May 24
100% Guaranteed Conservative
2007 at 10:39 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 4 comments
Recently released to the public was a report by the Utah Legislative Auditor General. The report, Number 2007-07, titled “A Review of the Public Education Costs of Undocumented Children,” explores the impact on state expenditures related to publically educating illegal students in grades K-12. The Legislative Auditor General estimates costs associated with the education of between 10,714 and 16,667 undocumented children to be between $54.9 million and $85.4 million (attributed to State & Local tax dollars exclusively). Click HERE for full report.
Following the release of a significant and controversial audit of this nature is the inevitable local coverage in the TV and print medias. The problem with possessing the insatiable desire to be the first to “report” the latest and greatest news is the inevitable inaccuracies that accompany such unchecked desire. Or, if not unintentional in accuracy, then intentional misrepresentation in order to discredit someone or something. So was the case with a print news piece in the paper yesterday. Certainly interesting, but misrepresented.
Quoted in yesterday’s Deseret Morning News was Sen. Margaret Dayton (R-Orem), Senate Chair of the Public Education Standing Committee, clearly taken out of context when she said “maybe we’re not charging enough income tax.” Dayton had previously stated that the Federal government has not held up their part of the overall bargain (the M.O. of the Feds) by protecting and sealing our borders and that states are expected to pick up the tab for failed federal immigration/border policy. Margaret, and the legislature, knows that the way we pay for the Federal Government’s mistakes at our borders is to increase personal income tax revenues to pay for the additional load in our Public Education system–income tax is Utah Public Education’s primary funding source.
So, Sen. Dayton was implying, I believe, that the REAL costs of educating 10,714 undocumented elementary and secondary students in Utah is to infuse approximately $55 million into state government coffers…and somebody’s gotta do the infusing for their education. That means you and me, friend. The working, personal income taxpaying public.
[Oh, and one more thing, a side note...once we pay for that education, there's no guarantee that those we educate with Utah personal income tax dollars are going to stick around to work in the Utah job market to help "pay back" that education--remember, they're illegal and CAN'T work.]
Now, anyone who knows Margaret would understand the “statement” in the D-News was taken out of context. How do I know? Well, yesterday I had lunch with her and a dozen of my right-leaning colleagues. Each of us received an award from from the Grassroots policy association for our conservative involvement in the legislature–for “acting as responsible steward(s) with tax dollars of the citizens of Utah,” the plaque reads. Oh, and I asked her…
One last point. Margaret was one of two senators to recieved a 100% on the Utah Taxpayers Association scorecard. And, the other senator? Howard Stephenson, President of the Utah Taxpayers Association. Her voting record and actions are clearly inconsistent with the quote in yesterday’s D-News, while her personal philosophy on tax policy is 100% compatible with that of the Utah Taxpayers Association. Hmmmm…
Margaret has personally protected the interests of Utah’s school children, at the same time protecting the interests of the Utah taxpayer. As a member of the Public Education Standing Committee and Vice-Chair of the House Revenue and Taxation Standing Committee, I’ve seen this time and time again. She has consistently fought for state’s rights and brought Washington DC to task when Congress and federal bureaucracies have fallen down on education policy.
Senator Margaret Dayton IS conservative…100% guaranteed!
4 Responses to “100% Guaranteed Conservative”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Are you actually suggesting that, because they are not legally supposed to work, these guys don’t work? My friend who works with a number of local construction companies would be quite surprised to hear that. As Gov. Huntsman said on KSL last night, what we need in this debate is a cost-benefit analysis, like Texas did. Counting only the economic costs of illegal immigration without acknowleding any economic benefits doesn’t give a complete picture.
P.S. I’m not sure it’s a compliment to say that someone is 100% anything…
May 25th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I am 100% correct.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I didn’t create the scorecard.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
To the Voice of Utah –
Everyone points to the Texas Study as if it proves that there is an economic benefit of illegal immigration. Having actually read the Texas Study, let me quote directly: “While state revenues exceed state expenditures for undocumented immigrants, local governments and hospitals experience the opposite, with the estimated difference being $928.9 million for 2005.” This means that there is a net negative of $504.2 million to the taxpayers of Texas not the net positive of $424.7 million so often quoted in the media.
This fact seems to be “conveniently” buried in the study (exhibit 18 to be exact). Unfortunately, the Texas Study might be the most misrepresented study in the history of the debate on illegal immigration. This is especially true when one considers that Texas has no income tax and relies heavily on sales tax which picks up a much greater portion of illegal aliens activity (another fact “conveniently” ignored when speaking of the Texas Study). Utah relies heavily on income tax which is easily avoided by declaring more exemptions or making less than $25,000. But unfortunately someone wise once told me that “the facts don’t seem to matter” when dealing with legislation.
However, the whole debate of economic benefit should really be a side note since most of my conservative friends believe in immigration even if there is an economic cost in the short run. The questions that really should be asked are: Is there a greater economic benefit of illegal immigration than legal immigration? Why should we discriminate against those trying to come here legally? Where’s the compassion for the 4.8 billion people that have a lower standard of living than Mexico? (Yes, I know that not all illegal immigration is from Mexico – only 56% is with another 22% coming for Latin America. To be fair I should include the 3 % from Africa, the 6% from Europe and the 12% from Asia). Unfortunately, granting amnesty severely favors one region of the world and discriminates against the rest.
I believe that when we reward illegal behavior and punish legal behavior that we will only get more illegal behavior. Is this really that radical of an idea?