$26 Billion Stimulus Bill (HR 1586) for Education

An article in the Salt Lake Tribune (August 5, 2010) stated clearly that the bill HR1586, passed August 12, 2009 by the house and signed by President Obama, would stop the layoff of 1,800 teachers in Utah. Governor Gary Herbert said, through his spokesperson Angie Welling, that he would welcome the additional money for teachers. The bill also would provide money for public safety workers (police, fire, etc) whose jobs are considered on the line due to state revenue shortfalls, as well as provide more federal monies for Medicaid programs in the state; which the Governor states Utah does not need at this time. (Although Utah, in the past two sessions of the legislature, has cut Medicaid programs, such as dental work for seniors.)Two of our representatives (Bishop and Chaffetz), following party lines, voted against this aid to education. Jim Matheson, our third representative, said in support of this bill, that it would pay for an average of two additional teachers per public school in Utah, and additionally would help the state meet it’s obligations to provide health care to the poor.

Consider this fact: Utah has the highest birth rate in the nation, 83.2 per every 1000 women in the 15-50 age group gave birth in 2006, the latest available data. The national average is 54.9 per 1000 women. (Source: Deseret News, August 19, 2008) We have the largest class size, and the highest teacher/student ratio, in the nation. Couple these facts with a high state income tax break for each dependant, and you have a (realized) potential for serious underfunding for education.

Our students are our future; we need a well-educated population base to grow as a state. We need students to complete high school, to be able to compete in the world economy, in order for Utah to attract and keep good paying jobs in the state. If our education dollars do not keep up with the student growth, we will soon (if we have not already) fall behind, and other states will be able to attract the businesses we currently have here, as well as the ones we are pursuing to relocate here.

So why all the fuss and anger over this bill? Certainly, it could add to the deficit, if the savings projected are not real; and can any of us really tell if Washington math is close to correct? It does close some of the loopholes in the tax laws, insane loopholes that allow US-based companies to deduct payroll and property taxes they pay overseas from their US corporate income taxes. Companies like Levi Strauss, that close all their US plants to move the jobs overseas for cheaper labor, lower taxes. But..the price of Levi products in the US has not decreased. Companies like Wal-Mart, who dictate to their suppliers they will move the plant to China and deliver a 10% “improvement” in the cost structure each year, or they will no longer be a supplier to Wal-Mart. Yes, Wal-Mart does create “jobs” in the US; part time, low wage jobs. It is not the higher-paying manufacturing jobs that are being created, instead it is clerk and stock-boy and freight handler jobs. These are the types of companies being targeted by the tax code changes enacted by this law.

The next comment that was stated by the opposition is that this is pandering to the unions. In the United States, 22 of the 50 states are “right to work” states, with a 23rd (Pennsylvania) considering legislation this upcoming session to join the “right to work” states. That is 46% (including Pennsylvania) of the states that are “right to work” states. Therefore, in my opinion, this law is not “pandering” to the unions, but is truly in favor of the teachers, public safety officers, and others who we need to help our country grow.

The last argument presented stated that this law cut food stamp programs. It does, in 2014, reduce the amount of money allocated to food stamp programs, however, and this is the point the opposition did not press, the bill also allows the food stamp program to be re-instated to the (2014) level as further changes are enacted that bolster the economic well-being of our country.

In fine, this bill is the best we could rationally expect in the current political environment, and it is a bill that will help our students, our future, and our country.