| Vol. X, No. 6 | Guest Editor: Christopher Schmidt | August 2000 |
The LPSM will debate Prop 38 at the August meeting, and also Prop 36, the "Drug Treatment Diversion Initiative". We'll then take votes to determine the LPSM's endorsements. Two (divergent) Libertarian views of Prop 38 are presented below, to give you an idea of what all the fuss is about. By the time you read this, there should be a Prop 38 poll on the LPSM-Announce eGroups web page. Vote!
Whereas, the government-run public school system is a disaster which deprives our children of a decent education while simultaneously imposing tremendous costs on taxpayers, and
Whereas, an effective means of exposing the failures of the government-run public school system and demonstrating the benefits of alternatives is by introducing an effective element of educational choice, and
Whereas, many parents need the financial resources now being taken from them through taxation and funneled to the failed government-run public school system, so as to allow them access to educational alternatives, and
Whereas, the Libertarian Party of California supports the ultimate complete separation of school and state, and
Whereas, properly designed tax credits or vouchers can serve as a step in the proper direction of creating an effective avenue of educational choice for parents and their children, and
Whereas, the educational bureaucracy, led by teachers union officials and statist politicians, is desperately opposing efforts to break their stranglehold on our children and our wallets, and
Whereas, the School Vouchers 2000 initiative ("Prop 38") which will appear on the November California ballot offers parents $4,000 vouchers to educate their children at the school of their choice, and
Whereas, [Prop 38] will result in a reduction in the tax burden caused by government-run public schools because per-pupil government expenditures are greater than the voucher amount, and
Whereas [Prop 38] initiative will add explicit legal protections for private and home schools, to prevent the California government from imposing onerous new regulations upon them, therefore be it
Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California supports the goals of improved education and expanded choices as expressed in [Prop 38], and
Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California endorses [Prop 38] as a significant advance over the failed status quo, and urges its passage.
LPSM Secretary's Statement in Opposition to Prop 38
by
Christopher Schmidt
Some Libertarian advocates of this measure claim that Prop 38 "will result in a reduction in the tax burden caused by government-run public schools because per-pupil government expenditures are greater than the voucher amount".
Their claim fails to consider to the implications of (1) additional spending for current private school students, (2) "fully fund[ing] the demand for programs offered by the community colleges", (3) changing the funding formula for all K-12 students, and (4) giving the power to interpret that formula to the Director of the Department of Finance.
Please read the text of the measure and draw your own conclusion.
Even if the theoretical savings were possible, the advertised application of that savings to tax reduction is pure fantasy. The state would experience the increased spending for the vouchers (potentially raising income taxes to pay for them), but it would be up to the counties and school districts to realize the implied "savings" by firing employees and closing public schools. Then, yes, in theory they could "reduc[e] the tax burden" by issuing property tax rebates (of the money they formerly spent on schools) or by lowering property tax rates. That scenario doesn't sound very likely, does it? More probably, we'd end up paying a second time, to educate the same students.
Would vouchers benefit private education?
Like Prop 38, Medicare was once touted to save money and enhance private health care using similar arguments. Has medical care gotten cheaperor more expensive since government got involved? Has government involvement in health care decreasedor increasedsince taxpayers started picking up the tab? History teaches that subsidies always increase prices and the one who pays the piper always calls the tune.
Whereas June's meeting was short, we ran so long in July that people were still talking in the parking lot an hour after our originally scheduled adjournment.
Most of the meeting was dedicated to discussing a list of ideas for outreach that Publicity Chair Bob Green had prepared. The two ideas we decided to go forward with are the Monthly LPSM Poll (beginning this issue), and the operation of an outreach table at Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo.
The outreach table is a tried-and-true tactic for attracting new registrants and members to the party, but we have made very little use of the technique locally. We'll probably use the Operation Politically Homeless approach created by the Advocates for Self-Government. If the response is positive, we'll do it three times a year and maybe expand to other locations as opportunities present themselves. Please contact Bob at (650) 574-7682 if you're interested in taking a 2 or 4 hour shift on Friday August 18 or Saturday August 19 between 10 am and 9 pm. Two people at a time will man the table and Bob hopes to stagger shifts to best share the learning experience and get to know each other better.
Jack had represented the LP on a Campaign Finance Reform panel on July 7, hosted by the San Mateo/Foster City Democratic Club. Interestingly enough, the stated topic was covered summarily and the discussion turned to Proportional Representation and Instant Runoff Voting, prospects for which excited many of those in attendanceeven some Democrats, who, at first blush, have the least to gain by this reform. June Genis noted that these were also hot topics at the LP national convention in Anaheim. (June and Chuck Montgomery both attended the convention, but didn't realize they both hail from San Mateo County!)
A number of us thought that maybe it's time for San Mateo County to elect its board of supervisors with IRV, though we weren't sure how best to relate this issue to district elections.
If you want to learn more about PR and IRV, call the Center for Voting and Democracy at (301) 270-4133 or visit their web site at http://www.fairvote.org/.
The inaugural LPSM monthly poll will be on a contentious subjectProp 38, the school funding and "voucher" initiative. Prominent Libertarians stand on both sides. What about you?
This month we'll use the eGroups web site for polling, and find out if readers like it. You have to "sign up" with eGroups to use features like the polls, but it's free and pretty easy. You can even change your vote a week later! Try it out and send me email to let me know what you think. You can also join the LPSM-Discuss group to discuss the issues on-line. )
The LPSM will debate Prop 38 "live in person" at the August meeting, and also Prop 36, the Drug Treatment Diversion Initiative. We'll then take votes to determine the LPSM's endorsements. The text of these measures, and links to news coverage thereof can be found on a useful web site at http://www.calvoter.org/
J.R. Prohaska sent word that he has left Libertarian life to pursue other interests. We'll likely elect his successor on the Judiciary Committee at the same meeting.
Tuesday, August 8, and Tuesday, September 12
Hobee's Restaurant
(Directions to Hobee's)
1111
Shoreway Road, Belmont; just off Ralston, on the bay side of Highway 101
Dinner
and informal discussion: 6:00--7:30pm in the reserved dining room
Business meeting: 7:30--8:45pm in the dining room alcove.