Monthly Archives: December 2015

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 30, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Education, Public Education, Uncategorized

Comments

3 Comments

Here we go again…

The second regular session of the Arizona 52nd Legislature officially begins on January 11, 2016.   If past performance is any indication, that means it won’t be long until we see numerous anti-public education bills proposed, some of which will be reruns. With the Inflation Funding Lawsuit settled (pending approval by the voters on May 17th), it will be interesting to see what comes up next. Governor Ducey and the GOP-led legislature will no doubt continue to make political hay from the settlement, but pro-public education advocates are loaded for bear and will be watching for what the legislature does next with regard to public education.

The Friends of ASBA, a sister organization of the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA), compiles a record each year of how Arizona legislators voted on high priority K-12 education bills. The record shows how each AZ legislative member voted on education bills during the session. I wanted to compute a score though, so I awarded 10 points for each vote in accordance with ASBA’s position, 1 point for those votes in opposition to it and 5 points when a member was eligible to vote but did not. Then I divided each member’s total by the number of bills they voted on.   When a bill did not come before a member, I just reduced the denominator (total number of bills) by one.

As you might suspect, Republican legislators scored an average of 39 percent for voting in accord with ASBA recommendations and Democrats scored 87 percent. This is not to say that every Republican voted against all public education legislation, or that every Democrat voted for all of it. Bright spots on the right side of the aisle include Representatives Heather Carter with a score of 91, Chris Ackerley with a score of 73, and Representative Bob Robson with a score of 77. Senators Jeff Dial and Adam Driggs both had scores of 70.  All Democrat’s scores were 80 percent or higher except for Senator Barbara McGuire with a 73 and Senator Ed Ableser (who has since retired) with a score of 74.

2015 was a very busy year for education advocates but luckily, their earnest efforts paid off and those bills most harmful to our public education students did not pass. Examples include HB2174 introduced by Rep Mark Finchem, which sought to expand empowerment scholarship accounts once again, HB2190 also introduced by Finchem, which would have prohibited implementation of AZ College and Career Ready Standards (already in use for 4-5 years), and HB 2079 sponsored by Petersen and SB 1173 sponsored by Yee, which would have imposed even more restrictions on local bonding efforts.

The second session of this legislature promises to be as exciting as the first and public education proponents will no doubt be watching determine the Governor and Legislature’s true intentions regarding public education. If the 2016 budget does not include a plus-up for public education, that will be a clear sign that despite the inflation lawsuit settlement, they 1) are not listening to the citizens of Arizona who have made clear that education is a funding priority (as a recent poll showed), 2) are not really friends of public education and 3) really are out to privatize Arizona’s public schools, to the detriment of those students least able to take advantage of other options. Money may not be the only answer, but it can be no coincidence that Arizona was 48th in the Nation for cuts to per pupil funding and 44th in education performance. It is way past time to move the marker in the right direction.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 28, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, CTE/JTED, Education, Public Education, taxes

Comments

1 Comment

CTE is a win-win-win

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple was recently asked why his company moved its production to China. “It’s skill”, said Cook in response to Charlie Rose on “60 Minutes. “The U.S., over time, began to stop having as many vocational kind of skills” he said. “I mean, you can take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in a room that we’re currently sitting in. In China, you would have to have multiple football fields.” Okay, so the CEO of the most profitable company in the world moved production out of the U.S. because American workers don’t have enough vocational skills.   Surely, that makes alleged “pro-business” legislators stand up and take notice, right? You would think, but this is Arizona.

In our state, the public high school districts charged with offering these tuition-free “vocational kind of skills” or Career and Technical Education (CTE) are Joint Technical Education Districts (JTED.) These JTED offer a variety of programs in fields such as business, computers and media, health science; and industrial technologies just to name a few. Students in JTED programs earn high school credit, and in some cases, may earn college credit, industry certifications, and/or a state license through combination of hands-on training and classroom instruction.

