Of course they didn't get it

>> Friday, August 7, 2009

I learned tonight about the Salt Lake Tribune column on a "reproductivity tax" because KSL took it seriously, responded to it and was granted the #2 spot on today's World's Best Persons on Countdown.


What motivated the Tribune column was this:
Nearly a third of Utahns -- 30.9 percent -- are under the age of 18, and roughly three-fourths of those kids are of public school age, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

And that contributes to this disturbing statistic regarding education outlays. Utah ranks last in the nation, spending about $4,000 less per child per year than the national average, and nearly $1,000 less than No. 49 Idaho. Our neighbors in Wyoming, who rank fifth, spend $13,217 per student compared to Utah's paltry $5,683 outlay.

Let's put this in perspective. It doesn't necessarily mean that Wyoming kids are twice as smart as our kids. It just means that their state legislators love them more. A lot more.
Utah has always funded education terribly. I have witnessed this myself. I have heard this for years from my mother who taught in Utah for 25 years. She would give her teacher friends from Minnesota a copy of her school district's pay scale so they could take it back and post it in their teachers' lounge and feel much, much better about what they were paid. Okay, actually, they would laugh at it.

Utah, simply does not care about education. Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. is maybe the exception since he did focus on trying to make things better while he was governor. Except, he's not going to be governor for much longer.

Utah has always had a large birth rate. It's the reason why every time I'm on a flight headed toward SLC, there's always tons of little kids on the plane. And I really mean EVERY time. I've flown all over the US--to the south, west coast, east coast, midwest, northwest, internationally--and there are never as many kids on the plane as there are on my flights to Utah. I remember visiting the outlet mall in Park City with one of my friends, while I was visiting from Tacoma, several years ago and noticing how infested it was with strollers.

In the KSL response, Mary Richards noted:
Numbers from the University of Utah's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) show that Utah, once the leader in the nation for fertility rates, is trending now toward the national rate. Utah is now a 2.4 or 2.5. The nation is at a 2.1 fertility rate, which is a replacement level. In the 1960s Utah was in the 5s and 6s.
One of the main reasons it's been falling in recent years is due to the influx of non-Mormons into the state. Salt Lake City is either no longer a Mormon-majority city or is close to becoming so.

Ms. Richards stated earlier in her piece:
A Salt Lake Tribune editorial says three or more children should be taxed extra to pay for school funding. Oregon State University statisticians say limiting a family to two kids keeps down your carbon footprint.

Sutherland Institute spokesman Jeff Reynolds says hogwash.

"There are so many benefits for having a husband, wife, children, that our society benefits as a result," he said.

Reynolds says he doesn't think Utahns will agree with the editorial. He also doesn't believe the Oregon State arguments for limiting family size.

He says, "For the environmental argument to even make sense, you would have to believe that climate change is taking place, and that's clearly debatable."
Climate change is debatable? What does that have to do with the Tribune column/editorial? Oh wait, it doesn't have anything to do with it. Because the focus of the "reproductivity tax" was education, but KSL wants to make it all about why you should have kids. Hence, the "so many benefits for having a husband, wife, children" comment. (Are they trying to infer that you should be married before you have kids? That you can't be a single parent? That gays can't adopt? Probably.) And, of course, she threw in the "debate" about climate change because we don't want possible parents to start thinking in environmentally-responsible terms lest the think they shouldn't have 6 kids.

And why would KSL want to make it about having kids? Because KSL is owned by the Mormon church. And the Mormon church wants people to have kids no matter what. Gotta bring those "spirit children" down from heaven. It's why girls are supposed to get married as soon as possible and start pumping out children. They aren't supposed to go on a mission like the boys in college until after their children are grown.

This is the actual "cap and trade" portion of the Tribune column:
Obviously, we need to do something to narrow the spending gap and give our kids the quality education they deserve. Let's do the math. If dividing X (the amount of tax money to be spent on education) by Y (the number of children to be educated) yields Z (the amount spent per pupil), there are only two ways to increase the value of Z.

Throwing money at a problem won't solve it, except in this case, where a lack of money is the problem. So we can make X, the pool of tax dollars, a lot larger. But that means we're going to have to give the gov'ment even more of our money.

Fortunately, there's a better way to increase the value of Z: reduce Y, the number of kids in school. All we have to do is get the folks who are breeding like bunny rabbits to exercise a little restraint.

But how? We can round them up and sterilize them. We can ship them off to Wyoming and tell them not to come back until their kids are grown. Or, we can do the sensible thing for the sake of our schools, and our planet, and establish a cap and trade program on kids.

You get two children free. But if you want a third, it's going to cost you. You'll have to buy a child credit and show your proof of purchase at the delivery room door.

Of course, even among those who practice family planning and use contraceptives, accidents do happen. For example, my wife and I have two children, Accident No. 1 and Accident No. 2. So people will have to buy third-baby insurance: "Allstate -- the hands that rock the cradle."
KSL won't bother to touch the education funding issue because the LDS church doesn't care if kids get a good education. They care about how many members are tithing their 10% or more. The less educated they are, the easier it is for them to stay members and not question the tyrannical hierarchy of the LDS church. Can't have those women getting uppity and becoming bishops or church leaders just because they began allowing blacks to do that in 1978.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

  © Blogger template Webnolia by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP