Catholic schools are closing their doors all across America, leaving future generations with nowhere to turn for the high-quality academics and values-based education so many families are seeking. The number of students attending Catholic schools in the US fell from about 5.2 million in 1965 to around two million in 2008.
Pioneer Institute believes these schools are worth preserving. For over a decade, we have raised our voice in support of these excellent academic options, and tools such as tax credit scholarships that would enable more families to attend.
Pioneer has held public forums, published research on the benefits of Catholic education, on successful models such as Cristo Rey, and on policy changes that would stop the Massachusetts education department from depriving religious school students of special needs services and school nurses. The Institute has also convened key stakeholders, appeared in local and national press, filed amicus briefs, produced a feature a documentary film, and much more.
This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Senator Patricia Puertas Rucker, a West Virginia state Senator and Chair of the Education Committee. Thanks to her leadership, West Virginia now has the widest, most universal education savings account program in America. Senator Rucker describes the lessons other state legislators across the country can learn from West Virginia’s successful experience. A Venezuelan immigrant, she shares her inspiring story of coming to the U.S., and becoming a state legislator who has led a transformational school choice initiative. She describes how her personal narrative, including her experience homeschooling her five children, some with special needs, drove her later efforts as an elected official to promote wider school choice. She reviews some of the central issues animating parent coalitions that have been prime movers in expanding school choice programs, especially for parents of children with special needs and families of faith.
Stories of the Week: School choice offers important alternatives to contentious political debates in K-12 education – but we should refrain from urging parents to abandon all traditional districts, many of which offer high-quality instruction. In New Mexico, a bipartisan group of legislators and parents overwhelmingly support charter public schools, contrary to the divisiveness over charters that exists in many states.
Guest
Patricia Puertas Rucker is a West Virginia state senator serving the 16th District. Her committee assignments, include: chair of the Education Committee and a member of the Agriculture and Rural Development, Banking and Insurance, Judiciary, Health and Human Resources, Natural Resources, and Confirmations Committees. She taught social studies in the Montgomery County Public Schools before starting a family and homeschooling her five children. Patricia is a first generation American citizen, born in Caracas, Venezuela, coming to the U.S., Montgomery County, Maryland, in 1981. She graduated from Trinity College in Washington, D.C with a B.A. in History and minor in Latin American studies.
The next episode will air on Weds., June 1st, with Prof. Paula Giddings, Elizabeth A. Woodson Professor Emerita of Africana Studies at Smith College, and she is the author of, Ida: A Sword Among Lions – Ida B. Wells and the Campaign Against Lynching.
Tweet of the Week:
"So long as admissions exams are intended to fairly apportion opportunities to talented students, age allowances are appropriate." https://t.co/OTMLbmWjzi
— Education Next (@EducationNext) May 10, 2022
News Links:
School choice can take political fights out of education
Charter schools show education and politics can work in New Mexico
https://www.abqjournal.com/2501242/charter-schools-show-education-and-politics-can-work-in-nm-2.html
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
[00:00:00] Cara: hello listeners. Welcome to the learning curve. It is. An interesting day up here in Beantown where I am sitting am so happy to have my good friend here to talk about this in so many more things with me, Gerard Robinson, how you doing today?
[00:00:39] GR: I’m doing well in beautiful, but wet Charlottesville.
[00:00:44] Cara: but wet?
[00:00:45] Well, it’s always beautiful. I’ve never been there. You haven’t invited me. I got nothing.
[00:00:51] GR: Oh, okay. I’ll take that as a hint that I need to check that box, but you know, it was 90 degrees of few days ago was 80 [00:01:00] before that, and now it’s just raining, but it keeps it beautiful and green. Nothing else is breaking the humidity.
[00:01:06] And that’s a good thing here, ups up when the
[00:01:08] Cara: humidity is there and we know how you worry about your hair, Gerard, you know, you’re between the two of us, you weren’t, I am here in Beantown where the weather is quite beautiful. After a very hot weekend. I came home Gerard. I was traveling in an undisclosed location last week and I came home to COVID in the house.
[00:01:29] Oh my goodness. After. Yeah. You know, here we go. You can’t escape it. I don’t know. Maybe you can. I hope you do. Actually. I have to say this, my husband, who, as you know, Gerard is in the medical field. So he sees upwards of 60 patients a day. So we’re just considering this, a miracle that this is the first time it happened.
[00:01:47] Right. And. He’s fine. He’s absolutely fine. It’s it’s a little bit of a man cold, but, uh, yeah, everything’s, good here. lots going on to talk about in our fair city today, though, as you know, pioneer [00:02:00] Institute, released a report a couple of months ago, I’m not saying that we had anything to do with it, but calling for change in the Boston public schools.
[00:02:09] and today was a big day actually, yesterday was a big day because. the department of elementary and secondary education released a second audit of the Boston public schools and found surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise that not many things. In fact, very few things. In fact, almost nothing has gotten better.
[00:02:25] A lot of things have gotten worse as I think, you know, we talked about a couple of weeks ago, Boston recently had to close a school. It will be closed because of, sexual abuse that had been ongoing in the school. So lots of stuff going on in this city, we’re going to see how the political winds blow, but boy, oh boy.
[00:02:44] It’s looking like some big changes ahead for the largest school system in the Commonwealth. so I’m thinking about that. I’m also thinking about, I’m just going to segue right into my story of the week, Gerard, because whenever I think about a place like Boston [00:03:00] and, so many parents who are, I’m just gonna use the word trapped in schools that they don’t want to be in.
[00:03:06] they wish they had a different choice. I think about school choice. I think about the relative. Lack of school choice that we have here in the Commonwealth. I think about the fact that we have managed to put charter schools so far on the rails that we’re not establishing new ones, despite some of the excellent ones that we have.
[00:03:24] And to some extent, I think about what our friend Coleen Fronek has written about this week, , in the hill and the title of Coleen’s article is school choice can take political fights out of education. The main argument here at Gerard, the overarching argument is that, if parents can send their kids.
[00:03:48] To a school that aligns with their values to a school that aligns with the way they see the world to a school that aligns with their beliefs. Now, I, as an advocate of school choice would also put guard rails around that and say, we need to think about how [00:04:00] we provide high quality options that are also mission-driven and that, allow parents the kind of education that they’re seeking for their kids.
[00:04:07] Right. But that school choice can help to meet. Some of these terrible political battles that we’re seeing around education. I don’t have to tell you what those battles are. And I have to say that to some extent, I agree with Colleen and I want to quote her here. She says the current winner takes all system as in sending your kids to district and let’s try and do each other by not allowing school choice, right?
[00:04:33] Forces parents to engage in political battles to get their children. The education they think is best. But when one group of parents wins, that means another group loses. And this point, thank you, calling I think is a really, really good one. So I think in a lot lately, about how many parents, especially in states like mine, where we have such limited choices.
[00:04:57] Are on the losing end. It’s not [00:05:00] even just of the politics Gerard, but just on the losing end of being able to provide their kids with the one thing , that most parents really hold dear. Right? They’d said it makes a difference in life. And that is an education that fits the needs of each kid in each.
[00:05:15] Now I would just call out one caveat here and I would love your take on this drug, because I know that my opinion on this is strong, but it is my opinion. And that is that I’m a little put off that some advocates have school choice in the past couple of years. Have advocated for school choice as a means of escaping public school districts, because there’s a claim that public school districts are somehow teaching inappropriate material, or, not doing right by kids in other ways now.
[00:05:45] I’m not on board with that argument for school choice, I believe deeply in choice for Choice’s sake. And I do believe I’m in alignment with Colleen here, right? That one of the best reasons for choices that every family and parents should have the means as [00:06:00] let’s be clear, wealthy families do to choose the school that meshes with their worldview, mission, vision, of those.
[00:06:09] If you want to be able to choose a faith-based school, please, by all means do it. You shouldn’t have to be a wealthy person to access that kind of education. But I do become a little upset when we say that the reason for school choice should be escaping districts because. There are a lot of great school districts out there doing a lot of great things and no form of education is without a point of view.
[00:06:34] So some parents are choosing districts because of the things that they’re teaching. And many of them aren’t teaching the quote unquote radical content. That’s so many critics want to talk about, right. But we need to support all types of schools across the board. We need to be advocates for kids period.
[00:06:53] And that’s where I come down. But I really appreciate. This story in the hill this week. it was a good way I think, to [00:07:00] connect school choice and how to bring the tone in this country down just a bit.
[00:07:05] GR: When you mentioned exit, it brought me back to a grad school class that I had some years ago, where we looked at, I think it was Albert Hirschman’s book, exit voice, and loyalty.
[00:07:18] And the author talks about the importance of quality goods. And when they deteriorate. What do you do? And so there’s an exit or the voice option. do think some parents. And in fact, I don’t think this is new. Going back to the founding of charter schools in Minnesota or the urban based, what we call the voucher program in Milwaukee.
[00:07:38] There was surely a group of stakeholders in the legislature and also families who say we need an exit out of traditional public schools or. Public education in general. So there’s that point, but I agree with you. Some people are using it politically and not strategically. And there’s a difference. The families 30 years ago, 31 [00:08:00] years ago who wanted to exit it was life or death for some of them, for some of the teachers, it was professional calling and they wanted to practice their craft in different ways.
[00:08:10] So exit for them. Mid strategy for some people is strictly, about, politics. And so on that front, that will be with us for a long time, but we can’t let that group define what school choice is about. Because if a gives critics, more fodder is they see, they simply want to leave democratic schools and go to you, fill in the blank.
[00:08:33] instead of saying, guess what? This is a country of choice. We seem to want to celebrate choice, , in a lot of ways, except when it really comes for education. So great article, , I’m with you. And I also must say going back to the article. Oh, , what you mentioned earlier, kudos to you for the report that you wrote about receivership kudos to the pioneer Institute for publishing it.
[00:08:57] And I say that because. America is a [00:09:00] strong replace, a Massachusetts in particular, because you have think tanks like the pioneer Institute and scholars like you for a host of reasons. You’re giving a lot of academic freedom that some of your colleagues who you went to grad school with who are not professors may not have either because pre-tenure politics or even with tenure, just some of the canceling that comes along with taking the position that someone can see as anti-public school.
[00:09:26] With think tanks we can think and do. So. I just want to give a shout out to you for that work and. Who knows, , has been to audits. And I believe from your report, if there’s two audits that at least puts on the table of the idea of receivership, so nothing’s
[00:09:43] going to happen. I
[00:09:44] Cara: don’t know if there’ll be full blown receivership, but I do think that there is on
[00:09:47] the way.
[00:09:49] GR: Well, as we talk about school choice, my article in facts about charter schools and this from charter schools, from a state we rarely talk about, and that is New Mexico. [00:10:00] And what. I do not know is that New Mexico? Inaccurate at charter law in 1993, make it in one of the earliest states of the country to enact a charter law.
[00:10:09] According to data from the national Institute of charter schools, approximately 97 charter schools, in the state between 20 18, 19, roughly 26,000 students are enrolled. When you look at the score. That the national Alliance provided to New Mexico out of 240 points, they received 152. And so this was strong points and there’s some challenges, well, while that’s taking place.
[00:10:33] And while we know in Washington, DC, there’s a big debate, in the white house, regarding what should we do with, the federal charter school program that advocates, writing letters. There are others who are starting to protest while that’s taking place in New Mexico. This Democrats and Republicans found a way to come together and actually support charter schools.
[00:10:54] So in the past legislative session, and this is an article written by Matt Paul, who was the [00:11:00] executive director of public charter school. The New Mexico, , men identify a new law that took step is actually providing charter schools with more facility funding and options. And you and I know charter school facility funding is huge.
[00:11:13] As much as critics want to say that charter schools are sucking up all the money. One area where charter schools are not receiving funding in ways or other public school counterparts. Do. Relates to facilities. So we’re glad to see that also the house and Senate unanimously passed and the governor signed a measure to increase spending, not only for charter schools facilities, but to create a new loan fund for permanent charter school facilities.
[00:11:38] So a bit win. Well, how do they do it? According to. Lawmakers in New Mexico, they’ll spend their time solely at the Capitol building or in committee hearings. They actually listen to their constituents. People who live with them, people who shop at the same grocery stores, they do may attend the same, faith community or those institutions, but they found [00:12:00] out two things.
[00:12:00] Number one, they found out that people actually believe charter schools better according to a pre pandemic poll families. And one of the comments New Mexico found that believe that charter schools improve education, their community, and 75% want more charter school options. As Matt keenly pointed out families like public schools, charter schools are public schools and therefore it should be one of the options that people like and they want more of it.
[00:12:28] So when we often think about flying. Or states, whether you want to include New Mexico in there and not, maybe you can or can’t, but what I will say is while the east coast and the west coast are fighting over all kinds of things, as we’re flying overstates let’s land, either personally, intellectually or interest in terms of AI, Let’s look at something differently, New Mexico, who is doing some pretty good things.
[00:12:51] And I’d be remiss if I didn’t say hello to my colleague, Canada. Skandera, who’s a former secretary in New Mexico now president of the Daniels fund [00:13:00] and also to Michael Hora, Aspen cohort sister, Carra Bob Roth, who is a founder of a native American community academy in 2006. And the Nexa inspired school.
[00:13:11] Network, which includes, charter schools. So that is my story. What are your thoughts?
[00:13:15] Cara: I think that this is just, you know, any time that we’re talking about charter schools and it’s, fascinating stuff. I worry about our charter schools today, Gerard, as you know, but I’m glad that we can keep talking about them, bringing them up here on this show.
[00:13:31] Highlighting, you know, talking about the challenges and all the good stuff and I thank you for that. It’s really important stuff to our, we’ve got a guest coming up, Gerard, who’s not only going to talk to us about it. She’s gonna, merge our two stores. You’re going to talk to us about the landscape in West Virginia.
[00:13:47] have we had other guests on before from West
[00:13:49] Patricia: Virginia, Gerard?
[00:13:50] GR: I don’t believe so, but we’ve had someone with. Virginia theme, because that provided me
[00:13:58] well, can you do it again? [00:14:00] Nope.
[00:14:01] Cara: Oh, maybe we’ll get our next guest to do it, but we’re going to talk to her about, I mean, so talk about place that merges both of our stories.
[00:14:08] West Virginia in one year passes a charter school law that needed to be improved. And then another year passes the most expansive school choice program in the whole country. So I’m pretty excited to talk about. Who can sort of merge the themes of both of our stories of the week. And do you know who she is, Gerard, this person that we’re going to be doing?
[00:14:30] I do not
[00:14:31] this
[00:14:31] Cara: Now we’re going to be talking to a woman who not only has a really phenomenal personal story about why she cares about education and how she came to the work, but somebody who was integral in expanding opportunities, both in terms of charters and. For West Virginia students and her name is Senator Patricia Rucker.
[00:14:53] She is the chair of the Senate education committee in West Virginia, and just a fierce warrior for all [00:15:00] things, that can equal better opportunities for the kids and families of her state. So really, really excited to talk to her coming up right after.
[00:15:34] Learning curve listeners. We are back as promised with an absolutely fabulous guests. We are speaking today with Senator Patricia Portis Rucker. She is a West Virginia state Senator serving the 16th district. Her committee assignments include chair of the education committee and a member of the agriculture and rural development banking and insurance judicial.
[00:15:55] Health and human resources, natural resources and confirmation [00:16:00] committing. So clearly she has nothing at all to do. She is not a busy woman. she taught social studies in the Montgomery county public schools before starting a family and homeschooling her five children. Patricia is a first-generation American citizen born in Caracas, Venezuela coming to the.
[00:16:18] Montgomery county, Maryland in 1981. She graduated from Trinity college in Washington, DC with a BA in history and a minor in Latin American studies. Senator Rucker. Welcome to the learning curve.
[00:16:30] Patricia: Thank you so much. It is a pleasure to be able to be with you. Yeah, well, , we
[00:16:35] Cara: are thrilled, I think, , , as Gerard knows, because he was at the same place.
[00:16:39] you participated last year in the national summit on education that is hosted annually by Excel and ed and I had great pleasure of monitoring a panel on which you served and in which you got to talk to those present about. The passage of what is now the widest most universal [00:17:00] education savings account program in America, in West Virginia, you were integral in making that happen.
[00:17:07] I just want to, for our listeners who might not be overly familiar, although if you listen frequently, you definitely know what an ESA is by now. It is, a program that allows parents to direct the public fight. Allocated the state funds allocated to their child’s education and it allows parents to choose from a range of education.
[00:17:28] Services, to put together the education that best serves their children and you Senator wrecker made that happen. Could you share with our listeners, the lessons learned from West Virginia, a state that by the way, just a couple of years ago, some might’ve said was not very choice friendly. What, what could you tell other legislators across this country about your experience opening up choice for West Virginia?
[00:17:55] Patricia: Well, I will say that, , the way you phrased it as putting it very [00:18:00] mildly, because as a patient share three years ago, there was zero, , education choice in the state of West Virginia. , through the efforts that we have had some 2019, we now have. several things like charter schools, open enrollment, but it was always my goal to get a broad based what I considered non-discriminatory, education savings account, where the money truly does follow the child, wherever parents think the child needs to be.
[00:18:33] And so it’s a parent driven, , option. And in terms of the lessons learned, I can tell you that the number one. Most important thing is that, you know why you are pushing for what you’re pushing for. And if you’re pushing for education savings account, it’s because, or should be because you believe that the parents are the best ones to make decisions as to where they’re doing.
[00:18:57] needs what they need for their education. And you [00:19:00] believe in the American, the basic American dream that every single child deserves a good education and is worthy of getting the education that they need for themselves. As individuals, America was built on this principle of individualism that everyone has, or should have the opportunity, not necessarily.
[00:19:22] But the same opportunity. And it’s amazing to me that it is as difficult to get that translated into something as basic as universal education for all, which means that it needs to be as individualized as possible because not everyone is going to need the same thing or it’s going to thrive in the same.
[00:19:43] Cara: love how you put that. And I, when I was a professor, I used to talk to my students about equality of opportunity, being very different from equality of outcome. and quality of opportunity I think is really what you’ve done here is the best we can do I want to ask you a little bit about the American dream, but I also want to ask you [00:20:00] quickly about now when I think of West Virginia, yes.
[00:20:02] You have opened up choices for students and families in recent years. Until very recently, in fact, , your ESA program will launch just at this fall. The parents are applying now. what you’re up against is just. People who have never known anything in the state except for public education, which means vested interests in sustaining that system and sustaining that status quo and to be clear listeners, an ESA in no way, dismantles a high quality public education system either.
[00:20:29] I that’s not at all what this is about. It’s about having both. And how do you achieve both? but can you talk a little bit about. Those vested interests that you had to go up against, who would have rather maintained the status quo? really briefly, what was that fight like for you?
[00:20:44] How did you leverage your powers of persuasive?
[00:20:48] Patricia: So, yes. clearly the teachers association in the state of West Virginia, which has pretty much controlled, all public education dollars for, the entire history of West [00:21:00] Virginia. Where are very powerful and very strong. And they managed through their efforts to derail every single attack West Virginia has ever had at any kind of school choice.
[00:21:11] and in 2018 and 2019 back to back, we had major teacher strikes in the state. but it was meant to intimidate and scare. legislators when they had their last teacher strike in 2019 and they managed to stop the ESA. That was very minor, very small. It was like many other states. I was trying to just start something just for a small limited number of students and they killed it essentially through their efforts.
[00:21:41] And with them, we’re all of the, usual, you know, the people who think that public education is the only way all of those forces. I just had to. Tell them like publicly announced y’all better get me on elected because if I come back, I’m going to make you regret killing that simple little ESA.
[00:21:59] And [00:22:00] so I almost had to, in my state at least had to prove that the unions were not as powerful as they say they are. And that meant going through another election cycle where I got reelected, despite all their best efforts to unseat me, to basically demonstrate to other legislators that look. They’re not as powerful as you think they are.
[00:22:20] And second that this is a battle worth fighting for, unions and the associations and those who want to protect the interests of government run schools. They are at the Capitol and they know how to show up and they know how to organize and send emails. But guess what? There’s a lot more parents and students out there than they are.
[00:22:40] And they may not be as active and as organized, but there’s a lot more votes there than there is from the teachers, associations and unions. And parents want this. can’t even express to you the number of letters, the gratitude that is demonstrated by folks from all over [00:23:00] West Virginia. And, you know, we decided to call our education savings account program.
[00:23:04] The hope scholarship. It truly is giving them hope. I mean, they literally write to me and say, thank you because for the first time I have hope that I can get my child what they need.
[00:23:16] Cara: that’s pretty amazing. And it is, it is really a great name for a scholarship account. And I think that any of us who are interested in education certainly watched red for ed in West Virginia, those, not very long ago.
[00:23:28] So it’s pretty remarkable story. when I asked you the first question, you, started to talk a little bit about the American dream and many people might not know that you actually have this very compelling story, that you are an immigrant from Venezuela. You came to the U S now you are a state legislator.
[00:23:46] You’ve, taught school. You’ve led this transformational school choice initiative. Can you talk a little bit about, how your personal narrative your life has in your experience have [00:24:00] informed your work and maybe also, like, how has that. Informed your willingness to take risks such as the risk that you took in not being reelected by standing up for K-12 education.
[00:24:11] Patricia: Right. Well, thank you so much for asking. That’s not a question I get very often, but I absolutely love it because, I am the embodiment of that American dream, the same dream that so many people, especially out in the media world say it’s dead and they try to portray America as this terrible place.
[00:24:30] But reality is there is no other place in the world where you can integrate. go, not be able to speak the language, not have any background. I have any family literally start from nothing. 20 years later be running for office that just does not happen. And I am so honored and blessed by the opportunities that I was given.
[00:24:54] I came to this country as a six-year-old. I could not even speak my own language well, so, I [00:25:00] had this incredible experience in the public school system that took this, young child. Helped her with her own language development and then taught her English. And within a few short years, I was in honors classes.
[00:25:15] I had all of these incredible experiences like debate and band and getting to participate in athletics, lots of opportunities to learn all sorts of things. And, I will tell you, I never expected to run for public office. Always always loved the institution of the United States, the constitution, the stories of our founders.
[00:25:38] And, when I get the opportunity to give back, it’s just, I just thank God for that. And in terms of how that informs me, as you can imagine, I really believe in that American dream. I think everyone should have. The same opportunities, the ability to be able to rise up from wherever they are, and it doesn’t matter their background or [00:26:00] color, what language they speak, if they’re rich and if they’re poor, none of that should matter.
[00:26:06] Everyone deserves a good education and everyone deserves an opportunity to meet their potential.
