Property Tax Action Alert (Davis County) (Update)

As I recall, in the recent past, county representatives had stated that the one-time tax abatement plan they proposed would be automatic. This is NOT the case. You will need to apply for the ‘refund’:

The one-time property tax relief offered to some Davis County homeowners is not automatic. This new detail became an important clarification highlighted Friday when representatives of the Utah State Tax Commission met with Davis County authorities.

“An application must be completed and a signature is required,” said Steve Rawlings, Davis County Clerk/Auditor, noting a distinction must be made between the market value appeals process and the equity abatement process. The deadline for market value appeals has passed and the deadline for equity abatements has yet to be announced. Residents are encouraged to go to the county’s Web site for updates.

Here is a link to the Davis County Website. Remember, if you contact Mr. Rawlings or Mr. Ivie, please be polite. Be especially nice to Mr. Ivie - he’s taken a tremendous amount of unwarranted flak for doing his job (assessing). He has absolutely nothing to do with the tax increases (responsibility for the increases lies with the Davis Co. School District, Mosquito Abatement, and County Commissioners).

Finally, do not forget that this is a one time program and not any sort of long term solution. The tax increases stand after this one-shot program is used up:

“We consider this as a one-time fix for one year,” said Rawlings.

UPDATE: I understand (at this time) that cards will be sent out to those qualifying for the abatement and the same cards may be used as the application (see the mannjj comment).   I’m not sure when they will go out, however - obviously, things probably need to be worked out with the tax commission etc first.

The Missing Voucher Column (Referendum 1)

For some unknown reason, the column (”A Minute For Parents”, September 11, 2007) is not available on the Clipper website (all of Ms. Hamilton’s other columns are, however). So here’s her column:

Choice: A Fundamental Freedom

Choice is a fundamental freedom. In November you get to vote for or against the voucher system. I guess you have to decide if you want to be in charge of your children or if you want the Board of Education and the Utah Education Association in charge of your children’s school environment and education. Frankly, I have more confidence in you – not because public schools are not doing an excellent job in most instances, but because children don’t all fit into the same category.

I had a single mother friend whose oldest boy entered junior high in Davis County and started running with friends she did not approve of. She wisely pulled him out of the public school and put him into a private school. He stayed there two years and then when she put him back into the public school, he did just fine. I can’t imagine how she did it financially.

This parent saw a need and somehow scrounged up the money to solve it. In my opinion we need to vote for vouchers and allow parents to choose the most appropriate educational setting for each of their children. In the vast majority of cases parents will choose a public school. However, we all know children who march to a different drummer and need something that the public schools can’t provide, whether it be more discipline, a more challenging environment for high achievers, a new approach for low achievers or a way to get children away from the “wrong crowd,” whether that be drugs, gangs or for moral reasons.

I personally know educators in high places who are very much for the voucher program. A Utah State University study estimated that this arrangement would potentially save the state more than $1 billion over 13 years. That money could be used to increase public school spending and help fund the education of the 150,000+ new students projected to enter Utah’s schools in the next decade. Parents need to understand that even though a child attends a private school under the voucher system, about $2,500 will go to the public school allowing more funds for the school to use on the students who are there.

It is parents who have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children. It is constitutional. See Utah Constitution Article X, Section 2 where it says, “The public education system shall include all public elementary and secondary schools and such other schools and programs as the Legislature may designate.”

The number of children attending Utah charter schools has doubled nearly every year since 2002, and school enrollment will have grown from 537 students in 2001 to an estimated 20,000 in 2007, with thousands more on waiting lists. This shows parental desire for something different than the public schools can offer.

There is accountability in the voucher program. It is scaled as to household income and household size. Participating private schools must use testing, have teachers with specified education, disclose accreditation status and be audited. Money is given directly to the school and there are other regulations. It disturbs me when I read that this is not true.

Again, the school system offers a great education for a lot of students, and I believe they will continue to do so, but I believe concerned parents need other alternatives. In other states, the whole system improves when competition is a factor.

For more information see www.choiceineducation.org.

Kim Burningham, the state BOE chair recently responded to the column (you’ll note that his long response is available on the website) . For the most part, Burningham runs the same, tired arguments illustrated in “Nanny State Knows Best?“.

Burningham starts by saying that vouchers won’t help choice as no one will afford the private schools anyway. I bet the single mother illustrated above begs to differ as do many of us who’ve actually bothered to call private schools to inquire about their tuition rates. Burningham also makes a poor assumption that private and public educational facilities will remain static ignoring the law of supply and demand by also stating that there aren’t very many private schools. With demand, the supply will go up and tuition rates will decrease as supply increases. I find it very likely, that the supply will be naturally biased to those in low to middle incomes as they hold the greatest amount of funding opportunity for a private school and are the emerging market - the high income market has already been met (no new growth opportunity there).