As the Pinal County Chair for the Arizona School Boards Association, I toured the Central Arizona Valley Institute of Technology (CAVIT) in Coolidge this year.   This district has a partnership with eleven area high schools and offers aesthetics, cosmetology, dental assistant, fire science, law enforcement, massage therapy, medical assistant, nursing assistant, and veterinary assistant training programs. I was very impressed with what I saw at CAVIT. Engaged students were learning not only valuable trades skills that will earn them certificates and jobs when they graduate from high school, but also how to be valued employees. I left CAVIT thinking “this is exactly what we need in Arizona.”

Unfortunately, the AZ Legislature obviously doesn’t agree or just doesn’t “get it”. In 2011, they cut CTE funding for freshmen to the tune of $29 million. In 2017, another 7.5 percent cut takes affect. That may not sound like much, but on top of previous cuts it will devastate the program. In fact, JTED aren’t the only districts impacted since about 70 percent of the funding they receive is passed through to regular school districts where many of the classes are taught. JTED keeps the other 30 percent for operation of their central campuses. Jeremy Plumb, superintendent of Mountain Institute JTED in Yavapai County, said: [As the] programs continue to grow and expand critical partnerships; business and industry leaders are mind-boggled by the recent statewide program cuts.” Plumb also confirmed that Arizona is beginning to see epidemic employment shortages in industries such as health care, power and electrical systems, and aviation just to name a few. David Jones, president of the Arizona Construction Association, likewise confirms that quality carpenters, welders, electricians, plumbers and landscapers are in high demand adding: “There’s a stigma attached to going to a vocational school in the U.S.” Perhaps, but this stigma hasn’t extinguished student demand in Arizona with over 90,000 students enrolled in one of the state’s 13 JTED. After all, college is expensive and job opportunities aren’t what they used to be. JTED offers an alternative with less risk and at least as much promise for a secure future.

Truth is, although Americans love to tout “college for all” fewer than one in three young people achieve that dream. Some can’t even make it to college, but the real problem is our drop-out rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. There are a variety of reasons, to include that many college students (as with high school students who drop out) can’t see a direct connection between their studies and future employment. In fact, 81 percent of high school dropouts say relevant, real-world educational offerings would have kept them in school. This matters because the average dropout will contribute about $300,000 less to society than their high school graduate counterpart. CTE participation has proven to help. In Tucson Unified School District, students who took three or more CTE classes saw as much as a 60 percent decrease in the likelihood of dropping out of high school. In the Mesa Public Schools, students taking just two CTE classes were 79 percent less likely to drop out. Of this type of “applied learning” Richard Condit, Chief Administrative Officer, Sundt Corporation said: It is clear that when students see application of content, they are more engaged in and committed to their education.”

Not only does JTED/CTE provide skilled workers to eager employers, and keep students in school, it often provides young adults higher paying jobs than if they had gone to a four-year college. This is especially true when the avoidance of student debt is considered. A 2011 Harvard study showed that 27 percent of people with post-secondary licenses or certificates—credentials short of an associate’s degree—earn more than the average bachelor’s degree recipient. In today’s tough economy, the percentage is probably higher.

So, CTE is a win-win-win program. And yet, our Legislature seems intent on killing it. Yes, I know it is a budget issue. Yes, I know Governor Ducey is determined not to raise taxes (at least not directly), but this is a choice! This is HIS choice! This is inspite (or maybe in SPITE) of the fact that a recent poll found 66 percent of Arizonans would pay higher taxes to improve public schools.

It is OUR choice whether we continue to let our elected officials act counter to our wishes. Guess what? We ARE the boss of them! We grant them their jobs, we pay their salaries, and we should be giving them performance feedback. Click here for the Governor’s feedback form, and click here to find and email your legislative district’s representatives. And, if you want to make a difference real-time during the next legislative session, click here for the form to sign up for the Legislature’s Request to Speak System where you can engage from your home computer and have your comments become part of the public record. You CAN do something and what you do will matter. As Nike says, “just do it.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 26, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Education, General Arizona, Poverty, Privatization, Public Education, taxes

Comments

2 Comments

Doing the Right Thing Isn’t Complicated

When I read the recent Cronkite News Service article “20 Years in, Arizona charter schools on firm ground” I wanted to rename it “20 Years in, Arizona charter schools still serve only 15 percent of the state’s students.” That’s when I realized how pointless this debate is. You know, you tout charter school offerings and performance and I come back with “yeah, but charters cherry pick their students and don’t have to put up with the same level of transparency and accountability.” Enough already!