[00:26:11] GR: So of Rutgers, so great to have you join us. I should state upfront that my father, I was born and raised in Charleston. And imagine waited many, many years ago from the Charleston public school system and his sister, my aunt Edna Williams, graduated from the public school system in the city later.
[00:26:29] She went to what was then West Virginia. Earned a master’s in West Virginia university and for 20 plus years was a school teacher in that system. When my dad, moved west, to California, Los Angeles in particular, he, my mom decided to enroll me into Catholic schools because they were anti-public school.
[00:26:47] They knew and benefited from public education. It was their choice and they wanted to go that route. So wanted to put it perspective if it’s always good to hear a voice from somebody who is in the Western.
[00:26:57] Patricia: Well, that’s crazy.[00:27:00]
[00:27:00] GR: Here’s a question for you and I listeners may not know this, before you became who we now know as Senator wrecker, you were a homeschooling mom for five children.
[00:27:09] While your husband worked two jobs. Talk to our listeners about the experience with homeschooling and how that drove your decision to promote wider school choice. Once you became an elected official.
[00:27:20] Patricia: So I did get the, again, blessed that my husband was willing to work two jobs so that I could stay at home instead of going back to work.
[00:27:30] And I could, educate my own children. It was not something I wanted to do. We did attempt to put our oldest child in the public education system. She had some special needs and. It was, this heartening to have to deal with the response that the public school had to her special needs. They were very inflexible.
[00:27:53] There were not listening to what we were saying. And unfortunately my daughter did not have a very good experience and they were not [00:28:00] able to keep her safe. And after I think I left at about 46 a week and she was coming home with bite marks and bruises. And I was just going to the school and telling them this is not acceptable.
[00:28:12] And their response was well, the only way we could keep her safe and that special education classroom is to lock her up in a high chair so that she is separated from the other kids. And I said, so your answer to keeping her safe is to punish her. that’s not an acceptable answer to me. And I kind of, I hate to say it, but I kind of said, no, thank you.
[00:28:35] I didn’t know what I was doing. I never trained to be an elementary school teacher or a special education teacher. And I was a little bit terrified, but I wanted my daughter. To obviously be safe and to get what she needed. So I pulled her out, started homeschooling tons of reading and research and we had to privately pay for all the services that she needed.
[00:28:58] I ended up having another child with [00:29:00] special needs, my third child, and had to do all those same relearning of, everything and knowing what he needed and getting him what he needs. But. I’m very grateful. I had that opportunity and I had the knowledge and the ability, what breaks my heart is that there are parents in those situations feel they don’t have any choices.
[00:29:21] They don’t have either the opportunity. They don’t have a spouse that is willing to, or able to afford them staying at home, or they don’t feel they have the skills or. they know their child needs something and they don’t have the funds to get those things have the child needs. I get those stories of the time ever since I was elected.
[00:29:44] And, , I don’t know how I can be expected as someone who wants to do the best job I can representing my constituents. To not find a solution to help these individuals. These are our citizens. These are people who pay taxes. They live [00:30:00] they’re our neighbors, and we’re essentially telling them too bad.
[00:30:03] that was never an acceptable option for me. So it was really a passion that I had to help those who were in the same situation as myself, their children needed something other than a public education system. And didn’t have those options.
[00:30:19] GR: Well, speaking of students with special needs, I’m on the board of an organization called respectability.
[00:30:25] It’s headquartered in Maryland, our founder, Jennifer mush, Ronnie’s then a guest here. And one of the reasons I joined her board, , based on her invitation is because we worked to create, an avenue to talk about how people with disabilities and special needs or. You’d or undervalued, in American society, not only in schools, but also work.
[00:30:47] And so when you mentioned that, I just think about the broader conversation. The fact that punishment was the answer. When you were looking for progress, just speaks volumes and natural. We know that some other teachers have responded differently [00:31:00] as it relates to you. how did your experience.
[00:31:04] With children with special need and also working in that arena. How did you make that link to school choice? There are a lot of opponents of school choice who said for years, that school choice should be abandoned because guess what choice programs particularly private schools do not take students with special needs?
[00:31:23] Is that true?
[00:31:24] Patricia: I’ve heard that also. And I’ve seen for myself that that’s not always true. Yes. There are some private schools that cannot handle, certain special needs or disabilities, but there are lots that do, but in addition to that, again, mostly from my own personal experience where I was able to homeschool my children who had pretty serious special needs with.
[00:31:49] Being special ed certified and without, really. I started out with no, no experience to help me, but I was able to do it. And my children, thank God, have succeeded and [00:32:00] overcome and are fine. And they’re adults now. And they’re thriving. I know in my heart that, We have the capability to overcome, all of these fins and, special needs can be things like learning delays.
[00:32:15] It can be an illness, a very severe illness that causes huge. For example, like seizures that to miss out without. You know, you miss out on school, you miss out on things and activities. it could be something as not knowing the language like I had and having to overcome that issue of speech pathology issues.
[00:32:35] There’s so many diversity of special of what can go onto the category of special needs. And guess what? Each one has a different response. And each one of those, there are different levels of need within those. You cannot class, all the kids that have autism with one way of telling it because they respond to different things and there’s different levels and there’s different severities.
[00:32:58] And. [00:33:00] Very unique just under that one category. So to expect that a public education system is going to be able to address every single type of special need, there is really, I think too much of any one system. The reality is the more you individualize the way we treat education and handle individuals.
[00:33:22] The more we allow for customization, the better they’re going to do. And for me, God med school choice. It meant that for those kids who a classroom of 25 is not the right place, let’s help them. What would work for them. And sometimes it is possible to have that innovation and that flexibility within a public school system.
[00:33:46] I have seen public schools that have been able to do that, but unfortunately it’s not very often. And it almost, happens as. The exception to the world instead of the rule, I’m hoping that by introducing the idea of [00:34:00] school choice and empowering parents to look into what their kids need, we’re going to actually encourage that type of flexibility within the public education system to
[00:34:09] GR: absolutely.
[00:34:10] So your state’s been almost like a poster child for. , quickly, as Kara mentioned earlier, and you discussed with her a few years ago, people would have thought this was just unrealistic for a place like West Virginia, but you’re moving forward. Other states have also expanded choice programs, families of faith.
[00:34:29] have also been prime movers of the school choice legislation. Could you talk to us about the role of parent coalitions and the diversity within it to make what you have in West Virginia? A reality.
[00:34:42] Patricia: Well, thank you so much for bringing that up. One of the most important lessons learned from my first attempt to pass, , my education savings account, I did not organize or reach out for coalition partners.
[00:34:57] And that really was part of the reason for why. [00:35:00] Did fall apart with the associations being able to basically kill that attempt. The second time around, I learned from that experience and way, way ahead of time before the session ever began, I started reaching out to. What I would consider interested parties.
[00:35:17] So for example, private schools, and I asked them what they would think about legislation that would allow us to have education, savings account and explained to it what it was. And they were excited about the thought and the possibilities of it. And I said, well, I need you all to organize. I need you all to help educate others.
[00:35:36] I need y’all to, be advocates for this. If I end up introducing this legislation, and then I did the same thing with parents. I had several town halls where I was educating them about what. Is what we’re trying to do and why, and asking the same things. I need you all to work on your legislators to talk to those people who represent you to help me get this done.
[00:35:59] [00:36:00] So we started early on and, that was a huge difference. So the second time around a successful time in 2020, that was a. Big difference. We were getting letters, emails, and visits from parents and individuals in support. And it wasn’t just the association setting the narrative. And I should point out that at this time we’re talking, this was after COVID.
[00:36:24] Parents were pretty upset with the way that most of the public schools handled COVID. with the fact that schools were closed down, there were teachers who were refusing to return to work. And in the meantime, they have to return to work, but had nowhere to put their children, remote learning was a disaster.
[00:36:42] All of those things help to really energize , , those parents who were looking for something different and something better. And so all of that played a role. Well,
[00:36:52] GR: I’m going to go ahead and close us out again. Great to hear your voice great to have you , in, , public policy. Great to have your [00:37:00] story, a part of the American dream, glad to hear West Virginia anchored in conversations about reform.
[00:37:06] Often when we hear about, , the mountain state is. Uh, negative things, but there are a lot of great things growing in that state and you’re playing a role in that. So just don’t care and I are here to be supportive of you and your work. And at some point when I know I’m coming to your state, I’ll let you know.
[00:37:21] And hopefully we can get together at some point and talk more about this in person.
[00:37:26] Patricia: I would love that. Thank you so much. And thanks for the opportunity to talk about what. Yeah,
[00:37:32] Cara: and then hopefully I’ll be invited to, I just want to say it because I also a good John Denver Senator Rutgers. So just, we can do a little, we’ll have a little party featured by, through hard Robinson.
[00:37:46] Thank you so much for your time today. It was just wonderful speaking with you and thank you for your great work.
[00:37:52] Patricia: Thank you so much. You guys have a great day. Take care.[00:38:00]
[00:38:24] Cara: Gerard as always, we’re going to close it out with our tweet of the week and this one. Ooh, favorite topic of mine. We have talked about this before. It’s from education next and it says, quote so long as admissions exams are intended to fairly apportion opportunities to talented students, age allowance.
[00:38:44] Are appropriate. And so this article is about birthday bias. It’s about how, high state tests and, fairness. And I, what I love about this is that, we want to be sure that we’ve got opportunities for everyone, including our most talented [00:39:00] students. And, it’s great article. I highly suggest.
[00:39:03] And next week, Gerard, I know you’re, unable. You are a busy man and I’m going to have a guest host with me next week, but we are going to be speaking to Professor Paula Giddings. She is the Elizabeth, a Woodson professor, emerita of Africana studies at Smith college. And she is the author of a sword among lions, Ida B Wells and the campaign against lynching.
[00:39:26] Boy, I am looking forward to that one. Gerard, I’m going to miss. I do think we’re going to be here with, a special guest host, who is a friend of the show, but I hope that whatever it is you’re doing, I know it’s always something of great import because you are one of the busiest people. I know my friend, so
[00:39:42] GR: sorry.
[00:39:42] I won’t get a chance to share the conversation with you next week. our guest is a graduate of. Uh, so I’m always glad to see that author of a book on Delta Sigma data, a African-American female sorority founded at Howard university, and she has got so much great stuff in addition to that book. [00:40:00] So I look forward to being a listener, , at that time and look forward to joining you the following week.
[00:40:06] Cara: Yeah, well until then. Yeah, I’ll miss you. And, you take care best to your family and we will, of course, be back with updates on all of the pioneer Institute centric goings on in Boston. It’s like, it’s just a big old soap opera over here. Gerard, you take care of yourself,
[00:40:21] have a good
[00:40:21] GR: one. Enjoy being town and watch the beans being thrown at you
[00:40:27] as
[00:40:27] Cara: they are.
View media coverage on this topic in The 74, State House News Service, The Boston Globe, NBC10, the Boston Herald, WGBH News, Greater Boston, and Education Next.
The third review of the Boston Public Schools (BPS) in fewer than 20 years makes clear: Things are getting worse. Graduation rates are down, achievement gaps are up, an unacceptably large percentage of students attend schools ranked in the lowest 10 percent statewide. In a cruel twist, more than three in five students still are not taught material on which they are tested. There remains no clear strategy for improvement.
Since the 2020 review we’ve learned that the district’s own data are unreliable. The district has underestimated the number of English language learners it is serving inadequately and may have overestimated graduation rates in five of the last seven years. Bullying is rampant across the district. Today we find out that student transportation has deteriorated even further.
With BPS spending $26,000 per student, money is no longer the issue. Out of the 100 largest school systems in the U.S., BPS funding ranks second.
The central office has grown chaotic under a “musical chairs” of superintendents and is no longer capable of leading the necessary change. State and city officials must partner to:
Related Content
This week on Hubwonk, host Joe Selvaggi talks with Greg Sullivan, Research Director at Pioneer Institute and author of Back to Taxachusetts?, about the link between Massachusetts’s decision to reduce tax rates and a generation-long economic renaissance – and the reasons why new taxes such as the proposed, so-called “Fair Share Amendment” risk taking us back to economic stagnation or decline.
BOOK LAUNCH: Mark your calendar for Wednesday, May 25 from 6:00 to 8:00 PM and sign up now to secure your spot for Pioneer Institute’s live launch of our newest book, “Back to Taxachusetts?” at the UMass Club on One Beacon Street in Boston!
Guest
Gregory Sullivan is Pioneer’s Research Director. Prior to joining Pioneer, Sullivan served two five-year terms as Inspector General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was a 17-year member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Greg is a Certified Fraud Investigator, and holds degrees from Harvard College, The Kennedy School of Public Administration, and the Sloan School at MIT.
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
Joe Selvaggi:
This is Hubwonk. I’m Joe Selvaggi.
Joe Selvaggi:
Welcome to Hubwonk, a podcast of Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston. Massachusetts has enjoyed a generation-long economic Renaissance driven by its cultivation of new technologies, such as biotech, as well as it’s attracting older firms to relocate such as general electric. This success is owed in no small part from its decision to issue its former high tax policies that had earned it than nickname of taxachusetts and embark on a glide toward a lower income tax rate to one near middle of the nationwide pack. Despite the clear demonstrated success of the state’s more moderate tax policy. This November Massachusetts voters will be asked to amend its constitution to instantiate an 80% income tax increase for its highest earners. This euphemistically labeled fair share amendment attacks on any income over $1 million comes at a remarkable time when the state coffers are bulging from billions in budget, surplus revenue and from generous federal stimulus and aid for infrastructure while it’s backers assure voters that the money will be well spent.
Joe Selvaggi:
Fair share advocates must address voters. Reasonable concerns that returning to past high tax policies will not also return the Massachusetts economy back to economic stagnation and malaise. Indeed. What lessons should voters take from the success of our past and what can we learn from other states that chose to raise taxes on high earners in the past and are now dealing with the consequences? My guest today is Greg Sullivan, Research Director at Pioneer Institute and author of the book “Back to Massachusetts?”, Which is set to release this week. Mr. Sullivan will share with us the themes of his book based on careful research and analysis of the decades, long success of the Massachusetts economy and contrast our outcomes with those of other states, such as Connecticut and California, that levied higher rates on their state’s highest earns. We will discuss who will likely be affected by a so-called millionaires tax and why such taxes can be so destructive to the long term health of a state’s economy. He will also speak to his concern that contrary to the assurance of the amendment supporters. The new revenue may be spent merely to increase the size, but not the quality of our state’s government. When I return, I’ll be joined by senior fellow and author Greg Sullivan.
Joe Selvaggi:
Okay. We’re back. This is Hubwonk I’m Joe Selvaggi. I’m now pleased to be joined by Pioneer Institute’s Research Director co-author of the soon to be released book “Back To Taxachusetts” by Greg Sullivan. Welcome back to Hubwonk, Greg.
Greg Sullivan:
Thanks, Joe.
Joe Selvaggi:
Okay. I just finished reading an early copy of your new book. I, I found it wonderfully informative, interesting a chock full of data that even though I do many topics on these same issues I learned a great deal from the book. So but before we get into the book, let’s, let’s take a, a wider view and say, who did you know, you sat down and wrote this book, who is your target audience? Who, who do you expect to pick up this book and learn something?
Greg Sullivan:
Number one, we’re hoping to get the word out to the general public and the voting public indirectly by putting out facts and figures re solid statistical analysis out there, part of the dialogue. And that’s the right now a lot of the work we did was in an effort to get information to the legislature as well, but now the legislature put it on the ballot for November. So that ship has sailed. So this is all about the general public.
Joe Selvaggi:
So we’re, we’re trying to reach let’s say the general public, but I know from my own emails, I get plenty of emails that say, you know, from people who clearly think all taxes are bad. I understand there are arguments and there’s certainly folks out there who think, you know, all taxes are good, they all make for a better society. So it seems to me from reading the book that you’re trying to aim for the persuadable middle, if, if there is still such a thing much the same way we try to do here at hub won. So let’s stop start at the beginning. I moved to Massachusetts, I way back in 1993, and back then we were known as and so here we are much later and we’re no longer known that way. So let’s get a little bit of history. Why were we known as in the past?
Greg Sullivan:
The, the term was no joke. Massachusetts was ranked as the third highest taxing state in the country in 1970. And that’s by the tax foundation, the combination of income taxes and local property taxes. And that began to change in 1980 when proposition two and a half passed. That was the initiative petition that put limits on the amount of local property taxes. And the legislature also followed up by reducing the income tax rate from at 1.5 0.6% down to 5%. Those two things really made Massachusetts kind of reformed tax tax really and has ended. I mean, I think the, that the voters of Massachusetts and the state legislature made a decision that taxation levels at a very high hurting the economy and they’ve addressed it right now. We’re in the middle of the, that we’re like rank 24th out of 50 states in terms of our combined state local property taxes. That’s a big difference from being among the very, very highest to the middle of the road. And that’s a, it’s an economic advantage to us to be reasonable tax state.
Joe Selvaggi:
Well, being in the middle, I suppose, you know, is, is a good place on this index. So we’re neither bad nor good we’re somewhere in the middle. So folks we’re all right. So from bad to to average, I’m, I’m happy with that now. As those of us who advocate generally for lower taxes or more business friendly environments, we say that lowering taxes does have the effect of encouraging more growth and therefore ultimately more taxes. But what has been the effect since becoming going from the worst to the middle of the pack over the last 30 or 40 years have, have we indeed have those promises been kept, has the Massachusetts economy boomed in that time?
Greg Sullivan:
Yes. the best, the best way to look at it. This this issue was to look at compar Connecticut and Massachusetts. Everybody knows that Massachusetts basically pirated away GE one of the nation’s premier companies from Connecticut moved to Massachusetts right after Massa, right after Connecticut boomed their taxes for on, in, on individuals and affecting companies as well. So Massachusetts has, has done very, very well comparison to of the new England states because of our economic competitiveness. The problem is that we’re in a very, very competitive environment among the states looking for companies to locate here and to stay here, very fierce competition. And we’re kind of up against it in new England for a number of reasons.
Joe Selvaggi:
So, so I wanna get into, I wanna take apart all of those issues. So you, you say we’re doing well, we’re doing particularly well compared to our neighbor in Connecticut. So I wanna unpack a lot of the themes in the book here, but let’s start at the beginning. I think if I, the common thread through the whole book, this fear of becoming tax excuse again, is largely predicated on this new ballot measure. That’s coming down for our, for voters in 20, 22nd of November which give it, call it what you will some call it the fair share tax, some call it prop 80 or the millionaires tax. But for our listeners who aren’t studying this all the time, what, what is it that they will be asked to vote on? What is this fair share amendment that, that they’ll be asked to vote on in November?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, the fair share amendment that’s gonna the ballot November would add a 80% increase to the top marginal tax rate for, for income over a million dollars. And that, so this would change Massachusetts from being basically in the middle of the pack in the country with a pretty decent advantageous tax rate to being among the very highest of the country. And and that’s the propo, the proposal, if it’s adopted, would apply to income over $1 million, but the way that they wrote the proposal, it applies to all income. In other words, it applies to income from capital gains. It comes from selling you house stocks, bonds affects people when they retire, if for somebody who sells their business that that’s their retirement, their nest egg they’re one time millionaires. That’s one of the problems with it is that it’s gonna apply kind of indiscriminately, not to what most people consider to be millionaires, but people who happen to earn a million dollars when they retired and sold their business. So that’s the problem with this bill.
Joe Selvaggi:
Indeed, your book takes apart who are these quote unquote millionaires, but let’s, let’s back up even further and say, who would back such a measure? You know, why, who, who thinks such a thing is a good idea?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, the proponents of the measure are mostly made up of state employees and, and public employees through their unions. And that should, that should really tell you something about it, because one of the things we pointed out here is when this same kind of proposal passed in, in California as you, as you pointed out in previous hub, long shows, which excellent what happened was the the economy really started to decline and in, in, but the money that they received, which was promised to be going to education K through 12 and community colleges, they didn’t do it. They, they never raised the amount of money above the minimum constitutional level in California and in California public payrolls increased by more than a hundred percent more than the average of the country. So it can be, it’s, there’s an element of this is becomes a, a, a huge cash trough that the legislature can spend it, whatever it wants,
Joe Selvaggi:
I think, yes, indeed. You pointed to earlier shows I just wanna make sure we address the, our listeners who maybe haven’t listened to all earlier shows about this. So effectively it, it levies a tax, a 80% increase on the higher, highest marginal rate for earners. And I believe, again, some of the controversy is where will that money go? I think it’s advocates promise. It will go to education or transportation, things that people really like. But your research and your book point out that similar promises by other states, specifically, California, where they said all this new money will go to transportation and education. And as your book points out, not a single penny, more than the minimum went to education, nothing changed before and after. They got slightly more revenue because the stake got more revenue, but as a, as a percentage of, of the budget, it’s remained the same.
Joe Selvaggi:
Let me ask a little side question. We see a lot of headlines now to the surprise of many, I guess, perhaps all people regardless of where they stand, we’re experiencing here in Massachusetts revenue surpluses in the billions of dollars. Now we had all thought that COVID would mean business or revenue tax revenue would decrease where I saw one week a one month surplus of $2 billion in just a single month. Why would advocates a suggest a massive tax increase while we don’t know what to do with the money we’re already taking in?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, I mean, Massachusetts during COVID the forecast for the economic recovery were very conservative as everyone was really, really worried going back to the beginning of like March 20, 20. But if you look at what happened with COVID even a year afterwards, Massachusetts this still in the height of the, of the COVID pandemic, Massachusetts income from sales tax and from income tax was actually larger than any point in history. In words, the economy, the, the, the COVID economic downturn was very concentrated in certain industries, tourism related and travel related restaurants, bars. These are the part of the economy that get murdered, but in Massachusetts, we recovered very quickly. And right now we’re a wash with money. There’s so much money available to the legislature that they basically stopped appropriating it, and just said, time out, we have to, we, we just can’t spend all this money. Now we have to put it aside. We’ll decide what to do with it later. So Massachusetts is a wash and, and, and money. So you say, well, why are you gonna put on one of the biggest tax increases in the history of the United States, right in the middle of this? And it’s, it’s worrisome.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah. It seems a, a, a sort of a, sort of be a naked advocacy for just taxes in general, whether it’s needed or not let you know taxes are inherently good. It, it just seems odd or UN perplexed. Now your book I think very well admits that none of us has a crystal ball. We are you and I advocating, and your book advocates against this prop 80 or millionaires tax, but none of us has a crystal ball. We don’t know what kind of effect it will have, but you do try to imply or ask your readers to infer from the experiences of other states. We’ve touched briefly here. You mentioned Connecticut and California. I’d like to go a little deeper into that. Let’s start with Connecticut. What happened when Connecticut raised its top income rate? Again, they’ve done it several times, so it doesn’t have to be one rate increase, maybe over the course of a decade, several, I think four increases. What’s been the effect on the con Connecticut economy after doing what we’re thinking about doing in our future.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah, Connecticut is a, is a case study of why these sudden very large tax increases can devastate a state economy. So when in, in, in Connecticut after the after the great recession, so called, which is at the end of the president of George W. Bush and beginning of president Obama administration, that recession Connecticut basically has still not recovered from that Massachusetts recovered within two or three years and, and grew, but Matt, but even a decade after that occurred, Cal Connecticut was still trying to recover the job, the employment level. So they had beforehand, they’re the only, basically the only state. They also had a real depression compared to the rest of the country in increase in home values and businesses left, as we know the most famous one being GE, which located to Boston, you know, I mean, the, that was a huge loss of Connecticut. And so it, it, it shows, it just shows you that these tax increases have effects on the general economy. And the general economy can, can bring about adverse effects, downturn that far outstripped the value of the tax increase.
