Schools: Cockamamy Ideas, Fuzzy Math

There’s a rumor being circulated by the Cato Institute that private schools are cheaper to run than public ones. More successful, too.

I’ll leave it to better-qualified critics than I to respond to the mis-use of facts, fuzzy math, twisted logic and right-wing political agenda disguised as objectivity.

As someone who attended public schools from pre-kindergarten through college, I respectfully point out that Cato neglects one of the most important factors in student success: Parent involvement.

The mere fact of selecting a non-public school can demonstrate an increased level of parent involvement.

Secondarily, I insist that the point of a public education system is far more than to be “responsive, efficient [and] high-quality,” as Cato concludes. The role of free public schools is to be society’s historian, exponent and perpetuator of its values --the common weal.

Private schools --religious and otherwise-- promote their own values. Ditto home schooling. Each has its own agenda. Not necessarily “bad.” But the word “sectarian” comes to mind.

These may be close to, or parallel with those of the overall society. But they are not identical. That’s why they are private and should be privately funded.

Progressive Taxation -Arizona Style

The prevailing view nationwide is that the U.S. tax system is generally progressive, meaning higher-income people and companies are expected to pay larger shares. Recent figures released by Arizona's Department of Revenue show the highest-earning 8.4 percent of individual taxpayers - those making $100,000 and more - paid 53 percent of all taxes from individuals in 2003, the most recent year available. But is that “progressive”?

Arizonans with adjusted gross income of $1 million or more, representing a mere 0.12 of a percent of all taxpayers, paid 13 percent of the total. Looked at another way, people who earned less than $50,000 represented 70.2 percent of all individual tax-return filers but paid only 19 percent of the take from individuals. But is that “progressive”?

The same pattern can be seen among corporations, where the top 1.1 percent of filers - firms with tax liabilities of $100,000 and up - accounted for 85 percent of all corporate income-tax revenue. But is that “progressive”?

These are interesting figures, as pointed out by Russ Wiles in the Arizona Republic on November 28, 2006. However, there is another way to look at the numbers. (Do you recall what Karl Rove said to Steve Inskeep of NPR before Election day, "You have your numbers; I have THE numbers.")

Check out an article by Ben Stein --Yes, THE Ben Stein-- in The NY Times of Sunday, Nov. 26, based on his interview with Warren Buffett --Yes, THE Warren Buffett. The title is "In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning."

Stein discovered that, "Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap."

How did these two Republicans and giants of capitalism come to this conclusion? Stein explains:

"Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

My answer: It isn't. Period.

Stein says that "conservatives were supposed to like balanced budgets. I thought it was the conservative position to not leave heavy indebtedness to our grandchildren. I thought it was the conservative view that there should be some balance between income and outflow. When did this change?

"Oh, now, now, now I recall. It changed when we figured that we could cut taxes and generate so much revenue that we would balance the budget. But isn’t that what doctors call magical thinking? Haven’t the facts proved that this theory, though charming and beguiling, was wrong?"