How about we try something different? First, we recognize that charter schools weren’t originally designed to compete with community district schools, but rather, “to allow teachers the opportunity to draw upon their expertise to create high-performing educational laboratories from which the traditional public schools could learn.” Except for the part of allowing “teachers the opportunity” some charter schools have mostly done that. Take BASIS schools for example. Known for their rigor and academic success, these schools have an in-depth enrollment process that includes a placement test, they push their students hard, and they require significant involvement by parents who are likely already more engaged with their child’s education than the average. These factors no doubt contributed to BASIS Scottsdale ranking #2 high school in the nation for 2015 by U.S. News & World Report. There are takeaways from the BASIS model that would likely improve academic success at some district schools, but their high attrition rate is proof enough that it won’t work for the vast majority of students.   District schools can’t “attrit” students – they must educate all.

Unfortunately, our system doesn’t encourage schools to learn from one another. Open enrollment and school choice force schools to compete for the students that bring the dollars they need to exist. This competition comes at a cost. Today’s schools must spend valuable education dollars branding themselves and marketing to attract students. Larger districts now have marketing and public relations people on staff, but there’s no new money to cover these costs. The reality is that in the existing climate of “no new taxes” there is only so much education money to go around and adding more schools to the mix can only dilute the quality for the majority of our students. Instead of focusing on what model can perform better given the right circumstances, we should be looking at what will work best for all the children in our public schools. We need to revise an antiquated school funding model that simply “counts noses” rather than considering student demographics, performance and other measures.

We also must find a way to give our schools more stability in their funding. Our school administrators are professionals and they can make wise adjustments when they know what’s coming. Problem is, education funding has been volatile and unpredictable and even that which is mandated by voters and adjudicated by the courts cannot be counted on. And although charters complain that they can’t go out for bonds and overrides, the $1,100 (in 2014) more per pupil funding they receive is much more stable than the locally controlled funding districts have the option to seek. An analysis from the AZ Republic showed that from 2002 to 2012 69 percent of school districts had not issued bonds (or were shot down by voters when they did) and 73 percent hadn’t gone out for capital overrides or couldn’t win voter’s approval. Of course, school choice also supports instability as when money flows from a district school to a charter; the costs do not go down proportionately at the district school. Rather, the district school cannot shift their costs fast enough as students and revenue leave and the fixed costs for the principal, utilities, building debt, etc. remain often resulting in larger class sizes and cuts to academic programming.

The Payson RoundUp was way on-point recently: “We’re dismayed that Arizona seems more intent on nurturing for-profit charter schools than in adequately supporting our existing public schools. It makes little sense for the state to spend public money supporting a privately operated school that will result in shutting down a school already paid for by those same taxpayers.” They also asked why if the Legislature believes that giving free rein to charters and paving the way for them to thrive is good for our kids, why didn’t they just do that for our district schools? Great question!

So instead of revisiting the 2008 initiative to combine 76 elementary and high school districts into 27 K-12 districts, maybe we should look at whether encouraging the establishment of 600-plus new charter schools (many of them run by for-profit companies) made Arizona’s public education system more cost-effective in general. Although Arizona Charter Schools Association CEO Eileen Sigmund claims that less than 5 percent of Arizona charters operate through for-profit companies, I was unable to verify her claim. In 2012, Arizona had 108 schools managed by for-profit EMOs, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools reported at least 30 percent of Arizona’s charter schools were run by for-profit EMOs in 2013 and in 2014, Arizona had close to 204 for-profit companies managing the state’s charter schools. In fact, the national trend is for charter schools to be increasingly managed by for-profit EMOs and it is estimated as much as 40 percent of all charter schools are operated by EMOs and account for close to 45 percent of all charter school enrollments. These statistics matter because when decisions are made by for-profit EMOs, they are often made at out-of-state corporate headquarters with profit, not students, in mind such as when they divert higher amounts of funding to administration. BASIS schools for example, directed close to $2,000 per pupil for administrators in 2014 while Peoria Unified School District only spent $732 per pupil for administration. Additionally, EMOs take advantage of the virtually non-existent requirements for accountability and transparency as well as favorable tax codes.