Burningham also tries to hit the “accountability” argument by focusing on government programs/methods, again, indicating that he puts more weight on a bureaucrat/big company/third party analysis over the judgment of the child’s parent (see: “Voucher Accountability: The Best Auditor” and “Parents Know Their Children Best“).

On the lighter side, I found a couple of funny comments in his letter. First, is the argument that private schools will only take good, able bodied students and leave the physically challenged etc in the public schools. Maybe he should check out the Carson-Smith Scholarship which the “education union” opposed. Check out the “student eligibility requirements”, the voucher amount, and list of private schools. Note: Carson-Smith is taxpayer (NOT private) money. Carson-Smith was passed in early 2005. This also goes back to the supply and demand stuff I mentioned above. Second, I chuckled at his ‘limited enrollment slots” and “preferred children” (siblings) line. Charter Schools have limited enrollment slots and enrolled siblings make it much more likely that their siblings will be accepted. Schools also have limited slots for transferring students (but usually aren’t exceeded, I believe).

Ok. I’ll quit there, this is long enough. Again, the bottom line is parents will make the best decision for their child’s education and are the superior auditor.

The DREAM Act (S 774): Backdoor Amnesty

I’m a bit behind on this one as it has been running on other sites, news articles, and blogs for a couple of days. Nevertheless, there is still time to act on it.

NRO’s Kate O’Beirne provides brief background on what this bill will do:

Under the DREAM Act, applicants for amnesty who claim to be enrolled in a community college, technical school, or university will receive immediate “conditional” legal status. Sound familiar? The Migration Policy Institute estimates that about 1.3 million illegal aliens will be eligible for the amnesty. Because the act’s provisions are retroactive, additional illegal aliens will also qualify. Along with illegal aliens who have graduated from high school or completed a G.E.D., any illegal alien, regardless of age, who initially came here illegally before age 16 and meets the education provisions qualifies for a green card and eventual citizenship. As green-card holders, they can all sponsor their illegal alien parents for green cards. To accommodate DREAM Act aliens and their parents, numerical limits on green cards are lifted.

More detailed background and information can also be found on this article: A Sleeper Amnesty: Time to Wake Up from the DREAM Act. This bill will also, likely, give illegal immigrants amnesty from any identity theft they engaged in (see here, here, and here).

It is worth noting that this is not a stand alone bill per se. It is to be an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization bill. This bill is also the first installment of amnesty provisions. “Later in the month, senators will attempt to extend amnesty to agricultural workers.”

I’ve already called Senators Hatch and Bennett. Thus far, they both refuse to take a position on the issue. Hatch has supported (and sponsored) the DREAM act in the past and Bennett voted for cloture (see here and here) in this year’s amnesty bill.

It would be wise to take action and politely, but firmly, ask Senator Bennett (202-224-5444 or Utah Offices ) and Senator Hatch (202-224-5251 or Utah offices) to OPPOSE the “Dream Act”. It is also fine to ask their office if the Senator has taken a position on the bill, yet.

Click here for a listing of all Senators (and contact information).

Voucher Accountability: The Best Auditor (Referendum 1)

The anti-voucher side is well funded by the NEA (National Education Association), and has blown some of the money on ads trying to tell people that private schools are not accountable. Implicit in the ads, however, is that the NEA and anti-voucher groups do not believe that parents have the sense to place their children in the most appropriate school. They indicate that parents are incapable of making the right decision for their child.

Obviously, I find the ads entirely absurd.

If parents decide to send their child to private school, the voucher won’t cover the full cost and parents will be chipping in a portion of tuition. I don’t believe that parents will just blow the money on a school that is failing, especially when the same parents were already involved enough to determine that another public or private school was not meeting their child’s educational needs. These parents will, without a doubt, expect a return on investment.

Further, if the private school fails to satisfy the parents, what will happen? Tough accountability - the money and child shift to another school (public or private). The school will know they failed when they see the “pay cut” and poor performing private schools will, ultimately, go belly up.

Additionally, most private schools participate in accreditation programs as well as auditing procedures. Again, parents are not going to blindly and stupidly shove their kids in any old school to use a voucher, especially when they are still going to have to sacrifice and pony-up some money themselves. Parents, in my estimation, are the best accreditor and auditor of their child’s eduction. The first hand view of their child’s educational progress/results trumps any auditor’s matrix or spreadsheet.

Long story short - I place my trust in parents knowing what is best for their individual children, not me, nor government entities or professional organizations based in Salt Lake City or Washington DC.

