Ohio’s Republican dominated Assembly seems intent on raising the ante concerning privatization of public education. The Education Committee of the Ohio House has approved radical legislation, HB136, that, if ratified by the Ohio Assembly, would greatly expand the current state funded “voucher” program. HB136 makes the entire amount of state money now allocated to local schools available to fund tuition for private schools, enough to fund the private school education of over one million students.

Ohio’s current voucher plan — The EdChoice Scholarship Program — according to ODE, is limited, “to students who attend persistently underperforming public schools. The scholarship, sometimes called a voucher, must be used to attend a participating chartered nonpublic school.” This past June, Governor Kasich signed legislation that greatly increase the number of vouchers in Ohio from 14,000 to 60,000.

In the new voucher plan, students in all Ohio school districts, high performing as well as low, may claim the state money now allocated to the district they attend to pay for tuition to private schools. The amount of the scholarship a student may claim will vary, depending on the family income of the participating student, but, it looks like the average voucher will be about $4500 per child per year.

Greg at Plunderbund has an interesting analysis of HB136 that uses my neighboring school district in South Dayton, Centerville, as an example. Centerville is rated as “Excellent with Distinction.” If HB136 is ratified, the entire $9.6 million that Centerville receives each year in state funding will be made available to pay for tuition to private schools. Scholarships will be worth about $4,626 per student, per year. If the entire $9.6 million is spent on private school tuition vouchers, 24% of Centerville’s students could leave Centerville public school and attend a private school. The dollar amount of vouchers provided to Centerville students will be subtracted from the amount of state money allocated to Centerville public schools.

I’ve not read what provision HB136 makes for the potential situation of a school district having such great demand for private school vouchers that its available state money is not adequate, but, I’m guessing, some type of lottery would be used, as in “Waiting For Superman.”

Republican Matt Huffman from Allen County (Lima) is the main sponsor of HB136. Just last week, according to their web-site, “School Choice Ohio (SCO) recognized Representative Huffman as a ‘School Choice Champion’ and presented him with a seedling tree to represent the seeds of hope he is planting for thousands of families across Ohio. Representative Huffman is the first legislator to receive this prestigious award from SCO.”

The web-site states, “In addition, the event paid tribute to Dr. Milton Friedman, widely considered the ‘father of school choice.’ Two students spoke about their experiences using state scholarships to attend private school. One of the students, Derek Allen, is a recent Lima Central Catholic graduate.”

In a you-tube at the SCO web-site, Derek expresses thankfulness that, because of his EdChoice Scholarship, he was able to attend a first rate, academic school. Giving students, like Derek, the opportunity to flee a failing school and attend a successful private school sounds wonderful. The problem is, Derek, like most voucher recipients, used his tax financed scholarship to attend a religious school. Since over 90% of private schools in Ohio, right now, are religious schools, most all vouchers are used to fund religious education. The list of Ohio private schools accepting EdChoice vouchers shows that almost all of these private schools are church sponsored, religious schools.

I can’t understand why Republicans, who profess to be “conservatives,” would advocate using tax money to fund religious private education. HB136, as written, would fund religious private school education for students seeking to escape failing public school districts, and, it would fund religious private education for students who already are attending high performing public school districts, like Centerville.

The private school Derek attended with tax money says on its web-site that it is centered on accomplishing this purpose: “Our Mission:  Lima Central Catholic High School is committed to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, providing a faith-based education through quality academic artistic and athletic programs combined with opportunities for spiritual formation and growth.”

According to his bio, Matt Huffman is a Catholic, a member of the Knights of Columbus, so, evidently, using tax money to provide students with a “faith based education,” one, “committed to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,” is something Huffman personally supports. But, I’ve got to wonder how he would feel about using public tax money to pay for tuition to a private Muslim school, one whose mission statement matched the fervor of Lima Central Catholic?  Or how would Mr. Huffman feel about using tax dollars to fund a private school whose mission was to advance a doctrine of atheism or Marxism? Remember, unlike public schools, private religious schools are free to severely limit the academic freedom of their teachers, free to demand that their teachers sign doctrinal agreements, free to dismiss teachers and students who fail to enthusiastically adhere to the doctrinal standards of the school.

The point worth debating is this: Is it good public policy to use tax money to pay for religious education? Is it a policy that respects the Constitution? Is is a policy that, by any stretch, could be considered “conservative”?

