Trib editorial gets it wrong on tuition tax credits

by David Safier

Two posts below praise the Republic (highly) and the Star (tentatively) for what they've written about tuition tax credits the past few days. But the East Valley Trib's editorial got it as wrong as the other 2 papers got it right.

I understand there's a the wall between the reporting and editorial staffs on newspapers, but that doesn't mean the Trib's editorial folks are barred from reading the excellent reporting done by their own reporters. But that's the only way the editorial could have made some of its ridiculous statements.

The editorial finds it "heartening" that state lawmakers are looking into tax credits.

Republicans who control the Legislature could have simply ignored the reports [in the Trib about the problems with tuition tax credits] and pretended absolutely nothing is wrong.

In fact, the Rs wanted desperately to ignore the reports.

Instead, two separate legislative groups held hearings, …

This implies that the Republicans called for 2 legislative groups to meet. In fact, the Ds jumped on the issue right after the Trib's investigative series came out and formed a "task force" (being in the minority, they couldn't form a committee). Playing defense, some Rs joined the task force in hopes of blunting its investigative effectiveness (and did a pretty good job of it), then formed their own committee to trump anything damaging that might come out of the D-majority task force.

a survey was taken of student tuition organizations that receive donations tied to the tax credits …

Actually, committee chair Rick Murphy (R-Glendale) put together a powder-puff survey without general committee approval. Tom Chabin (D-Flagstaff) objected, then tried to add more specific and telling questions to the survey, which Murphy refused to include. The result was meaningless generalities and self reporting, which was then trumpeted by the committee as proof that the STOs are doing a wonderful job.

and a professional analysis was developed on the possible overall savings for taxpayers.

The "professional analysis" was provided by Charles North, brought here from Texas' Baylor University by the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group that supports private school vouchers, which paid North to write the analysis. If North is any kind of a decent economist, he would have given his own analysis a C-, at best, if it were submitted by a student in one of his classes.

And then there's this howler:

The committee did reject suggestions to impose family income limits on who can receive tuition scholarships funded by tax credit donations. This seems reasonable, as the survey revealed most STOs already consider financial need when awarding scholarships.

The phrase "consider financial need" comes from that powder-puff survey. An STO can give one needs-based scholarship as proof that it considers financial need. Hell, it can "consider" financial need, then decide to give all its scholarships to children of millionaires.

I know the Trib's editorial page is conservative, so it has every right to reach conclusions I disagree with, but that doesn't mean it should disregard or distort the facts. Minimum research should mean a careful reading of what your own paper has reported on the topic, right?