Joe Selvaggi:
Indeed, we’re talking, we’ll introduce a concept called the Laffer curve, where actually you raise taxes and revenue goes down because it has unintended secondary effects, meaning you can, you can tax people, but ultimately if they leave, you you’re left with less tax than you started with your book mentions. In fact, in Connecticut in one year you measure it by net outflow of income one year 2018 before COVID 1.2 billion in net a grossed gross income in one year. So raise the taxes. People leave the taxes go down. And of course, as you mentioned, Connecticut is the, the economy suffering, but the increase taxes didn’t solve the Connecticut’s need for more revenue. In other words the, the state government is still not getting the revenue. It needs to support itself, meaning it’s this downward spiral. It seems.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. I mean, if you look at in California, so in California, that’s really Massachusetts’s number one competitor in some respects in the country because they, they’re, they’re a very high tech center and Massachusetts competes. So they, they decided out there to really have a high millionaire stocks and they put it in effect and then companies started to leave. They lost Elon Musk, the, the people who the people say, well, let’s tax let’s let’s tax high income earners. Well, when they’re, when they’re entrepreneurs deciding where to locate, what you have to remember is that they can leave. And Elon Musk and, and Tesla just move the national headquarters to no tax taxes. They don’t have an income tax. So they, so Elon Musk just went from a state where he is gonna pay 13% income tax rate to one where it’s zero and it’s and you say, well, don’t, it’ll never leave California. California’s so great. We’re so, so invaluable. No, doesn’t work that way. Same thing with Massachusetts. It’s very easy for companies to leave now, especially in the post COVID remote work environment, that’s emerging, continuing to emerge.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah. It puzzles made that I mean, clearly this is a situation where reasonable people, rational people respond to incentives. I’m amazed by the number of people who want to, let’s say impose a 5 cent cost on a, a tax on a bag at the grocery store with the hope that people bring their own bags to avoid a 5% yeah. Tax or whatever you wanna call it. And yet they won’t leave. If Elon Musk got 13.3% of his income has to be tens of billions of dollars. Why did, why wouldn’t you anticipate him leaving it, it doesn’t make sense to me that people would be surprised, but in your book, you do cite quite a bit of statistics. Studies on this Exodus from California. I think the we’ve had him on hub wonk, the economist from Stanford professor RA measured the inflection point when the tax was imposed a market Exodus of, of high net earners and their companies began to leave California. And what’s also interesting, I think is it’s not just the people who leave. It’s the people who decide not to go in the first place. People look at the tax rates and say, you know what given all things considered and how much it costs to live there, I’m gonna go to a different state. So,
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah, I, I, I think I heard an ad or I read an ad on the internet yesterday it was an ad from the fair share proponents. And it basically said they’re really wealthy. Don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And this would add a a tax of millionaires and the money would be spent on education transportation. That’s a very simple populist measure argument. And it’s very convincing to some people, but what I, what I think people have to begin to think about is what of the effects of doing this on a state like Massachusetts? Are we gonna get adversely affected? Like Connecticut did that the way California did? I think the, the answer is for very likely to end up with a very bad economic outcome for the state, if it happens
Joe Selvaggi:
Right. And I think, you know, people say, well, you know, a little pain is worth it. If we get better better education, better roads, but as you’ve pointed out in your book in California, they didn’t get better educational roads. They got 50% more state workers. That’s what they got for the money. Yeah. They, I don’t think anyone think we need more state workers <laugh> well,
Greg Sullivan:
I mean, in California after the, this was a, this was a really big tax increase like this being proposed here, and it was all was sold on the idea that gonna spend money in education in the end. They didn’t, they spent, I think it was one 10th of 1% more than the constitutional minimum. They never rose it never rose above that. So, and the money was spent on increased in public employee payroll, which, which was which was increased precipitously. And that’s, that’s one of the problems is that is that it’s sold as a sweetener vote for this, for education transportation, but it’s already been dis positively determined by a previous Supreme court case and statements made by the state attorney General’s office that the money doesn’t have to be spent on education, transportation legislature can e spend it, whatever it wants,
Joe Selvaggi:
Of course money is fungible. So if they wanna promise it goes to education, they simply reduce the old dollars by the same amount, they add the new dollars and thereby keep their promise. And not one new penny goes to education. Now we, we sort of touched on it briefly, but close to the top of the show. You mentioned that we’re labeling millionaires is those people who earn more than a million in a year, but you’ve mentioned only briefly, but go into it in depth in your book. People who make a million dollars in one year rarely make it more than once. Meaning it’s usually business owners who sell their business or homeowners who sell their business. People who’ve worked their whole lives, perhaps they’ve deferred income. Their business is their retirement and they get a one time and one time only payout that is very often and, you know, honestly to survive in retirement, one needs, if one’s selling a business more than a million dollars share with us what your book talks about is who are these quote unquote millionaires who will be swept up in this tax?
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah, I mean, going back in the history of the United States it used to be more than 70% of private sector. Employees had a pension plan that since, since that time, it shrunk closer to 10% public employees still have retirement plans, not, not private sector employees for people who have their own business, they started business to operate for 20, 30, 40 years. And that, that the sale of that business, the retirement is their nest egg. That’s why this is a, this and this tax applies to them. In words, there, we call them one time millionaires, more than 50% of the people who earn a million dollars do so only once two thirds, only twice or fewer. So these, these are this, this is, is a tax that is that masquerades as a tax line you know, millionaires driving around to limos wearing silk top hats, like the monopoly guy, but in the end, it’s the company down the street.
Greg Sullivan:
Who’s gonna auto garage. The guy ran for 40 years and he finally sells it. And they say, well, guess what, you’re a millionaire. He said, I did not know I was a millionaire. This is the only, this is my money that I saved up over 40 years and you’re gonna tax, you know, so the, the, the, you know, the proponents, what they should have done, and what many parties asked them to do was to put in some kind of a income averaging to prevent this one time millionaires. Also, they said, don’t tax your sale of your house. You know, so some houses are going for more than a million dollars. A lot of houses are going for more than a million. So why are you gonna count that that’s a one time event. So, but anyway, they threw the kitchen sink in and the tax applies to basically everything every kind of income that’s, that’s a problem.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah. That is a problem. And it just occurred to me when you were talking if you’re comparing it to a public pension, when one retires as a public pension, the value of that pension if you were to look at the payout over time would be valued in the millions, but there’s no, there’s no taxable event. They don’t actually sell. And then create that pension rather, they just receive the pension. Whereas the, the business owner was taking lifetime of risk. Must have a taxable event, must sell it in order to re realize a, sort of a pseudo pension, a nest egg that they can spend off in their old age. So one group tax and the other is ignored.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. I mean, I said earlier that the main proponents of this are public employees and in their unions, they, they, they’re the, they’re the driving force behind it. And when public employees retire in Massachusetts on a state pension they don’t have any income tax. It’s not there’s zero income tax. So, so the same people who are asking for this tax to go on is retirement tax on private sector. People who run their own business, the public employees who pay zero taxes, and now they want these other folks to pay among the highest taxes in, in America.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah, this is, I know the closer you look, the, the worse it gets now, there is, you know, there, you mentioned as some studies, you, you, you briefly brought it up earlier in our conversation that it’s the perception by many that, you know, we call this the fair share because the perception is that high earners are wealthier people don’t pay the same percentage or portion of their overall income in taxes. There’s been some studies and, and your book points to many of the flaws that say, look you know, if I’m making a million dollars every year my, my, the, the percentage of my money going to the government is smaller than the, the poor guy making relatively little $50,000 or $30,000. You know, he’s paying a huge amount of taxes. You’re, you’re your book goes into length and debunks the myth briefly, how would you say, why is it the fact that a flat tax isn’t indeed regressive?
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. Okay. Well, the, the, I think the strongest argument on that point is that top 10% of income earn in Massachusetts pay more in state taxes than the bottom 90%. Now that’s that’s statistic that we published. It’s based on IRS statistics of Massachusetts reporter reporting tax returns, the top 10% of people in the state for income pay more than the bottom 90%, they pay like 56% of the total, if you follow that. So when people say they’re not paying their fair share they, they, they pay 90%. If this passes they’re gonna pay 95%. So, I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s a myth that high income people don’t pay their fair share, Massachusetts, get a great thing. If you ask me, we, we have a 5% income tax rate. That’s a good rate. It’s advantageous to us. It attracts people to come here and build businesses and to stay here, as opposed to places like Connecticut or New York or California who want constantly wanna steal our businesses from us. So that’s a bad term, but they wanna poach our businesses from us and, and recruit businesses to their states. One of our advantages is a good place to be. It has a fair average tax rate in the country to selling point. And it’s a mistake in my opinion, to get rid of it.
Joe Selvaggi:
And indeed you mentioned in your book and we’re getting near the end of our time together that we that states at least themselves see themselves as laboratories, 50 different laboratories of democracy, and each has its own prerogatives to impose taxes on its citizens, but they’re all competing for the same, let’s say creative investment risk taking audience. They all want the job makers and the economic rainmakers to come to their state. Where are people in Massachusetts going? If, if, if they do leave for greener pasture, where are they likely to go? If you were to guess, if this is imposed, where we accept that they will leave, where will they go? And has that propensity to leave? The, I could think it what do economists call Footloose they’re more Footloose than the, the lower income people where will they go? And why do you think, you know, what, what will be their reasons?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, the, the relocation of people from Massachusetts historically, this, this is a subject that’s closely tracked by the federal government shows that we have been losing billions of dollars over adjusted, gross income to Florida, Florida, New Hampshire, Florida, New Hampshire represents 70% of our outflow of people taking their income to other states. So why Florida has low tax rates, no income tax. There’s no capital gains tax. There’s no estate tax and that’s a magnet, but there’s also the Sunbelt states and Texas North Carolina, California you know, the they’re here advertising pitching to take companies to come to their states. So it’s a, it’s a competition in Massachusetts to, to attract and retain businesses. People should remember that when, when they, when they vote on things like this, because, you know, Massachusetts used to be like the leader in manufacturing in the United States.
Greg Sullivan:
People don’t think that could be true, but if you look at Laurel Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford, Fall River, Springfield, all of our mill cities, one time we were the national leader, even, even going back recently to like 1970 we, we had a fairly good amount of manufacturing, but it has left manufacturing has left Massachusetts for the most part. And we’ve had to adjust by, by having innovation companies come in. That’s our job is to try to get companies doing a great job in, in Cambridge and Boston, with biotech, route 1 28 around our universities. We, you know, Northeastern BU Harvard, MIT, UFS, you know, we, we have, we have got an advantage to recruit companies, but why do you wanna boom, these people with a, with a nationally high very high tax rate. That’s not an invitation, it’s, it’s a, it’s a ushering them out the door.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah, indeed. And we have an endless wellspring of, of talented people coming to our schools. And then we, the fact that we’ve got an advantage, but then squandered that advantage by chasing ’em out with a a high tax rate, if, if they do become successful, I would imagine your, your book does talk a dedicate part of a chapter to the fact that now in this wake of co after COVID, and we’ve all learned how to telecommute you via zoom, we’re even more foots. We’re more inclined to live where we want and therefore take pay taxes where we want, I would imagine the competition among states becomes even greater knowing that one can really work from almost anywhere at this point.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. It’s, it’s been a real game changer. The, the, the shift to remote work it grew during COVID and it’s has legs is what we’re seeing of that. So when a company is deciding to whether or not to come to Massachusetts, we have a very high cost of living. We have a high cost of living compared to other areas in the country. That’s a disadvantage for location. But one advantage we do have is that the, is that the state of Massachusetts has been on a pro economic growth strategy since 1970 to reverse our reputation. And I think we’ve we’ve done a good job of, of of ending. And I think that this proposal within a one fell swoop will trigger us back to that that economic, adverse effect of very high taxes.
Joe Selvaggi:
It’s a shame. It seems perhaps every generation needs to learn again, the lessons of the past. I hope we can avoid putting our hand on the stove again and, and learn from other states’ mistakes instead of insisting on doing it ourselves. So we’re at the ti at the end of the time together. We certainly haven’t addressed all the issues in the book. It’s a wonderful book full of facts and figures, where can our listeners buy your book? So they can read it for themselves.
Greg Sullivan:
Amazon.com. Okay. And this is readily available.
Joe Selvaggi:
Wonderful. Wonderful. Yeah, I’m expecting Amazon will have it. It might not be at the Harvard bookstore just yet not it won’t be on that front front page there. Now also, I think you also have this should release before the event. If there’s still tickets left, Pioneer’s having a book release event coming up do you know the day or how our listers can buy tickets for that.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. That’s again to make a, to make a reservation for the event, go on www.Pioneerinstitute.org, and it’s very easy to do
Joe Selvaggi:
Wonderful. Well, they can go there for our Hubwonk podcast and also for your book and also to reserve their space for the book launch. So well done. Very good job, Greg. This book was a fun read, an easy read and a wonderful resource when our, let’s say our reachable, our persuadable middle voters when they’re going to that ballot, they’ll at least be armed with a good deal of information. Thank you very much for writing the book. And thanks again for joining me on Hubwonk once again. Thanks, Joe.
Joe Selvaggi:
This has been another episode of Hubwonk. If you enjoyed today’s episode, there are several ways to support the show. It would be easier for you and better for us. If you subscribe to hub wonk on your iTunes podcast, catcher, if you wanna make it easier for others to find Hubwonk, it would be great. If you offer a five star rating or a favorable review, we’re always grateful. If you want to share hub wonk with friends, if you have ideas or comments or suggestions for me, or future episode topics, you’re welcome to email me. Hubwonk@Pioneer institute.org. Please join me next week for a new episode of Hubwonk.
Recent Episodes
In Massachusetts, the Know-Nothing amendments prevent more than 100,000 urban families with children in chronically underperforming school districts from receiving scholarship vouchers that would allow them access to additional educational alternatives. These legal barriers, also known as Blaine amendments, restrict government funding from flowing to religiously affiliated organizations in nearly 40 states and are a violation of the first and fourteenth amendments.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case this year, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, that could end these amendments. In 2018, Pioneer produced a 30-minute documentary on the impact of the Blaine amendments on families in Massachusetts, Georgia, and Michigan.
“She’s a good girl. She helps me a lot. She has big, big dreams. I don’t have the money, but she has big dreams. I hope she’s going to get everything, but she works so hard. She works so hard in school.”
“Our family is needing to make some really big sacrifices because we believe this is important, and so, we’re basically going to do whatever it takes… Sometimes we look at each other and go ‘I don’t know if I can do it again another month…’”
“A lot of the families have to sacrifice and work multiple jobs… And just scraping together enough money to just make tuition, just the basics.”
“It is discriminatory, that parents who want to choose an alternative to public school for their children, would not in any way receive any compensation for that, whether it be tax credit, whether it be a voucher…”
In the 1840s, nativist movement leaders formed official political parties and local chapters of the national Native American Party (later the American Party), although they continued to be commonly known as the Know-Nothing Party. Politicians sought to insert provisions into state constitutions against Catholics who refused to renounce the pope. The Know-Nothing movement brought bigotry and hatred to a new level of violence and organization.
The party’s legacy endured in the post-Civil War era, with laws and constitutional amendments it supported, still today severely limiting parents’ educational choices. A federal constitutional amendment was proposed by Speaker of the House James Blaine prohibiting money raised by taxation in any State to be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations. These were then named the Blaine Amendments of 1875.
in recent decades, often in response to challenges to school choice programs, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated great interest in examining the issues of educational alternatives and attempts limit parental options. Massachusetts plays a key role in this debate. The Bay State was a key center of the Know-Nothing movement and has the oldest version of Anti-Aid Amendments in the nation, as well as a second such amendment approved in 1917. Two-fifths of Massachusetts residents are Catholic, and its Catholic schools outperform the state’s public schools, which are the best in the nation.
Help families like the Costons in Michigan to end the bigoted Blaine amendments in their state that are blocking tuition scholarships and other types of financial support that would make it possible for families to send their children to high-quality schools that are best suited for their children.
[ytp_video source=”uN8dMHYzofA”]
SHARE THIS STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Senator Patricia Puertas Rucker, a West Virginia state Senator and Chair of the Education Committee. Thanks to her leadership, West Virginia now has the widest, most universal education savings account program in America. Senator Rucker describes the lessons other state legislators across the country can learn from West Virginia’s successful experience. A Venezuelan immigrant, she shares her inspiring story of coming to the U.S., and becoming a state legislator who has led a transformational school choice initiative. She describes how her personal narrative, including her experience homeschooling her five children, some with special needs, drove her later efforts as an elected official to promote wider school choice. She reviews some of the central issues animating parent coalitions that have been prime movers in expanding school choice programs, especially for parents of children with special needs and families of faith.
Stories of the Week: School choice offers important alternatives to contentious political debates in K-12 education – but we should refrain from urging parents to abandon all traditional districts, many of which offer high-quality instruction. In New Mexico, a bipartisan group of legislators and parents overwhelmingly support charter public schools, contrary to the divisiveness over charters that exists in many states.
Guest
Patricia Puertas Rucker is a West Virginia state senator serving the 16th District. Her committee assignments, include: chair of the Education Committee and a member of the Agriculture and Rural Development, Banking and Insurance, Judiciary, Health and Human Resources, Natural Resources, and Confirmations Committees. She taught social studies in the Montgomery County Public Schools before starting a family and homeschooling her five children. Patricia is a first generation American citizen, born in Caracas, Venezuela, coming to the U.S., Montgomery County, Maryland, in 1981. She graduated from Trinity College in Washington, D.C with a B.A. in History and minor in Latin American studies.
The next episode will air on Weds., June 1st, with Prof. Paula Giddings, Elizabeth A. Woodson Professor Emerita of Africana Studies at Smith College, and she is the author of, Ida: A Sword Among Lions – Ida B. Wells and the Campaign Against Lynching.
Tweet of the Week:
"So long as admissions exams are intended to fairly apportion opportunities to talented students, age allowances are appropriate." https://t.co/OTMLbmWjzi
— Education Next (@EducationNext) May 10, 2022
News Links:
School choice can take political fights out of education
Charter schools show education and politics can work in New Mexico
https://www.abqjournal.com/2501242/charter-schools-show-education-and-politics-can-work-in-nm-2.html
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
[00:00:00] Cara: hello listeners. Welcome to the learning curve. It is. An interesting day up here in Beantown where I am sitting am so happy to have my good friend here to talk about this in so many more things with me, Gerard Robinson, how you doing today?
[00:00:39] GR: I’m doing well in beautiful, but wet Charlottesville.
[00:00:44] Cara: but wet?
[00:00:45] Well, it’s always beautiful. I’ve never been there. You haven’t invited me. I got nothing.
[00:00:51] GR: Oh, okay. I’ll take that as a hint that I need to check that box, but you know, it was 90 degrees of few days ago was 80 [00:01:00] before that, and now it’s just raining, but it keeps it beautiful and green. Nothing else is breaking the humidity.
[00:01:06] And that’s a good thing here, ups up when the
[00:01:08] Cara: humidity is there and we know how you worry about your hair, Gerard, you know, you’re between the two of us, you weren’t, I am here in Beantown where the weather is quite beautiful. After a very hot weekend. I came home Gerard. I was traveling in an undisclosed location last week and I came home to COVID in the house.
[00:01:29] Oh my goodness. After. Yeah. You know, here we go. You can’t escape it. I don’t know. Maybe you can. I hope you do. Actually. I have to say this, my husband, who, as you know, Gerard is in the medical field. So he sees upwards of 60 patients a day. So we’re just considering this, a miracle that this is the first time it happened.
[00:01:47] Right. And. He’s fine. He’s absolutely fine. It’s it’s a little bit of a man cold, but, uh, yeah, everything’s, good here. lots going on to talk about in our fair city today, though, as you know, pioneer [00:02:00] Institute, released a report a couple of months ago, I’m not saying that we had anything to do with it, but calling for change in the Boston public schools.
[00:02:09] and today was a big day actually, yesterday was a big day because. the department of elementary and secondary education released a second audit of the Boston public schools and found surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise that not many things. In fact, very few things. In fact, almost nothing has gotten better.
[00:02:25] A lot of things have gotten worse as I think, you know, we talked about a couple of weeks ago, Boston recently had to close a school. It will be closed because of, sexual abuse that had been ongoing in the school. So lots of stuff going on in this city, we’re going to see how the political winds blow, but boy, oh boy.
[00:02:44] It’s looking like some big changes ahead for the largest school system in the Commonwealth. so I’m thinking about that. I’m also thinking about, I’m just going to segue right into my story of the week, Gerard, because whenever I think about a place like Boston [00:03:00] and, so many parents who are, I’m just gonna use the word trapped in schools that they don’t want to be in.
[00:03:06] they wish they had a different choice. I think about school choice. I think about the relative. Lack of school choice that we have here in the Commonwealth. I think about the fact that we have managed to put charter schools so far on the rails that we’re not establishing new ones, despite some of the excellent ones that we have.
[00:03:24] And to some extent, I think about what our friend Coleen Fronek has written about this week, , in the hill and the title of Coleen’s article is school choice can take political fights out of education. The main argument here at Gerard, the overarching argument is that, if parents can send their kids.
[00:03:48] To a school that aligns with their values to a school that aligns with the way they see the world to a school that aligns with their beliefs. Now, I, as an advocate of school choice would also put guard rails around that and say, we need to think about how [00:04:00] we provide high quality options that are also mission-driven and that, allow parents the kind of education that they’re seeking for their kids.
