Taxpayer rights matter in school choice debate
One of the arguments being promulgated by the Spartanburg Six as to why they voted to deny any debate on the School Choice bill is that by allowing this debate to move forward it was endangering the public school system by TAKING money from public schools and putting it into private schools.
The problem with that argument is that the US Supreme Court disagrees with the Spartanburg Six.
The monies in question in the SC School Choice bill are tax exemptions for private citizens and tax exempt donations by business or other organizations to either allow a parent’s child the choice of school or to provide scholarships to disadvantaged children. Understand that this is money that the parents and the organizations have EARNED themselves. It is THEIR money. And the Supreme Court rules that the government does not have any claim on that PRIVATE money.
This article by Adam E. Schaeffer in the Richmond Times Dispatch makes that ruling clear for even us non-attorneys:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in ACSTO v. Winn has been acclaimed, or denounced, as a victory for private school choice and taxpayer rights.
In upholding an Arizona choice program based on tax credits, the court held that money spent and claimed as a credit against one’s taxes is private money, not government spending. Other taxpayers aren’t harmed by the choice of those claiming credits because the government isn’t spending collective tax revenue. In other words, the taxpayer, not the state, is presumed to own the fruits of his own labor.
The US Supreme Court ruling stated:
“When Arizona taxpayers choose to contribute to STOs, they spend their own money, not money the state has collected from respondents or from other taxpayers. Private bank accounts cannot be equated with the Arizona state treasury.”
So the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot make any claims or assumptions that they are entitled to private monies … even if they may have already designated it, or intended it for spending, say, for education. Until those monies are legally collected as taxes, they cannot be counted on as tax revenue. And since South Carolina parents and organizations/business would have legally claimed a tax exemption on monies they earned, those monies never were the goverment’s or the education lobby’s monies to spend.
It may interest you to know who IS on the side of the Spartanburg Six on this issue. The ACLU. Yes, THAT ACLU. The ACLU were the legal representatives of the challengers in the the Arizona case of ACSTO v. Winn arguing AGAINST allowing parents to keep their own earned monies. According to David Cortman, writing at Townhall in June, the ACLU argued that
“When the government decided to refrain from taxing all of our money (in this case by reducing our tax burden), it is the same as the government taxing and spending. In other words, they were arguing, in effect, that ALL of our hard-earned pay is really under the government’s control.”
It’s not hard to see why the U.S. Supreme Court wisely rejected the argument of the ACLU and upheld a private citizen’s right to use their own earned dollars as they saw fit re: their child’s education.
What is a bit hard to understand is how wrong the Spartanburg Six … Rita Allison, Doug Brannon, Derham Cole, Mike Forrester, Steve Parker and Eddie Tallon … are when they find themselves AS REPUBLICANS on the same side of an issue as the ACLU and not the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court whose job it is to uphold the Constitution.
June 10, 2011
Tags: ACSTO v. Winn, Derham Cole, Doug Brannon, Eddie Tallon, Mike Forrester, Rita Allison, Spartanburg Six, Steve Parker, Supreme Court Posted in: Uncategorized
15 Responses
Scott - June 10, 2011
You can’t confuse the RINO’s with the facts…
doug brannon - June 10, 2011
the unfortunate effect of misinformation is that it leads people to jump to uneducated conclusions and make statements that are wrong.
The Supreme Court has upheld the Arizona school choice law. That does not mean that our Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court would have upheld H 3407. It is clear that the author of this article has not read H 3407 or for that matter the Arizona School Choice law.
In the Arizona law, you will find limits on the amount an individual or corporation may contribute to a scholarship organization and maximum tax credits allowed per contribution. There is also a limit on the number of scholarship organizations that can be created. Under the Arizona law, once a contribution is made to a scholarship organization, that money is gone from their general fund and the state has no ties or strings attached to that contribution.
Because they have a limit on the amount that may be contributed by each taxpayer, Arizona can calculate the reduction in General Fund revenue.
