Glenden BrownVouchers for Glen?
I have a cousin who has 8 children, all 8 of whom attended public school. By contrast, I don’t have 8 children.
None of the 8 children I don’t have attended public school. According to Parent’s for Choice in education, every year one of the 8 children I don’t have wasn’t in public school, I saved the school system $5500. By my math, that means I’ve saved State of Utah $572,000. In light of that almost $600,000 in savings, I think I should qualify for $3000 per child voucher to cover the expense of not sending the 8 kids I don’t have to public school. The 8 kids I don’t have have collectively not attended 104 years of public school. A $3000 per child voucher per year comes up to $312,000. To whom should I submit my invoice for my vouchers? Please send my “vouchers” in the form of unmarked, $1o0 bills.
Come to think of it, I have a neighbor with 12 kids all of whom attended public school. I don’t have 12 children either. So maybe, I didn’t send 12 children to the public schools, and should receive vouchers to cover the cost of not sending 12 kids to the public schools. Heck, I could use $468,000 of tax payers money to cover the expense of not sending 12 kids to public school.
You know, actually, my parents know a family with 14 children and I don’t have 14 children . . .
September 24th, 2007 at 11:49 am
You are missing the point while making a good point at the same time.
As a taxpayer, you have to educate other people’s children since the state constitution obligates you and all other taxpayers. So the question is whether or not the voucher is a lower cost option to you and other taxpayers to educate other peoples’ children. If it is a lower cost option, then it makes sense for you to educate these children via vouchers. If it is not a lower cost option, then it doesn’t make sense.
A better way to address your concerns would be to change the tax code which currently subsidizes large families at the expense of small families.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Amusing take on this, but…
The question is not how much it costs to not educate students that don’t exist.
The question is whether it is cheaper to give out vouchers to some students.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Nice tries.
The question is: In what ways does it serve the common good to guarantee all children access to a quality, public education?
The question is: In what ways does a public, tax supported education system advance the common good and improve the lives of both individuals and society?
The question is: Why should tax dollars collected from citizens go to support sectarian religious education?
The question is: What reforms can make our public schools better serve all students with also robbing them of resources?
And: If some family with 8 kids can qualify for $24,000 a year in state assistance and call it a savings, why shouldn’t I, without 8 kids, qualify for $24,000 a year in state assistance and call it a savings?
September 24th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
So what was all the how- much- does- it- not- cost- to- not- educate- my- kids- that- don’t- exist stuff?
September 24th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Ethan - I was simply taking the pro-voucher arguments to the next logical step.
Voucher supporters claim there will be a savings to the school system for every child taken out of public schools. By that logic, if I never put a child into the school, then I’ve saved the school system money, haven’t I?
My taxes still support the school system, and if families whose children were in teh system and who are opting out receive a government benefit, shouldn’t I receive a similar benefit? Isn’t the next logical step beyond this to argue that if I have no children in the public school system, my taxes shouldn’t go to support the public schools? From there, isn’t the next statement a claim that public schools should be soleley supported by the families using them? And if the families are paying per student to attend, why not have 100% private schools and do away with public schools altogether?
September 24th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
But it’s not the next logical step because
You’re confusing paying taxes for public education
and
using taxes for public education.
It’s not a question of paying or not paying. It’s a question of where the money is spent.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Of course it’s the next logical step. In Utah, the general fund is constitutionally designated to pay for public school - our income taxes in Utah only pay for public education.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Then why doesn’t all the money make it to the schools?
Education funding is a political equation. It always has been.
I appreciate your ideological arguments against vouchers, but let’s not pretend there’s some sort of economic policy/ truth/ calculation
that prevents their existence.
Especially one based on the non education of inexistent children.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Actually Ethan, Utah’s legislature struggles every year to find ways to fund education (believe it or not!). Our income tax dollars go to education - every public school, not just K-12 - U of U, SLACC, UVSU and so on. Everything else the state pays for comes from other income sources, primarily sales tax, which is why removing sales tax on food has been such an issue.