[00:04:07] Right. But that school choice can help to meet. Some of these terrible political battles that we’re seeing around education. I don’t have to tell you what those battles are. And I have to say that to some extent, I agree with Colleen and I want to quote her here. She says the current winner takes all system as in sending your kids to district and let’s try and do each other by not allowing school choice, right?
[00:04:33] Forces parents to engage in political battles to get their children. The education they think is best. But when one group of parents wins, that means another group loses. And this point, thank you, calling I think is a really, really good one. So I think in a lot lately, about how many parents, especially in states like mine, where we have such limited choices.
[00:04:57] Are on the losing end. It’s not [00:05:00] even just of the politics Gerard, but just on the losing end of being able to provide their kids with the one thing , that most parents really hold dear. Right? They’d said it makes a difference in life. And that is an education that fits the needs of each kid in each.
[00:05:15] Now I would just call out one caveat here and I would love your take on this drug, because I know that my opinion on this is strong, but it is my opinion. And that is that I’m a little put off that some advocates have school choice in the past couple of years. Have advocated for school choice as a means of escaping public school districts, because there’s a claim that public school districts are somehow teaching inappropriate material, or, not doing right by kids in other ways now.
[00:05:45] I’m not on board with that argument for school choice, I believe deeply in choice for Choice’s sake. And I do believe I’m in alignment with Colleen here, right? That one of the best reasons for choices that every family and parents should have the means as [00:06:00] let’s be clear, wealthy families do to choose the school that meshes with their worldview, mission, vision, of those.
[00:06:09] If you want to be able to choose a faith-based school, please, by all means do it. You shouldn’t have to be a wealthy person to access that kind of education. But I do become a little upset when we say that the reason for school choice should be escaping districts because. There are a lot of great school districts out there doing a lot of great things and no form of education is without a point of view.
[00:06:34] So some parents are choosing districts because of the things that they’re teaching. And many of them aren’t teaching the quote unquote radical content. That’s so many critics want to talk about, right. But we need to support all types of schools across the board. We need to be advocates for kids period.
[00:06:53] And that’s where I come down. But I really appreciate. This story in the hill this week. it was a good way I think, to [00:07:00] connect school choice and how to bring the tone in this country down just a bit.
[00:07:05] GR: When you mentioned exit, it brought me back to a grad school class that I had some years ago, where we looked at, I think it was Albert Hirschman’s book, exit voice, and loyalty.
[00:07:18] And the author talks about the importance of quality goods. And when they deteriorate. What do you do? And so there’s an exit or the voice option. do think some parents. And in fact, I don’t think this is new. Going back to the founding of charter schools in Minnesota or the urban based, what we call the voucher program in Milwaukee.
[00:07:38] There was surely a group of stakeholders in the legislature and also families who say we need an exit out of traditional public schools or. Public education in general. So there’s that point, but I agree with you. Some people are using it politically and not strategically. And there’s a difference. The families 30 years ago, 31 [00:08:00] years ago who wanted to exit it was life or death for some of them, for some of the teachers, it was professional calling and they wanted to practice their craft in different ways.
[00:08:10] So exit for them. Mid strategy for some people is strictly, about, politics. And so on that front, that will be with us for a long time, but we can’t let that group define what school choice is about. Because if a gives critics, more fodder is they see, they simply want to leave democratic schools and go to you, fill in the blank.
[00:08:33] instead of saying, guess what? This is a country of choice. We seem to want to celebrate choice, , in a lot of ways, except when it really comes for education. So great article, , I’m with you. And I also must say going back to the article. Oh, , what you mentioned earlier, kudos to you for the report that you wrote about receivership kudos to the pioneer Institute for publishing it.
[00:08:57] And I say that because. America is a [00:09:00] strong replace, a Massachusetts in particular, because you have think tanks like the pioneer Institute and scholars like you for a host of reasons. You’re giving a lot of academic freedom that some of your colleagues who you went to grad school with who are not professors may not have either because pre-tenure politics or even with tenure, just some of the canceling that comes along with taking the position that someone can see as anti-public school.
[00:09:26] With think tanks we can think and do. So. I just want to give a shout out to you for that work and. Who knows, , has been to audits. And I believe from your report, if there’s two audits that at least puts on the table of the idea of receivership, so nothing’s
[00:09:43] going to happen. I
[00:09:44] Cara: don’t know if there’ll be full blown receivership, but I do think that there is on
[00:09:47] the way.
[00:09:49] GR: Well, as we talk about school choice, my article in facts about charter schools and this from charter schools, from a state we rarely talk about, and that is New Mexico. [00:10:00] And what. I do not know is that New Mexico? Inaccurate at charter law in 1993, make it in one of the earliest states of the country to enact a charter law.
[00:10:09] According to data from the national Institute of charter schools, approximately 97 charter schools, in the state between 20 18, 19, roughly 26,000 students are enrolled. When you look at the score. That the national Alliance provided to New Mexico out of 240 points, they received 152. And so this was strong points and there’s some challenges, well, while that’s taking place.
[00:10:33] And while we know in Washington, DC, there’s a big debate, in the white house, regarding what should we do with, the federal charter school program that advocates, writing letters. There are others who are starting to protest while that’s taking place in New Mexico. This Democrats and Republicans found a way to come together and actually support charter schools.
[00:10:54] So in the past legislative session, and this is an article written by Matt Paul, who was the [00:11:00] executive director of public charter school. The New Mexico, , men identify a new law that took step is actually providing charter schools with more facility funding and options. And you and I know charter school facility funding is huge.
[00:11:13] As much as critics want to say that charter schools are sucking up all the money. One area where charter schools are not receiving funding in ways or other public school counterparts. Do. Relates to facilities. So we’re glad to see that also the house and Senate unanimously passed and the governor signed a measure to increase spending, not only for charter schools facilities, but to create a new loan fund for permanent charter school facilities.
[00:11:38] So a bit win. Well, how do they do it? According to. Lawmakers in New Mexico, they’ll spend their time solely at the Capitol building or in committee hearings. They actually listen to their constituents. People who live with them, people who shop at the same grocery stores, they do may attend the same, faith community or those institutions, but they found [00:12:00] out two things.
[00:12:00] Number one, they found out that people actually believe charter schools better according to a pre pandemic poll families. And one of the comments New Mexico found that believe that charter schools improve education, their community, and 75% want more charter school options. As Matt keenly pointed out families like public schools, charter schools are public schools and therefore it should be one of the options that people like and they want more of it.
[00:12:28] So when we often think about flying. Or states, whether you want to include New Mexico in there and not, maybe you can or can’t, but what I will say is while the east coast and the west coast are fighting over all kinds of things, as we’re flying overstates let’s land, either personally, intellectually or interest in terms of AI, Let’s look at something differently, New Mexico, who is doing some pretty good things.
[00:12:51] And I’d be remiss if I didn’t say hello to my colleague, Canada. Skandera, who’s a former secretary in New Mexico now president of the Daniels fund [00:13:00] and also to Michael Hora, Aspen cohort sister, Carra Bob Roth, who is a founder of a native American community academy in 2006. And the Nexa inspired school.
[00:13:11] Network, which includes, charter schools. So that is my story. What are your thoughts?
[00:13:15] Cara: I think that this is just, you know, any time that we’re talking about charter schools and it’s, fascinating stuff. I worry about our charter schools today, Gerard, as you know, but I’m glad that we can keep talking about them, bringing them up here on this show.
[00:13:31] Highlighting, you know, talking about the challenges and all the good stuff and I thank you for that. It’s really important stuff to our, we’ve got a guest coming up, Gerard, who’s not only going to talk to us about it. She’s gonna, merge our two stores. You’re going to talk to us about the landscape in West Virginia.
[00:13:47] have we had other guests on before from West
[00:13:49] Patricia: Virginia, Gerard?
[00:13:50] GR: I don’t believe so, but we’ve had someone with. Virginia theme, because that provided me
[00:13:58] well, can you do it again? [00:14:00] Nope.
[00:14:01] Cara: Oh, maybe we’ll get our next guest to do it, but we’re going to talk to her about, I mean, so talk about place that merges both of our stories.
[00:14:08] West Virginia in one year passes a charter school law that needed to be improved. And then another year passes the most expansive school choice program in the whole country. So I’m pretty excited to talk about. Who can sort of merge the themes of both of our stories of the week. And do you know who she is, Gerard, this person that we’re going to be doing?
[00:14:30] I do not
[00:14:31] this
[00:14:31] Cara: Now we’re going to be talking to a woman who not only has a really phenomenal personal story about why she cares about education and how she came to the work, but somebody who was integral in expanding opportunities, both in terms of charters and. For West Virginia students and her name is Senator Patricia Rucker.
[00:14:53] She is the chair of the Senate education committee in West Virginia, and just a fierce warrior for all [00:15:00] things, that can equal better opportunities for the kids and families of her state. So really, really excited to talk to her coming up right after.
[00:15:34] Learning curve listeners. We are back as promised with an absolutely fabulous guests. We are speaking today with Senator Patricia Portis Rucker. She is a West Virginia state Senator serving the 16th district. Her committee assignments include chair of the education committee and a member of the agriculture and rural development banking and insurance judicial.
[00:15:55] Health and human resources, natural resources and confirmation [00:16:00] committing. So clearly she has nothing at all to do. She is not a busy woman. she taught social studies in the Montgomery county public schools before starting a family and homeschooling her five children. Patricia is a first-generation American citizen born in Caracas, Venezuela coming to the.
[00:16:18] Montgomery county, Maryland in 1981. She graduated from Trinity college in Washington, DC with a BA in history and a minor in Latin American studies. Senator Rucker. Welcome to the learning curve.
[00:16:30] Patricia: Thank you so much. It is a pleasure to be able to be with you. Yeah, well, , we
[00:16:35] Cara: are thrilled, I think, , , as Gerard knows, because he was at the same place.
[00:16:39] you participated last year in the national summit on education that is hosted annually by Excel and ed and I had great pleasure of monitoring a panel on which you served and in which you got to talk to those present about. The passage of what is now the widest most universal [00:17:00] education savings account program in America, in West Virginia, you were integral in making that happen.
[00:17:07] I just want to, for our listeners who might not be overly familiar, although if you listen frequently, you definitely know what an ESA is by now. It is, a program that allows parents to direct the public fight. Allocated the state funds allocated to their child’s education and it allows parents to choose from a range of education.
[00:17:28] Services, to put together the education that best serves their children and you Senator wrecker made that happen. Could you share with our listeners, the lessons learned from West Virginia, a state that by the way, just a couple of years ago, some might’ve said was not very choice friendly. What, what could you tell other legislators across this country about your experience opening up choice for West Virginia?
[00:17:55] Patricia: Well, I will say that, , the way you phrased it as putting it very [00:18:00] mildly, because as a patient share three years ago, there was zero, , education choice in the state of West Virginia. , through the efforts that we have had some 2019, we now have. several things like charter schools, open enrollment, but it was always my goal to get a broad based what I considered non-discriminatory, education savings account, where the money truly does follow the child, wherever parents think the child needs to be.
[00:18:33] And so it’s a parent driven, , option. And in terms of the lessons learned, I can tell you that the number one. Most important thing is that, you know why you are pushing for what you’re pushing for. And if you’re pushing for education savings account, it’s because, or should be because you believe that the parents are the best ones to make decisions as to where they’re doing.
[00:18:57] needs what they need for their education. And you [00:19:00] believe in the American, the basic American dream that every single child deserves a good education and is worthy of getting the education that they need for themselves. As individuals, America was built on this principle of individualism that everyone has, or should have the opportunity, not necessarily.
[00:19:22] But the same opportunity. And it’s amazing to me that it is as difficult to get that translated into something as basic as universal education for all, which means that it needs to be as individualized as possible because not everyone is going to need the same thing or it’s going to thrive in the same.
[00:19:43] Cara: love how you put that. And I, when I was a professor, I used to talk to my students about equality of opportunity, being very different from equality of outcome. and quality of opportunity I think is really what you’ve done here is the best we can do I want to ask you a little bit about the American dream, but I also want to ask you [00:20:00] quickly about now when I think of West Virginia, yes.
[00:20:02] You have opened up choices for students and families in recent years. Until very recently, in fact, , your ESA program will launch just at this fall. The parents are applying now. what you’re up against is just. People who have never known anything in the state except for public education, which means vested interests in sustaining that system and sustaining that status quo and to be clear listeners, an ESA in no way, dismantles a high quality public education system either.
[00:20:29] I that’s not at all what this is about. It’s about having both. And how do you achieve both? but can you talk a little bit about. Those vested interests that you had to go up against, who would have rather maintained the status quo? really briefly, what was that fight like for you?
[00:20:44] How did you leverage your powers of persuasive?
[00:20:48] Patricia: So, yes. clearly the teachers association in the state of West Virginia, which has pretty much controlled, all public education dollars for, the entire history of West [00:21:00] Virginia. Where are very powerful and very strong. And they managed through their efforts to derail every single attack West Virginia has ever had at any kind of school choice.
[00:21:11] and in 2018 and 2019 back to back, we had major teacher strikes in the state. but it was meant to intimidate and scare. legislators when they had their last teacher strike in 2019 and they managed to stop the ESA. That was very minor, very small. It was like many other states. I was trying to just start something just for a small limited number of students and they killed it essentially through their efforts.
[00:21:41] And with them, we’re all of the, usual, you know, the people who think that public education is the only way all of those forces. I just had to. Tell them like publicly announced y’all better get me on elected because if I come back, I’m going to make you regret killing that simple little ESA.
[00:21:59] And [00:22:00] so I almost had to, in my state at least had to prove that the unions were not as powerful as they say they are. And that meant going through another election cycle where I got reelected, despite all their best efforts to unseat me, to basically demonstrate to other legislators that look. They’re not as powerful as you think they are.
[00:22:20] And second that this is a battle worth fighting for, unions and the associations and those who want to protect the interests of government run schools. They are at the Capitol and they know how to show up and they know how to organize and send emails. But guess what? There’s a lot more parents and students out there than they are.
[00:22:40] And they may not be as active and as organized, but there’s a lot more votes there than there is from the teachers, associations and unions. And parents want this. can’t even express to you the number of letters, the gratitude that is demonstrated by folks from all over [00:23:00] West Virginia. And, you know, we decided to call our education savings account program.
[00:23:04] The hope scholarship. It truly is giving them hope. I mean, they literally write to me and say, thank you because for the first time I have hope that I can get my child what they need.
[00:23:16] Cara: that’s pretty amazing. And it is, it is really a great name for a scholarship account. And I think that any of us who are interested in education certainly watched red for ed in West Virginia, those, not very long ago.
[00:23:28] So it’s pretty remarkable story. when I asked you the first question, you, started to talk a little bit about the American dream and many people might not know that you actually have this very compelling story, that you are an immigrant from Venezuela. You came to the U S now you are a state legislator.
[00:23:46] You’ve, taught school. You’ve led this transformational school choice initiative. Can you talk a little bit about, how your personal narrative your life has in your experience have [00:24:00] informed your work and maybe also, like, how has that. Informed your willingness to take risks such as the risk that you took in not being reelected by standing up for K-12 education.
[00:24:11] Patricia: Right. Well, thank you so much for asking. That’s not a question I get very often, but I absolutely love it because, I am the embodiment of that American dream, the same dream that so many people, especially out in the media world say it’s dead and they try to portray America as this terrible place.
[00:24:30] But reality is there is no other place in the world where you can integrate. go, not be able to speak the language, not have any background. I have any family literally start from nothing. 20 years later be running for office that just does not happen. And I am so honored and blessed by the opportunities that I was given.
[00:24:54] I came to this country as a six-year-old. I could not even speak my own language well, so, I [00:25:00] had this incredible experience in the public school system that took this, young child. Helped her with her own language development and then taught her English. And within a few short years, I was in honors classes.
[00:25:15] I had all of these incredible experiences like debate and band and getting to participate in athletics, lots of opportunities to learn all sorts of things. And, I will tell you, I never expected to run for public office. Always always loved the institution of the United States, the constitution, the stories of our founders.
[00:25:38] And, when I get the opportunity to give back, it’s just, I just thank God for that. And in terms of how that informs me, as you can imagine, I really believe in that American dream. I think everyone should have. The same opportunities, the ability to be able to rise up from wherever they are, and it doesn’t matter their background or [00:26:00] color, what language they speak, if they’re rich and if they’re poor, none of that should matter.
[00:26:06] Everyone deserves a good education and everyone deserves an opportunity to meet their potential.
[00:26:11] GR: So of Rutgers, so great to have you join us. I should state upfront that my father, I was born and raised in Charleston. And imagine waited many, many years ago from the Charleston public school system and his sister, my aunt Edna Williams, graduated from the public school system in the city later.
[00:26:29] She went to what was then West Virginia. Earned a master’s in West Virginia university and for 20 plus years was a school teacher in that system. When my dad, moved west, to California, Los Angeles in particular, he, my mom decided to enroll me into Catholic schools because they were anti-public school.
[00:26:47] They knew and benefited from public education. It was their choice and they wanted to go that route. So wanted to put it perspective if it’s always good to hear a voice from somebody who is in the Western.
[00:26:57] Patricia: Well, that’s crazy.[00:27:00]
[00:27:00] GR: Here’s a question for you and I listeners may not know this, before you became who we now know as Senator wrecker, you were a homeschooling mom for five children.
[00:27:09] While your husband worked two jobs. Talk to our listeners about the experience with homeschooling and how that drove your decision to promote wider school choice. Once you became an elected official.
[00:27:20] Patricia: So I did get the, again, blessed that my husband was willing to work two jobs so that I could stay at home instead of going back to work.
[00:27:30] And I could, educate my own children. It was not something I wanted to do. We did attempt to put our oldest child in the public education system. She had some special needs and. It was, this heartening to have to deal with the response that the public school had to her special needs. They were very inflexible.
[00:27:53] There were not listening to what we were saying. And unfortunately my daughter did not have a very good experience and they were not [00:28:00] able to keep her safe. And after I think I left at about 46 a week and she was coming home with bite marks and bruises. And I was just going to the school and telling them this is not acceptable.
[00:28:12] And their response was well, the only way we could keep her safe and that special education classroom is to lock her up in a high chair so that she is separated from the other kids. And I said, so your answer to keeping her safe is to punish her. that’s not an acceptable answer to me. And I kind of, I hate to say it, but I kind of said, no, thank you.
[00:28:35] I didn’t know what I was doing. I never trained to be an elementary school teacher or a special education teacher. And I was a little bit terrified, but I wanted my daughter. To obviously be safe and to get what she needed. So I pulled her out, started homeschooling tons of reading and research and we had to privately pay for all the services that she needed.
[00:28:58] I ended up having another child with [00:29:00] special needs, my third child, and had to do all those same relearning of, everything and knowing what he needed and getting him what he needs. But. I’m very grateful. I had that opportunity and I had the knowledge and the ability, what breaks my heart is that there are parents in those situations feel they don’t have any choices.
[00:29:21] They don’t have either the opportunity. They don’t have a spouse that is willing to, or able to afford them staying at home, or they don’t feel they have the skills or. they know their child needs something and they don’t have the funds to get those things have the child needs. I get those stories of the time ever since I was elected.
[00:29:44] And, , I don’t know how I can be expected as someone who wants to do the best job I can representing my constituents. To not find a solution to help these individuals. These are our citizens. These are people who pay taxes. They live [00:30:00] they’re our neighbors, and we’re essentially telling them too bad.
[00:30:03] that was never an acceptable option for me. So it was really a passion that I had to help those who were in the same situation as myself, their children needed something other than a public education system. And didn’t have those options.
[00:30:19] GR: Well, speaking of students with special needs, I’m on the board of an organization called respectability.
[00:30:25] It’s headquartered in Maryland, our founder, Jennifer mush, Ronnie’s then a guest here. And one of the reasons I joined her board, , based on her invitation is because we worked to create, an avenue to talk about how people with disabilities and special needs or. You’d or undervalued, in American society, not only in schools, but also work.
[00:30:47] And so when you mentioned that, I just think about the broader conversation. The fact that punishment was the answer. When you were looking for progress, just speaks volumes and natural. We know that some other teachers have responded differently [00:31:00] as it relates to you. how did your experience.
[00:31:04] With children with special need and also working in that arena. How did you make that link to school choice? There are a lot of opponents of school choice who said for years, that school choice should be abandoned because guess what choice programs particularly private schools do not take students with special needs?
[00:31:23] Is that true?
[00:31:24] Patricia: I’ve heard that also. And I’ve seen for myself that that’s not always true. Yes. There are some private schools that cannot handle, certain special needs or disabilities, but there are lots that do, but in addition to that, again, mostly from my own personal experience where I was able to homeschool my children who had pretty serious special needs with.
[00:31:49] Being special ed certified and without, really. I started out with no, no experience to help me, but I was able to do it. And my children, thank God, have succeeded and [00:32:00] overcome and are fine. And they’re adults now. And they’re thriving. I know in my heart that, We have the capability to overcome, all of these fins and, special needs can be things like learning delays.
[00:32:15] It can be an illness, a very severe illness that causes huge. For example, like seizures that to miss out without. You know, you miss out on school, you miss out on things and activities. it could be something as not knowing the language like I had and having to overcome that issue of speech pathology issues.
[00:32:35] There’s so many diversity of special of what can go onto the category of special needs. And guess what? Each one has a different response. And each one of those, there are different levels of need within those. You cannot class, all the kids that have autism with one way of telling it because they respond to different things and there’s different levels and there’s different severities.
[00:32:58] And. [00:33:00] Very unique just under that one category. So to expect that a public education system is going to be able to address every single type of special need, there is really, I think too much of any one system. The reality is the more you individualize the way we treat education and handle individuals.
[00:33:22] The more we allow for customization, the better they’re going to do. And for me, God med school choice. It meant that for those kids who a classroom of 25 is not the right place, let’s help them. What would work for them. And sometimes it is possible to have that innovation and that flexibility within a public school system.
[00:33:46] I have seen public schools that have been able to do that, but unfortunately it’s not very often. And it almost, happens as. The exception to the world instead of the rule, I’m hoping that by introducing the idea of [00:34:00] school choice and empowering parents to look into what their kids need, we’re going to actually encourage that type of flexibility within the public education system to
[00:34:09] GR: absolutely.
[00:34:10] So your state’s been almost like a poster child for. , quickly, as Kara mentioned earlier, and you discussed with her a few years ago, people would have thought this was just unrealistic for a place like West Virginia, but you’re moving forward. Other states have also expanded choice programs, families of faith.
[00:34:29] have also been prime movers of the school choice legislation. Could you talk to us about the role of parent coalitions and the diversity within it to make what you have in West Virginia? A reality.
