The Governor Race in Idaho

The Problem with Spending More Money on Education:
The failure of the “Allred Reasoning”


During the last four years under Governor Otter, Superintendent Tom Luna, and the Republican legislature student achievement has improved, test scores are on the rise, and the number of schools reaching AYP have more than doubled. Getting better results with less money

Gubernatorial candidate Keith Allred wants more funding for education without identifying any specific area where the money should go; neither has Allred identified any specific problem that needs to be addressed. Judging by Allred’s statements, the real problem is the budget was reduced. How can an efficient, low cost education system be a problem?

Allred’s vagueness on funding sources is even more troubling. He claims that cuts to education were not necessary; yet, he gives only one indication where the money will come from – the repeal of sales tax exemptions that could raise an additional $1.7 billion or a 73 percent increase in state taxes. How can Allred say this is not an increase in taxes?

If Allred has a solution that will increase funding to education without raising taxes, I want to hear what it is and so would every other Idahoan. I hope he is right. I would love to be wrong. If, however, Allred can’t explain his plan to restore education funding without raising taxes, he should be viewed as a political pretender instead of the smartest man in Idaho.

We have a right to know a few details of his plan. As voters, we have the right to judge his plan before he gets elected. Personally, I don’t want to take on faith the details of a nonexistent plan.

I have done the math. I don’t believe a short term solution to restore funding exists without raising taxes. Long term education funding can be increased without raising taxes by increasing the size of the private sector of the economy. This is exactly what Governor Otter is trying to do.

Public School Funding and Natural Resources

Many times this last week employees of public education have asked me to find more money for public schools. This is a polite way of saying, please raise taxes.

I tell them that I cannot; but, I do explain the link between economic activity and the five natural resources (mining, logging, manufacturing, agriculture, and energy). Our economy cannot improve until at least two or three of these industries start growing. Simply increasing the money supply cannot cause long-term stimulation of the economy; only primary production can.

The natural resource industries cannot grow until the EPA backs off and allows use of the land. The EPA has so many regulation that, in effect, they are stopping most new economic activity. In other words, radical environmentalism being taught in our public schools and in the media needs to be replaced with balanced environmentalism where natural resource industries can use the land. If this does not happen, funds to public schools and other social programs will continue to decline. I don’t see any other outcome.

Will public school teachers and the public at large demand the government to allow the use of the land by natural resource industries? When they do, we have hope the economy will improve and public funding can stabilize.