This Needs To Be Included, Unless, Of Course, You Try to Include It
Brad Last ran a bill solely to address arguments raised against the voucher bill.
The bill (1) requires that teachers at voucher-eligible schools have criminal background checks, (2) doubles the amount of money the State School Board gets to administer the program, and (3) deals with arguments that voucher schools might teach unlawful activities. Only 5 Democrats voted for the bill.
Why do you think that is? Is it just that the word "vouchers" was in the title?
I don't believe the vote means that Democrats are in favor of felonious teachers, that Democrats are against providing more administration money, or that Democrats favor Jihad schools. Nor do I believe their negative votes were bought by generous Union contributions. Nor do I believe that Rep. Becker twisted their arms to vote against the bill.
And, I surely don't believe the media will ever ask why today's votes are so seemingly at odds with earlier stated positions that such protections are needed in the law. But it would be very interesting to hear why people think those votes were cast against things many of the "no" voters said they wanted in the voucher program.
The bill (1) requires that teachers at voucher-eligible schools have criminal background checks, (2) doubles the amount of money the State School Board gets to administer the program, and (3) deals with arguments that voucher schools might teach unlawful activities. Only 5 Democrats voted for the bill.
Why do you think that is? Is it just that the word "vouchers" was in the title?
I don't believe the vote means that Democrats are in favor of felonious teachers, that Democrats are against providing more administration money, or that Democrats favor Jihad schools. Nor do I believe their negative votes were bought by generous Union contributions. Nor do I believe that Rep. Becker twisted their arms to vote against the bill.
And, I surely don't believe the media will ever ask why today's votes are so seemingly at odds with earlier stated positions that such protections are needed in the law. But it would be very interesting to hear why people think those votes were cast against things many of the "no" voters said they wanted in the voucher program.
posted by steve u. at 2/23/2007
Subscribe
18 Comments:
Nor do I believe Rep. Urquhart is a sarcastic partisan.
The phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind...
I'm always impressed by the weak, commentors who want to challenge someone who puts his opinion on the web for everyone to read next to his name and picture yet they hide behind ANONYMOUS.
You commentors are weak. There is a reason you are on the losing team on this issue. My suspicion is you are used losing. Most weak people are.
The "lipstick on a pig" comment is right on target. Why is it so difficult for some legislators to grasp that some people (in fact, I would say a majority of people given recent polls) simply do not want their tax dollars used for private education vouchers -- no matter what form they take.
(And Rachel, of course, by using a generic first name, instead of 'anonymous', we know exactly who you are. I wonder how many 'Rachels' there are in the state of Utah?)
Don't get lost here. The Urqmeister presents an intriguing question.
I'd also like to know why they voted against fixing the very things they said were wrong with the bill.
We can all guess, but I'l like to hear something from the source.
Lee?
To anonymous #3 (and #1 and #2 for that matter)my name is Rachel Rodgers, what's yours?
Come out of your cave. It is nice out here in the sunshine.
I think I raised a fair question. The "lipstick on a pig" answer is just snark, not an answer. We're not talking about whether people are philosophically for or against vouchers. Vouchers are now the law. Rep. Last ran a bill to address real concerns that people raised. I'm curious why someone would vote against a bill that fixes things they identified as problems.
I'm assuming that the "lipstick on a pig" comment was intended as shorthand for the notion that, just because a bill has been made less offensive, it may nonetheless still be offensive to a legislator. By its terms, H.B. 174 (the amendment bill) coordinated with the original voucher bill, and incorporated the voucher provisions. For someone opposed to H.B. 148, it does not seem irrational to continue to vote against H.B. 174.
For example, Sen. Hatch voted against the federal ethics bill even after Sen. Bennett fixed parts of it, because Hatch remained disturbed by other aspects. Although I had problems with the weakness (to borrow Rachel's term) of Hatch's arguments against the overall bill, I can't criticize someone for continuing to vote against an amended bill if the entire concept still bothers him.
P.S. I am having trouble getting the site to post this comment. If it shows up three times, it wasn't intentional (I am just one of those weakminded anonymous commenters).
VoU,
I clearly see your point. But all of the other provisions already had been passed and signed by the governor. Maybe that was confusing to some Reps, since all of the language from HB 148 did show up in the bill. I had a few reps ask me about that.
I just find it interesting how polarizing the V-word is, when the actual concept seems less controversial (maybe). We have several other vouchers programs in place (e.g., concurrent enrollment, early intervention, UBSCT remediation) that do not carry the same heat.