Additional reading: David Miller also has an insightful post regarding his position on vouchers (it is also a trackback on one of my posts dealing with vouchers).

11/2 Update - See also: Consolidated Voucher Post (Referendum 1)

General Petraeus Testimony (links)

I had intended on covering or providing some reasonable links to the Gen. Petraeus testimony. Obviously that hasn’t developed (things have been quite busy on my end). Since I’ve basically “dropped the ball” on this, please go to HotAir (click here for posts relating to Gen. Petraeus) for a quick rundown on some of the testimony including video, Politico has also been trying to keep up with testimony transcripts (I think some can also be found on FreeRepublic including links to live audio/video streams). CSPAN also has live and recent video.

Not to be missed is the continued disparaging of Gen. Petraeus (I alluded to it in this post as well). HotAir has some more information on the despicable MoveOn “General Betray Us” campaign (see this post for MoveOn’s continuing attack on the General).

Never Forget. The War Goes On.

Fallujah Today and Slagging the Troops

Bill Ardolino of INDC Journal is back in Iraq. He has been in Fallujah in the past and now comments on the difference he sees since the surge has begun to take effect:

I’ve attended a Fallujah City Council meeting, a recruiting day for the “Fallujah Protectors” (neighborhood watch), the establishment of the city’s last police precinct and a meeting of “muktars,” traditional cultural leaders of specific neighborhoods who work with Marines to improve infrastructure. Tomorrow, my CAG unit will distribute food bags downtown. Almost none of this access or interaction was possible in January, and the cooperation with American personnel is widespread and animated.

The surreality of the change can be summed up by this afternoon. I sat chit-chatting in a downtown precinct with Iraqi cops and newly-minted neighborhood watchmen, junior security officials drawn from the same labor pool that previously drove the insurgency.

Through a local interpreter, we talked about their changing opinion of Americans, Iraq’s prospects, the misery of living under al Qaeda, the joys of kabob and favorite soccer teams. Their open and friendly nature is hard to reconcile with the violent history of American-Iraqi interaction in Fallujah, and many of them charitably chalk it up to a “misunderstanding.”

The icing on the cake:

Towards the end of a long conversation with one group, I said, “Well, I wish you luck. And I want you to know, besides the marines and soldiers that you meet here in the city, there are many civilians back in America who hope for Fallujah’s success.”

The afternoon’s joking died down as the interpreter translated and each of them earnestly told me “shukran” (”thank you”). And one young guy blurted out in halting English, “We like you!”

I think we all really do hope and pray for Fallujah’s, Iraq’s, and Afghanistan’s success. Hopefully we’ll see more of this.

While we continue to see the promising changes in Iraq due to the superb efforts of our military, Petraeus and the Iraqis, the Democrat leadership continue to demonstrate their political investment in defeat. Unfortunately, instead of targeting President Bush, they are now denigrating our soldiers. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign, chimes in on the Senate floor:

“And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because, there was no one else, there, protecting.” [note video of his statement is available here]

Sorry, Senator Schumer, while you may not like it and it may not fit you political aspirations, our soldiers are playing a key role. Ultimately, this is part of what appears to be a Democrat strategy to marginalize Petraeus’ upcoming report and the promising news coming from Iraq - too bad it has taken a personal turn against our military.

UPDATE: Yep. The strategy is to sully Petraeus’ stellar reputation. HotAir has also picked up the story.

Parents Know Their Children Best (Vouchers)(Referendum 1)

Voucher foes, led by State School Board Chair, Kim Burningham, continue to try to play the accountability card on the voucher issue:

The radio ad, titled “Troubling,” focuses on accountability concerns regarding private voucher schools that receive public funds…no accountability for tax dollars.

While this is an old argument, it is ‘troubling’. It inherently indicates that parents (the voucher recipients) are incapable of making the right choice for their children. It indicates that government bureaucrats, not parents, know what is best.

Parents have full control of the vouchers. First, you need not get a voucher if your public school is doing a good job (most of us). However, we all know of children that have difficulties learning in our “one size fits all” system. If your son or daughter is struggling in a public school, you may opt for a voucher to help pay for a private school that better fits your child’s method of learning. Should a private school be inadequate, your money and the voucher walk (talk about instant accountability).

Further, parents using vouchers will typically be more involved and heavily scrutinize the school their child is attending. Remember, a voucher will often not pay the full tuition at the private school. That means parents will be opting for additional out of pocket costs rather than the already paid for public school.

I fully believe that parents will do what is best for their children. Public schools will serve most, but not all, of us and our children well (myself included here). However, we all know of neighbors/friends/family with children who need a more challenging environment, who require more discipline or individual attention, who are in a bad learning environment or on the verge of dropping out, or where other factors hinder their educational progression in a system designed to serve “most”.

