I don’t understand. I have actively followed public education funding in Utah for many years, but especially since the mid 1990s. Utah has almost always been at or near the bottom of the nation in per-pupil funding, but that is understandable as we have always had about the highest number of children per household in the nation. But until the mid 1990s we were almost always ranked in the top ten states in the percent of personal income being used to fund public education.
Yes, it was good that the Legislature gave educators a bonus last year, and it is good that the governor has indicated he is proposing to give another bonus this year. But bonuses are temporary. One can’t make long-range finance agreements, like mortgages based on bonuses.
And yes, our legislators did agree to a compromise bill last year that kind of guarantees public education funding. But the promised increases are based on current funding, which is now millions of dollars short of what is needed to bring our state’s effort to fund public education at least back to what it was before 1996.
And now one of our legislators is proposing an $80 million tax cut. Which fund is the $80 million going to come from? If there is that much extra in the kitty, why not use it to increase education funding such that teacher wages increase on a contractual basis, not just bonuses.
Well, maybe I do understand. The legislator wants to be knighted for lowering taxes. Heck, I don’t like taxes either. But until our state’s effort to fund public education gets back up to the top ten again, I won’t complain.
But I am conflicted, because I know a lot of old people who would like to see the end of their Social Security benefits being taxed. I wonder how much that would cut taxes overall.
Fred Ash, Sandy