[00:34:42] Patricia: Well, thank you so much for bringing that up. One of the most important lessons learned from my first attempt to pass, , my education savings account, I did not organize or reach out for coalition partners.
[00:34:57] And that really was part of the reason for why. [00:35:00] Did fall apart with the associations being able to basically kill that attempt. The second time around, I learned from that experience and way, way ahead of time before the session ever began, I started reaching out to. What I would consider interested parties.
[00:35:17] So for example, private schools, and I asked them what they would think about legislation that would allow us to have education, savings account and explained to it what it was. And they were excited about the thought and the possibilities of it. And I said, well, I need you all to organize. I need you all to help educate others.
[00:35:36] I need y’all to, be advocates for this. If I end up introducing this legislation, and then I did the same thing with parents. I had several town halls where I was educating them about what. Is what we’re trying to do and why, and asking the same things. I need you all to work on your legislators to talk to those people who represent you to help me get this done.
[00:35:59] [00:36:00] So we started early on and, that was a huge difference. So the second time around a successful time in 2020, that was a. Big difference. We were getting letters, emails, and visits from parents and individuals in support. And it wasn’t just the association setting the narrative. And I should point out that at this time we’re talking, this was after COVID.
[00:36:24] Parents were pretty upset with the way that most of the public schools handled COVID. with the fact that schools were closed down, there were teachers who were refusing to return to work. And in the meantime, they have to return to work, but had nowhere to put their children, remote learning was a disaster.
[00:36:42] All of those things help to really energize , , those parents who were looking for something different and something better. And so all of that played a role. Well,
[00:36:52] GR: I’m going to go ahead and close us out again. Great to hear your voice great to have you , in, , public policy. Great to have your [00:37:00] story, a part of the American dream, glad to hear West Virginia anchored in conversations about reform.
[00:37:06] Often when we hear about, , the mountain state is. Uh, negative things, but there are a lot of great things growing in that state and you’re playing a role in that. So just don’t care and I are here to be supportive of you and your work. And at some point when I know I’m coming to your state, I’ll let you know.
[00:37:21] And hopefully we can get together at some point and talk more about this in person.
[00:37:26] Patricia: I would love that. Thank you so much. And thanks for the opportunity to talk about what. Yeah,
[00:37:32] Cara: and then hopefully I’ll be invited to, I just want to say it because I also a good John Denver Senator Rutgers. So just, we can do a little, we’ll have a little party featured by, through hard Robinson.
[00:37:46] Thank you so much for your time today. It was just wonderful speaking with you and thank you for your great work.
[00:37:52] Patricia: Thank you so much. You guys have a great day. Take care.[00:38:00]
[00:38:24] Cara: Gerard as always, we’re going to close it out with our tweet of the week and this one. Ooh, favorite topic of mine. We have talked about this before. It’s from education next and it says, quote so long as admissions exams are intended to fairly apportion opportunities to talented students, age allowance.
[00:38:44] Are appropriate. And so this article is about birthday bias. It’s about how, high state tests and, fairness. And I, what I love about this is that, we want to be sure that we’ve got opportunities for everyone, including our most talented [00:39:00] students. And, it’s great article. I highly suggest.
[00:39:03] And next week, Gerard, I know you’re, unable. You are a busy man and I’m going to have a guest host with me next week, but we are going to be speaking to Professor Paula Giddings. She is the Elizabeth, a Woodson professor, emerita of Africana studies at Smith college. And she is the author of a sword among lions, Ida B Wells and the campaign against lynching.
[00:39:26] Boy, I am looking forward to that one. Gerard, I’m going to miss. I do think we’re going to be here with, a special guest host, who is a friend of the show, but I hope that whatever it is you’re doing, I know it’s always something of great import because you are one of the busiest people. I know my friend, so
[00:39:42] GR: sorry.
[00:39:42] I won’t get a chance to share the conversation with you next week. our guest is a graduate of. Uh, so I’m always glad to see that author of a book on Delta Sigma data, a African-American female sorority founded at Howard university, and she has got so much great stuff in addition to that book. [00:40:00] So I look forward to being a listener, , at that time and look forward to joining you the following week.
[00:40:06] Cara: Yeah, well until then. Yeah, I’ll miss you. And, you take care best to your family and we will, of course, be back with updates on all of the pioneer Institute centric goings on in Boston. It’s like, it’s just a big old soap opera over here. Gerard, you take care of yourself,
[00:40:21] have a good
[00:40:21] GR: one. Enjoy being town and watch the beans being thrown at you
[00:40:27] as
[00:40:27] Cara: they are.
View media coverage on this topic in The 74, State House News Service, The Boston Globe, NBC10, the Boston Herald, WGBH News, Greater Boston, and Education Next.
The third review of the Boston Public Schools (BPS) in fewer than 20 years makes clear: Things are getting worse. Graduation rates are down, achievement gaps are up, an unacceptably large percentage of students attend schools ranked in the lowest 10 percent statewide. In a cruel twist, more than three in five students still are not taught material on which they are tested. There remains no clear strategy for improvement.
Since the 2020 review we’ve learned that the district’s own data are unreliable. The district has underestimated the number of English language learners it is serving inadequately and may have overestimated graduation rates in five of the last seven years. Bullying is rampant across the district. Today we find out that student transportation has deteriorated even further.
With BPS spending $26,000 per student, money is no longer the issue. Out of the 100 largest school systems in the U.S., BPS funding ranks second.
The central office has grown chaotic under a “musical chairs” of superintendents and is no longer capable of leading the necessary change. State and city officials must partner to:
Related Content
This week on Hubwonk, host Joe Selvaggi talks with Greg Sullivan, Research Director at Pioneer Institute and author of Back to Taxachusetts?, about the link between Massachusetts’s decision to reduce tax rates and a generation-long economic renaissance – and the reasons why new taxes such as the proposed, so-called “Fair Share Amendment” risk taking us back to economic stagnation or decline.
BOOK LAUNCH: Mark your calendar for Wednesday, May 25 from 6:00 to 8:00 PM and sign up now to secure your spot for Pioneer Institute’s live launch of our newest book, “Back to Taxachusetts?” at the UMass Club on One Beacon Street in Boston!
Guest
Gregory Sullivan is Pioneer’s Research Director. Prior to joining Pioneer, Sullivan served two five-year terms as Inspector General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was a 17-year member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Greg is a Certified Fraud Investigator, and holds degrees from Harvard College, The Kennedy School of Public Administration, and the Sloan School at MIT.
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
Joe Selvaggi:
This is Hubwonk. I’m Joe Selvaggi.
Joe Selvaggi:
Welcome to Hubwonk, a podcast of Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston. Massachusetts has enjoyed a generation-long economic Renaissance driven by its cultivation of new technologies, such as biotech, as well as it’s attracting older firms to relocate such as general electric. This success is owed in no small part from its decision to issue its former high tax policies that had earned it than nickname of taxachusetts and embark on a glide toward a lower income tax rate to one near middle of the nationwide pack. Despite the clear demonstrated success of the state’s more moderate tax policy. This November Massachusetts voters will be asked to amend its constitution to instantiate an 80% income tax increase for its highest earners. This euphemistically labeled fair share amendment attacks on any income over $1 million comes at a remarkable time when the state coffers are bulging from billions in budget, surplus revenue and from generous federal stimulus and aid for infrastructure while it’s backers assure voters that the money will be well spent.
Joe Selvaggi:
Fair share advocates must address voters. Reasonable concerns that returning to past high tax policies will not also return the Massachusetts economy back to economic stagnation and malaise. Indeed. What lessons should voters take from the success of our past and what can we learn from other states that chose to raise taxes on high earners in the past and are now dealing with the consequences? My guest today is Greg Sullivan, Research Director at Pioneer Institute and author of the book “Back to Massachusetts?”, Which is set to release this week. Mr. Sullivan will share with us the themes of his book based on careful research and analysis of the decades, long success of the Massachusetts economy and contrast our outcomes with those of other states, such as Connecticut and California, that levied higher rates on their state’s highest earns. We will discuss who will likely be affected by a so-called millionaires tax and why such taxes can be so destructive to the long term health of a state’s economy. He will also speak to his concern that contrary to the assurance of the amendment supporters. The new revenue may be spent merely to increase the size, but not the quality of our state’s government. When I return, I’ll be joined by senior fellow and author Greg Sullivan.
Joe Selvaggi:
Okay. We’re back. This is Hubwonk I’m Joe Selvaggi. I’m now pleased to be joined by Pioneer Institute’s Research Director co-author of the soon to be released book “Back To Taxachusetts” by Greg Sullivan. Welcome back to Hubwonk, Greg.
Greg Sullivan:
Thanks, Joe.
Joe Selvaggi:
Okay. I just finished reading an early copy of your new book. I, I found it wonderfully informative, interesting a chock full of data that even though I do many topics on these same issues I learned a great deal from the book. So but before we get into the book, let’s, let’s take a, a wider view and say, who did you know, you sat down and wrote this book, who is your target audience? Who, who do you expect to pick up this book and learn something?
Greg Sullivan:
Number one, we’re hoping to get the word out to the general public and the voting public indirectly by putting out facts and figures re solid statistical analysis out there, part of the dialogue. And that’s the right now a lot of the work we did was in an effort to get information to the legislature as well, but now the legislature put it on the ballot for November. So that ship has sailed. So this is all about the general public.
Joe Selvaggi:
So we’re, we’re trying to reach let’s say the general public, but I know from my own emails, I get plenty of emails that say, you know, from people who clearly think all taxes are bad. I understand there are arguments and there’s certainly folks out there who think, you know, all taxes are good, they all make for a better society. So it seems to me from reading the book that you’re trying to aim for the persuadable middle, if, if there is still such a thing much the same way we try to do here at hub won. So let’s stop start at the beginning. I moved to Massachusetts, I way back in 1993, and back then we were known as and so here we are much later and we’re no longer known that way. So let’s get a little bit of history. Why were we known as in the past?
Greg Sullivan:
The, the term was no joke. Massachusetts was ranked as the third highest taxing state in the country in 1970. And that’s by the tax foundation, the combination of income taxes and local property taxes. And that began to change in 1980 when proposition two and a half passed. That was the initiative petition that put limits on the amount of local property taxes. And the legislature also followed up by reducing the income tax rate from at 1.5 0.6% down to 5%. Those two things really made Massachusetts kind of reformed tax tax really and has ended. I mean, I think the, that the voters of Massachusetts and the state legislature made a decision that taxation levels at a very high hurting the economy and they’ve addressed it right now. We’re in the middle of the, that we’re like rank 24th out of 50 states in terms of our combined state local property taxes. That’s a big difference from being among the very, very highest to the middle of the road. And that’s a, it’s an economic advantage to us to be reasonable tax state.
Joe Selvaggi:
Well, being in the middle, I suppose, you know, is, is a good place on this index. So we’re neither bad nor good we’re somewhere in the middle. So folks we’re all right. So from bad to to average, I’m, I’m happy with that now. As those of us who advocate generally for lower taxes or more business friendly environments, we say that lowering taxes does have the effect of encouraging more growth and therefore ultimately more taxes. But what has been the effect since becoming going from the worst to the middle of the pack over the last 30 or 40 years have, have we indeed have those promises been kept, has the Massachusetts economy boomed in that time?
Greg Sullivan:
Yes. the best, the best way to look at it. This this issue was to look at compar Connecticut and Massachusetts. Everybody knows that Massachusetts basically pirated away GE one of the nation’s premier companies from Connecticut moved to Massachusetts right after Massa, right after Connecticut boomed their taxes for on, in, on individuals and affecting companies as well. So Massachusetts has, has done very, very well comparison to of the new England states because of our economic competitiveness. The problem is that we’re in a very, very competitive environment among the states looking for companies to locate here and to stay here, very fierce competition. And we’re kind of up against it in new England for a number of reasons.
Joe Selvaggi:
So, so I wanna get into, I wanna take apart all of those issues. So you, you say we’re doing well, we’re doing particularly well compared to our neighbor in Connecticut. So I wanna unpack a lot of the themes in the book here, but let’s start at the beginning. I think if I, the common thread through the whole book, this fear of becoming tax excuse again, is largely predicated on this new ballot measure. That’s coming down for our, for voters in 20, 22nd of November which give it, call it what you will some call it the fair share tax, some call it prop 80 or the millionaires tax. But for our listeners who aren’t studying this all the time, what, what is it that they will be asked to vote on? What is this fair share amendment that, that they’ll be asked to vote on in November?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, the fair share amendment that’s gonna the ballot November would add a 80% increase to the top marginal tax rate for, for income over a million dollars. And that, so this would change Massachusetts from being basically in the middle of the pack in the country with a pretty decent advantageous tax rate to being among the very highest of the country. And and that’s the propo, the proposal, if it’s adopted, would apply to income over $1 million, but the way that they wrote the proposal, it applies to all income. In other words, it applies to income from capital gains. It comes from selling you house stocks, bonds affects people when they retire, if for somebody who sells their business that that’s their retirement, their nest egg they’re one time millionaires. That’s one of the problems with it is that it’s gonna apply kind of indiscriminately, not to what most people consider to be millionaires, but people who happen to earn a million dollars when they retired and sold their business. So that’s the problem with this bill.
Joe Selvaggi:
Indeed, your book takes apart who are these quote unquote millionaires, but let’s, let’s back up even further and say, who would back such a measure? You know, why, who, who thinks such a thing is a good idea?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, the proponents of the measure are mostly made up of state employees and, and public employees through their unions. And that should, that should really tell you something about it, because one of the things we pointed out here is when this same kind of proposal passed in, in California as you, as you pointed out in previous hub, long shows, which excellent what happened was the the economy really started to decline and in, in, but the money that they received, which was promised to be going to education K through 12 and community colleges, they didn’t do it. They, they never raised the amount of money above the minimum constitutional level in California and in California public payrolls increased by more than a hundred percent more than the average of the country. So it can be, it’s, there’s an element of this is becomes a, a, a huge cash trough that the legislature can spend it, whatever it wants,
Joe Selvaggi:
I think, yes, indeed. You pointed to earlier shows I just wanna make sure we address the, our listeners who maybe haven’t listened to all earlier shows about this. So effectively it, it levies a tax, a 80% increase on the higher, highest marginal rate for earners. And I believe, again, some of the controversy is where will that money go? I think it’s advocates promise. It will go to education or transportation, things that people really like. But your research and your book point out that similar promises by other states, specifically, California, where they said all this new money will go to transportation and education. And as your book points out, not a single penny, more than the minimum went to education, nothing changed before and after. They got slightly more revenue because the stake got more revenue, but as a, as a percentage of, of the budget, it’s remained the same.
Joe Selvaggi:
Let me ask a little side question. We see a lot of headlines now to the surprise of many, I guess, perhaps all people regardless of where they stand, we’re experiencing here in Massachusetts revenue surpluses in the billions of dollars. Now we had all thought that COVID would mean business or revenue tax revenue would decrease where I saw one week a one month surplus of $2 billion in just a single month. Why would advocates a suggest a massive tax increase while we don’t know what to do with the money we’re already taking in?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, I mean, Massachusetts during COVID the forecast for the economic recovery were very conservative as everyone was really, really worried going back to the beginning of like March 20, 20. But if you look at what happened with COVID even a year afterwards, Massachusetts this still in the height of the, of the COVID pandemic, Massachusetts income from sales tax and from income tax was actually larger than any point in history. In words, the economy, the, the, the COVID economic downturn was very concentrated in certain industries, tourism related and travel related restaurants, bars. These are the part of the economy that get murdered, but in Massachusetts, we recovered very quickly. And right now we’re a wash with money. There’s so much money available to the legislature that they basically stopped appropriating it, and just said, time out, we have to, we, we just can’t spend all this money. Now we have to put it aside. We’ll decide what to do with it later. So Massachusetts is a wash and, and, and money. So you say, well, why are you gonna put on one of the biggest tax increases in the history of the United States, right in the middle of this? And it’s, it’s worrisome.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah. It seems a, a, a sort of a, sort of be a naked advocacy for just taxes in general, whether it’s needed or not let you know taxes are inherently good. It, it just seems odd or UN perplexed. Now your book I think very well admits that none of us has a crystal ball. We are you and I advocating, and your book advocates against this prop 80 or millionaires tax, but none of us has a crystal ball. We don’t know what kind of effect it will have, but you do try to imply or ask your readers to infer from the experiences of other states. We’ve touched briefly here. You mentioned Connecticut and California. I’d like to go a little deeper into that. Let’s start with Connecticut. What happened when Connecticut raised its top income rate? Again, they’ve done it several times, so it doesn’t have to be one rate increase, maybe over the course of a decade, several, I think four increases. What’s been the effect on the con Connecticut economy after doing what we’re thinking about doing in our future.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah, Connecticut is a, is a case study of why these sudden very large tax increases can devastate a state economy. So when in, in, in Connecticut after the after the great recession, so called, which is at the end of the president of George W. Bush and beginning of president Obama administration, that recession Connecticut basically has still not recovered from that Massachusetts recovered within two or three years and, and grew, but Matt, but even a decade after that occurred, Cal Connecticut was still trying to recover the job, the employment level. So they had beforehand, they’re the only, basically the only state. They also had a real depression compared to the rest of the country in increase in home values and businesses left, as we know the most famous one being GE, which located to Boston, you know, I mean, the, that was a huge loss of Connecticut. And so it, it, it shows, it just shows you that these tax increases have effects on the general economy. And the general economy can, can bring about adverse effects, downturn that far outstripped the value of the tax increase.
Joe Selvaggi:
Indeed, we’re talking, we’ll introduce a concept called the Laffer curve, where actually you raise taxes and revenue goes down because it has unintended secondary effects, meaning you can, you can tax people, but ultimately if they leave, you you’re left with less tax than you started with your book mentions. In fact, in Connecticut in one year you measure it by net outflow of income one year 2018 before COVID 1.2 billion in net a grossed gross income in one year. So raise the taxes. People leave the taxes go down. And of course, as you mentioned, Connecticut is the, the economy suffering, but the increase taxes didn’t solve the Connecticut’s need for more revenue. In other words the, the state government is still not getting the revenue. It needs to support itself, meaning it’s this downward spiral. It seems.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. I mean, if you look at in California, so in California, that’s really Massachusetts’s number one competitor in some respects in the country because they, they’re, they’re a very high tech center and Massachusetts competes. So they, they decided out there to really have a high millionaire stocks and they put it in effect and then companies started to leave. They lost Elon Musk, the, the people who the people say, well, let’s tax let’s let’s tax high income earners. Well, when they’re, when they’re entrepreneurs deciding where to locate, what you have to remember is that they can leave. And Elon Musk and, and Tesla just move the national headquarters to no tax taxes. They don’t have an income tax. So they, so Elon Musk just went from a state where he is gonna pay 13% income tax rate to one where it’s zero and it’s and you say, well, don’t, it’ll never leave California. California’s so great. We’re so, so invaluable. No, doesn’t work that way. Same thing with Massachusetts. It’s very easy for companies to leave now, especially in the post COVID remote work environment, that’s emerging, continuing to emerge.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah. It puzzles made that I mean, clearly this is a situation where reasonable people, rational people respond to incentives. I’m amazed by the number of people who want to, let’s say impose a 5 cent cost on a, a tax on a bag at the grocery store with the hope that people bring their own bags to avoid a 5% yeah. Tax or whatever you wanna call it. And yet they won’t leave. If Elon Musk got 13.3% of his income has to be tens of billions of dollars. Why did, why wouldn’t you anticipate him leaving it, it doesn’t make sense to me that people would be surprised, but in your book, you do cite quite a bit of statistics. Studies on this Exodus from California. I think the we’ve had him on hub wonk, the economist from Stanford professor RA measured the inflection point when the tax was imposed a market Exodus of, of high net earners and their companies began to leave California. And what’s also interesting, I think is it’s not just the people who leave. It’s the people who decide not to go in the first place. People look at the tax rates and say, you know what given all things considered and how much it costs to live there, I’m gonna go to a different state. So,
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah, I, I, I think I heard an ad or I read an ad on the internet yesterday it was an ad from the fair share proponents. And it basically said they’re really wealthy. Don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And this would add a a tax of millionaires and the money would be spent on education transportation. That’s a very simple populist measure argument. And it’s very convincing to some people, but what I, what I think people have to begin to think about is what of the effects of doing this on a state like Massachusetts? Are we gonna get adversely affected? Like Connecticut did that the way California did? I think the, the answer is for very likely to end up with a very bad economic outcome for the state, if it happens
Joe Selvaggi:
Right. And I think, you know, people say, well, you know, a little pain is worth it. If we get better better education, better roads, but as you’ve pointed out in your book in California, they didn’t get better educational roads. They got 50% more state workers. That’s what they got for the money. Yeah. They, I don’t think anyone think we need more state workers <laugh> well,
Greg Sullivan:
I mean, in California after the, this was a, this was a really big tax increase like this being proposed here, and it was all was sold on the idea that gonna spend money in education in the end. They didn’t, they spent, I think it was one 10th of 1% more than the constitutional minimum. They never rose it never rose above that. So, and the money was spent on increased in public employee payroll, which, which was which was increased precipitously. And that’s, that’s one of the problems is that is that it’s sold as a sweetener vote for this, for education transportation, but it’s already been dis positively determined by a previous Supreme court case and statements made by the state attorney General’s office that the money doesn’t have to be spent on education, transportation legislature can e spend it, whatever it wants,
Joe Selvaggi:
Of course money is fungible. So if they wanna promise it goes to education, they simply reduce the old dollars by the same amount, they add the new dollars and thereby keep their promise. And not one new penny goes to education. Now we, we sort of touched on it briefly, but close to the top of the show. You mentioned that we’re labeling millionaires is those people who earn more than a million in a year, but you’ve mentioned only briefly, but go into it in depth in your book. People who make a million dollars in one year rarely make it more than once. Meaning it’s usually business owners who sell their business or homeowners who sell their business. People who’ve worked their whole lives, perhaps they’ve deferred income. Their business is their retirement and they get a one time and one time only payout that is very often and, you know, honestly to survive in retirement, one needs, if one’s selling a business more than a million dollars share with us what your book talks about is who are these quote unquote millionaires who will be swept up in this tax?
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah, I mean, going back in the history of the United States it used to be more than 70% of private sector. Employees had a pension plan that since, since that time, it shrunk closer to 10% public employees still have retirement plans, not, not private sector employees for people who have their own business, they started business to operate for 20, 30, 40 years. And that, that the sale of that business, the retirement is their nest egg. That’s why this is a, this and this tax applies to them. In words, there, we call them one time millionaires, more than 50% of the people who earn a million dollars do so only once two thirds, only twice or fewer. So these, these are this, this is, is a tax that is that masquerades as a tax line you know, millionaires driving around to limos wearing silk top hats, like the monopoly guy, but in the end, it’s the company down the street.
