The general legislative session of 2022 is almost over, and the activities of our legislators give politicians a lot to debate. We review some of the hottest items on the hill.
The legislature has entered into serious debate HB331, Hope Scholarship Program. Because this law will fund the education of children outside the public school system, it is seen as permits subsidized by taxpayers. The bill has barely passed the commission and is awaiting full discussion. the governor Spencer Cox said he supports vouchers philosophically, but not at a time when public education is underfunded. What does the threat of the governor’s veto mean and what is the fate of this proposal?
Pinyanelli: “Don’t hide from the past. It won’t catch you if you don’t do it again. ” – Pearl Bailey
Apparently, 15 years is a radioactive period of half-life of controversial issues. In 2007, the legislature barely passed, and the governor. John Huntsman Jr. approved, legislation establishing a voucher system. In response, teachers ‘and parents’ associations organized volunteers to collect enough signatures to hold a nationwide referendum to repeal the law. After the summer debate (Lavar and I had heated debates), 62% of Utah voted in favor. give up vouchers.
Many are wondering why the problem is coming back. The gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey are combined with the exception of three Members of the San Francisco School District Council, indicate serious trends. Parents dealing with the school closure caused by the pandemic are frustrated with the state system.
But Cox’s point of view may go beyond teachers ’salaries. Our state is debated over vaccinations / masks, water shortages and population growth. There are questions about the timeliness of this struggle.
Proponents can pass the bill and try their luck through a veto repeal session. Another option is a year to convince citizens in this matter (there is already a well-established site).
The way voucher fans study the past can determine future success in Utah.
WebA: I am a big fan and supporter of public schools, and I believe that the vast majority of Utah children will attend public schools in the future. All my children attended public schools, as did my grandchildren.
I come from an educational family with sisters, brothers-in-law and daughters who have taught or are teaching in public schools. I believe we need to increase costs per student and pay teachers at a valuable and respected professional level, for example in law or medicine. If we only had the national average cost per student, we could have a better system in the country and better results for students.
But I still believe that there is a place for permits, money to follow the children – if everything is done correctly. Vouchers should be tested on a multi-level basis to ensure that low-income families benefit the most. The amounts of vouchers should be less than the current funding per student, so when a child leaves the state system, some money remains. Thus, no one can claim that vouchers are detrimental to public education funding because the public system is not supposed to raise a child, but can save part of that child’s funding per student. The social system is moving forward.
Parents who send their children to private schools actually subsidize the public school system. They pay income tax (which finances public education) like everyone else, but they also pay tuition in private schools, and the state system should not raise their children. Wealthy people can pay for both, but low-income people should be able to leave some of the money they pay for education to send their child to private school if they wish.
Utah is very fond of public schools next door. There will be no mass exodus. Most public schools can compete well, and those that can’t will improve because of competition. Many other states much ahead of Utah in vouchers.
We need to properly fund public education and then give parents some choice in where their children will study.
Much media attention has been focused on the abolition of the death penalty in Utah. Some conservative organizations and prosecutors have voiced support for such a ban. Many insiders believed he had a real chance of passing. But the bill died in committee. Why and what does it mean?
Pinyanelli: Legislation supported by respected lawyers with bona fide conservative powers, resp. Lowry Snow and sen. Dan McKay. Proponents were armed with shocking facts, including the cost of the trial, the shooting of innocent people and the damage to the families of the victims. Polls have shown some support.
But opponents have argued that if the judiciary wrongfully convicts individuals, it must first be reformed. Others felt that the final sentence provided prosecutors with options for negotiations. Combined with the growing fear of crime, the design base for the abolition of the death penalty remains limited.
WebA: Sorry, but I can’t calm down by abolishing the death penalty. When it comes to premeditated, horrific, aggravated homicides involving the rape, torture, and mutilation of completely innocent victims, especially young children, I believe I am an Old Testament man.
Lawmakers announced last week large income surplus – again. But there is also a real fear of a future economic downturn. How do these conflicts of expectations affect legislative discussions?
Pinyanelli: A real concern about economic problems in the near future is likely to force lawmakers to limit current commitments while placing additional funds in reserve.
WebA: We live in a very uncertain world. Reasonably invest one-time profits in reserves and basic infrastructure.
Republican LaVar Webb is a political consultant and lobbyist. Email: email@example.com. Democrat Frank Pignanelli is a lawyer, lobbyist and political adviser in Salt Lake. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org.