And why is it do you think that the voucher issue has generated so much heat and has been so polarizing? Could it be that a majority of Utahns feel completely ignored by their legislative leaders on this issue? Could it be that at least half of Utahns don't want vouchers yet saw them steamrolled into law anyway? Could it be that the vast majority of Utahns value their public schools and don't want to see them ruined by privatization? Could it be that a majority of Utahns are tired of all the name-calling and belittling that comes with this issue (i.e. dubbing hard-working educators 'educrats' and declaring that private schools are simply 'better' with absolutely no proof)? I wonder ...
Steve,
Funny how you are trying the old, "Republicans good, Democrats bad scenario.
The fact is your voucher bill is unconstitutional, so why waste the time.
Why does a separate bill need to be run? Why were these issues not included with the original bill as amendments?
Democratic Senators tried to add several amendments to this bill, but it became obvious that their voice meant nothing to the Republican Senators, especially Senator Bramble who was both arrogant and disrespectful to the Democrats who first asked the questions about felony checks.
These issues should have been addressed then and on HB 148.
But lets face facts, it was more important to ram this bill through than to take the time to fix these issues in a appropriate manner (and to possibly give this bill a second chance for defeat in the House).
So go ahead with your same old tap dance and sad song routine, but the truth is you're feeling the heat, and this attempt to blame Democrats is nothing more than the old cloak and dagger, blame game.
Steve, weren't you on the floor when Senator Mayne asked his questions about the bill? In spite of Bramble's admissions, Mayne's amendment was refused? Wouldn't it be pretty apparent from that point why the Democrats voted against it?
Maybe the floor discussion is incomplete, but I don't see any point where Democrats are voting against a fix for the problems this bill carries.
Why the rhetoric about Jihadist shools? Are Republicans for funding religious education with state money? How does this bill prevent state money from going to an accredited school that also teaches an extremist philosophy?
How about a comment from a teacher?
I do have to wonder why these and other amendments weren't included in the original bill or allowed thereafter. Were the voucher people afraid it would get voted down then?
What is indeed so wrong about having background checks for teachers and such? Since it is using public money, is not this a just demand? Why do we have to wait six years to find out anything? Why are there few regulations with the vouchers? The "vote with their feet" argument doesn't apply so much now because we can also use that as a reason to put less restrictions on the community schools too.
Being realistic, I doubt there will be any jihadist schools in Utah, though that has happened at least once or twice with vouchers already. Will some groups be restricted from forming a school if they don't have a certain political belief? Will voucher schools be just about certain political philosophies?
If one raises questions are we going to just be told, "shut up, it's the law, get used to it?" That's like the "lipstick on a pig" comment in my book.
This is probably the best comment on this:
....a majority of Utahns are tired of all the name-calling and belittling that comes with this issue (i.e. dubbing hard-working educators 'educrats' .....
That's what makes me think vouchers are more about politics and a revenge attack more than anything, based on conversations I've had with many voucher liberals.
AND will someone tell me please when I can have a voucher to adopt a child? I would love to have the same choices that the voucher advocates will have with their children. Then again, I would just be able to love to have the choice of just being able to raise a child.
Truth in politics -
What is the basis for this statement:
"The fact is your voucher bill is unconstitutional"
How is the voucher bill unconstitutional?
Steve, your pregnant question begs for a straight answer. Sometimes unimaginative politicians are finiancally dependent on a narrow political base and needs to be able to endlessly keep the pocket books of their base open. They do that by endlessly spouting the arguements that their base loves to hear. The last thing such politicians want is for a problem, the continuation of which upon which their carreers are based on, to suddenly dissapear. Such politicians may be unimaginative but they are not stupid. Voin Campbell
That's probably the best comment to this post of all. And I'm the one who made the "lipstick on a pig" comment.
BTW "Rachel Rodgers", there are good reasons why some of us must remain anonymous. We work in government, and don't trust The Powers That Be (including the owner of this blog).
I understand that some people have to post anonymously because of work related reasons. However, using the anonymous title to say horrible, personal things IS weak regardless of how you rationalize it.
Be man enough to stand behind your strong statement or soften it to at least a civil tone.
We should be able to disagree and be civil to each other. Your anonymous comments are anything but civil. Step back and think about it.
Why should we be civil?
Post a Comment
<< Home