Greg Sullivan:
Who’s gonna auto garage. The guy ran for 40 years and he finally sells it. And they say, well, guess what, you’re a millionaire. He said, I did not know I was a millionaire. This is the only, this is my money that I saved up over 40 years and you’re gonna tax, you know, so the, the, the, you know, the proponents, what they should have done, and what many parties asked them to do was to put in some kind of a income averaging to prevent this one time millionaires. Also, they said, don’t tax your sale of your house. You know, so some houses are going for more than a million dollars. A lot of houses are going for more than a million. So why are you gonna count that that’s a one time event. So, but anyway, they threw the kitchen sink in and the tax applies to basically everything every kind of income that’s, that’s a problem.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah. That is a problem. And it just occurred to me when you were talking if you’re comparing it to a public pension, when one retires as a public pension, the value of that pension if you were to look at the payout over time would be valued in the millions, but there’s no, there’s no taxable event. They don’t actually sell. And then create that pension rather, they just receive the pension. Whereas the, the business owner was taking lifetime of risk. Must have a taxable event, must sell it in order to re realize a, sort of a pseudo pension, a nest egg that they can spend off in their old age. So one group tax and the other is ignored.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. I mean, I said earlier that the main proponents of this are public employees and in their unions, they, they, they’re the, they’re the driving force behind it. And when public employees retire in Massachusetts on a state pension they don’t have any income tax. It’s not there’s zero income tax. So, so the same people who are asking for this tax to go on is retirement tax on private sector. People who run their own business, the public employees who pay zero taxes, and now they want these other folks to pay among the highest taxes in, in America.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah, this is, I know the closer you look, the, the worse it gets now, there is, you know, there, you mentioned as some studies, you, you, you briefly brought it up earlier in our conversation that it’s the perception by many that, you know, we call this the fair share because the perception is that high earners are wealthier people don’t pay the same percentage or portion of their overall income in taxes. There’s been some studies and, and your book points to many of the flaws that say, look you know, if I’m making a million dollars every year my, my, the, the percentage of my money going to the government is smaller than the, the poor guy making relatively little $50,000 or $30,000. You know, he’s paying a huge amount of taxes. You’re, you’re your book goes into length and debunks the myth briefly, how would you say, why is it the fact that a flat tax isn’t indeed regressive?
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. Okay. Well, the, the, I think the strongest argument on that point is that top 10% of income earn in Massachusetts pay more in state taxes than the bottom 90%. Now that’s that’s statistic that we published. It’s based on IRS statistics of Massachusetts reporter reporting tax returns, the top 10% of people in the state for income pay more than the bottom 90%, they pay like 56% of the total, if you follow that. So when people say they’re not paying their fair share they, they, they pay 90%. If this passes they’re gonna pay 95%. So, I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s a myth that high income people don’t pay their fair share, Massachusetts, get a great thing. If you ask me, we, we have a 5% income tax rate. That’s a good rate. It’s advantageous to us. It attracts people to come here and build businesses and to stay here, as opposed to places like Connecticut or New York or California who want constantly wanna steal our businesses from us. So that’s a bad term, but they wanna poach our businesses from us and, and recruit businesses to their states. One of our advantages is a good place to be. It has a fair average tax rate in the country to selling point. And it’s a mistake in my opinion, to get rid of it.
Joe Selvaggi:
And indeed you mentioned in your book and we’re getting near the end of our time together that we that states at least themselves see themselves as laboratories, 50 different laboratories of democracy, and each has its own prerogatives to impose taxes on its citizens, but they’re all competing for the same, let’s say creative investment risk taking audience. They all want the job makers and the economic rainmakers to come to their state. Where are people in Massachusetts going? If, if, if they do leave for greener pasture, where are they likely to go? If you were to guess, if this is imposed, where we accept that they will leave, where will they go? And has that propensity to leave? The, I could think it what do economists call Footloose they’re more Footloose than the, the lower income people where will they go? And why do you think, you know, what, what will be their reasons?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, the, the relocation of people from Massachusetts historically, this, this is a subject that’s closely tracked by the federal government shows that we have been losing billions of dollars over adjusted, gross income to Florida, Florida, New Hampshire, Florida, New Hampshire represents 70% of our outflow of people taking their income to other states. So why Florida has low tax rates, no income tax. There’s no capital gains tax. There’s no estate tax and that’s a magnet, but there’s also the Sunbelt states and Texas North Carolina, California you know, the they’re here advertising pitching to take companies to come to their states. So it’s a, it’s a competition in Massachusetts to, to attract and retain businesses. People should remember that when, when they, when they vote on things like this, because, you know, Massachusetts used to be like the leader in manufacturing in the United States.
Greg Sullivan:
People don’t think that could be true, but if you look at Laurel Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford, Fall River, Springfield, all of our mill cities, one time we were the national leader, even, even going back recently to like 1970 we, we had a fairly good amount of manufacturing, but it has left manufacturing has left Massachusetts for the most part. And we’ve had to adjust by, by having innovation companies come in. That’s our job is to try to get companies doing a great job in, in Cambridge and Boston, with biotech, route 1 28 around our universities. We, you know, Northeastern BU Harvard, MIT, UFS, you know, we, we have, we have got an advantage to recruit companies, but why do you wanna boom, these people with a, with a nationally high very high tax rate. That’s not an invitation, it’s, it’s a, it’s a ushering them out the door.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah, indeed. And we have an endless wellspring of, of talented people coming to our schools. And then we, the fact that we’ve got an advantage, but then squandered that advantage by chasing ’em out with a a high tax rate, if, if they do become successful, I would imagine your, your book does talk a dedicate part of a chapter to the fact that now in this wake of co after COVID, and we’ve all learned how to telecommute you via zoom, we’re even more foots. We’re more inclined to live where we want and therefore take pay taxes where we want, I would imagine the competition among states becomes even greater knowing that one can really work from almost anywhere at this point.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. It’s, it’s been a real game changer. The, the, the shift to remote work it grew during COVID and it’s has legs is what we’re seeing of that. So when a company is deciding to whether or not to come to Massachusetts, we have a very high cost of living. We have a high cost of living compared to other areas in the country. That’s a disadvantage for location. But one advantage we do have is that the, is that the state of Massachusetts has been on a pro economic growth strategy since 1970 to reverse our reputation. And I think we’ve we’ve done a good job of, of of ending. And I think that this proposal within a one fell swoop will trigger us back to that that economic, adverse effect of very high taxes.
Joe Selvaggi:
It’s a shame. It seems perhaps every generation needs to learn again, the lessons of the past. I hope we can avoid putting our hand on the stove again and, and learn from other states’ mistakes instead of insisting on doing it ourselves. So we’re at the ti at the end of the time together. We certainly haven’t addressed all the issues in the book. It’s a wonderful book full of facts and figures, where can our listeners buy your book? So they can read it for themselves.
Greg Sullivan:
Amazon.com. Okay. And this is readily available.
Joe Selvaggi:
Wonderful. Wonderful. Yeah, I’m expecting Amazon will have it. It might not be at the Harvard bookstore just yet not it won’t be on that front front page there. Now also, I think you also have this should release before the event. If there’s still tickets left, Pioneer’s having a book release event coming up do you know the day or how our listers can buy tickets for that.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. That’s again to make a, to make a reservation for the event, go on www.Pioneerinstitute.org, and it’s very easy to do
Joe Selvaggi:
Wonderful. Well, they can go there for our Hubwonk podcast and also for your book and also to reserve their space for the book launch. So well done. Very good job, Greg. This book was a fun read, an easy read and a wonderful resource when our, let’s say our reachable, our persuadable middle voters when they’re going to that ballot, they’ll at least be armed with a good deal of information. Thank you very much for writing the book. And thanks again for joining me on Hubwonk once again. Thanks, Joe.
Joe Selvaggi:
This has been another episode of Hubwonk. If you enjoyed today’s episode, there are several ways to support the show. It would be easier for you and better for us. If you subscribe to hub wonk on your iTunes podcast, catcher, if you wanna make it easier for others to find Hubwonk, it would be great. If you offer a five star rating or a favorable review, we’re always grateful. If you want to share hub wonk with friends, if you have ideas or comments or suggestions for me, or future episode topics, you’re welcome to email me. Hubwonk@Pioneer institute.org. Please join me next week for a new episode of Hubwonk.
Recent Episodes
WV State Sen. Patricia Puertas Rucker on Universal School Choice
/in Blog: Education, Blog: School Choice, Featured, Podcast, School Choice /by Editorial StaffThis week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Senator Patricia Puertas Rucker, a West Virginia state Senator and Chair of the Education Committee. Thanks to her leadership, West Virginia now has the widest, most universal education savings account program in America. Senator Rucker describes the lessons other state legislators across the country can learn from West Virginia’s successful experience. A Venezuelan immigrant, she shares her inspiring story of coming to the U.S., and becoming a state legislator who has led a transformational school choice initiative. She describes how her personal narrative, including her experience homeschooling her five children, some with special needs, drove her later efforts as an elected official to promote wider school choice. She reviews some of the central issues animating parent coalitions that have been prime movers in expanding school choice programs, especially for parents of children with special needs and families of faith.
Stories of the Week: School choice offers important alternatives to contentious political debates in K-12 education – but we should refrain from urging parents to abandon all traditional districts, many of which offer high-quality instruction. In New Mexico, a bipartisan group of legislators and parents overwhelmingly support charter public schools, contrary to the divisiveness over charters that exists in many states.
Guest
The next episode will air on Weds., June 1st, with Prof. Paula Giddings, Elizabeth A. Woodson Professor Emerita of Africana Studies at Smith College, and she is the author of, Ida: A Sword Among Lions – Ida B. Wells and the Campaign Against Lynching.
Tweet of the Week:
News Links:
School choice can take political fights out of education
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/3497722-school-choice-can-take-political-fights-out-of-education/
Charter schools show education and politics can work in New Mexico
https://www.abqjournal.com/2501242/charter-schools-show-education-and-politics-can-work-in-nm-2.html
Get new episodes of The Learning Curve in your inbox!
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
[00:00:00] Cara: hello listeners. Welcome to the learning curve. It is. An interesting day up here in Beantown where I am sitting am so happy to have my good friend here to talk about this in so many more things with me, Gerard Robinson, how you doing today?
[00:00:39] GR: I’m doing well in beautiful, but wet Charlottesville.
[00:00:44] Cara: but wet?
[00:00:45] Well, it’s always beautiful. I’ve never been there. You haven’t invited me. I got nothing.
[00:00:51] GR: Oh, okay. I’ll take that as a hint that I need to check that box, but you know, it was 90 degrees of few days ago was 80 [00:01:00] before that, and now it’s just raining, but it keeps it beautiful and green. Nothing else is breaking the humidity.
[00:01:06] And that’s a good thing here, ups up when the
[00:01:08] Cara: humidity is there and we know how you worry about your hair, Gerard, you know, you’re between the two of us, you weren’t, I am here in Beantown where the weather is quite beautiful. After a very hot weekend. I came home Gerard. I was traveling in an undisclosed location last week and I came home to COVID in the house.
[00:01:29] Oh my goodness. After. Yeah. You know, here we go. You can’t escape it. I don’t know. Maybe you can. I hope you do. Actually. I have to say this, my husband, who, as you know, Gerard is in the medical field. So he sees upwards of 60 patients a day. So we’re just considering this, a miracle that this is the first time it happened.
[00:01:47] Right. And. He’s fine. He’s absolutely fine. It’s it’s a little bit of a man cold, but, uh, yeah, everything’s, good here. lots going on to talk about in our fair city today, though, as you know, pioneer [00:02:00] Institute, released a report a couple of months ago, I’m not saying that we had anything to do with it, but calling for change in the Boston public schools.
[00:02:09] and today was a big day actually, yesterday was a big day because. the department of elementary and secondary education released a second audit of the Boston public schools and found surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise that not many things. In fact, very few things. In fact, almost nothing has gotten better.
[00:02:25] A lot of things have gotten worse as I think, you know, we talked about a couple of weeks ago, Boston recently had to close a school. It will be closed because of, sexual abuse that had been ongoing in the school. So lots of stuff going on in this city, we’re going to see how the political winds blow, but boy, oh boy.
[00:02:44] It’s looking like some big changes ahead for the largest school system in the Commonwealth. so I’m thinking about that. I’m also thinking about, I’m just going to segue right into my story of the week, Gerard, because whenever I think about a place like Boston [00:03:00] and, so many parents who are, I’m just gonna use the word trapped in schools that they don’t want to be in.
[00:03:06] they wish they had a different choice. I think about school choice. I think about the relative. Lack of school choice that we have here in the Commonwealth. I think about the fact that we have managed to put charter schools so far on the rails that we’re not establishing new ones, despite some of the excellent ones that we have.
[00:03:24] And to some extent, I think about what our friend Coleen Fronek has written about this week, , in the hill and the title of Coleen’s article is school choice can take political fights out of education. The main argument here at Gerard, the overarching argument is that, if parents can send their kids.
[00:03:48] To a school that aligns with their values to a school that aligns with the way they see the world to a school that aligns with their beliefs. Now, I, as an advocate of school choice would also put guard rails around that and say, we need to think about how [00:04:00] we provide high quality options that are also mission-driven and that, allow parents the kind of education that they’re seeking for their kids.
[00:04:07] Right. But that school choice can help to meet. Some of these terrible political battles that we’re seeing around education. I don’t have to tell you what those battles are. And I have to say that to some extent, I agree with Colleen and I want to quote her here. She says the current winner takes all system as in sending your kids to district and let’s try and do each other by not allowing school choice, right?
[00:04:33] Forces parents to engage in political battles to get their children. The education they think is best. But when one group of parents wins, that means another group loses. And this point, thank you, calling I think is a really, really good one. So I think in a lot lately, about how many parents, especially in states like mine, where we have such limited choices.
[00:04:57] Are on the losing end. It’s not [00:05:00] even just of the politics Gerard, but just on the losing end of being able to provide their kids with the one thing , that most parents really hold dear. Right? They’d said it makes a difference in life. And that is an education that fits the needs of each kid in each.
[00:05:15] Now I would just call out one caveat here and I would love your take on this drug, because I know that my opinion on this is strong, but it is my opinion. And that is that I’m a little put off that some advocates have school choice in the past couple of years. Have advocated for school choice as a means of escaping public school districts, because there’s a claim that public school districts are somehow teaching inappropriate material, or, not doing right by kids in other ways now.
[00:05:45] I’m not on board with that argument for school choice, I believe deeply in choice for Choice’s sake. And I do believe I’m in alignment with Colleen here, right? That one of the best reasons for choices that every family and parents should have the means as [00:06:00] let’s be clear, wealthy families do to choose the school that meshes with their worldview, mission, vision, of those.
[00:06:09] If you want to be able to choose a faith-based school, please, by all means do it. You shouldn’t have to be a wealthy person to access that kind of education. But I do become a little upset when we say that the reason for school choice should be escaping districts because. There are a lot of great school districts out there doing a lot of great things and no form of education is without a point of view.
[00:06:34] So some parents are choosing districts because of the things that they’re teaching. And many of them aren’t teaching the quote unquote radical content. That’s so many critics want to talk about, right. But we need to support all types of schools across the board. We need to be advocates for kids period.
[00:06:53] And that’s where I come down. But I really appreciate. This story in the hill this week. it was a good way I think, to [00:07:00] connect school choice and how to bring the tone in this country down just a bit.
[00:07:05] GR: When you mentioned exit, it brought me back to a grad school class that I had some years ago, where we looked at, I think it was Albert Hirschman’s book, exit voice, and loyalty.
[00:07:18] And the author talks about the importance of quality goods. And when they deteriorate. What do you do? And so there’s an exit or the voice option. do think some parents. And in fact, I don’t think this is new. Going back to the founding of charter schools in Minnesota or the urban based, what we call the voucher program in Milwaukee.
[00:07:38] There was surely a group of stakeholders in the legislature and also families who say we need an exit out of traditional public schools or. Public education in general. So there’s that point, but I agree with you. Some people are using it politically and not strategically. And there’s a difference. The families 30 years ago, 31 [00:08:00] years ago who wanted to exit it was life or death for some of them, for some of the teachers, it was professional calling and they wanted to practice their craft in different ways.
[00:08:10] So exit for them. Mid strategy for some people is strictly, about, politics. And so on that front, that will be with us for a long time, but we can’t let that group define what school choice is about. Because if a gives critics, more fodder is they see, they simply want to leave democratic schools and go to you, fill in the blank.
[00:08:33] instead of saying, guess what? This is a country of choice. We seem to want to celebrate choice, , in a lot of ways, except when it really comes for education. So great article, , I’m with you. And I also must say going back to the article. Oh, , what you mentioned earlier, kudos to you for the report that you wrote about receivership kudos to the pioneer Institute for publishing it.
[00:08:57] And I say that because. America is a [00:09:00] strong replace, a Massachusetts in particular, because you have think tanks like the pioneer Institute and scholars like you for a host of reasons. You’re giving a lot of academic freedom that some of your colleagues who you went to grad school with who are not professors may not have either because pre-tenure politics or even with tenure, just some of the canceling that comes along with taking the position that someone can see as anti-public school.
[00:09:26] With think tanks we can think and do. So. I just want to give a shout out to you for that work and. Who knows, , has been to audits. And I believe from your report, if there’s two audits that at least puts on the table of the idea of receivership, so nothing’s
[00:09:43] going to happen. I
[00:09:44] Cara: don’t know if there’ll be full blown receivership, but I do think that there is on
[00:09:47] the way.
[00:09:49] GR: Well, as we talk about school choice, my article in facts about charter schools and this from charter schools, from a state we rarely talk about, and that is New Mexico. [00:10:00] And what. I do not know is that New Mexico? Inaccurate at charter law in 1993, make it in one of the earliest states of the country to enact a charter law.
[00:10:09] According to data from the national Institute of charter schools, approximately 97 charter schools, in the state between 20 18, 19, roughly 26,000 students are enrolled. When you look at the score. That the national Alliance provided to New Mexico out of 240 points, they received 152. And so this was strong points and there’s some challenges, well, while that’s taking place.
[00:10:33] And while we know in Washington, DC, there’s a big debate, in the white house, regarding what should we do with, the federal charter school program that advocates, writing letters. There are others who are starting to protest while that’s taking place in New Mexico. This Democrats and Republicans found a way to come together and actually support charter schools.
[00:10:54] So in the past legislative session, and this is an article written by Matt Paul, who was the [00:11:00] executive director of public charter school. The New Mexico, , men identify a new law that took step is actually providing charter schools with more facility funding and options. And you and I know charter school facility funding is huge.
[00:11:13] As much as critics want to say that charter schools are sucking up all the money. One area where charter schools are not receiving funding in ways or other public school counterparts. Do. Relates to facilities. So we’re glad to see that also the house and Senate unanimously passed and the governor signed a measure to increase spending, not only for charter schools facilities, but to create a new loan fund for permanent charter school facilities.
[00:11:38] So a bit win. Well, how do they do it? According to. Lawmakers in New Mexico, they’ll spend their time solely at the Capitol building or in committee hearings. They actually listen to their constituents. People who live with them, people who shop at the same grocery stores, they do may attend the same, faith community or those institutions, but they found [00:12:00] out two things.
[00:12:00] Number one, they found out that people actually believe charter schools better according to a pre pandemic poll families. And one of the comments New Mexico found that believe that charter schools improve education, their community, and 75% want more charter school options. As Matt keenly pointed out families like public schools, charter schools are public schools and therefore it should be one of the options that people like and they want more of it.
[00:12:28] So when we often think about flying. Or states, whether you want to include New Mexico in there and not, maybe you can or can’t, but what I will say is while the east coast and the west coast are fighting over all kinds of things, as we’re flying overstates let’s land, either personally, intellectually or interest in terms of AI, Let’s look at something differently, New Mexico, who is doing some pretty good things.
[00:12:51] And I’d be remiss if I didn’t say hello to my colleague, Canada. Skandera, who’s a former secretary in New Mexico now president of the Daniels fund [00:13:00] and also to Michael Hora, Aspen cohort sister, Carra Bob Roth, who is a founder of a native American community academy in 2006. And the Nexa inspired school.
[00:13:11] Network, which includes, charter schools. So that is my story. What are your thoughts?
[00:13:15] Cara: I think that this is just, you know, any time that we’re talking about charter schools and it’s, fascinating stuff. I worry about our charter schools today, Gerard, as you know, but I’m glad that we can keep talking about them, bringing them up here on this show.
[00:13:31] Highlighting, you know, talking about the challenges and all the good stuff and I thank you for that. It’s really important stuff to our, we’ve got a guest coming up, Gerard, who’s not only going to talk to us about it. She’s gonna, merge our two stores. You’re going to talk to us about the landscape in West Virginia.
[00:13:47] have we had other guests on before from West
[00:13:49] Patricia: Virginia, Gerard?
[00:13:50] GR: I don’t believe so, but we’ve had someone with. Virginia theme, because that provided me
[00:13:58] well, can you do it again? [00:14:00] Nope.
[00:14:01] Cara: Oh, maybe we’ll get our next guest to do it, but we’re going to talk to her about, I mean, so talk about place that merges both of our stories.
[00:14:08] West Virginia in one year passes a charter school law that needed to be improved. And then another year passes the most expansive school choice program in the whole country. So I’m pretty excited to talk about. Who can sort of merge the themes of both of our stories of the week. And do you know who she is, Gerard, this person that we’re going to be doing?
[00:14:30] I do not
[00:14:31] this
[00:14:31] Cara: Now we’re going to be talking to a woman who not only has a really phenomenal personal story about why she cares about education and how she came to the work, but somebody who was integral in expanding opportunities, both in terms of charters and. For West Virginia students and her name is Senator Patricia Rucker.
[00:14:53] She is the chair of the Senate education committee in West Virginia, and just a fierce warrior for all [00:15:00] things, that can equal better opportunities for the kids and families of her state. So really, really excited to talk to her coming up right after.
[00:15:34] Learning curve listeners. We are back as promised with an absolutely fabulous guests. We are speaking today with Senator Patricia Portis Rucker. She is a West Virginia state Senator serving the 16th district. Her committee assignments include chair of the education committee and a member of the agriculture and rural development banking and insurance judicial.
