Look! No Hands II!
Just when you thought direct political discourse between the governed and the governors was in decline, the blogosphere comes along to make government more accessible than ever. Back to my friend I blogged about on January 5th. Here's the latest.
That's the first I've ever heard about limiting the credit based on financial circumstances. With that change, I'm really warming to the idea. Not because its political reality. Because it is correct.
We recognize, in many ways, that in order to promote the common good, those more fortunate need to help those less fortunate. In other words, those more fortunate bear some inequitable burden in helping those less fortunate. I believe it is well versed in the political and spiritual doctrines and philosophies that guide almost all people. Not only does it promote the common good, it stems certain destructive forces in society. We recognize it in our tax code. We even recognize it in (gasp) affirmative action. 200 billion dollars pledged to victims of the tsunami show that it is recognized around the world, and probably nowhere more than here in the U.S. Now, how much assistance is required and how it is governed is the bigger question and therein is the rub on "unfairness."
I do agree that it is also the political way to extend the program. Start by showing that a) it works and b) it benefits all. Similar to selling a product. The widget works and it provides benefit. In this case though, the benefit can't be to a niche market.
He says more -- including that in the future he'll send short messages on hunting, which I think is a dig -- but I'm not giving him the space. He can start his own blog, if he wants to be a pundit. But I will finish with this thought he shares,
One of the problems is that you guys seem to, bottom line, have to vote "aye" or "nay" on any given issue when the rest of us want to waffle and vote "aye - but" or "nay - but." And, we end up voting out guys, firing coaches, and blasting other "bottom liners" (i.e., people with the guts to make a decision on the record) who are really thoughtful, talented people and see all that we see and more.
I don't see any more than the next guy. But with quality input like this, I'll see much more in the future than I otherwise would have.
UPDATE (1/9/05): Limiting the credit to those of limited means seems to be swaying more people than just my friend. In 2003, I ran SB 154 (Sen. Tom Hatch's omnibus education reform bill) in the House. After it came over from the Senate, Gov. Leavitt promised to veto it, if it had any kind of Tuition Tax Credit (TTC) in it. That effectively scotched TTC that year (because we'd need 50 votes in the House to override the veto), but we still tried to get a majority (38 votes) with TTC in the bill. We hovered around 33, until I started talking about limiting the credit to people of limited income. We pulled another 5 votes with that idea, but the inequality of it caused a few other votes to peel away. Though we likely could have cobbled together the 38 votes, we were not sure of the math, at that time, if the credit were to be so limited. As my friend noted in his 1/5/05 e-mail, a key to success is getting enough "switchers" from public to private schools. On the fly, during the 2003 session, we didn't know if we would get enough switchers by limiting the credit, and we wanted time to work the numbers. We pulled out that component and passed SB 154 (focusing Utah more on the core curriculum and imposing accountability standards). Now, we've done the math, and it's time to pass TTC.
That's the first I've ever heard about limiting the credit based on financial circumstances. With that change, I'm really warming to the idea. Not because its political reality. Because it is correct.
We recognize, in many ways, that in order to promote the common good, those more fortunate need to help those less fortunate. In other words, those more fortunate bear some inequitable burden in helping those less fortunate. I believe it is well versed in the political and spiritual doctrines and philosophies that guide almost all people. Not only does it promote the common good, it stems certain destructive forces in society. We recognize it in our tax code. We even recognize it in (gasp) affirmative action. 200 billion dollars pledged to victims of the tsunami show that it is recognized around the world, and probably nowhere more than here in the U.S. Now, how much assistance is required and how it is governed is the bigger question and therein is the rub on "unfairness."
I do agree that it is also the political way to extend the program. Start by showing that a) it works and b) it benefits all. Similar to selling a product. The widget works and it provides benefit. In this case though, the benefit can't be to a niche market.
He says more -- including that in the future he'll send short messages on hunting, which I think is a dig -- but I'm not giving him the space. He can start his own blog, if he wants to be a pundit. But I will finish with this thought he shares,
One of the problems is that you guys seem to, bottom line, have to vote "aye" or "nay" on any given issue when the rest of us want to waffle and vote "aye - but" or "nay - but." And, we end up voting out guys, firing coaches, and blasting other "bottom liners" (i.e., people with the guts to make a decision on the record) who are really thoughtful, talented people and see all that we see and more.
I don't see any more than the next guy. But with quality input like this, I'll see much more in the future than I otherwise would have.
UPDATE (1/9/05): Limiting the credit to those of limited means seems to be swaying more people than just my friend. In 2003, I ran SB 154 (Sen. Tom Hatch's omnibus education reform bill) in the House. After it came over from the Senate, Gov. Leavitt promised to veto it, if it had any kind of Tuition Tax Credit (TTC) in it. That effectively scotched TTC that year (because we'd need 50 votes in the House to override the veto), but we still tried to get a majority (38 votes) with TTC in the bill. We hovered around 33, until I started talking about limiting the credit to people of limited income. We pulled another 5 votes with that idea, but the inequality of it caused a few other votes to peel away. Though we likely could have cobbled together the 38 votes, we were not sure of the math, at that time, if the credit were to be so limited. As my friend noted in his 1/5/05 e-mail, a key to success is getting enough "switchers" from public to private schools. On the fly, during the 2003 session, we didn't know if we would get enough switchers by limiting the credit, and we wanted time to work the numbers. We pulled out that component and passed SB 154 (focusing Utah more on the core curriculum and imposing accountability standards). Now, we've done the math, and it's time to pass TTC.
posted by steve u. at 1/06/2005
Subscribe
0 Comments:
<< Home