There are a wide array of arguments against the economics of vouchers - not the least of which is the way in which they fail to help poor families and reward wealthier families. Voucher supporters can’t even agree on the math used to arrive at their mystical “savings to the educational system” (see Frank Stahelli’s blog for more about this).
Using PCE’s logic, there is absolutely an argument to be made that never putting children into the system saves education money. If removing a child from the system saves $5500/per year, then never putting a child into the system saves the same $5500 per year. Right? The child I never put in the system doesn’t cost the system the same amount as the child my neighbor removes from the system.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
My wife and I chose not to have any children, however I benefited from a public education system when I was younger and also attended two universities here in Utah. I’m not afraid to pay my fair share. What I am not willing to do is pay for rich people to send their kids to private schools.
It’s as if someone built his family a swimming pool in the backyard, and then demanded that he get a subsidy from the government because his kids weren’t swimming in the public pool anymore. That’s how dumb the voucher concept is.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Richard - I agree with you. I attended public schools up through grade 9, then private schools through college, but my doctor went to public school and public university so, I’ve benefitted. I don’t see why my neighbors should have been expected to pay for my education at Judge Memorial.
If you look at the organizations supporting vouchers you see many of the same people who object to teaching evolution. The stated goals of vouchers are NOT the actual goals of the movement that dreamt them up and supports them.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Glenden– Of course you’re right. The terms of the voucher debate often leave out the fact that Utah is being asked to be a laboratory for a national right-wing experiment– at our own expense! Not to mention the potential lawsuits over constitutionality. It’s not really about education funding if you consider who’s behind it.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I love the swimming pool analogy. It goes so much further. For example, if you offered to give each family who built a pool in their back yard $2,000 per year (to save the cost of operating so many public pools), the poor would still not be able to afford a pool in their own yards. And guess what, the public pools would still need lifeguards on every shift, the pools would still need the same amount of chlorine and maintenance, but there wouldn’t be the same amount of dollars to pay for the public pools because the rich and upper middle class would have been paid their pool subsidy, actually reducing the amount of money available for public pools. The only people who would benefit are people who could afford to put pools in their backyard anyway, and the people who had to go to public pools to swim would face the prospect of fewer pools, reduced operating hours, less maintenance, etc.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Mike - I like the swimming pool analogy - it’s a very clean image and the details make sense.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
The problem with your analogy Mike, is that someone is peeing and shitting in our public pools, and the lifeguards are generally unconcerned.
You can by a good kiddee pool for 60 bucks and still get wet, and learn to swim. Then of course there is swimming at the beach, lake, river, and natural experience. Learning by osmosis, so to speak.
If your society is defective then your public schools cannot be but much else.
Again our best kids are testing in 30th @#$%^&* place in international competency testing. So what we getting for our money?
Hey, if the private pools are in the neighborhood, what’s to keep a poor kid from being invited in? Not all people with a pool are against have poor kids enjoy it and learn to swim. Just no peeing in it. Why does it have to be a giant over chlorinated public cacophony? I’d as soon have more smaller pools as one centrally located big one, with standardized rules. Like, no running, no jumping, no diving, in the end it seems, no freedom, no learning.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
The big boys want vouchers and that’s what we’re going to have, even if it gets voted down.
This is Utah.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Voucher supporters love to say that they should be allowed to choose how their money is spent.
Well, once again, I’ve done the math and it just doesn’t add up. Very few voucher recipients will be getting back only their money. The average voucher amount is estimated to be $2000. A family of six with an income of $70000/year will qualify for a $2000 voucher per year per student. With four kids that amounts to $8000/year. If you take out $10000 of income for deductions, the family’s taxable income becomes $60000 and they will pay $3000 in State Income Tax. If they own a $250000 home, then they will pay approximately $750/year in property tax toward public education. $8000 less the $3750 leaves this family as a $4250 net drain on public edcuation funding.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Glenden,
Your argument that not having kids is a savings comparable to educating kids outside of public schools is false. If we, as a state are obligated to educate our children then not having children might be a savings of money, but it does not give the return of an educated adult that education provides. Those who take kids out of public school and educate them elsewhere reduce the cost on the public school system while still providing the societal benefit of an educated adult at the other end. Once you address both sides of the balance sheet then I’ll take your argument.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
David - My argument makes as much sense as anything produced by Parents for Choice in Education so . . .