HB136 will accommodate students who are already attending private schools. The School Choice Ohio Blog reports:

Among the key changes in the amended bill is a provision restoring the eligibility of current private school students whose families meet the income eligibility guidelines. A previously introduced substitute bill would have made these students ineligible. This change brings more balance to parents across Ohio who are struggling to make ends meet while providing educational opportunities for their children.

The eligibility for private school students would again be phased-in over a four year period, beginning with kindergarten students in the 2012-2013 school year, students in grades K-4 in 2013-2014, students in grades K-8 in the 2014-2015 school year, and all students in grades K-12 in the 2015-2016 school year.

According to the web-site, “Follow the Money,” Matt Huffman, the sponsor of HB136, has received $27,500 in contributions from educational entrepreneurs David Brennen and his wife — the owners of “White Hat” Co.  Mr. Brennen is on record as advocating an increase in state vouchers. And Huffman has received $11,000 from William Lager,  of Altair Learning Management, operator of the on-line charter school, The Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow. Both Mr. Brennen and Mr. Lager have benefited handsomely from the tax money flowing to their charter schools. How nice of them to share.

A 130 page study, Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, tells about the “Islamophobia echo chamber” — a well financed network of bigots — and how this influential group acts as a relentless propaganda machine, shamelessly attacking Islam and Muslims.

The report states: “These attacks go right to the heart of two critically important national issues: the fabric and strength of our democracy and our national security.

• Contending that some religions are not part of the promise of American freedoms established by our founders directly challenges who we are as a nation.
• One of Al Qaeda’s greatest recruitment and propaganda tool is the assertion that the West is at war with Islam and Muslims — an argument that is strengthened every day by those who suggest all Muslims are terrorists and all those practicing Islam are jeopardizing U.S. security.”

The report shows that the manifesto written by Anders Breivik — the 32 year old “self-described Christian conservative” who murdered 76 people in Norway — contained many references to American writers and speakers who are leaders in the Islamophbia network.

The purpose of the report, published by The Center for American Progress: “A first step toward the goal of honest, civil discourse is to expose — and marginalize — the influence of the individuals and groups who make up the Islamophobia network in America by actively working to divide Americans against one another through misinformation.”

Over the last 10 years a number of tax exempt foundations have funneled over $42 million into funding “misinformation experts,” some with impressive academic credentials, and all well paid, for the “myths and lies about Islam and American Muslims” they produce.

The work of these “experts” then becomes part of the echo chamber where prominent personalities push their messages of hate. A lot of people are making money by keeping the hate stirred up, and, amazingly, many of these claim to be followers of Christ. The report cites right wing religious leaders: Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Ralph Reed, and Franklin Graham. It cites politicians: Newt Gingrich, Rep. Peter King, Rep. Sue Myrick, Rep. Allen West, Rep. Renee Elmers, Rep. Paul Broun and Rep. Michele Bachmann.

The venom is all heated up via hate radio and Fox News with personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike Savage, and Glenn Beck. And well organized “grassroots” organizations, such as Brigitte Gabriel’s “ACT! For America” and Pamela Geller’s “Stop Islamization of America,” keep the hate stirred up.

The report says,

“These efforts recall some of the darkest episodes in American history, in which religious, ethnic, and racial minorities were discriminated against and persecuted. From Catholics, Mormons, Japanese Americans, European immigrants, Jews, and African Americans, the story of America is one of struggle to achieve in practice our founding ideals. Unfortunately, American Muslims and Islam are the latest chapter in a long American struggle against scapegoating based on religion, race, or creed.

Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America. Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam: the lowest favorability rating since 2001, according to a 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll. According to a 2010 Time magazine poll, 28 percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and nearly one-third of the country thinks followers of Islam should be barred from running for president.

It is our view that in order to safeguard our national security and uphold America’s core values, we must return to a fact-based civil discourse regarding the challenges we face as a nation and world. This discourse must be frank and honest, but also consistent with American values of religious liberty, equal justice under the law, and respect for pluralism. A first step toward the goal of honest, civil discourse is to expose — and marginalize — the influence of the individuals and groups who make up the Islamophobia network in America by actively working to divide Americans against one another through misinformation.”

