Posted on 09/06/2002 2:36:16 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
School choice advocates will be watching Tuesday's Republican gubernatorial primary in New Hampshire where one of the candidates says if elected, he'll try to give parents a tax credit for sending their children to private schools.
New Hampshire has neither a state income nor a general sales tax. However, Gordon Humphrey, a former U.S. senator currently running for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, would like to give low and moderate-income parents the chance to use education credits to lower their other state-related taxes or local property taxes.
According to Humphrey's campaign, parents would be able "to take a dollar for dollar credit ... for tuition payments averaging up to $2,500 per child or 80 percent of actual school tuition or home schooling costs, whichever is less," with the state reimbursing towns for any reduction in property tax revenues due to the education credit.
Jim Rubens, senior policy advisor for the Humphrey campaign, said the tax credit plan is more viable in New Hampshire than a voucher system.
Vouchers increase the risk of government bureaucrats interfering in the affairs of private schools, Rubens said. Vouchers also "run up against the Blaine amendments, the anti-religious school amendments in our constitution," he said. The Blaine amendments, inserted into the New Hampshire constitution in the mid-19th century, prevent any public money from going to the school of any religious group.
"We avoid that constitutional problem," Rubens said, "by not having any state money go to any religious school. There is no public money moving to any religious school, but a tax credit being taken by a taxpayer."
However, Mark Fernald, candidate for the Democrat nomination for governor, believes even Humphrey's plan would run afoul of the state constitution.
"Gordon Humphrey thinks he gets around that by doing it as a tax credit rather than a voucher. Our supreme court has said that a tax credit or a budgetary expenditure amount to the same thing. So, I don't think it's going to work," Fernald said.
Rubens said the Humphrey plan would improve the overall quality of education in New Hampshire, a state he said has doubled the amount of education money spent per student since 1980 even while SAT scores have failed to improve over that same time period.
"You have to include private and religious schools in the choice mix," Rubens said, because private and religious schools are not impeded by the extraordinary bureaucratic constraints and barriers ... that apply to public schools."
However, Humphrey's vision of creating more competition for the state's public schools is flawed, according to Fernald.
"[Humphrey's] vision of competition isn't competition as Americans understand it," Fernald said. "Americans understand competition as a level playing field. Tuition credits are not a level playing field.
"If we set up a competition between public schools that have to meet state standards and private schools that are completely free of them and the private schools seem to succeed, is that because they are better or because they were given advantages?" Fernald asked.
While politicians debate the issue, Jeff Philbrick, headmaster of Jesse Remington High School, a small Christian school in Candia, N.H., welcomes the opportunity to compete in an open market.
"Competition in business is standard. If every family had buying power, every school district would be faced with the reality that maybe their school isn't good enough for their kids," Philbrick said.
Humphrey's plan, according to Philbrick, would help parents on low and moderate incomes offer their children greater opportunities.
"Every year we are in a situation where we have to make a decision on a family who is with us and something changes in the income of the family and they can't afford the rest of the year," Philbrick said.
"All the parents who come to me have to pay twice. They pay the education portion of their tax bill and they take their take-home dollars and pay the tuition at my school. So what this should do for all of our private schools is give people a whole new option that was not open to them in the past because of financial restraints."
The Back to School Tax Relief Act, H.R. 5193, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-Colo.), would give American couples with a combined income of $40,000 or less an annual tax deduction of $3,000 for expenses related to K-12 public, private, religious or home schooling.
It would even allow families who use the standard deduction to claim the $3,000 deduction as an additional write-off. The bill passed 22-14 in the House Ways and Means Committee Thursday and is expected to go to the House floor next week.
More socialist wealth redistribution schemes that masquerade under a conservative title.
It most certainly is a redistribution of wealth. Look at it. It is means tested such that those who pay little or no taxes are the ones who reap the benefit. Those with higher incomes pay damn near all the taxes already, and this will only shift even more of the burden onto them. That makes it even more "PROGRESSIVE." Consider that many of the people who pay those taxes don't even have children consuming public school resources, either. It is wealth redistribution, plain and simple.
Of course I would like to see kids get a decent education. That is why I am an advocate of aborting government schools entirely. However, in the mean time, I will not support a scheme to soak the rich and transfer money to the poor. Even if it is advanced by faux conservatives under a misleading title.
Why limit it to low and middle income parents?
Why not just have those with children pay their own way and reduce everyone's taxes?
IMO, it sould be worded, "Those whose children attend public schools shall pay fees to support the schools." No taxes collected for 'education/indoctrination' purposes.
Those who freely choose to send their children to private schools or home school, shall pay their own tutition and costs.
Those who have no children, spend their money as they see fit.
OH GOODIE! I finally found out who it is that decides whether someone is a 'real' or 'faux' conservative! In the future can I run names by you?
It's really a simple test. If they advocate government as a solution to problems, advance programs that transfer wealth or expand bureaucracy -- effectively if they support socialism -- then they are a faux conservative.