In H 3407 there is no limit to the amount an individual or corporation may contribute to a scholarship organization, the only limitation is that the tax payer may recieve a tax credit of 95% of their total contribution. There is no limit on the number of scholarship organizations that may be created. these unlimited contributions in H 3407 make determining the actual impact this bill would have had on the State’s general fund impossible to calculate.
Under H 3407, on June 15 of each year all scholarship organization must return all monies remaining in thier bank account except a 5% administrative fee. H 3407 keeps the State of South Carolina attached to those bank accounts and makes budgeting impossible from year to year.
I have learned from my years practicing law that every law that is past by the Legislature and Signed by the Governor is constitutional until the Supremes say otherwise. Comparing H 3407 to the Arizona School Choice law is like comparing apples to watermelons, they are not the same.
I would be happy to explain H 3407 to anyone that would like to understand the bill. You can contact me at doug.tblaw@gmail.com. If you prefer to study the bill yourself you can find it one the State House web site. be sure to look at the committee amendment. This was a strike and insert amendment, meaning the amendment would have become the bill.
Sincerely, Doug Brannon State Rep. District 38
WT Clark - June 11, 2011
Mr. Brannon, misinformation is what Rita Allison gave me when explaining why she voted to kill this legislation. She said it was too expensive at this time.
I explained that in the first year of the three page report she sent me there was an estimated 2 million dollar savings to the state. Also the paper stated that in several years it may cost the state over 100 million.
I further explained that enabling students to go to alternative schools will at some point allow for the delay of new construction which will prolong taxpayers from being burdened with the bill for construction and maintenance. And it may be possible that delayed projects in fact will facilitate a reduced tax burden if the rate of population growth exceeds school needs thus revenues increase faster than school population. At that point she gave me no answers, just some politico babble about wanting to do what’s best for us all.
Though your vote to not allow school choice has guaranteed that taxpayers and your constituents will continue to have their money confiscated by you guys and Spartanburg in support of more building and more teachers to support the teacher unions and liberal politicians while denying competition which usually fosters better product development, which you apparently could care less about.
You know, if you guys were to actually do what’s in the interest of the tax payers, there would be no TEA party.
Wild Bill - June 11, 2011
IF what Doug Brannon says has any element of truth to it at all, it would have made for great debate on the House floor. If only the Spartanburg Six hadn’t voted to KILL IT WITHOUT DEBATE!! Who in the world was the bonehead who made the motion to kill it without even discussing it? Oh Yes… IT WAS DOUG BRANNON!!! RINO-EXTRAORDINAIRE!!!
doug brannon - June 11, 2011
MR.CLARK, I WAS SPEAKING FOR DOUG BRANNON IN MY POST. I DONT SPEAK FOR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF OUR DELEGATION. hEY WILD BILL I GAVE YOU MY EMAIL, HELL I WILL GIVE YOU MY CELL NUMBER IF YOU SEND ME A SHORT EMAIL. IN THE FINAL WAYS & MEANS COMITTEE MEETING, THE SUPPORTERS OF H 3407 STOPPED THE 15 OR 16 AMENDMENTS THAT WERE GOING TO INTRODUCED TO FIX THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS BILL. THEY VOTED TO CLOTURE THE DEBATE. THIS LAST MEETING TOOK 10 MINUTES. IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN TWO OR THREE HOURS. YOU AND I MAY NEVER AGREE ON THIS ISSUE BUT YOU CAN NO THE FACTS
Scott - June 13, 2011
Doug – you simply lie. Cloture gave an hour to each side – the side that wanted school choice took nearly all of their time. The Democrats didn’t come so the only two who spoke against the bill were B.R. Skelton and Mike Anthony (the only Democrat who showed up).
Even Rita spoke in favor of the bill at committee, then didn’t vote in committee and then voted to kill debate on the floor.
Again, Doug – you were the one who voted to stop debate on the floor.
