INDEPENDENCE ISSUE Naa Issue Paper #15-92 October 1992 HOW NOT TO IMPROVE THE SCHOOLS Facts and Fallacies about the Amendment 6 Tax Increase By John Andrews INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE 14142 DENVER WEST PARKWAY, SUITE 185 GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 (303) 279-6536 FAX (303) 279-4176 Note: The Independence Issue Papers are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute, or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action,For Immediate Release Contact: John Andrews October 20, 1992 303/279-6536 (W) 303/770-8215 (H) ‘CHILDREN FIRST' FLUNKS ON FISCAL, EDUCATIONAL, ECONOMIC GROUNDS, INSTITUTE RESEARCH TEAM CONCLUDES Andrews Challenges Romer to Debate Amendments 1, 6, 7 Children First, the sales tax and school reform proposal facing voters on Nov. 3, is fiscally unnecessary because noxt year's revenue estimates have made a “nonexis bogeyman" of Gov. Roy Romer’s alleged 12% funding cut. In addition, the measure is educationally counterproductive because it would disempower families and school districts, ‘and economically harmful because it would destroy up to 75,000 jobs. ‘These are the conclusions of an analysis by policy experts at the Independence Institute, a think tank specializing in state issues. How shools: Fat Fallacies about the Amendment 6 Tax Increase is Independence Issue Paper No. 15-92. ‘Author of the paper is Institute president John Andrews, Roy Romer’s opponent in the 1990 campaign for governor. In releasing it, Andrews formally challenged Romer to a debate over whether Amendment 6 or Amendments 1 and 7 will best improve Colorado schools. ‘The three proposals must be considered as a package, he said in a letter to the Governor, and no debate in the campaign has yet done this, "You believe voters should raise the sales tax. reject the voucher, and put no limit on taxes and spending,” Andrews’ challenge pointed out. "I believe we should leave schoo! finance to the legislature, empower parents to Choose any school, and empower taxpayers with a vote in their own defense.” How Not to Improve the Schools summarizes months of research by an Institute team that included budget analysts Larry Samer, Fred Holden, and Rob Fairbank, educators David DeEvelyn and Carl Raschke, and economist Richard Vedder. The issue paper's key findings are: 1. Children First fails the fiscal responsibility test because.. a, It ignores the strong 1993 revenue picture ($463 million in new money available) which should enable the legislature to allocate $235 million preventing any cut in school aid and still use $145 million for non-education Increases and $83 million for the 2.5% reserve. b. It ignores the half-billion dollar increase already given to state school aid since 1988. c. It contains hidden triggers that could force property and income taxes to increase, doubling the bill to taxpayers 4. It sidesteps the state's real budget problem, entitlements, which Romer helped perpetuate with recent vetoes of Medicaid and welfare reform bills. (More)‘CHILDREN FIRST' FLUNKS - Continued Increase can be ordered at $5 from the Independence I e Children First fails the educational improvement test because. It overlooks $300 million of achievable savings in state payroll. All 13 of its proposed reforms are redundant, unenforcible, or unfunded. Its pay-now, reform-later approach accomplished little for Clinton in ‘Arkansas, Perot in Texas, or Alexander in Tennessee. It suggests that the state, not the family, has primary responsi rearing. xy for child- It weakens local control over education. It ignores evidence that higher spending has not raised learning performance or reduced social problems. Children First fails the economic growth test because... b. It raises the wrong tax, and by too much -- an expensive, regressive, excessive, pre-emptive, and superlative economic mistake, It would destroy private sector jobs (as many as 75,000) to fund public sector pay raises. Educational improvement and fiscal responsibility would be better served, according to Andrews, by rejecting Amendment 6 so that legislators could bargain with the school establishment for genuine reforms at reasonable cost, and by adopting Amendment 7 so that parental choice through vouchers would force all schools to compete for excellence Economic growth for the state would benefit from curbing government growth through the passage of Amendment 1, the tax limitation proposal, the author adds. Amendment tute office in Golden, 303/279- I Fallaci 6536, fax 279-4176.