The private and religious school subsidy bill is a taxpayer boondoggle

Guest Editorial by Jim Jones

House Bill 93, which passed the Idaho House of Representatives on February 7, would exempt most families who take advantage of the $5,000 per student tax credit from paying any state income tax whatsoever. If their tax liability is less than the $5,000 subsidy, the state is required to send them a payment to make up the difference. In the words of the bill, “If the credit exceeds the tax imposed by [the income tax], the excess credit amount shall be refunded to the taxpayer.” So, they get out of paying any income tax and get a bonus payment to boot. That fits nicely into the category of having their cake and eating it too.

The subsidy bill would drain $50 million from the state treasury during the first year. Based upon what has happened in other states, that drain would likely increase to a torrent in future years. About 90% of that taxpayer money would go to subsidize religious teaching. And, by the way, Idaho’s Constitution strictly prohibits public money from being used to support any form of religious education. Every legislator has been informed of the prohibition, but some have turned a blind eye to the Constitution.

One of the most preposterous arguments in favor of the subsidy bill was made by Senator Scott Grow on February 8. He said that private school families “have been subsidizing our public school system,” and “it seems fair to me that we can return some of the tax money that they’ve been paying.” If the Senator would consult the Idaho Constitution, he would find that Idaho’s founding fathers expected families who educated their kids in nonpublic schools to pay the full cost. And, why should private and religious school parents, except for the wealthiest, be able to use our roads and every other governmental service provided by the state without having to pay a dime in income tax? Some would call that freeloading. If some legislators want to subsidize religious schools and excuse private school families from paying income tax, they ought to take the lawful route by amending the Constitution.

Nor does HB 93 meet the standards laid out by Governor Little. He stated: “Just like we do with every taxpayer dollar that is spent in government, we will ensure there is oversight in school choice. Why? Because accountability in government is an Idaho value, and it is what taxpayers demand and deserve.” Quite to the contrary, HB 93 specifically states: “A nonpublic school shall not be required to alter its creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum in order to accept students whose payment of tuition or fees stems from a refundable tax credit under this section.” That certainly flies in the face of the Governor’s standards. Additionally, the subsidy bill has no requirement that teachers be certified or that they undergo a background check.

The Statement of Purpose of HB 93 says the Tax Commission, which is tasked with administering the program, “may refer suspected cases of fraud to the Attorney General for investigation and prosecution.” That provides cold comfort, given our current AG’s propensity to see practically every issue through a political lens. He is an unabashed supporter of school voucher schemes and would likely have no inclination or ability to find any fraud in this program.

Idaho’s government ethics law requires public officials, including members of the Legislature, to disclose conflicts of interest before taking official action. A conflict of interest exists where the effect of the action “would be to the pecuniary benefit of the person or a member of the person’s household.” A legislator may not vote on a bill where he or she has a conflict and has “failed to disclose such conflict.”

A number of legislators have school age children who do not attend public schools and who may well plan to take advantage of the subsidies. For instance, Senator Brian Lenney, a self-styled “political refugee” from California, proclaimed on his campaign website that he and his wife have “been homeschooling our four kids (who are now in K-12) for over a decade.” If all of those kids are still being taught at home, Lenney could get a total of $20,000 in taxpayer money under HB 93.

Lenney and any other legislator who might benefit from the bill have a clear conflict of interest and must publicly disclose that fact. Better yet, they should recuse themselves from voting on the bill or publicly pledge they will not seek subsidies under its provisions. That would clear the air of the stench of self interest. Best of all, they should just vote “no” on this taxpayer boondoggle.

---

About the Author

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served 8 years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). His columns are collected at JJCommonTater.com