Matt - June 14, 2011
Doug – If you feel you have valid problems with the school choice bill, then why didn’t you stand up and share them with the rest of the House? Do the people who voted for you not deserve to know why you voted against something many of us want until AFTER you disrupted the process of debate? Come on!
It appears that you are just trying to legitimize a move you planned to make all along.
Baker - June 14, 2011
WT Clark: how is it that this plan would save $2 million a year?
Karen Martin - June 14, 2011
From the Statement of Estimated Revenue Impact (SC Board of Economic Advisors) which is the report that the Spartanburg GOP Reps are using to talk about the $64M cost … which reads:
We estimate that per-pupil state expenditures directly related to the number of students amount to $2,878 in FY 2011-12. Multiplying this $2,878 per-pupil amount times the number of students moving to independent school yields an estimated $66,246,631 in reduced state appropriations to local school districts for FY 2011-12.
This appropriate reduction offsets the $64,170,126 decline in General Fund revenue from tax credits. In FY 2011-12 the net impact to the state (appropriation reductions less tax credit revenue reduction) is $2,076,505.
So the math goes like this …
FY 2011-12 cost approx $64
FY 2011-12 savings (funds not appropriated) $66
SC taxpayers come out $2M to the good, not $64 in the hole in FY 2011-12 as alleged by the Six.
Jim - June 14, 2011
Here is some independent thought for you. I am sick and tired of people trying to increase my share of the cost of government to benefit them. You people just want me to help you send your kids to private school.
I work 60 hour weeks running my own business. I pay a lot of taxes and create jobs. Why should I have to accept a larger share of the burden government so that some stay at home mom can watch her soaps, do lunch with the girls, and be home in time to make her kid’s after school Lacrosse match; or some private school dad can make his weekend tee time at the country club? I’ve got a great idea for all you poor private school parents. If you can’t afford to send your kids to private school without a government hand out, get a second job. Or if you are an at home mom, get a first job. Then you can afford to send you kid to private school without my help.
I pay my share for public schools I do not use, so you should pay your share. McDonald’s is hiring every day.
Baker - June 14, 2011
Ms. Martin:
The report also states, “We expect that reduced state appropriations would reduce local school districts revenue by $66,246,631 in the first year and by $115,646,833 in FY 2023-24.”
That’s pretty clear: The public school districts of SC would have more than $66 million taken out of their combined budgets.
Meanwhile, the logic that school districts will save X-dollars per child transferring out is faulty. Here’s the problem, and it’s actually pretty simple to understand: Schools have fixed overhead costs. If a few children in the 4th grade at Westview Elementary transfer out to a private school, where is Westview going to cut costs? A few students leaving will not be enough to cut a teaching position, lay off the librarian, cancel a bus route, or anything else leading to major cost savings.
Now, if there is a MASSIVE out-migration of students, then public schools could possibly consolidate or lay off teachers, etc. But a good many students could leave without there being much, if any, opportunity for schools to save money,
Simply put: The state can calculate an average amount of money spent on each kid. But that’s just an average. It doesn’t mean that a school literally spends that much on each child and that went that child transfers….BAM, the school can save a particular amount of money. It just doesn’t work that way.
The notion of major savings for taxpayers and public schools from this legislation is a myth.
WT Clark - June 15, 2011
Sorry Jimbo, I too own a business and pay a truck load of taxes. Nobody is trying to make you pay MORE taxes. Have you any idea what the TEA party is? It stands for Taxed Enough Already. And you think we’re pushing for something to increase taxes and asking for a government “handout” too? Those comments show just how much you don’t know about this issue or how government works.
You see, with few exceptions every family has a parent who works, most have two. Those parents pay taxes on their home, vehicles etc. On those tax bills it plainly states how much of the bill is for EDUCATION/SCHOOLS. And the thing is, over a lifetime of working 50 years and paying taxes most parents are going to pay a heck of a lot more than what the government would “return to them”.
