on a roll. We need to emphasize more one on one education and more time being spent on each child.

No kidding. Do you think anyone in the world disagrees with those arguments? Those are not points of differentiation, but as long as you’re trying to differentiate on points that everybody and their dog agrees on, you might think of adding: “No child should be force-fed summer sausages for mere amusement.”

I would argue that Referendum 1 protects your axioms better than the status quo: If any child really isn’t getting enough teacher face time, their parent will have reasonable alternatives so they can vote with their feet. Think about it.

Everyone who is for referendum one wants parents and kids to have a choice. The fact is they already do have a choice.

Exactly, one choice. As Henry Ford said: “The customer can have any color [Model T] he wants so long as it’s black”.

OK, I know you didn’t mean only one choice, but let’s face it: when the public school system limits you to any of its schools, that’s somewhat analogous to Del Taco saying you can eat anything in the world you want as long as you buy it from Del Taco’s dollar menu. That’s not choice.

Why do tax payers have to pay for someone else’s child to go to a private school?

On that note, why do taxpayers have to pay for any child to go to public school? The reason we subsidize education is that a educated populace is in everybody’s best interests. Granting a monopoly the exclusive right to those subsidies, on the other hand, is in almost nobody’s best interests.

But as long as we’re subsidizing, why not do it efficiently by offering smaller subsidies to children whose parents decide their needs are better served elsewhere? It really is that simple. For every poor kid that leaves a public school with a $3000 voucher, Utah taxpayers save about $4500.

Also, why should taxpayers who choose an alternative school have to pay twice? That’s a terrible price to pay to opt out of a system that (nationally) ranks 25th in the modernized world.

But something tells me the labor unions that are out to kill Referendum 1 aren’t really worried about tax increases. Indeed, their true interests lie in protecting their monopoly so as to continue to “own” education in America. This is much to the detriment of any parent who wants anything that’s not on their menu.

But in case it really is taxes you’re worried about, why don’t you take the Utah Taxpayer Association’s word for it? Referendum 1 save you money.

If you want your kid to go to a private school because you think public schools are failing our children then send them.

OK, but that option is currently only realistic to the rich because they’re the only ones who can afford to pay twice. Referendum 1 aims to give poor kids (like the 45 or so percent of Utah minorities that drop out of some disadvantaged Utah schools) the same freedom and flexibility that rich folks have –all by spending less. Would you deny them that right?

Charter’s schools are also a very affordable option for low income families who have given up on public schools.

Yes, but charter schools are not for everyone either. Even if they were for everyone, charter schools are very limited and many have very long waiting lists –so much so, in fact, that many charter schools have adopted a lottery system to determine the lucky few who get in. Are you seriously calling that a choice? If charter schools were already meeting current demand, whence all the outcry for more options?

Furthermore, the very labor union that fought tooth and nail to kill charter schools is now fighting tooth and nail to kill vouchers. In fact, they fight just about every new innovation that might ruffle the feathers of their educational Monopoly. Why climb in bed with them now? Is it because they’ve already begrudgingly conceded a little?

If you like charter schools now, chances are you’ll also like voucher schools: each takes the real decision-making power one step closer to its rightful owner, the parents.

I think the problem with public schools in Utah is they are poorly funded.

Then let’s increase their funding! Nobody is saying we don’t want to invest more in public schools, but let’s also make sure we’re spending our money wisely! If we invest in the entire market rather than just the monopoly, the entire market will be more responsive. But if we invest solely in the monopoly, it’s likely that nobody will be more responsive. Same ‘ol, same ‘ol.

We are taking money away from public schools just by not using this money to improve them.

Again it’s .0025% –almost 0. Even if you could fix the problem by throwing money at it (which you can’t –especially in a Government monopoly) that amount would do virtually nothing. I’ll be happy to put more money into everybody’s education, but I want to see that money create significant change.

The best way to help schools improve is to introduce real competition into the system. When FedEx came along, the Post Office improved dramatically: shorter lines, faster shipping, taller socks –the works. When email started to take off the USPS lowered rates. (But they were going to lower rates anyway, right? Isn’t it always in the nature of a monopoly to “give you the most value for money”? [Sarcasm added.])

Bottom line: increased competition is good for customers. Have you noticed you can buy any color of car you want these days? Education should operate on the same principle, but instead of getting adjustable cup holders and a built in CD player, we’ll get kids who can compete in a global market. Now that’s a sweet deal.

I understand the choice argument you are making. I just think it is misguided. Right now even with the poor funding we get in public schools, our kids can graduate from high school with an associate’s degree. Right now even with the poor funding we get in public schools, our kids can take Advanced Placement courses taught by teachers who are certified through local Universities. Right now even with the poor funding we get in public schools, our kids have every oppurtunity to succeed in our public schools through hard work and study.