However:
Asking about both sides of the ledger - interesting since the voucher program in Utah has only one side of the ledge completed. Private schools are not accountable to the state for how they spend taxpayer dollars. You could have a private school receiving voucher funds that teaches creationism rather than science, that the US Constitution establishes a Christian nation (a common and completely false lesson in Christian private schools) and the state has no way to guarantee that the outcome will actually be an educated adult. In Canada (according to an article I read a couple months back, I think in American Prospect) private schools receive taxpayer funds, like vouchers, but once they accept those funds they are legally required to teach the curriculum approved for the public schools. IOW, tax payer dollars come with strings attached. In Utah, no such strings exist.
I’m a graduate of Judge Memorial so I know the value private schools can add to a person’s life and I wouldn’t trade my Judge experience for anything. However, I think we should bring the virtues of the Judge experience to public schools. I would love to have been able to get the judge experience without driving 100 miles a day to get it (yes, I drove from round trip from Kamas to SLC for school). I would love to have been able to get a quality education without making that trip or my family incurring that expense. So why not find ways to bring the best aspects of a private school into the public schools?
September 24th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Don - I appreciate you running the numbers on this. The bigger picture of the overall tax revenue impact hasn’t been much discussed - as far as I’ve seen - and it’s good to see someone do that.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Net drain? Since when is educating children a net drain?
Nice numbers, Don. It’s about education, not money.
Frankly, 3000 is not enough. It should be more.
But at least its a start.
As long as there is even one poor kid for whom vouchers would represent his only shot at an education, then I am all for it.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Listen, what does no load Utah have the gall to talk about money they receive from the Federal government, that they in no way deserve? At the very least have some grace with the money you are GIVEN!! If people want to spend it on vouchers so we can perhaps get out of 30th @#$%^&* place who on Earth do you really think you are to inhibit such?
While I may have my personal desires on what a student curriculum should be, that isn’t up to me. It’s up to the parents, and then the schools they send their kids to. There is NO Federal jurisdiction of WHAT is taught in a school. Such expectation is arrogant and offensive. To each their own. The Constitution is not in the business of programming society, it sets the ground rules, and WE the People go from there.
What is being promoted as “public” is blatant social Fascism. Hello!! Ever wonder why the worst of the worst regimes in history begin as socialist, communistic, utopias? Dream on, you will bring the monsters straight to our doorstep. Perhaps you are they, or their useful idiots.
There are only 10 States pulling this wagon. Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Florida, Illinois, Texas, Michigan, California, Nevada, and Washington. 20 break even, 20 are NO LOADS! You all live in a NO LOAD state. Correspondingly, nobody has to really listen to you. That’s a good thing!
September 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
It would be nice Glendon, that every person that did not have a child, during child bearing years, receive a 8000 dollar a year subsidy, to bestow upon the Institute of Learning of their choice. What would you say to that? It would be a voucher system. If wanted to give it public education, you could.
Why is it only those with kids have a concern that involves expenditures of education monies?
You deserve it, as do all singles, and childless people, that currently pay for the education of others progeny.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Ethan,
I was commenting on one of the arguments used by pro-voucher people. Are you willing to dispute my analysis or are just going to change the subject?
I have a big problem with the pro-voucher crowd and their insistence that this will be a positive for public schools and a positive for taxpayers. Every time I delve into the numbers, the pro-voucher rhetoric just doesn’t add up.