You see, liberals like yourself like to tell people how the government is paying for this or that. Jimbo the government doesn’t earn money, it CONFISCATES money from people who do, often times giving it to those who don’t pay taxes AGAINST OUR WILL! In this case the parents are simply asking for a portion of their lifetime of paying school taxes back to educate their children as they see fit.
Many don’t like the liberal subjects taught or discussed in schools including sex ed, homosexuality is ok and multiculturalism. Yet YOU and those like you want to force parents to pay for this non-education bs and force their kids to listen to it.
That’s not freedom brother and not what this country was founded on. And if you don’t understand this, well I hate it for you.
WT Clark - June 15, 2011
Baker are you aware that Dorman High cost Spartanburg County over $200 million to build? And it doesn’t count the additional staff, utilities, maintenance costs etc that recur yearly.
Had school choice been legal years ago, it may have been possible to delay that school for several years while private schools footed the bill for construction. Private schools you understand are privately funded and constructed, not funded by taxpayers. In fact Spartanburg Day School just undertook a huge construction project and as far as I know you or I nor Jimbo above paid for a dime of it.
Now should this bill have even been debated this would likely have came up. And you do understand that of the per student allocation for education that only 85% of that money would be returned to the parents, leaving 15% of the student money in the state’s hands.
So in that Statement of Estimated Revenue Impact Karen mentioned above, it said in several years it would cost the state $133 million, I don’t see that when you factor in all the new schools state wide in which construction can be delayed or cancelled all together. One school in one county, $200+ million versus $133 million.
Baker - June 15, 2011
WT — Sure, if public school enrollment is kept down by private school choice then some money might be saved on new construction.
But school districts’ building plans are not always driven by enrollment. Some schools are simply outdated and need to updated. In the case of Dorman, I think the District 6 folks just wanted a new school. Whether or not you like the decision of that district’s democratically elected board of trustees, the deal is, I think, that they wanted to have a nicer newer school.
Now, maybe in Boiling Springs, where growth has been pretty crazy, they have indeed had to build schools to deal with additional students. But in that case, my guess is that the public school growth still would have far outweighed the number of students leaving for private school — in other words, new construction may have been needed anyway.
Finally, WT, if you think public schools in Spartanburg County are bastions of some sort of left-wing radicalism, I think you’re simply incorrect. I suggest you visit an American history class, for example, and see for yourself.
Public schools may not cater to every point of view. In fact, there may be people who’d like a more LIBERAL curriculum and approach to dealing with students. There may be people out there who’d like to have their kids go through an anti-Western program based on Islam. There may be people who don’t want their kids to be exposed to the theory of evolution because of their religious beliefs.
But I do not think the government is obligated to fund every possible private school choice to serve every opinion or point of view.
D. Moore - August 23, 2011
There is one problem with many of the premises put forward on this topic from those who are against school choice as we can see so stated above, “but I don’t think government is obligated to fund…”. It’s not the governments money, it is OUR money. All most of us want is the choice to educate our children as we see fit. If you want to keep your child in public school, great. The real problem is, if most had a choice – they would choose private school.
Only the government can force people to pay for a service they don’t want, overcharge, and run poorly without consequence. That’s what I believe a lot of people are tired of. I honestly think if the government were providing great services at the current tax rate, no one would complain. But they don’t.
My wife and I have sacrificed in every way possible to keep our kids in private school. Driving used cars until the wheels fall off, living in a small 1,400 sq. ft. house for over 15 years that needs a lot of work, both of us working, and so on. We are not rich by any stretch of the imagination. But I am taxed to almost half of my income. This is just wrong.
What’s more, I can’t think of one government run program that is cost effective, properly managed, or scrutinized like a business would be. Including our public schools. In fact, most government programs would not exist in the “real world” because they would be out of business.
So, again. There is no such thing as government funding. It is a misnomer. Everything is funded by you and me, and then run very poorly by a bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy.
Leave a Reply