I wasn't aware that Hugh Hefner published child pornography? This guy wasn't arrested for looking at a 24 year old grown adult in a nude centerfold! By your logic, we should blame the automobile industry for drunk driving.

I like the trimester idea, but the question still remains, how to pay for it. Sen. Stevenson is simply dancing around the main issue, which is that there isn't enough money to pay for it, no matter how many ways you slice up the school year. We have too many kids to educate, and not enough money PER KID to do it. And of course we have to raise more money or CUT. And how do we raise more money - we tax, in one way shape or form, we tax - either your property, your groceries, your utilities, your gasoline, your dog, or your income. The only thing we haven't tried yet, is a head tax - by making those who have 3 or more students in the system at one time, pay more, since they USE more of those system resources. Now, you can implement a head tax as part of an overall state income tax reform, which lowers or eliminates dependent deductions above a certain level, OR you can implement it on a yearly - pay as you go approach - with registration fees that increase proportionally the more children you register. The problem is not year round school vs. trimester vs. dropping the 12th grade, vs. curtailing bus routes - those solutions are not going to work in the long term. We don't have ENOUGH MONEY IN THE SYSTEM TO PAY FOR ALL THESE KIDS, because too may people have more than they can really afford to support - if they actually had to pay their fair/equal share of those costs. A Head Tax, along with state-wide equalization would provide a much better long term solution to this problem. The more children you have, the more you pay - and that's how it should be, not ONLY in grocery consumption and dance class fees, but in ALL expenses, including income taxes.

Hey... since ALL solutions seem to be on the table, we should also look at the Head Tax issue. Forcing those who use more of the resources, pay a higher percentage of the costs - in conjunction with equalization and other measures, would go a long way to providing better funding in our schools. Since most of our education funding comes from state income tax, and since most families with 3 or more children pay much less or nothing at all in state income taxes, as compared with those with 2 or less, and since the average family size in Utah is larger than the national average, what we have is a very UNBALANCE and (in my opinion, unfair) state income tax system that rewards the largest families who utilize the most in education resources, but ask THEM to pay little or even nothing of those costs. Now, I've heard all the contrary responses to this idea - that these larger families contributed in other way - they spend more on groceries and they spend more in fuel taxes and other sales taxes, etc., but the REALITY is that all those other taxes are NOT primary funding sources for the schools - only fractional percentages of the sales tax go to schools, etc. The overwhelming majority of all school funding in Utah comes from state income tax, of which 100% (by law) must go to the schools. So if you're not paying your fair share of state income tax, you're not paying your fair share of the education costs for your kids. We need to put the HEAD TAX back on the table in this funding debate.

Who said the program had to be free to be effective. A discounted cab ride or tow home is all the incentive most people need. If its free, all the better. I agree with Todd... proactive beats reactive every time. Be Safe!!

I don't know if KSL will allow me to post this link or not, but after reading this story, this is perfect: http://wilstar.com/midi/bugsmaroon.wav

m&ms - if you think the objective of this program is to allow the power company to "cut back on power" - you're very much mistaken. They're not going to cut production by even 1 kwh. What they ARE going to do, is turn around and sell that power we're saving, to markets in SoCal, where they can charge MORE for that power than the MAXIMUM they're allowed to charge us for that same power. Let's not forget that the public service commission has established and regulates the rates, even for Mr_neo's summer excesses, and the fact is that RMP can make more money selling that peak demand power to other states than it can selling it to us. If you think this is a "conservation effort" you're out of your big green tree!