The report hold out hope for change and cites businessman Herman Cain, who, it says, “once was a favorite on the Islamophobia network for his outspoken views about Sharia law when he first launched his campaign for the Republican Party nomination for president.”

“Since then, Cain has walked back from such extremism — and in the process irked the Islamophobia network to no end. Most recently, he retracted and publicly apologized for a number of these views. Cain in July went to the ADAMS Center in Northern Virginia, where he broke bread with Imam Mohamed Magid, the executive director of the center, and other Muslims. After the meeting, he said he was “humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to American Muslims and their friends.”

Furthermore, he said he was “truly sorry” for creating the impression that he was against the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. “We discovered we have much more in common in our values and virtues,” he said about his meeting. “In my own life as a black youth growing up in the segregated South, I understand their frustration with stereotypes. Those in attendance, like most American Muslims, are peaceful Muslims and patriotic Americans whose good will is often drowned out by the reprehensible actions of jihadists.”

Cain’s experience is instructive. Once he detached himself from the web of the Islamophobia network, he encountered American Muslims who shattered many of the false impressions and stereotypes he held. Cain also regained his place supporting American values of religious liberty, freedom, and equal justice under the law.

Of course, the Islamophobia network was utterly contemptuous of Cain’s efforts to reach out to moderate Muslims. At the Western Conservative Conference in Denver this summer, Frank Gaffney alleged that Cain had actually met with members of the “Muslim Brotherhood apparatus in Washington, D.C.” Gaffney added, “If, in fact, he’s now changed his position in ways that are being reported, that’s even more troubling than if he was spending time with Muslim Brothers.”

Such unchecked bullying by the misinformation experts should not be tolerated. Our nation needs more responsible conservatives to stand side by side with progressives to safeguard our national security and uphold America’s core values of religious freedom and respect for ethnic diversity. A required first step is to expose the influence of the organizations, individuals, and groups who make up the Islamophobia network in America.”

It always makes me laugh to see the video clips, one after another, ala Steven Colbert, showing vocal Republicans all speaking from the same page. The latest mantra:

• “It’s class warfare,”
• “It’s class warfare,”
• “It’s class warfare,”

— Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and many others, — all repeating the same party line.

This all in response to President Obama’s proposed “Buffett Rule” — named after the zillionare that suggested it — that the very rich should pay their fair share of taxes. As Timothy Noah says, “Obama isn’t even talking about making the rich pay a higher proportion of their income than the middle class in taxes. God forbid! He’s merely saying (with his proposed “Buffet Rule”) that the rich shouldn’t get away with paying a smaller proportion.”

Says Noah, “As recently as 2000 the 400 richest Americans paid 22.3 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal taxes. In 2008 (the last year for which data are available) they paid 18.1 percent. Again, this occurred while their income share was going up, not down.”

Paul Krugman prepared this chart from data from the Congressional Budget Office — that only goes to 2005, but shows a trend that today would be even more dramatic — that shows that changes in tax laws have greatly favored the wealthy. Because of changes in tax laws, an average income may have an increase of 4% in after tax income, but the very wealthy have a 20% increase.

Krugman makes the point that “across the board” tax cuts have greatly favored the wealthy, the same point that I attempted to make three years ago, concerning the 2005 law reducing Ohio’s income taxes: Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Law Diminished, By 21%, The Progressivity of Ohio’s Tax Code.

It’s a simple principle applied many times. Suppose the wealthy were paying at a 40% rate, and the poor at a 10% rate — a tax cut of 50% would increase after tax income for the wealthy by 20%, but give the poor only 5% more.

One of my aggravations with Governor Strickland was that he didn’t push a progressive tax system. When he got into office in 2006, I felt he should have made a stand and challenged Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction law. A big reason Ohio is now in financial straits is that, with the passage of this law, the state’s income tax is much less progressive than it once was, and therefore producing much less income. On top of that, today’s Republicans have now abolished the estate tax, again, greatly favoring the wealthy.

Not only have tax changes favored the wealthy, but the income of the wealthy continues to rise. This is an interesting chart copied from a web-site that studies the distribution of wealth world wide:

The Question Is Not Whether We Want “Class Warfare”? — It’s: Can We Have “Tax Fairness”?

The Republicans are trying mightily hard to frame the question of seeking “Tax Fairness” as somehow a question of class resentment. They have no shame.