[00:15:55] Health and human resources, natural resources and confirmation [00:16:00] committing. So clearly she has nothing at all to do. She is not a busy woman. she taught social studies in the Montgomery county public schools before starting a family and homeschooling her five children. Patricia is a first-generation American citizen born in Caracas, Venezuela coming to the.
[00:16:18] Montgomery county, Maryland in 1981. She graduated from Trinity college in Washington, DC with a BA in history and a minor in Latin American studies. Senator Rucker. Welcome to the learning curve.
[00:16:30] Patricia: Thank you so much. It is a pleasure to be able to be with you. Yeah, well, , we
[00:16:35] Cara: are thrilled, I think, , , as Gerard knows, because he was at the same place.
[00:16:39] you participated last year in the national summit on education that is hosted annually by Excel and ed and I had great pleasure of monitoring a panel on which you served and in which you got to talk to those present about. The passage of what is now the widest most universal [00:17:00] education savings account program in America, in West Virginia, you were integral in making that happen.
[00:17:07] I just want to, for our listeners who might not be overly familiar, although if you listen frequently, you definitely know what an ESA is by now. It is, a program that allows parents to direct the public fight. Allocated the state funds allocated to their child’s education and it allows parents to choose from a range of education.
[00:17:28] Services, to put together the education that best serves their children and you Senator wrecker made that happen. Could you share with our listeners, the lessons learned from West Virginia, a state that by the way, just a couple of years ago, some might’ve said was not very choice friendly. What, what could you tell other legislators across this country about your experience opening up choice for West Virginia?
[00:17:55] Patricia: Well, I will say that, , the way you phrased it as putting it very [00:18:00] mildly, because as a patient share three years ago, there was zero, , education choice in the state of West Virginia. , through the efforts that we have had some 2019, we now have. several things like charter schools, open enrollment, but it was always my goal to get a broad based what I considered non-discriminatory, education savings account, where the money truly does follow the child, wherever parents think the child needs to be.
[00:18:33] And so it’s a parent driven, , option. And in terms of the lessons learned, I can tell you that the number one. Most important thing is that, you know why you are pushing for what you’re pushing for. And if you’re pushing for education savings account, it’s because, or should be because you believe that the parents are the best ones to make decisions as to where they’re doing.
[00:18:57] needs what they need for their education. And you [00:19:00] believe in the American, the basic American dream that every single child deserves a good education and is worthy of getting the education that they need for themselves. As individuals, America was built on this principle of individualism that everyone has, or should have the opportunity, not necessarily.
[00:19:22] But the same opportunity. And it’s amazing to me that it is as difficult to get that translated into something as basic as universal education for all, which means that it needs to be as individualized as possible because not everyone is going to need the same thing or it’s going to thrive in the same.
[00:19:43] Cara: love how you put that. And I, when I was a professor, I used to talk to my students about equality of opportunity, being very different from equality of outcome. and quality of opportunity I think is really what you’ve done here is the best we can do I want to ask you a little bit about the American dream, but I also want to ask you [00:20:00] quickly about now when I think of West Virginia, yes.
[00:20:02] You have opened up choices for students and families in recent years. Until very recently, in fact, , your ESA program will launch just at this fall. The parents are applying now. what you’re up against is just. People who have never known anything in the state except for public education, which means vested interests in sustaining that system and sustaining that status quo and to be clear listeners, an ESA in no way, dismantles a high quality public education system either.
[00:20:29] I that’s not at all what this is about. It’s about having both. And how do you achieve both? but can you talk a little bit about. Those vested interests that you had to go up against, who would have rather maintained the status quo? really briefly, what was that fight like for you?
[00:20:44] How did you leverage your powers of persuasive?
[00:20:48] Patricia: So, yes. clearly the teachers association in the state of West Virginia, which has pretty much controlled, all public education dollars for, the entire history of West [00:21:00] Virginia. Where are very powerful and very strong. And they managed through their efforts to derail every single attack West Virginia has ever had at any kind of school choice.
[00:21:11] and in 2018 and 2019 back to back, we had major teacher strikes in the state. but it was meant to intimidate and scare. legislators when they had their last teacher strike in 2019 and they managed to stop the ESA. That was very minor, very small. It was like many other states. I was trying to just start something just for a small limited number of students and they killed it essentially through their efforts.
[00:21:41] And with them, we’re all of the, usual, you know, the people who think that public education is the only way all of those forces. I just had to. Tell them like publicly announced y’all better get me on elected because if I come back, I’m going to make you regret killing that simple little ESA.
[00:21:59] And [00:22:00] so I almost had to, in my state at least had to prove that the unions were not as powerful as they say they are. And that meant going through another election cycle where I got reelected, despite all their best efforts to unseat me, to basically demonstrate to other legislators that look. They’re not as powerful as you think they are.
[00:22:20] And second that this is a battle worth fighting for, unions and the associations and those who want to protect the interests of government run schools. They are at the Capitol and they know how to show up and they know how to organize and send emails. But guess what? There’s a lot more parents and students out there than they are.
[00:22:40] And they may not be as active and as organized, but there’s a lot more votes there than there is from the teachers, associations and unions. And parents want this. can’t even express to you the number of letters, the gratitude that is demonstrated by folks from all over [00:23:00] West Virginia. And, you know, we decided to call our education savings account program.
[00:23:04] The hope scholarship. It truly is giving them hope. I mean, they literally write to me and say, thank you because for the first time I have hope that I can get my child what they need.
[00:23:16] Cara: that’s pretty amazing. And it is, it is really a great name for a scholarship account. And I think that any of us who are interested in education certainly watched red for ed in West Virginia, those, not very long ago.
[00:23:28] So it’s pretty remarkable story. when I asked you the first question, you, started to talk a little bit about the American dream and many people might not know that you actually have this very compelling story, that you are an immigrant from Venezuela. You came to the U S now you are a state legislator.
[00:23:46] You’ve, taught school. You’ve led this transformational school choice initiative. Can you talk a little bit about, how your personal narrative your life has in your experience have [00:24:00] informed your work and maybe also, like, how has that. Informed your willingness to take risks such as the risk that you took in not being reelected by standing up for K-12 education.
[00:24:11] Patricia: Right. Well, thank you so much for asking. That’s not a question I get very often, but I absolutely love it because, I am the embodiment of that American dream, the same dream that so many people, especially out in the media world say it’s dead and they try to portray America as this terrible place.
[00:24:30] But reality is there is no other place in the world where you can integrate. go, not be able to speak the language, not have any background. I have any family literally start from nothing. 20 years later be running for office that just does not happen. And I am so honored and blessed by the opportunities that I was given.
[00:24:54] I came to this country as a six-year-old. I could not even speak my own language well, so, I [00:25:00] had this incredible experience in the public school system that took this, young child. Helped her with her own language development and then taught her English. And within a few short years, I was in honors classes.
[00:25:15] I had all of these incredible experiences like debate and band and getting to participate in athletics, lots of opportunities to learn all sorts of things. And, I will tell you, I never expected to run for public office. Always always loved the institution of the United States, the constitution, the stories of our founders.
[00:25:38] And, when I get the opportunity to give back, it’s just, I just thank God for that. And in terms of how that informs me, as you can imagine, I really believe in that American dream. I think everyone should have. The same opportunities, the ability to be able to rise up from wherever they are, and it doesn’t matter their background or [00:26:00] color, what language they speak, if they’re rich and if they’re poor, none of that should matter.
[00:26:06] Everyone deserves a good education and everyone deserves an opportunity to meet their potential.
[00:26:11] GR: So of Rutgers, so great to have you join us. I should state upfront that my father, I was born and raised in Charleston. And imagine waited many, many years ago from the Charleston public school system and his sister, my aunt Edna Williams, graduated from the public school system in the city later.
[00:26:29] She went to what was then West Virginia. Earned a master’s in West Virginia university and for 20 plus years was a school teacher in that system. When my dad, moved west, to California, Los Angeles in particular, he, my mom decided to enroll me into Catholic schools because they were anti-public school.
[00:26:47] They knew and benefited from public education. It was their choice and they wanted to go that route. So wanted to put it perspective if it’s always good to hear a voice from somebody who is in the Western.
[00:26:57] Patricia: Well, that’s crazy.[00:27:00]
[00:27:00] GR: Here’s a question for you and I listeners may not know this, before you became who we now know as Senator wrecker, you were a homeschooling mom for five children.
[00:27:09] While your husband worked two jobs. Talk to our listeners about the experience with homeschooling and how that drove your decision to promote wider school choice. Once you became an elected official.
[00:27:20] Patricia: So I did get the, again, blessed that my husband was willing to work two jobs so that I could stay at home instead of going back to work.
[00:27:30] And I could, educate my own children. It was not something I wanted to do. We did attempt to put our oldest child in the public education system. She had some special needs and. It was, this heartening to have to deal with the response that the public school had to her special needs. They were very inflexible.
[00:27:53] There were not listening to what we were saying. And unfortunately my daughter did not have a very good experience and they were not [00:28:00] able to keep her safe. And after I think I left at about 46 a week and she was coming home with bite marks and bruises. And I was just going to the school and telling them this is not acceptable.
[00:28:12] And their response was well, the only way we could keep her safe and that special education classroom is to lock her up in a high chair so that she is separated from the other kids. And I said, so your answer to keeping her safe is to punish her. that’s not an acceptable answer to me. And I kind of, I hate to say it, but I kind of said, no, thank you.
[00:28:35] I didn’t know what I was doing. I never trained to be an elementary school teacher or a special education teacher. And I was a little bit terrified, but I wanted my daughter. To obviously be safe and to get what she needed. So I pulled her out, started homeschooling tons of reading and research and we had to privately pay for all the services that she needed.
[00:28:58] I ended up having another child with [00:29:00] special needs, my third child, and had to do all those same relearning of, everything and knowing what he needed and getting him what he needs. But. I’m very grateful. I had that opportunity and I had the knowledge and the ability, what breaks my heart is that there are parents in those situations feel they don’t have any choices.
[00:29:21] They don’t have either the opportunity. They don’t have a spouse that is willing to, or able to afford them staying at home, or they don’t feel they have the skills or. they know their child needs something and they don’t have the funds to get those things have the child needs. I get those stories of the time ever since I was elected.
[00:29:44] And, , I don’t know how I can be expected as someone who wants to do the best job I can representing my constituents. To not find a solution to help these individuals. These are our citizens. These are people who pay taxes. They live [00:30:00] they’re our neighbors, and we’re essentially telling them too bad.
[00:30:03] that was never an acceptable option for me. So it was really a passion that I had to help those who were in the same situation as myself, their children needed something other than a public education system. And didn’t have those options.
[00:30:19] GR: Well, speaking of students with special needs, I’m on the board of an organization called respectability.
[00:30:25] It’s headquartered in Maryland, our founder, Jennifer mush, Ronnie’s then a guest here. And one of the reasons I joined her board, , based on her invitation is because we worked to create, an avenue to talk about how people with disabilities and special needs or. You’d or undervalued, in American society, not only in schools, but also work.
[00:30:47] And so when you mentioned that, I just think about the broader conversation. The fact that punishment was the answer. When you were looking for progress, just speaks volumes and natural. We know that some other teachers have responded differently [00:31:00] as it relates to you. how did your experience.
[00:31:04] With children with special need and also working in that arena. How did you make that link to school choice? There are a lot of opponents of school choice who said for years, that school choice should be abandoned because guess what choice programs particularly private schools do not take students with special needs?
[00:31:23] Is that true?
[00:31:24] Patricia: I’ve heard that also. And I’ve seen for myself that that’s not always true. Yes. There are some private schools that cannot handle, certain special needs or disabilities, but there are lots that do, but in addition to that, again, mostly from my own personal experience where I was able to homeschool my children who had pretty serious special needs with.
[00:31:49] Being special ed certified and without, really. I started out with no, no experience to help me, but I was able to do it. And my children, thank God, have succeeded and [00:32:00] overcome and are fine. And they’re adults now. And they’re thriving. I know in my heart that, We have the capability to overcome, all of these fins and, special needs can be things like learning delays.
[00:32:15] It can be an illness, a very severe illness that causes huge. For example, like seizures that to miss out without. You know, you miss out on school, you miss out on things and activities. it could be something as not knowing the language like I had and having to overcome that issue of speech pathology issues.
[00:32:35] There’s so many diversity of special of what can go onto the category of special needs. And guess what? Each one has a different response. And each one of those, there are different levels of need within those. You cannot class, all the kids that have autism with one way of telling it because they respond to different things and there’s different levels and there’s different severities.
[00:32:58] And. [00:33:00] Very unique just under that one category. So to expect that a public education system is going to be able to address every single type of special need, there is really, I think too much of any one system. The reality is the more you individualize the way we treat education and handle individuals.
[00:33:22] The more we allow for customization, the better they’re going to do. And for me, God med school choice. It meant that for those kids who a classroom of 25 is not the right place, let’s help them. What would work for them. And sometimes it is possible to have that innovation and that flexibility within a public school system.
[00:33:46] I have seen public schools that have been able to do that, but unfortunately it’s not very often. And it almost, happens as. The exception to the world instead of the rule, I’m hoping that by introducing the idea of [00:34:00] school choice and empowering parents to look into what their kids need, we’re going to actually encourage that type of flexibility within the public education system to
[00:34:09] GR: absolutely.
[00:34:10] So your state’s been almost like a poster child for. , quickly, as Kara mentioned earlier, and you discussed with her a few years ago, people would have thought this was just unrealistic for a place like West Virginia, but you’re moving forward. Other states have also expanded choice programs, families of faith.
[00:34:29] have also been prime movers of the school choice legislation. Could you talk to us about the role of parent coalitions and the diversity within it to make what you have in West Virginia? A reality.
[00:34:42] Patricia: Well, thank you so much for bringing that up. One of the most important lessons learned from my first attempt to pass, , my education savings account, I did not organize or reach out for coalition partners.
[00:34:57] And that really was part of the reason for why. [00:35:00] Did fall apart with the associations being able to basically kill that attempt. The second time around, I learned from that experience and way, way ahead of time before the session ever began, I started reaching out to. What I would consider interested parties.
[00:35:17] So for example, private schools, and I asked them what they would think about legislation that would allow us to have education, savings account and explained to it what it was. And they were excited about the thought and the possibilities of it. And I said, well, I need you all to organize. I need you all to help educate others.
[00:35:36] I need y’all to, be advocates for this. If I end up introducing this legislation, and then I did the same thing with parents. I had several town halls where I was educating them about what. Is what we’re trying to do and why, and asking the same things. I need you all to work on your legislators to talk to those people who represent you to help me get this done.
[00:35:59] [00:36:00] So we started early on and, that was a huge difference. So the second time around a successful time in 2020, that was a. Big difference. We were getting letters, emails, and visits from parents and individuals in support. And it wasn’t just the association setting the narrative. And I should point out that at this time we’re talking, this was after COVID.
[00:36:24] Parents were pretty upset with the way that most of the public schools handled COVID. with the fact that schools were closed down, there were teachers who were refusing to return to work. And in the meantime, they have to return to work, but had nowhere to put their children, remote learning was a disaster.
[00:36:42] All of those things help to really energize , , those parents who were looking for something different and something better. And so all of that played a role. Well,
[00:36:52] GR: I’m going to go ahead and close us out again. Great to hear your voice great to have you , in, , public policy. Great to have your [00:37:00] story, a part of the American dream, glad to hear West Virginia anchored in conversations about reform.
[00:37:06] Often when we hear about, , the mountain state is. Uh, negative things, but there are a lot of great things growing in that state and you’re playing a role in that. So just don’t care and I are here to be supportive of you and your work. And at some point when I know I’m coming to your state, I’ll let you know.
[00:37:21] And hopefully we can get together at some point and talk more about this in person.
[00:37:26] Patricia: I would love that. Thank you so much. And thanks for the opportunity to talk about what. Yeah,
[00:37:32] Cara: and then hopefully I’ll be invited to, I just want to say it because I also a good John Denver Senator Rutgers. So just, we can do a little, we’ll have a little party featured by, through hard Robinson.
[00:37:46] Thank you so much for your time today. It was just wonderful speaking with you and thank you for your great work.
[00:37:52] Patricia: Thank you so much. You guys have a great day. Take care.[00:38:00]
[00:38:24] Cara: Gerard as always, we’re going to close it out with our tweet of the week and this one. Ooh, favorite topic of mine. We have talked about this before. It’s from education next and it says, quote so long as admissions exams are intended to fairly apportion opportunities to talented students, age allowance.
[00:38:44] Are appropriate. And so this article is about birthday bias. It’s about how, high state tests and, fairness. And I, what I love about this is that, we want to be sure that we’ve got opportunities for everyone, including our most talented [00:39:00] students. And, it’s great article. I highly suggest.
[00:39:03] And next week, Gerard, I know you’re, unable. You are a busy man and I’m going to have a guest host with me next week, but we are going to be speaking to Professor Paula Giddings. She is the Elizabeth, a Woodson professor, emerita of Africana studies at Smith college. And she is the author of a sword among lions, Ida B Wells and the campaign against lynching.
[00:39:26] Boy, I am looking forward to that one. Gerard, I’m going to miss. I do think we’re going to be here with, a special guest host, who is a friend of the show, but I hope that whatever it is you’re doing, I know it’s always something of great import because you are one of the busiest people. I know my friend, so
[00:39:42] GR: sorry.
[00:39:42] I won’t get a chance to share the conversation with you next week. our guest is a graduate of. Uh, so I’m always glad to see that author of a book on Delta Sigma data, a African-American female sorority founded at Howard university, and she has got so much great stuff in addition to that book. [00:40:00] So I look forward to being a listener, , at that time and look forward to joining you the following week.
[00:40:06] Cara: Yeah, well until then. Yeah, I’ll miss you. And, you take care best to your family and we will, of course, be back with updates on all of the pioneer Institute centric goings on in Boston. It’s like, it’s just a big old soap opera over here. Gerard, you take care of yourself,
[00:40:21] have a good
[00:40:21] GR: one. Enjoy being town and watch the beans being thrown at you
[00:40:27] as
[00:40:27] Cara: they are.
Related Posts
Pioneer Institute Statement on the Latest State Audit of the Boston Public Schools
/in Academic Standards, Featured, Press Releases: Education /by Editorial StaffView media coverage on this topic in The 74, State House News Service, The Boston Globe, NBC10, the Boston Herald, WGBH News, Greater Boston, and Education Next.
The third review of the Boston Public Schools (BPS) in fewer than 20 years makes clear: Things are getting worse. Graduation rates are down, achievement gaps are up, an unacceptably large percentage of students attend schools ranked in the lowest 10 percent statewide. In a cruel twist, more than three in five students still are not taught material on which they are tested. There remains no clear strategy for improvement.
Since the 2020 review we’ve learned that the district’s own data are unreliable. The district has underestimated the number of English language learners it is serving inadequately and may have overestimated graduation rates in five of the last seven years. Bullying is rampant across the district. Today we find out that student transportation has deteriorated even further.
With BPS spending $26,000 per student, money is no longer the issue. Out of the 100 largest school systems in the U.S., BPS funding ranks second.
The central office has grown chaotic under a “musical chairs” of superintendents and is no longer capable of leading the necessary change. State and city officials must partner to:
Get Updates on Our Education Research
Related Content
Forsaking Massachusetts’s Miracle: Risking Our Future With Past Mistakes
/in Economic Opportunity, Featured, Podcast Hubwonk /by Editorial StaffThis week on Hubwonk, host Joe Selvaggi talks with Greg Sullivan, Research Director at Pioneer Institute and author of Back to Taxachusetts?, about the link between Massachusetts’s decision to reduce tax rates and a generation-long economic renaissance – and the reasons why new taxes such as the proposed, so-called “Fair Share Amendment” risk taking us back to economic stagnation or decline.
BOOK LAUNCH: Mark your calendar for Wednesday, May 25 from 6:00 to 8:00 PM and sign up now to secure your spot for Pioneer Institute’s live launch of our newest book, “Back to Taxachusetts?” at the UMass Club on One Beacon Street in Boston!
Guest
Gregory Sullivan is Pioneer’s Research Director. Prior to joining Pioneer, Sullivan served two five-year terms as Inspector General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was a 17-year member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Greg is a Certified Fraud Investigator, and holds degrees from Harvard College, The Kennedy School of Public Administration, and the Sloan School at MIT.
Get new episodes of Hubwonk in your inbox!
Read a Transcript of This Episode
Please excuse typos.
Joe Selvaggi:
This is Hubwonk. I’m Joe Selvaggi.
Joe Selvaggi:
Welcome to Hubwonk, a podcast of Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston. Massachusetts has enjoyed a generation-long economic Renaissance driven by its cultivation of new technologies, such as biotech, as well as it’s attracting older firms to relocate such as general electric. This success is owed in no small part from its decision to issue its former high tax policies that had earned it than nickname of taxachusetts and embark on a glide toward a lower income tax rate to one near middle of the nationwide pack. Despite the clear demonstrated success of the state’s more moderate tax policy. This November Massachusetts voters will be asked to amend its constitution to instantiate an 80% income tax increase for its highest earners. This euphemistically labeled fair share amendment attacks on any income over $1 million comes at a remarkable time when the state coffers are bulging from billions in budget, surplus revenue and from generous federal stimulus and aid for infrastructure while it’s backers assure voters that the money will be well spent.
Joe Selvaggi:
Fair share advocates must address voters. Reasonable concerns that returning to past high tax policies will not also return the Massachusetts economy back to economic stagnation and malaise. Indeed. What lessons should voters take from the success of our past and what can we learn from other states that chose to raise taxes on high earners in the past and are now dealing with the consequences? My guest today is Greg Sullivan, Research Director at Pioneer Institute and author of the book “Back to Massachusetts?”, Which is set to release this week. Mr. Sullivan will share with us the themes of his book based on careful research and analysis of the decades, long success of the Massachusetts economy and contrast our outcomes with those of other states, such as Connecticut and California, that levied higher rates on their state’s highest earns. We will discuss who will likely be affected by a so-called millionaires tax and why such taxes can be so destructive to the long term health of a state’s economy. He will also speak to his concern that contrary to the assurance of the amendment supporters. The new revenue may be spent merely to increase the size, but not the quality of our state’s government. When I return, I’ll be joined by senior fellow and author Greg Sullivan.
Joe Selvaggi:
Okay. We’re back. This is Hubwonk I’m Joe Selvaggi. I’m now pleased to be joined by Pioneer Institute’s Research Director co-author of the soon to be released book “Back To Taxachusetts” by Greg Sullivan. Welcome back to Hubwonk, Greg.
Greg Sullivan:
Thanks, Joe.