Those are all great programs, but what about the 45% of minority students in Utah who never graduate from high school? Think about that number for a minute. Your school in Utah Valley might have served you well, but their schools in West Salt Lake have failed them; and now what is their outlook on life? Certainly something could be done to help those kids, and the answer is not more of the same.

Many of those minority kids would love to get into private school, but who can afford that? Why must the poor kids –the very ones that “free” public schools are meant to help– remain stuck in a system that is failing, especially when we can get them out of that system at no cost to us?

And what about kids who want do go directly into high-paying tech jobs? What about kids who need a dedicated “scholarship counselor” to have any chance at paying for the university of their choice? What about potential nightschool kids who never see their single moms because mommy has to work at night? What about kids who want to excel at anything that is not offered in our public schools?

If you’re saying that every conceivable innovation that might benefit Utah children has already happened in our public schools, you’re dead wrong. There is much more that can be done, and the innovations that will best serve Utah families will take root in an education market that is allowed to flourish because parents have a feasible opportunity to pay for the education that’s best for their kids.

Besides poor funding, another major problem is poor parenting. Having parents involved in a child’s education is crucial. If parents think they can just send their kid to a private school and assume their kid is doing well this is a mistake. Regardless of the school your child attends parents need to be involved and committed to their child’s education

That’s another non-differentiating point that nobody will argue with. Also, “Children can stay more focused when their study environment is kept hornet-free.”

But here’s a though, don’t you think that parents who can choose where their children are educated might be more involved in the system? It’s easy to disengage when you have virtually no choice in the matter.

Plus, I repeat, private schools are no better then public schools in this state.

No better for whom? Can you presume to know what is best for each child in Utah? I think parents know what’s best for their children –not bureaucrats, not teachers unions, and definitely not you.

Furthermore, if private schools and public schools really do test equally, where is the opposition to substituting a $7500 public school expense with a $500-$3000 private school expense. If both give equal results but one costs less, one of them really is better, isn’t it?

But there are many metrics good parents may use to measure up their schools; and although many metrics are academic, many more are not. The night school example was based on a family time metric. The high tech training school example was based on a job placement metric.

But let me push this further since I think it needs to be said. If your kid’s school starts handing out condoms without so much as advising you, might that also be some kind of metric?

Bottom line: Let parents decide what’s best for their kids. We know and love our own kids a hell of a lot more than you or anyone else does, and we are best equipped to make the decisions that will affect their entire lives. It’s a parent’s right to determine how, where, and what their children learn. Denying parents that right is a disservice to everyone, especially the kids.

If even one precious dollar is diverted from our public school system, which is broke down as it is, we have failed the overwhelming majority of Utah children. Yes, taking tax payer’s money to fund private schools instead of public schools is diverting money that could be used to fund our school system.

Its .0025 percent, dude. Freedom is priceless.

Good Night and Good Luck,
Clint.

You too bud. Tell Aaron I say hi.

—–

For more myth-busting goodness, please download this stellar doc. Remember, the polls results are tight, so please get out and vote on Tuesday.

Best Pro-Voucher Ad Ever

It’s easy for normal folks to get lost in an issue with so much rhetoric.

That’s why I was thrilled to get this ad in the mail:

This ad makes it easy for people like my mother-in-law to feel safe in a Parents’ Choice vote, despite claims from voucher opponents that

The real “bureaucrats and liberals” are the subsidy advocates and out-of-state voucher pushers looking for Utah to save their faltering national movement.

and

The issue isn’t about choice, is a liberal subsidized entitlement program that competes for scarce resources.

(Both those quotes come right out of the “against” portions of the 2007 Utah Voter Information Pamphlet, with my emphasis added.)

So, wait a minute… Sean Hannity, Mitt Romney, & Focus on the Family are liberal? What does that make Hillary, Atheists United, and the Rainbow Coalition? Can you ever be so far left that you actually wrap around? Voucher smearers, I think you may have a beam in your eye.

I only wish the pro-vouchers list had included the Utah Taxpayers Association and the late, Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman, from whose stellar essays the voucher bill is based. I think a lot of questions on the fiscal and tax impacts of Referendum 1 could have easily been answered by their inclusion.

BTW, I think that perhaps the dumbest statement I heard at Provo High School’s voucher debate was when an anti-voucher lady (whose name I don’t know) declared that she thought it was offensive that the Choice in Education side was citing some economist when these were Utah’s kids we were talking about it.

Some Economist –> Milton Friedman, arguably one of the greatest thinkers of our time.

Utah’s Kids –> Your Kids