Ultimately, you can’t get the right result going after it for the wrong reason. I have to believe that if all we really cared about all our students receiving the best education possible, we could make it happen. In fact, if we only didn’t care who got the credit, we would be light years ahead. We know what we are doing now is more profit- and politics-based than truly pupil-based.  I know this is true, because we aren’t doing what we already know helps students thrive: high expectations, quality teachers who are respected as professionals, preschool, lower class sizes for at least the younger students, wrap-around services and community support for high poverty students, after school programs, remedial programs, home visitation programs and high quality child care. It won’t be easy, but it really isn’t that complicated. Of course, doing the right thing rarely is.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 24, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Education, Privatization, Public Education

Comments

5 Comments

You Don’t Know, What You Don’t Know

Yes, the AZ Republic called Senator Sylvia Allen “one of the best-known lightning rods in the AZ Legislature.”  Her stated belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and her suggestion that church attendance be mandated as a way to “get back to a moral rebirth in this country” are just two of the reasons for her notoriety. I was shocked when I heard of her appointment as Chair of the Senate Education Committee, but it shouldn’t have surprised me.

After all, I doubt her religious fervency is the reason AZ Senate President Biggs selected Allen to be the person who will control what education proposals make it out of the AZ Senate. Rather, I suspect it is her support of charter schools like the George Washington Academy she helped found in Snowflake. Listed as the “Administrative Program Manager” on their “GWA Teachers and Staff” page, Senator Allen’s employment with this school makes me wary of her ability to be impartial when it comes to legislation that favors charter schools over public district schools. Please know that I am not a charter “hater.” I recognize there are charter schools that fill critical needs. What I am, is realistic about the impact the diversion of tax payer dollars to privately managed charter and private schools is having on our public school districts and their students. Make no mistake; this is a zero sum game. When charter schools win, public district schools, often the hub of small communities, lose.

Senator Allen’s George Washington Academy may be located in the community of Snowflake, but it is managed by Education Management Organization (EMO) EdKey Inc., a for-profit management company that operates 18 schools in Arizona. Although its schools are technically “public” there are numerous differences between them (and all charters) and your average community district schools. For starters, the requirements for accountability and transparency are very different. Public district schools have locally elected governing board members that are accountable to the public. Not so with charter schools. In looking at the George Washington Academy website, they had no information about the school board on their school board page, and under school board agendas, only a statement that says: “Sorry, but that directory is empty.” I had to go to the corporate website (sequoiaschools.org) to see the names of their six governing board members, but there was no access to board agendas or minutes.

Another difference between public district schools and charters is the students they serve. Although both are required by law to take all students as long as they have existing capacity, charters often manage to be more “discriminating” in filling their student rosters. As the 2015-2016 school year is the first for the George Washington Academy, there were no AzMERIT scores or demographic information for the school. I did review the data for an EdKey, Inc. school operating under the same charter, the Pathfinder Academy. I discovered their students performed relatively well (this first year was tough on all schools) on the AzMERIT test with 57 percent of their students passing on the English score and 54 percent on Math. It is important to note though, that the school evidently is very homogenous, reporting no (or negligible) non-white students. They also had no (or negligible) homeless students, English language learners, or students with disabilities. I am a school board member of a small rural school where 24 percent of our students are classified as special needs. These students take the same AzMERIT test as all the other students. As you can imagine, this makes a difference. As does working with students who may be dealing with additional challenges (such as poverty) outside the classroom.