I actually agree with you about the $3000. If we really want the voucher program to do what PCE and others say it will do, then the maximum voucher does need to be more. Of course, if this is really about educating children, then there’s no need to subsidize those who don’t need it, right? If this is really about educating children then we’ll increase funding to public schools regardless of any voucher subsidy to private school students. If this is really about educating chlidren then we’ll increase accountability measures for private voucher schools so that parents aren’t duped into throwing their (and our) money away on fly-by-night scams.
Of course, the more I delve into the numbers, the less I think this is about educating children and the more I think it’s about subsidizing those who already go to public schools and the more I think it’s about paving the way for the eventual destruction of and dismantling of the public education system altogether.
Show me some numbers that actually work for low income people and that actually work for public schools and then we can have a rational discussion. All the platitudes and talking points in the world aren’t going to change what the numbers are currently telling me.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Oh, and BTW Ethan, I was actually wrong in my analysis before. The family of 6 with a $70000 income will qualify for a $2500/student voucher (according to my voter information pamphlet that I just received in the mail today.) That means this family is actually draining $6250 dollars from the public school system.
Whatever happened to public education being a burden that we all share?
September 24th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Don, you can come up with whatever numbers you want, but for me
I would spend any amount to catch up those kids falling through the net.
I think the argument that this would cost schools too much is obscene.
How much is too much to give a child a future?
You know those kids are out there. Why should they remain just one of the kids that fails school?
September 24th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Glenn,
If vouchers pass, I think it would only be fair to implement a system where every taxpayer who doesn’t have K-12 age children gets a “voucher” equal to the average private tuition voucher. This voucher could be donated to any K-12 public school or voucher eligible K-12 private school of their choice.
IIRC, a similar provision was actually a part of the previous Tuition Tax Credit plans that Utah has tried to pass. The tax credit was available to any individual or even a corporation who provided tuition assistance to an eligible private school student.
If vouchers pass I think it would be fair to give those parents whose children remain in public schools a voucher for each child equal to the average private tuition voucher amount to donate to the schools their children attend. What’s good for the goose . . .
September 24th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Ethan,
Show me how this plan helps “those kids”. Stop talking in platitudes and give me some solid information about how it will actually do what you think it will do. I’m telling you, I don’t think it will help “those kids” and in fact it will probably hurt them.
All the money in the world isn’t available to us Ethan. When it boils right down to it, we have a Legislature that isn’t willing to fully fund public education. If you really want to help “those kids” start voting for Legislators that will increase funding for special education programs. Giving private tuition vouchers to those who don’t need it is not a solution for helping “those kids”.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
So Don, when a poor Hispanic kid whose parents don’t speak English gets 3,000 bucks to get an education
You’ll run right out and publicly declare your spite.
Perhaps you could form a picket line around his new school. After all, he needs to know that private schools are only for rich people.
He needs to remember his place.
Nice job.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
You want a plan Don?
How about three thousand bucks in their pocket, Don…
Want to count it with me?
one… two… three… four…
September 24th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Plus if you’re so sure the Legislature is neglecting public education
why are you so quick to offer a Legislative solution to the kids’ education problems?
These are real kids, Don.
I’m talking $3000 today. Right now.
You’re talking about a solution that could take years IF it even is ever considered at all.
What about all those kids waiting around for another empty promise.
I’d rather put cash in their hands.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
No argument from me Don on vouchers,other than they should be at least 8 grand per kid. Since Utah is no load state and won’t pay anyway, why not go BIG?
If you are expecting a good education for your kids, and you do not speak English, say what the hell? You are LAZY, and expectant. How do expect to know what your English kids are learning, nobody is going to do it for you! Christ on the Cross already, what do parents that won’t improve themselves expect from strangers?
September 24th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Okay Ethan,
Where exactly are they going to spend that $3000? Keep in mind, they probalby don’t have any extra money laying around to pay for tuition above and beyond the $3000. Also, they probably can’t afford to go too far from home and they might be counting on their child eating while at school.
Show me where the $3000 dollars works for this child Ethan. Stop being an ass and start dealing in reality. If you can convince me that $3000 is going to help “those kids” while also helping taxpayers, then you might get yourself a vote.
