Educational Funding Clarification Bill [Passed]

[Brandon H]

I'm opposed (regardless of whether or not the amendment passes).

[Brandon H]

Depressing to see how predictable voting in this Senate has been isn't it?

Let me guess how everyone else will vote:

Aye: Porce, Al, EarlAW, Rob
Nay: DWDL, Phil, PBrunsel, BrandonH, Sam Spade
Absent: Lewis Trondheim (would vote Aye if he was here)

Let's see if I'm wrong.

Add one more.

Nay

The Region which contains most of the states in my district uses a voucher system. As long as the federal government continues to fund education in the regions, then I have the obligation to my constituents to make sure that they are not left out.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Brandon H]

Each Region is Free to run its Education System as it chooses. To deny one region funding from the others would constitute as "Special Treatment". So in my opinion either all regions receive educational funding or none do.

[Brandon H]

Nay

[Brandon H]

This assualt on school choice has to end. Until it does, expect opposition from this Senator throughout the amendment process.

Nay

Phil,
I agree with you, though I think given the previous amendment that passed, in my opinion, this amendment is now (to a very small degree) improves rather than damages the bill (not that this was a good bill to begin with).

Aye

[Brandon H]

Amendment:

The text of the bill shall be replaced with:
1. All regions shall receive an equal amount of money per child under the age of 18 attending a public school.
2. All money spent on education shall be 100% tax deductible.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Brandon H]

First, compare the current version of the bill with the version this amendment will produce:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If someone would be so kind as to explain to me (roughly) how this amendment would change the way in which government funds are delivered, I'd appreciate it.

Also, what is the current status of funds spent on education viz á viz tax deductability?
And, surely clause 2 is very broad in simply describing 'education' spending as tax deductable, wouldn't that cover all sorts of things beyond what I suspect it intends?

One can not look at how this amendment would affect the way funds are delivered without first looking at the version of this bill that the amendment replaces. The current version of this bill places certain restrictions on regional educational programs. If this were to pass, one region would no longer receive ANY funding for education while the other four would.

The first part of the amendment (which I'm sure is more clear of the two) would allocate funds based on students attending public schools. Perhaps that is how the system is now. If that is the case, then this part of the amendment would change nothing, but the current form of the bill would.

Perhaps the second part is overly broad. To my knowledge money spent on tuition costs are NOT tax deductible. So persons attending non-public schools are saving the government money by not using the services provided by the government but are paying taxes that go towards education anyway. I would limit education to "any money charged by a school to attend" and supplies such as books.

Frankly any explanation on these things or general arguments for or against would be welcome.

I believe that this amendment, while it may not be perfect, is an improvement over the current form and deserves support. If there are too many short comings in this bill for you to support, could you explain them and I'll introduce a future amendment to address them.

[Brandon H]

If this were to pass, one region would no longer receive ANY funding for education while the other four would.

What is the current system in the Southeast?
The only relevant Southeastern law I've found has been the School Choice Initiative the consequences of which on public schools are unclear to me.

The first part of the amendment (which I'm sure is more clear of the two) would allocate funds based on students attending public schools. Perhaps that is how the system is now. If that is the case, then this part of the amendment would change nothing, but the current form of the bill would.

Perhaps the second part is overly broad. To my knowledge money spent on tuition costs are NOT tax deductible. So persons attending non-public schools are saving the government money by not using the services provided by the government but are paying taxes that go towards education anyway. I would limit education to "any money charged by a school to attend" and supplies such as books.

I would have no problem with making educational spending completely tax deductable, but yes, I do think the wording is overly broad and would potentially encompass too many disperate activities.

As a result of the school choice initiative, the Southeast now uses a voucher system. Currently, the federal government provides funding to the regions for education, but I have no idea what amount of funding is regional and what amount is federal. The second to last amendment that passed bans providing funding to a regional voucher system which currently is only the Southeast. The voucher system would also allow persons the opportunity to attend a public or private school.

[Brandon H]

Jas,
Either I withdraw the current amendment or please vote against it.

I'm re-introducing Section 1 without Section 2 (which eliminates the need for numbering).


All regions shall receive an equal amount of money per child under the age of 18 attending a public school.

[Brandon H]

Bump. Amendment on the floor, waiting to be voted on.

All regions shall receive an equal amount of money per child under the age of 18 attending a public school.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Brandon H]

Nay

[Brandon H]

Here are some amendments (all separate):

Sections 1 & 2 are stricken from the bill.

Section 5 is stricken from the bill.

Section 6 is stricken from the bill.

Section 8 is stricken from the bill.

Section 9 is stricken from the bill.

[Brandon H]

Aye
Aye
Aye

[Brandon H]

Aye
Aye
Aye

[Brandon H]

Abstain
Aye
Abstain

[Brandon H]

Nay

[Brandon H]

Nay