This isn’t just about academic achievement it is also about cold, hard cash. The current reality is that with open enrollment and school choice, all schools must compete for students and the funding that comes with them. This idea works great for students when schools are focused on improving so they can better attract students. It doesn’t work so well when the motive is profit-oriented. EMOs are in the business of making money and that means operating efficiently and profitably, but they may not always have all the students’ best interests in mind. That’s why attrition rates in charters are often high after the annual daily attendance records are turned into the state on the 100th day of the school year. After the 100th day, less than “ideal” students are often “encouraged” back to the public district school. The charter school keeps that year’s funding for the student and the district school must educate that child without any associated funding. And although EMOs may be focused on operating efficiently, administrative costs are often double those of Arizona’s traditional public schools, which have the lowest administrative costs in the nation.

I believe charter schools should supplement public schools not supplant them. The original intent of charter schools as envisioned by Albert Shanker, the president of the American Federation of Teachers (yes a union guy), was a public school where teachers could experiment with “fresh and innovative ways of reaching students.” That was until the corporate reform movement recognized the money (around $700 billion) to be made in the K-12 education market.

Yet, despite all the efforts of reformers and the fact Arizona has led the Nation in charter school development, a full 85 percent of Arizona students still attend public district schools. This is where our focus and that of those who represent us should be. In the first session of the 52nd Legislature, Senator Allen voted in accord with the Arizona School Boards Association’s position on only two of nine bills. That is right in line with her party, but it doesn’t bode well for her support of Arizona’s district public school children. Still, I must admit that I liked her words to the Arizona Republic in response to her appointment as the Senate Education Committee Chair: “I want to highlight the incredible teachers who are the reason for our children’s success. I also want to focus on parents’ responsibility in their children’s education. They are a critical part of their children’s success. We need to encourage that involvement.” I agree entirely with both of those sentiments and hope she genuinely believes them and acts accordingly as the Senate Education Committee Chair.

Words won’t though, raise Arizona’s academic achievement above the bottom three or four. Senator Allen appears to be predisposed to charter schools, her voting record has not been supportive of public district schools, she has extreme religious views and, she only has a high school diploma. Look, I am not criticizing her for not going to college, she’s obviously done well in spite of that. But, with that in mind, is she the right person to exercise this much control over what happens with education in our state? After all, there are a multitude of experiences higher education offers and in the absence of these experiences, you don’t know what you don’t know.

Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding, and I hope Senator Farley is correct in his assessment that he believes Allen will “do a pretty good job.” Unfortunately, I believe our AZ students need more than “pretty good”, I think they need the very best we can bring. I have my doubts that Senator Allen is up to the job, but time will tell and I’ll be watching.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 20, 2015

Posted under

Budget, Economics, General Arizona, taxes, Uncategorized

Comments

2 Comments

Stuck on Stupid

I continue to marvel at narratives that sell despite countering common sense. Take for example, supply-side (some call it trickle-down) economics. The basic theory is that marginal tax rates and less government regulation will help business expand and create more jobs. The Laffer Curve, named after Arthur Laffer, is a central theory of this philosophy and posits that lowering tax rates generates more economic activity eventually leading to more tax revenue. Proponents of this philosophy include the Koch-brothers-financed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans for Prosperity, and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. They claim that the nine states without personal income taxes are outperforming the rest of the states and that their success can be easily replicated in those states that abandon their income tax.   The non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) however, says that Laffer focused on “blunt aggregate measure of economic growth” to support his contention. The truth says ITEP, is that states with personal income tax, even those with the highest rates, are experiencing as good, or better, economic conditions than those without. Still, there are plenty of examples of governors who insist on leading their states down the proverbial rabbit hole.

When Governor Sam Brownback took the reins in Kansas, he dropped the top income-tax rate by 25%, lowered sales taxes and created a huge exemption for business owners filing taxes as individuals. Brownback claimed the tax plan was a “real live experiment” in supply-side economics, one that would spur investment, create jobs and bolster the state’s coffers through faster growth. He followed this course despite warnings from Traditional Republicans for Common Sense, a group of 55 former Kansas GOP legislators who opposed the tax cuts, saying they would “create a $2.7 billion deficit within five years.” Now, five years after doubling down, his state lags in job creation, tax revenue is far short of expectations and bond and credit ratings have been downgraded. Rating agencies claimed the tax breaks were unsustainable and that the promised economic growth would be elusive.

