Why is every liberal proposal touted that it will help the economy, while at the same time flat out ignoring real ideas that will actually, you know help the economy? I know, this is a rhetorical question.

Case and point, the Michigan State Board of Education and their latest liberal fantasy proposal (emphasis added):

Everything the SBE heard from economists, policy analysts, and stakeholders suggests consensus that:

• Education is the most reliable path to state economic prosperity;

• Education is the way to provide equal economic opportunity; and

• Our current budget priorities and fiscal crisis are weakening Michigan’s commitment to education and long-term economic prospects.

There is broad agreement that the top priority for Michigan is growing the state’s economy. Nothing else is close. It is clear that, by far, the most reliable path to prosperity for each of us, our children and grandchildren, and the state is education attainment.

And what are some of the goals of this new proposal (emphasis added)?

The SBE believes that the basic elements of an effective Michigan education system should be:

• Universal access to quality early childhood programming for all four year old children and universal high quality kindergarten.
• Support for a level of K-12 services (class-sizes, qualified teachers, etc.) comparable to those in place for the 2008-2009 school year.
• Comparable learning infrastructure (physical and virtual) for all students.
• Support to allow all citizens to achieve a level of post-secondary education at a new minimum threshold1.
• Support for higher education institutions at least comparable to peer states, given higher education’s role in economic growth and education opportunity.

The goal is to push four year old kids into pre-kindergarten.

Grab hold of your wallet, the Michigan Stated Board of Education plans to pay for all this with an array of  tax increases:

A few things to note. The proposal calls for taxation of  private pensions and not public pension plans.

Furthermore, what exactly does “Allow local units to increase millages if a share of revenues was used to underwrite general fund or statewide education needs” mean? Does this mean a local school district can raise millages if they send money from their district to the state? It stands to reason, that a district that does this, is by definition a wealthy district. In a wealthy district, it would stand to reason, have wealthier citizens who would be paying even higher taxes under this plan.

What about an alternative?

If the goal is improving the states economy, how about making the state a great place to live and do business? Imagine if the state had a strong voucher system, where parents can sent their children to a school of their own choice. A move like this would would make Michigan a destination state for young families and would be a step in the right direction in stopping the population loss that is killing our economy.

Here is some food for thought: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Paul Allen, Andrew Jackson, George Washington, John Wayne, Mark Zukerberg (billionaire Facebook Founder), Richard Schulze (billionaire founder of Best Buy), Richard DeVos ( billionaire co-founder of Amway), Thomas Edison, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry Ford, Henry Ford II, Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain, Dave Thomas (Founder of Wendy’s) are all college drop outs,  never attended college, and in some cases, received very little formal education.