As it stands, I don’t think this voucher law will do anything to help the lowest income kids and it will do way too much to “help” those who don’t need it. This law is horrible public policy. I don’t know who crafted this law, but I’d be ashamed to be a fiscal conservative that supports this law. And I, being a liberal Democrat who believes in the power of government to do good, but who has a mean streak of fiscal rationality and conservativeness in him, surely would be ashamed to support such a poor piece of legislation. It doesn’t do what its supporters say it does. Strike it down and start over. Craft a law that truly helps low income kids and doesn’t waste money on those who don’t need it and you just might find some support from people like me.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Don, don’t you dare set limits on what these people are willing to do for their children.
I grew up poor. Not lower middle class. Dirt fucking poor.
My parents sent us to a better school and guess what?
We gave up Christmas and birthdays for it. We also gave up new clothes, cars, and sometimes the power in our house and our phone.
Fuck you, Don. You don’t know what people are willing to do for their children.
Call it a pittance if you want,
but give them the dignity of choosing for themselves whether or not it’s too much money.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Blah blah blah Ethan, still no facts, just a bunch of bleeding-heart platitudes. You fail to acknowledge that I want to give them even more money.
You can’t stand to argue the points of this bill so you resort to tired old cliches and now your offending the people who want to help your cause. Good job Ethan, you’re a true advocate . . .
September 24th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Wait, are you saying you would support vouchers of amounts higher than $3000?
Because I would support that.
Especially if they limited it to poor kids.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I said it in my very first response to you Ethan. If you tone down the emotion and start reading my posts, you might just find you have an advocate for the poor in me.
I am not philosophically against vouchers. I would support a program that had a larger maximum voucher, let’s say we index at 90% of the per pupil amount spent on public education. I want to see much more progressivity built into the system so that the voucher is phased out at a relatively low income level (something around $75000 for a family of four sounds about right to me.) I want to see more accountability measure built into the law so that parents don’t get duped into giving their money to hucksters who aren’t really helping their kids.
What do you think?
September 24th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Don, I owe you an apology. I’m very used to getting trashed on the voucher thing, so I have a hair trigger. You’re right, I need to tone it down a bit.
I agree with you. One of the problems I have with the bill is that it’s not exclusive to poorer families and a tremendous burden can still remain on them to make up the difference.
I also see your point about hucksters.
For me these are not deal breakers because I feel like it’s easier to get a voucher law in place and modify it later.
I’m worried that if the law dies in November, no voucher plan will ever see the light of day for years.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Thanks Ethan.
I’d agree that if this law is voted down, it may be a while before another one gets through the House.
But that doesn’t preclude good people from implementing other measures that would truly help poor families who need an option besides public school. I have previously mentioned implementing a government sponsored scholarship (a real scholarship) that families would have to apply for individually. It would be something along the lines of a government sponsored “Children First Utah”.
If we gave actual scholarships based on need and covered full tuition and extras (uniforms, fees, lunches, even transportation costs) then I think we could truly help people.
If we further agreed to funnel some money back to the actual school district where each scholarship recipient resides, then public ed. could come out ahead as well.
Now, I don’t think there is any way this isn’t going to cost taxpayers some big money. But like I said, I’m willing to spend money on sound public policy.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I should have said in my previous post, “covered full tuition at approved private schools“. The scholarship would not cover full tuition at expensive schools such as Waterford.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“It’s All About the Union Stupid”
As we draw closer to a vote in November of school vouchers here in Utah, it’s becoming increasingly clear that this fight has nothing to do with the education of our children, but rather the desperate concern of the teachers Union to maintain a monopoly over education dollars.
http://www.neamb.com/
Here is another report on how teachers are treating parents who question the Teachers Union’s position on Referendum 1.