In Oklahoma, Governor Mary Fallin and the GOP-led Legislature enacted a quarter-point reduction in the top income tax rate two years ago and corporate tax breaks when oil crude prices were riding high. Now they are in a slump and it is driving up unemployment and forcing major layoffs.   Representative Scott Inman, (D) said: “We didn’t create the proper tax structure to protect us from this type of boom-and-bust cycle.” Likewise, Oklahoma’s Republican Treasurer Ken Miller, who advocates for revenue-neutral tax cuts, blamed his GOP colleagues for the “self-inflicted” crisis. Miller said: “Common sense dictates that until the state proves it can live within its means, it really should stop reducing them, yet some ‘thinkers’ continue to advocate eliminating the state income tax – even arguing that the state’s largest funding source and be vanished without a replacement and still fund needed teacher pay raises.”

In Wisconsin, Governor Walker enacted several permanent tax cuts just as the national recession ended and state revenues began to climb. His speech this year to ALEC was all about how his “big, bold reforms took the power out of the hands of big government special interests.” What he didn’t say is that his reforms produced only about half of the jobs he promised and resulted in delayed debt payments and deep cuts to education to balance the budget. Despite his real track record, Walker continues to promote the Laffer Curve economics, renaming it “Kohl’s Curve” to sell the idea of deep discounts (tax cuts) and the volume (business expansion and jobs) it drives. In contrast, Minnesota’s Democratic Governor Mark Dayton, who took office at the same time, raised taxes on upper income earners, closed corporate tax loopholes and invested in education and infrastructure. Now, according to U.S. News and World Report, Minnesota has outperformed Wisconsin on job creation, has lower unemployment and is a higher ranked place to live.

In North Carolina, with all three branches of government now securely under GOP control, money saved from cutting safety net programs wasn’t reinvested into education, job training or infrastructure, but given to the wealthy and corporations in the form of tax breaks. In September, the NC legislature signed a budget into law that provides $400 million in income tax cuts to be offset by taxes on repair, installation and maintenance services.   Alexandra Sirota, who studies tax policy for the NC Justice Center said the affect of the lower taxes “is a huge revenue loser” and that “the revenue losses aren’t fully accounted for in the next few years.” The NC Policy Watch has identified five reasons why NC’s tax cut plan is bad for the state and they all boil down to the fact that it will lose revenue, support corporations over citizens, and won’t improve the state’s economy.

Arizona’s Governor Ducey is following North Carolina’s lead in following the ALEC playbook with his plan to eliminate state income tax despite schools struggling to recover hundreds of millions in state aid they lost during the recession. During his gubernatorial campaign, he promised not to postpone a $225 million corporate tax cut to be phased in over three years. To the Arizona Tax Research Association, Ducey bragged about signing legislation to index the state’s income tax brackets ensuring salary increases that don’t outpace inflation don’t bump earners into higher tax brackets. Ducey claimed it was “an important first step in our mission to reduce income taxes in the State of Arizona every year.”

Most of these states are awash in red ink, and they aren’t the only ones. GOP governors of at least a dozen states are facing deficits of hundreds of millions or even billions which, despite campaigning on fiscal responsibility, is forcing them to slash spending, increase financial burdens on the poor and get creative in spinning their state’s status. At the root of it all are ALEC’s questionable economic and fiscal assumptions and faulty analysis. Specifically, these policies include deep cuts in income taxes, particularly for affluent households and corporations; a repeal of state income and estate taxes; and a shift in state revenues from graduated-rate income taxes to sales taxes that are much higher than what exist today. They also include the end of various state-based tax credits for low-income working families; a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) that would impose rigid constitutional limits on state revenues and spending; requirements that state legislatures garner two-thirds or other “super-majority” votes to raise any taxes or fees; and other mechanisms to reduce the funds available to finance public services. ALEC also pushes the repeal of state personal and corporate income taxes, which typically provide one-third to one-half of a state’s funding for schools, health care and other services. Oil-rich Alaska is the only state to repeal its income tax thus far, but in 2012, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri saw major efforts to do so, and Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina and South Carolina are looking at doing the same. Finally, ALEC and its supporters fail to acknowledge that public services such as education or infrastructure are important to a state’s long-term prosperity. Rather, they, like conservative Heritage Foundation chief economist Stephen Moore, give credit to the Laffer Curve strategy for the strong, long period of prosperity achieved by GOP hero Ronald Reagan. Economist Paul Krugman though, says the rapid growth during the Reagan years was driven more by conventional Keynesian deficit spending than by tax rate reductions.

