Mark this day in your calendars. Even though it feels like a regular ol’ Monday, it’s not. It’s the day that our educational system changed forever.
Okay, that’s a bit dramatic. (Insert long sigh here for effect.)
But the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling today in the consolidated cases of Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 09-987, and Garriott v. Winn, 09-991, and the fallout will be clearly felt across the country. The Supremes, by a vote of 5-4, blocked a significant challenge to an Arizona state tax break that directed funds to private schools.
Not surprisingly, the justices ruled along conservative/liberal lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the court’s majority opinion, joined by the four conservative justices, and Justice Elena Kagan writing the court’s dissenting opinion, along with the three other liberal justices. Interestingly, the Obama administration was in support of the majority’s decision.
I predicted last spring that there would be considerable interest in the case. This was bolstered by the fact that Michigan, New Jersey, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah had each filed an amicus curiae brief in the matter. An amicus curiae brief is filed by someone who isn’t a party to the actual case but does have a stake in the outcome.
Clearly, the reason those states all care is because they are considering (or already have) similar programs.
So what’s at stake here? It depends on who you ask. You see, the key to the ruling in the Arizona matter hinged on standing. Standing is the legal term for whether you have the right to bring a matter to court (if you do have the right, you have standing; conversely, if you do not have the right to bring the case, you lack standing). The Supremes held that the challengers to an Arizona tax credit lacked standing because they are challenging a tax credit, rather than government spending. That bothered Kagan, who said, “Appropriations and tax subsidies are readily interchangeable. What is a cash grant today can be a tax break tomorrow.” However, Kennedy held firm, saying that the taxpayers who object to the program have an insufficient connection to the money involved to take their complaint to federal court.
Agree or disagree?
Finally someone realizes that the government is not entitled to all of our money. Recognizing that there is a difference between not being taxed and getting a cash grant from the government is the core difference between the left and right.
Disagree. Mainly because the tax credit is equal to 100% of the amount donated to the various organizations. (If it was only 20% of the amount contributed, then I may have a different opinion.) Either the taxpayer has standing or the Court has to overrule Flast like Scalia opined. Then the question becomes, who does have standing?
I don’t know all the facts, but I would tend to disagree because private schools should be privately funded. Not sure that taxpayers should be required to help out with paying for private schools. But what’s more frustrating is when a precedent gets set (which happens every time the supreme court makes a ruling) that can seem to be very relevant to one case but isn’t necessarily relevant to other cases but may still be applied.
Whether you believe in this religious funding effort or not, you are paying for it out of your own pockets. Any money taken away from the general fund by tax deduction, tax credit or other means needs to be funded by other sources in the general fund which all tax payers pay in to.
Support: lesser of two evils!
Props to AZ, my old stompin’ grounds! I love the way they’ve been doing business out there and more power to Russel Pearce and Sherriff Joe! That being said, as a fiscal conservative I like being able to say where and what my tax dollars support, but why not just lower my tax burden overall by doing less, and let me take pretax dollars to support organizations like a school? I’d rather have my money free and clear to use how I choose that be forced at gun point to spend it somewhere.
Tax credit vs. tax deduction? It’s essentially a distinction without a difference, but apparently sufficient to carry this decision on standing. What needs to happen now is for a private school with a fundamentalist muslim curriculum to take advantage of the tax credit in AZ. Then listen to the howls. My personal view is that taxpayers shouldn’t shoulder the cost of religious education, whatever the creed.