Vanocur from ABC news has a woman on camera claiming she went in for Parent-Teacher Conference and was asked to donate to Utahns for Public Schools. When she refused and said she supports vouchers, the teacher became hostile. The responses from Utahns for Public Schools, the UEA and SL School District are hilarious.
http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=fa5084ec-90ce-4ee9-908e-9bd0e7a0221a
(ABC 4 News)
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - Is the political battle over school vouchers in Utah starting to interfere with your child’s education? Well, that’s what one Utah parent is wondering after - according to her - she was asked for an anti-voucher contribution during a recent parent teacher conference. On November 6th, Utah voters will be asked to vote for or against a new voucher plan. That plan would provide up to 3 thousand dollars of state money for parents who want to send children to private school. But now one parent claims those against Referendum One may be crossing a line. Here’s what she says happened when she went to a parent teacher conference last week. The parent claims, “We went through about ten minutes of the conference and then she handed me an envelope and asked me if I was interested in donating money to the fund against the voucher system.” The parent also says she was stunned when asked to contribute money during the parent teacher conference and then when she refused, says a heated exchange took place. “When I said no I’m not interested, I support the vouchers, she continued to go on and tell me why I was wrong,” says the parent.
The State Board of Education has made it clear that fund-raising while on duty is not allowed.
And the anti-voucher group, Utahns for Public Schools, emailed ABC 4 this response: “Our campaign does not comment on anonymous reports. However, it is interesting to note that the claims of this anonymous source would never see the light of day in an unaccountable private voucher school because they aren’t held to the same high standards as public schools.”
As for the Salt Lake School district and the UEA, they say a teacher at the school was fanning herself with the anti-voucher materials during a parent teacher conference, and when a parent asked what they were, the district and the UEA claim the teacher then jokingly asked for a contribution.
And after we learned of their comments, ABC 4 checked back with the parent who made the original claim.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:21 am
This is a desperate effort to stick Utah with a school voucher system that has been rejected everywhere else. Part of a hidden agenda for scrapping the public education system. The long-term goal is to make all schooling an activity supplied by private sources: for-profit management companies, religious organizations and home schools.
People for the American Way has a report on this.
We’ve seen how the right wing has gone about privatizing our military (more civilian contractors than soldiers in Iraq), our public lands (oil & gas leasing, logging in roadless areas), and our health care system (legislation benefiting insurance and pharmaceutical companies). Bush even wanted to privatize Social Security. Vouchers are another front in the privatization wars.
I’m all for private enterprise, but our taxes should go to public entities only!
September 25th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Jason - you may want to consider how attacking the teacher’s union really has nothing to do with the issue and is really a diversion, a tactic to distract people. The teacher’s union is hardly a sinister organization. I also like the way in which the institutional dishonesty of groups like PCE is magically transformed into the equivalent of one teacher out of thousands doing something stupid. This is the same sort of moronic equivalency that people draw between the Bush administration’s killing several hundred thousand Iraqis and Bill Clinton getting a blowjob.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
If I have 8 kids, then those kids pay into Social Security.
If you don’t have 8 kids, then they aren’t paying for your Social Security.
So you shouldn’t get any.
Just a thought.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:24 am
I have zero kids but I pay the same property tax as you. So I am paying more for your kids education than you are.
Just a thought.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Well, sweet. If we take this, “I don’t have kids” thing to its logical conclusion, then you won’t have to pay for education, but then you won’t get social security. Or Medicare either. We’d all likely get left out of a whole host of things. Which is why this exercise, while fun, is pointless.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Cameron - that is precisely my point.
Public education is a common good, as is caring for the elderly and the sick, as are safe roads, clean drinking water, breathable air . . . you get the point.
Vouchers are an attack on that common good - they are an attempt to privatize public education, to reduce support for public schools and, not unimportant, to allow conservatives to control educational content.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Jason,
I have proof that the woman who stated (anonymously) that she was hit up for a donation was a plant.
I know who she is, and the fact is PCE is behind it.
Watch for more from this shady group called PCE.
Great post Glen! I saw it on Amicus. You have just found a new fan.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Glenden: Your 9:25am post hits the nail squarely. Nice.