The truth might be somewhere in between, but it cannot be argued that the middle class has been squeezed in the process. Since Reagan took office in 1981, the lower class has increased by three percent, the middle has shrunk by 9% and the upper class has grown by four percent. In that 70% of the U.S. economy comes from personal consumption, more wealth in fewer hands at the top keeps growth weak.

That’s one reason why Thomas Piketty in his 2014 best-selling tome “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, advocates a return to the good old days of 70 percent tax rates on the rich. Likewise, a paper by MIT Professor Emeritus of Economics Peter Diamond and Professor of Economics at UC Berkley Professor Emmanuel Saez concluded the revenue maximizing federal income tax rate for top earners is 76%. Even Pope Francis joined the fray by writing that supply-side theories are unconfirmed by facts and rely on “a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the socialized workings of the prevailing economic system.” One might even be prompted to ask if congressional majority Republicans were “spin doctoring” when they fired Former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Elmendorf, last for scoring federal spending cuts as negatively affecting future budgets versus as stimulating the economy. They evidently wanted someone who would better implement “dynamic scoring”, a tool that would produce a more favorable analysis of their tax reform legislation.

GOP refusal to keep an “honest broker” as the head of the CBO is telling, as is the fact that although ALEC touts that state corporate tax cuts are critical to encouraging business and boosting the economy, mainstream economic research shows that state taxes average less than one percent of a business’ total costs. Extensive economic research indicates that tax-funded public services like education, health, transportation, and public safety are more important for attracting businesses and jobs.  In fact, Paul O’Neill, former CEO of Alcoa and President George W. Bush’s first Secretary of Treasury said: “[As a businessman] I never made an investment decision based on the Tax Code…[I]f you are giving money away I will take it. If you want to give me inducements for something I am going to do anyway, I will take it. But good business people do not do things because of inducements, they do it because they can see that they are going to be able to earn the cost of capital out of their own intelligence and organization of resources.” Robert Ady, of Ady International has assisted in countless business site locations. He says that “subsidies cannot make a bad place good.” Good places are competitive because their long-term business basics (labor, materials, marketing, overhead, and transportation) are solid. As Greg LeRoy, founder and director of Good Jobs First, said in his book The Great American Jobs Scam, “any subsidies are icing on the cake, but the cake is already baked.”

In this, as with any debate, it is possible to find a source to support any point of view. For me it is really this simple…does it make sense that you would tax the poor more to provide tax relief for the rich? Does it make sense that corporations are lured to locate in a state so they can pay even less than the under one percent they generally pay in corporate taxes? Or, does it make more sense that corporations are savvy and look at a variety of indicators to determine where to locate such as the quality of local schools, availability of a quality workforce, or a solid infrastructure? One doesn’t need to be a genius to understand basic economic concepts, all it really takes is a little common sense. A strong middle class is the best path to prosperity for our communities and our nation and economic policies that support its growth are the solution. Our tax policies should incentivize the behavior we need for the health of our communities, states and nation, not for the enrichment of a few. Finally, business definitely has a critical role to play, but so does government. It should ensure we are provided the basic essentials of safety, security, infrastructure and education and our tax policies should ensure sufficient revenue to do that properly.

No one party has the right answer here and there is no one right solution. It takes a smart application of available tools, wise employment of lessons learned and yes, a whole lot of common sense. Alas, as Voltaire is credited with saying in the early 1700’s: “Common sense is not so common.”