Joe Selvaggi:
Okay. I just finished reading an early copy of your new book. I, I found it wonderfully informative, interesting a chock full of data that even though I do many topics on these same issues I learned a great deal from the book. So but before we get into the book, let’s, let’s take a, a wider view and say, who did you know, you sat down and wrote this book, who is your target audience? Who, who do you expect to pick up this book and learn something?
Greg Sullivan:
Number one, we’re hoping to get the word out to the general public and the voting public indirectly by putting out facts and figures re solid statistical analysis out there, part of the dialogue. And that’s the right now a lot of the work we did was in an effort to get information to the legislature as well, but now the legislature put it on the ballot for November. So that ship has sailed. So this is all about the general public.
Joe Selvaggi:
So we’re, we’re trying to reach let’s say the general public, but I know from my own emails, I get plenty of emails that say, you know, from people who clearly think all taxes are bad. I understand there are arguments and there’s certainly folks out there who think, you know, all taxes are good, they all make for a better society. So it seems to me from reading the book that you’re trying to aim for the persuadable middle, if, if there is still such a thing much the same way we try to do here at hub won. So let’s stop start at the beginning. I moved to Massachusetts, I way back in 1993, and back then we were known as and so here we are much later and we’re no longer known that way. So let’s get a little bit of history. Why were we known as in the past?
Greg Sullivan:
The, the term was no joke. Massachusetts was ranked as the third highest taxing state in the country in 1970. And that’s by the tax foundation, the combination of income taxes and local property taxes. And that began to change in 1980 when proposition two and a half passed. That was the initiative petition that put limits on the amount of local property taxes. And the legislature also followed up by reducing the income tax rate from at 1.5 0.6% down to 5%. Those two things really made Massachusetts kind of reformed tax tax really and has ended. I mean, I think the, that the voters of Massachusetts and the state legislature made a decision that taxation levels at a very high hurting the economy and they’ve addressed it right now. We’re in the middle of the, that we’re like rank 24th out of 50 states in terms of our combined state local property taxes. That’s a big difference from being among the very, very highest to the middle of the road. And that’s a, it’s an economic advantage to us to be reasonable tax state.
Joe Selvaggi:
Well, being in the middle, I suppose, you know, is, is a good place on this index. So we’re neither bad nor good we’re somewhere in the middle. So folks we’re all right. So from bad to to average, I’m, I’m happy with that now. As those of us who advocate generally for lower taxes or more business friendly environments, we say that lowering taxes does have the effect of encouraging more growth and therefore ultimately more taxes. But what has been the effect since becoming going from the worst to the middle of the pack over the last 30 or 40 years have, have we indeed have those promises been kept, has the Massachusetts economy boomed in that time?
Greg Sullivan:
Yes. the best, the best way to look at it. This this issue was to look at compar Connecticut and Massachusetts. Everybody knows that Massachusetts basically pirated away GE one of the nation’s premier companies from Connecticut moved to Massachusetts right after Massa, right after Connecticut boomed their taxes for on, in, on individuals and affecting companies as well. So Massachusetts has, has done very, very well comparison to of the new England states because of our economic competitiveness. The problem is that we’re in a very, very competitive environment among the states looking for companies to locate here and to stay here, very fierce competition. And we’re kind of up against it in new England for a number of reasons.
Joe Selvaggi:
So, so I wanna get into, I wanna take apart all of those issues. So you, you say we’re doing well, we’re doing particularly well compared to our neighbor in Connecticut. So I wanna unpack a lot of the themes in the book here, but let’s start at the beginning. I think if I, the common thread through the whole book, this fear of becoming tax excuse again, is largely predicated on this new ballot measure. That’s coming down for our, for voters in 20, 22nd of November which give it, call it what you will some call it the fair share tax, some call it prop 80 or the millionaires tax. But for our listeners who aren’t studying this all the time, what, what is it that they will be asked to vote on? What is this fair share amendment that, that they’ll be asked to vote on in November?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, the fair share amendment that’s gonna the ballot November would add a 80% increase to the top marginal tax rate for, for income over a million dollars. And that, so this would change Massachusetts from being basically in the middle of the pack in the country with a pretty decent advantageous tax rate to being among the very highest of the country. And and that’s the propo, the proposal, if it’s adopted, would apply to income over $1 million, but the way that they wrote the proposal, it applies to all income. In other words, it applies to income from capital gains. It comes from selling you house stocks, bonds affects people when they retire, if for somebody who sells their business that that’s their retirement, their nest egg they’re one time millionaires. That’s one of the problems with it is that it’s gonna apply kind of indiscriminately, not to what most people consider to be millionaires, but people who happen to earn a million dollars when they retired and sold their business. So that’s the problem with this bill.
Joe Selvaggi:
Indeed, your book takes apart who are these quote unquote millionaires, but let’s, let’s back up even further and say, who would back such a measure? You know, why, who, who thinks such a thing is a good idea?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, the proponents of the measure are mostly made up of state employees and, and public employees through their unions. And that should, that should really tell you something about it, because one of the things we pointed out here is when this same kind of proposal passed in, in California as you, as you pointed out in previous hub, long shows, which excellent what happened was the the economy really started to decline and in, in, but the money that they received, which was promised to be going to education K through 12 and community colleges, they didn’t do it. They, they never raised the amount of money above the minimum constitutional level in California and in California public payrolls increased by more than a hundred percent more than the average of the country. So it can be, it’s, there’s an element of this is becomes a, a, a huge cash trough that the legislature can spend it, whatever it wants,
Joe Selvaggi:
I think, yes, indeed. You pointed to earlier shows I just wanna make sure we address the, our listeners who maybe haven’t listened to all earlier shows about this. So effectively it, it levies a tax, a 80% increase on the higher, highest marginal rate for earners. And I believe, again, some of the controversy is where will that money go? I think it’s advocates promise. It will go to education or transportation, things that people really like. But your research and your book point out that similar promises by other states, specifically, California, where they said all this new money will go to transportation and education. And as your book points out, not a single penny, more than the minimum went to education, nothing changed before and after. They got slightly more revenue because the stake got more revenue, but as a, as a percentage of, of the budget, it’s remained the same.
Joe Selvaggi:
Let me ask a little side question. We see a lot of headlines now to the surprise of many, I guess, perhaps all people regardless of where they stand, we’re experiencing here in Massachusetts revenue surpluses in the billions of dollars. Now we had all thought that COVID would mean business or revenue tax revenue would decrease where I saw one week a one month surplus of $2 billion in just a single month. Why would advocates a suggest a massive tax increase while we don’t know what to do with the money we’re already taking in?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, I mean, Massachusetts during COVID the forecast for the economic recovery were very conservative as everyone was really, really worried going back to the beginning of like March 20, 20. But if you look at what happened with COVID even a year afterwards, Massachusetts this still in the height of the, of the COVID pandemic, Massachusetts income from sales tax and from income tax was actually larger than any point in history. In words, the economy, the, the, the COVID economic downturn was very concentrated in certain industries, tourism related and travel related restaurants, bars. These are the part of the economy that get murdered, but in Massachusetts, we recovered very quickly. And right now we’re a wash with money. There’s so much money available to the legislature that they basically stopped appropriating it, and just said, time out, we have to, we, we just can’t spend all this money. Now we have to put it aside. We’ll decide what to do with it later. So Massachusetts is a wash and, and, and money. So you say, well, why are you gonna put on one of the biggest tax increases in the history of the United States, right in the middle of this? And it’s, it’s worrisome.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah. It seems a, a, a sort of a, sort of be a naked advocacy for just taxes in general, whether it’s needed or not let you know taxes are inherently good. It, it just seems odd or UN perplexed. Now your book I think very well admits that none of us has a crystal ball. We are you and I advocating, and your book advocates against this prop 80 or millionaires tax, but none of us has a crystal ball. We don’t know what kind of effect it will have, but you do try to imply or ask your readers to infer from the experiences of other states. We’ve touched briefly here. You mentioned Connecticut and California. I’d like to go a little deeper into that. Let’s start with Connecticut. What happened when Connecticut raised its top income rate? Again, they’ve done it several times, so it doesn’t have to be one rate increase, maybe over the course of a decade, several, I think four increases. What’s been the effect on the con Connecticut economy after doing what we’re thinking about doing in our future.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah, Connecticut is a, is a case study of why these sudden very large tax increases can devastate a state economy. So when in, in, in Connecticut after the after the great recession, so called, which is at the end of the president of George W. Bush and beginning of president Obama administration, that recession Connecticut basically has still not recovered from that Massachusetts recovered within two or three years and, and grew, but Matt, but even a decade after that occurred, Cal Connecticut was still trying to recover the job, the employment level. So they had beforehand, they’re the only, basically the only state. They also had a real depression compared to the rest of the country in increase in home values and businesses left, as we know the most famous one being GE, which located to Boston, you know, I mean, the, that was a huge loss of Connecticut. And so it, it, it shows, it just shows you that these tax increases have effects on the general economy. And the general economy can, can bring about adverse effects, downturn that far outstripped the value of the tax increase.
Joe Selvaggi:
Indeed, we’re talking, we’ll introduce a concept called the Laffer curve, where actually you raise taxes and revenue goes down because it has unintended secondary effects, meaning you can, you can tax people, but ultimately if they leave, you you’re left with less tax than you started with your book mentions. In fact, in Connecticut in one year you measure it by net outflow of income one year 2018 before COVID 1.2 billion in net a grossed gross income in one year. So raise the taxes. People leave the taxes go down. And of course, as you mentioned, Connecticut is the, the economy suffering, but the increase taxes didn’t solve the Connecticut’s need for more revenue. In other words the, the state government is still not getting the revenue. It needs to support itself, meaning it’s this downward spiral. It seems.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. I mean, if you look at in California, so in California, that’s really Massachusetts’s number one competitor in some respects in the country because they, they’re, they’re a very high tech center and Massachusetts competes. So they, they decided out there to really have a high millionaire stocks and they put it in effect and then companies started to leave. They lost Elon Musk, the, the people who the people say, well, let’s tax let’s let’s tax high income earners. Well, when they’re, when they’re entrepreneurs deciding where to locate, what you have to remember is that they can leave. And Elon Musk and, and Tesla just move the national headquarters to no tax taxes. They don’t have an income tax. So they, so Elon Musk just went from a state where he is gonna pay 13% income tax rate to one where it’s zero and it’s and you say, well, don’t, it’ll never leave California. California’s so great. We’re so, so invaluable. No, doesn’t work that way. Same thing with Massachusetts. It’s very easy for companies to leave now, especially in the post COVID remote work environment, that’s emerging, continuing to emerge.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah. It puzzles made that I mean, clearly this is a situation where reasonable people, rational people respond to incentives. I’m amazed by the number of people who want to, let’s say impose a 5 cent cost on a, a tax on a bag at the grocery store with the hope that people bring their own bags to avoid a 5% yeah. Tax or whatever you wanna call it. And yet they won’t leave. If Elon Musk got 13.3% of his income has to be tens of billions of dollars. Why did, why wouldn’t you anticipate him leaving it, it doesn’t make sense to me that people would be surprised, but in your book, you do cite quite a bit of statistics. Studies on this Exodus from California. I think the we’ve had him on hub wonk, the economist from Stanford professor RA measured the inflection point when the tax was imposed a market Exodus of, of high net earners and their companies began to leave California. And what’s also interesting, I think is it’s not just the people who leave. It’s the people who decide not to go in the first place. People look at the tax rates and say, you know what given all things considered and how much it costs to live there, I’m gonna go to a different state. So,
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah, I, I, I think I heard an ad or I read an ad on the internet yesterday it was an ad from the fair share proponents. And it basically said they’re really wealthy. Don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And this would add a a tax of millionaires and the money would be spent on education transportation. That’s a very simple populist measure argument. And it’s very convincing to some people, but what I, what I think people have to begin to think about is what of the effects of doing this on a state like Massachusetts? Are we gonna get adversely affected? Like Connecticut did that the way California did? I think the, the answer is for very likely to end up with a very bad economic outcome for the state, if it happens
Joe Selvaggi:
Right. And I think, you know, people say, well, you know, a little pain is worth it. If we get better better education, better roads, but as you’ve pointed out in your book in California, they didn’t get better educational roads. They got 50% more state workers. That’s what they got for the money. Yeah. They, I don’t think anyone think we need more state workers <laugh> well,
Greg Sullivan:
I mean, in California after the, this was a, this was a really big tax increase like this being proposed here, and it was all was sold on the idea that gonna spend money in education in the end. They didn’t, they spent, I think it was one 10th of 1% more than the constitutional minimum. They never rose it never rose above that. So, and the money was spent on increased in public employee payroll, which, which was which was increased precipitously. And that’s, that’s one of the problems is that is that it’s sold as a sweetener vote for this, for education transportation, but it’s already been dis positively determined by a previous Supreme court case and statements made by the state attorney General’s office that the money doesn’t have to be spent on education, transportation legislature can e spend it, whatever it wants,
Joe Selvaggi:
Of course money is fungible. So if they wanna promise it goes to education, they simply reduce the old dollars by the same amount, they add the new dollars and thereby keep their promise. And not one new penny goes to education. Now we, we sort of touched on it briefly, but close to the top of the show. You mentioned that we’re labeling millionaires is those people who earn more than a million in a year, but you’ve mentioned only briefly, but go into it in depth in your book. People who make a million dollars in one year rarely make it more than once. Meaning it’s usually business owners who sell their business or homeowners who sell their business. People who’ve worked their whole lives, perhaps they’ve deferred income. Their business is their retirement and they get a one time and one time only payout that is very often and, you know, honestly to survive in retirement, one needs, if one’s selling a business more than a million dollars share with us what your book talks about is who are these quote unquote millionaires who will be swept up in this tax?
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah, I mean, going back in the history of the United States it used to be more than 70% of private sector. Employees had a pension plan that since, since that time, it shrunk closer to 10% public employees still have retirement plans, not, not private sector employees for people who have their own business, they started business to operate for 20, 30, 40 years. And that, that the sale of that business, the retirement is their nest egg. That’s why this is a, this and this tax applies to them. In words, there, we call them one time millionaires, more than 50% of the people who earn a million dollars do so only once two thirds, only twice or fewer. So these, these are this, this is, is a tax that is that masquerades as a tax line you know, millionaires driving around to limos wearing silk top hats, like the monopoly guy, but in the end, it’s the company down the street.
Greg Sullivan:
Who’s gonna auto garage. The guy ran for 40 years and he finally sells it. And they say, well, guess what, you’re a millionaire. He said, I did not know I was a millionaire. This is the only, this is my money that I saved up over 40 years and you’re gonna tax, you know, so the, the, the, you know, the proponents, what they should have done, and what many parties asked them to do was to put in some kind of a income averaging to prevent this one time millionaires. Also, they said, don’t tax your sale of your house. You know, so some houses are going for more than a million dollars. A lot of houses are going for more than a million. So why are you gonna count that that’s a one time event. So, but anyway, they threw the kitchen sink in and the tax applies to basically everything every kind of income that’s, that’s a problem.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah. That is a problem. And it just occurred to me when you were talking if you’re comparing it to a public pension, when one retires as a public pension, the value of that pension if you were to look at the payout over time would be valued in the millions, but there’s no, there’s no taxable event. They don’t actually sell. And then create that pension rather, they just receive the pension. Whereas the, the business owner was taking lifetime of risk. Must have a taxable event, must sell it in order to re realize a, sort of a pseudo pension, a nest egg that they can spend off in their old age. So one group tax and the other is ignored.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. I mean, I said earlier that the main proponents of this are public employees and in their unions, they, they, they’re the, they’re the driving force behind it. And when public employees retire in Massachusetts on a state pension they don’t have any income tax. It’s not there’s zero income tax. So, so the same people who are asking for this tax to go on is retirement tax on private sector. People who run their own business, the public employees who pay zero taxes, and now they want these other folks to pay among the highest taxes in, in America.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah, this is, I know the closer you look, the, the worse it gets now, there is, you know, there, you mentioned as some studies, you, you, you briefly brought it up earlier in our conversation that it’s the perception by many that, you know, we call this the fair share because the perception is that high earners are wealthier people don’t pay the same percentage or portion of their overall income in taxes. There’s been some studies and, and your book points to many of the flaws that say, look you know, if I’m making a million dollars every year my, my, the, the percentage of my money going to the government is smaller than the, the poor guy making relatively little $50,000 or $30,000. You know, he’s paying a huge amount of taxes. You’re, you’re your book goes into length and debunks the myth briefly, how would you say, why is it the fact that a flat tax isn’t indeed regressive?
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. Okay. Well, the, the, I think the strongest argument on that point is that top 10% of income earn in Massachusetts pay more in state taxes than the bottom 90%. Now that’s that’s statistic that we published. It’s based on IRS statistics of Massachusetts reporter reporting tax returns, the top 10% of people in the state for income pay more than the bottom 90%, they pay like 56% of the total, if you follow that. So when people say they’re not paying their fair share they, they, they pay 90%. If this passes they’re gonna pay 95%. So, I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s a myth that high income people don’t pay their fair share, Massachusetts, get a great thing. If you ask me, we, we have a 5% income tax rate. That’s a good rate. It’s advantageous to us. It attracts people to come here and build businesses and to stay here, as opposed to places like Connecticut or New York or California who want constantly wanna steal our businesses from us. So that’s a bad term, but they wanna poach our businesses from us and, and recruit businesses to their states. One of our advantages is a good place to be. It has a fair average tax rate in the country to selling point. And it’s a mistake in my opinion, to get rid of it.
Joe Selvaggi:
And indeed you mentioned in your book and we’re getting near the end of our time together that we that states at least themselves see themselves as laboratories, 50 different laboratories of democracy, and each has its own prerogatives to impose taxes on its citizens, but they’re all competing for the same, let’s say creative investment risk taking audience. They all want the job makers and the economic rainmakers to come to their state. Where are people in Massachusetts going? If, if, if they do leave for greener pasture, where are they likely to go? If you were to guess, if this is imposed, where we accept that they will leave, where will they go? And has that propensity to leave? The, I could think it what do economists call Footloose they’re more Footloose than the, the lower income people where will they go? And why do you think, you know, what, what will be their reasons?
Greg Sullivan:
Well, the, the relocation of people from Massachusetts historically, this, this is a subject that’s closely tracked by the federal government shows that we have been losing billions of dollars over adjusted, gross income to Florida, Florida, New Hampshire, Florida, New Hampshire represents 70% of our outflow of people taking their income to other states. So why Florida has low tax rates, no income tax. There’s no capital gains tax. There’s no estate tax and that’s a magnet, but there’s also the Sunbelt states and Texas North Carolina, California you know, the they’re here advertising pitching to take companies to come to their states. So it’s a, it’s a competition in Massachusetts to, to attract and retain businesses. People should remember that when, when they, when they vote on things like this, because, you know, Massachusetts used to be like the leader in manufacturing in the United States.
Greg Sullivan:
People don’t think that could be true, but if you look at Laurel Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford, Fall River, Springfield, all of our mill cities, one time we were the national leader, even, even going back recently to like 1970 we, we had a fairly good amount of manufacturing, but it has left manufacturing has left Massachusetts for the most part. And we’ve had to adjust by, by having innovation companies come in. That’s our job is to try to get companies doing a great job in, in Cambridge and Boston, with biotech, route 1 28 around our universities. We, you know, Northeastern BU Harvard, MIT, UFS, you know, we, we have, we have got an advantage to recruit companies, but why do you wanna boom, these people with a, with a nationally high very high tax rate. That’s not an invitation, it’s, it’s a, it’s a ushering them out the door.
Joe Selvaggi:
Yeah, indeed. And we have an endless wellspring of, of talented people coming to our schools. And then we, the fact that we’ve got an advantage, but then squandered that advantage by chasing ’em out with a a high tax rate, if, if they do become successful, I would imagine your, your book does talk a dedicate part of a chapter to the fact that now in this wake of co after COVID, and we’ve all learned how to telecommute you via zoom, we’re even more foots. We’re more inclined to live where we want and therefore take pay taxes where we want, I would imagine the competition among states becomes even greater knowing that one can really work from almost anywhere at this point.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. It’s, it’s been a real game changer. The, the, the shift to remote work it grew during COVID and it’s has legs is what we’re seeing of that. So when a company is deciding to whether or not to come to Massachusetts, we have a very high cost of living. We have a high cost of living compared to other areas in the country. That’s a disadvantage for location. But one advantage we do have is that the, is that the state of Massachusetts has been on a pro economic growth strategy since 1970 to reverse our reputation. And I think we’ve we’ve done a good job of, of of ending. And I think that this proposal within a one fell swoop will trigger us back to that that economic, adverse effect of very high taxes.
Joe Selvaggi:
It’s a shame. It seems perhaps every generation needs to learn again, the lessons of the past. I hope we can avoid putting our hand on the stove again and, and learn from other states’ mistakes instead of insisting on doing it ourselves. So we’re at the ti at the end of the time together. We certainly haven’t addressed all the issues in the book. It’s a wonderful book full of facts and figures, where can our listeners buy your book? So they can read it for themselves.
Greg Sullivan:
Amazon.com. Okay. And this is readily available.
Joe Selvaggi:
Wonderful. Wonderful. Yeah, I’m expecting Amazon will have it. It might not be at the Harvard bookstore just yet not it won’t be on that front front page there. Now also, I think you also have this should release before the event. If there’s still tickets left, Pioneer’s having a book release event coming up do you know the day or how our listers can buy tickets for that.
Greg Sullivan:
Yeah. That’s again to make a, to make a reservation for the event, go on www.Pioneerinstitute.org, and it’s very easy to do
Joe Selvaggi:
Wonderful. Well, they can go there for our Hubwonk podcast and also for your book and also to reserve their space for the book launch. So well done. Very good job, Greg. This book was a fun read, an easy read and a wonderful resource when our, let’s say our reachable, our persuadable middle voters when they’re going to that ballot, they’ll at least be armed with a good deal of information. Thank you very much for writing the book. And thanks again for joining me on Hubwonk once again. Thanks, Joe.
Joe Selvaggi:
This has been another episode of Hubwonk. If you enjoyed today’s episode, there are several ways to support the show. It would be easier for you and better for us. If you subscribe to hub wonk on your iTunes podcast, catcher, if you wanna make it easier for others to find Hubwonk, it would be great. If you offer a five star rating or a favorable review, we’re always grateful. If you want to share hub wonk with friends, if you have ideas or comments or suggestions for me, or future episode topics, you’re welcome to email me. Hubwonk@Pioneer institute.org. Please join me next week for a new episode of Hubwonk.
Recent Episodes