Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz


  • Accident Compensation

  • Save money when shopping online, visit Coupon croc for the latest discount codes and vouchers.

  • See blogs and businesses for USA

  • Southern Utah University

  • Search Now:
    In Association with
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2004

« Economics Roundtable | Main | Some Economics of Neuticles »



I have heard Chris Fawson is a lackey of the Sutherland dunk tank. If so, I question the validity of the study. Some of the problems I have include that the numbers keep getting bigger and bigger and that the "savings" amounts are really not sure. Indeed, the last I checked, the amount had been reduced by a third.

Another thing that is completely false is that it assumes money goes back "into the system." Because educational funding is done on an enrollment basis, if the student goes, that money disappears. No money is left in the system.

As a conservative, I am increasingly concerned about the liberal nature of tuition tax credits. At the very least it represents a subsidy paid by other taxpayers for soneone's personal choice. It is also increasingly being used as the vehicle to promote a liberal political agenda against education in some part by social engineering.

NO ttc's should be given to people already in private schools. Some of the ed-libs that argue for them, do so out of a sense of entitlement or gimmee gimmee gimmee. There are some that say they are "double-taxed," which amounts to a pile of horse m______, for lack of a better term. Those who support TTC's do want others to be double-taxed to subsidize their liberal political agenda. Some of the benefactors will no doubt be those who complained against education the most or continually find fault with it, focusing on the negative, and blaming those gosh-darned teachers for the ills of society. These are other liberal traits. That's what liberals are good at doing.

Utah is supposedly about self-sufficiency. Let's keep private schools private and have people "pay their own way" as opposed to using others' tax dollars to subsidize their personal choices (a reason I don't support taxpayer funded abortions).

Yes, there is the argument about choice. We have more so-called choice than ever before in any level of education. I could go through an extensive list but won't. Each parent has a choice on how his/her child is educated and raised. They should not need a big-government welfare program to provide that. My father and mother certainly realized this. We were all top students. My parents did terrible things like limit TV, not letting us play with friends on school nights, helping us with homework, continually stressing the importance of education, made us attend church, stressed the importance of family, etc. Each parent has the freeagency to do the same. The choice argument gets batted around by the pro-abortionists anyway. Why should the ed-libs do the same?

Dave Tufte

There's a whole lot here about society and politics I'm not going to comment upon - I'm not too interested about either one.

I did part of the study, my numbers are solid, but beyond that my opinions are limited on this issue. But here's what I can add.

1) Chris Fawson is associated with Sutherland. I doubt he is a lackey for anyone.
2) Don't question the validity of the study. There was neither the time or the interest to do anything but crunch the numbers and discuss the sources of variability that the legislature would need to know about.
3) Don't assume there are problems because the numbers get updated. What are we supposed to do when confronted with new information - not update them? I didn't think so.
4)The only sense in which the money "disappears" is from the public school "system". The TTC proposal (which has changed a bit from when we wrote the study) wouldn't change the amount spent on education in the state.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Reading

  • The Earthsea Cycle
  • From Archetype to Zeitgeist

Non-Economics Blogroll

Gone but not Forgotten


Movie Rating