While opting and paying for a private school to allow their child to excel may not be problem for the rich, it is for others. That is where to vouchers come in. Private schools will be within reach of those willing to make the financial sacrifice to ensure that their child can meet their full potential. For me, that is what our educational system should be about - not giving the “average” child a superior education, but giving each of your children a superior education whether in a public or private school.

Bottom line: I trust parents to know and meet their children’s educational interests better than I do and better than government bureaucrats do.

11/2 Update - See also: Consolidated Voucher Post (Referendum 1)

American Legion Takes on ID Theft

I found this in the Standard Examiner (Child ID theft growing problem). The Bountiful post of the American Legion led the charge both a state and national resolution regarding child identity theft. I will try to get text of the resolution. The resolution focused on the illegal immigrant aspect but the article notes that the solution proposed by the resolution would also interdict other identity thieves (excerpted):

In response to an investigation by federal and state officials, American Legion Post 79, in Bountiful, adopted resolutions recently on identity theft driven by illegal aliens. The resolutions have since been approved by both the Utah and National American Legion conventions.

According to the Utah attorney general’s office, the investigation “uncovered an alarming new crime spree involving illegal aliens and identities stolen from victims under the age of 12.”

Ronald Mortensen, commander of American Legion Post 79 and co-founder of CitizensForTaxFairness.org, said that using government funds to hire individuals using stolen identities is a misuse of taxpayer money.

In June, the Utah American Legion convention adopted Post 79’s resolution that opposed the use of taxpayer funds to hire illegal aliens using unlawfully obtained Social Security numbers and other fraudulent documents. The resolution also called on Utah governments and businesses to verify the Social Security numbers of all new hires.

In August, the American Legion’s national convention adopted Post 79’s resolution that calls on Congress to immediately deport illegal aliens convicted of identity theft.

The resolution also calls on Congress to help the victims of illegal alien identity theft reclaim their identities and remove derogatory information from their records.

“It is time that our employers, our state and local governments and civic leaders acknowledge there is a problem and that we need to do something about it,” Mortensen said.

Mortensen said he acknowledges that identity thieves exist in all segments of society. Parents with poor credit have been convicted of stealing their own children’s Social Security numbers to get loans or find jobs, he said.

Here’s a choice quote at the end of the article:

Jesse Garcia, an Ogden City Council member and leader in the Ogden Hispanic community, said he supports the American Legion’s fight against illegal immigrant-driven identity theft.

“I don’t have a problem with it at all,” he said. “As long as they go about it legally and approach it properly. Obviously, identity theft is a problem and needs to be dealt with.”

Thanks to the State and National American Legion for passing the resolution and helping get this issue more attention.

Judge Stops SSN Fruad Provision (Update)

I’ve discussed the problem of Social Security Fraud that frequently goes hand-in-hand with illegal immigration, fugitives, and deadbeat parents. A new DHS rule was supposed to be implemented in about a week that would inform businesses about potential SSN fraud among their employees and the stricter penalties for not taking care of the problem. The AFL-CIO didn’t like that rule as it would affect membership (current and future) and the ACLU opposed it (ie the “usual suspects”). A San Fransicso judge has blocked the rule until October:

Ruling on a lawsuit by the nation’s largest federation of labor unions against the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the so-called “no-match” letters from going out as planned starting Tuesday.

The Social Security Administration has sent out “no-match” letters for more than two decades warning employers of discrepancies in the information the government has on their workers. Employers often brushed aside the letters, and the small fines that sometimes were incurred, as a cost of doing business.

But this year, those letters will be accompanied by notices from the Department of Homeland Security outlining strict new requirements for employers to resolve those discrepancies within 90 days or face fines or criminal prosecution, if they’re deemed to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

The Department of Homeland Security has vowed to fight what it calls “an obvious attempt to impede the department’s ability to enforce our immigration laws.”

Due to this being a DHS rule, it is primarily targeted at illegal immigrants, but will also have reprecussions on those who, criminally, wish to hide their identity.

Fortunately, if this rule is stopped by this Judge or the 9th Circuit, it is comforting to know that the DHS is going to fight and the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court in the country by the Supreme Court (which is probably where this will end up). Unfortunately, this also means an extension in the time that victims will continue to be victimized by the ID thieves and fugitives et al. will work worry free.

UPDATE: I missed this, earlier, but while were on the subject of court cases, students in Kansas lost their appeal on a law that to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition while stiffing US citizens and visa holders with higher tuition rates. We’ll see if it also goes to the Supreme Court or not.