The share price of Hershey Foods dropped 4 percent yesterday after a Pennsylvania state judge barred its sale until the court resolves a challenge by state attorney general Mike Fisher. Fisher, also the Republican candidate for governor, wants the court to halt the sale of Hershey by the charitable Hershey Trust, which holds a majority voting stake in the candy giant. The charity seeks to sell Hershey in order to diversify its holdings. Companies expected to bid up to $15 billion on the candy maker include Nestle, Kraft Foods and Cadbury Schweppes.
According to a press release at Fisher's website:
"I am pleased the judge has stopped this sale to give us a chance to raise these issues. We need to step back and take a hard look at how a sale of Hershey Foods would affect the Hershey community," Fisher said. "There is no reason for the trust and its board to rush out and sell this company without allowing me to represent the public's interest and without allowing the court to determine how a sale could hurt this community". . .Fisher's attempt to halt the sale of Hershey has been joined by Republican House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner. According to the AP, Sensenbrenner wrote to Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy J. Murris urging the FTC to "rigorously examine the antitrust implications of any sale of Hershey Foods." Fisher and his fellow Republicans' actions against the Hershey Trust speak the the fundamental intellectual problem within the Republican party. Despite their claim to represent the freedom and individual rights philosophy of the founders, the Republicans accept the ethics of altruism just as do the Democrats. Present your average Republican with a someone in "need" and they would be hard pressed to make an argument against state intervention to relieve that "need." It's no real surprise that Fisher is willing to sacrifice the property rights of the Hershey Trust in the same of the "needs" of the community.. . .Fisher noted that any public sale of the controlling interests of Hershey Foods could have profoundly negative consequences for the Hershey community and surrounding areas, including the loss of jobs and related business and a decrease in the tax base. Fisher said the broad interests of the Attorney General, who oversees charitable organizations, include protecting the public against any social and economic disadvantages that could result from the action of a public charity.
This isn't just a case of "Republican in name only" syndrome—the defects I speak of run deep and infect the vast majority of the party. Even when the Republicans were at their height and squaring off against Bill Clinton during the 1995 government shutdown, they were unable to communicate why the government needed to reduce spending. Instead, their arguments came off as shrill and cruel—and these were the top-shelf "revolutionaries" in the best position to make their argument. Anti-government rhetoric alone is not sufficient to uproot the entrenched position of the state paternalists.
So great is the Republican's collapse that Fisher's assault has barely raised a whimper within the Republican party. On the contrary; moderate Republicans have supported Fisher on the grounds that if he doesn't prevent the sale of Hershey, he won't win the PA governorship. Given his current philosophy, some victory that would be.
—Nicholas Provenzo
Ah, but you have yet to name some elected officials that share your point of view and are satisfactory to you. I may be a 'nutter', but if you insist on the perfect conservative then you will make yourself irrelevant.
Incrementalism works, look at history. The socialists know that Americans wouldn't accept socialism if it was offered all at once, but will gladly accept it (even clamor for it) if dished out in small doses. Think of the general public as a big ship. It can't be turned quickly. When the general public hears 'pure' conservative views, then they get frightened just as if someone tried throwing socialism at them all at once.
Specifically regarding the K-12 vouchers/tax credits: I know this redistributes wealth. No offense, but DUH! Wealth is being redistributed all over the place. But if by redistributing wealth, we can weaken the public education monopoly, then call me a Marxist, I don't care.
Politics is about winning. If you don't win, you lose (I know this concept seems harsh but it's an unavoidable reality). Once you get past the primary, the 'rino' candidate is better than the dem candidate. Sen Jefford's was as good a definition of a RINO as you can display but it HURT the conservative cause when he turned over operational control over the senate to Dashle.
Let me end by pointing out that I don't disagree with your ideals and would very much like to live in your perfect world. Unfortunately, we live in a fallen world (lately even more so) so I don't expect perfection, or even close to it, instead I just vote for the best choice that can win.
Well, at least you are comfortable with the proper label for your political philosophy. Too many people are still in denial and think they can establish liberty by advancing their Marxist agenda and wrapping it in another label.
With all due respect to Mr. Provenzo, what public policy has he changed? When has he been elected? What kind of public support does he enjoy?
This might suprise you but there are alot of people on FR that consider themselves conservatives that would support their elected officials trying to stop a plant/company from relocating (depending upon the circumstances). What if the AG was trying to stop Hershey from relocating to Sri Lanka? Would that make a difference to you?
Being right doesn't mean much when you lose....
Which is why you will continue to validate pro-abortion, gun control, higher taxes, more federal control, heavier federal policing and evaporating liberty until the day you die. Just don't be surprised when the jackboot you cheered on one day stomps your neck on the next.
Well, if the AG was a fasco-communist, then it would make sense. However, in a capitalist system of free enterprise where property rights are respected, one might expect the AG to mind his own property and keep his stinking hands off of other people's property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.