Posted on 07/06/2004 12:13:55 PM PDT by hsmomx3
It is said that Social Security and Medicare are the third-rail of politics. If you dare mess with the entitlements, AARP will electrocute you on the third rail and then tell grandma and grandpa to drive the train back and forth over your body for fun.
But there is another entitlement that is even more entrenched than Social Security and Medicare. If you have the temerity to even suggest that it is an entitlement, its beneficiaries will torture you before throwing you on the third rail.
What entitlement am I referring to? Public education. And who are the people most likely to become hysterical when their government-granted "right" is questioned? Republican women. I know, because I have been on the receiving end of their temper tantrums.
For example, in a recent Arizona Republic column, I said that local parents in a predominately Republican, upper-income part of town were like greedy pigs at the public teat for squealing about the local school district denying their request to build an unnecessary high school in their housing development at a cost of tens of millions of dollars.
Given my history of being a leader in equal rights for women and being married to a professional woman who is a rational thinker, I don't like to say this, but the sorry fact is that women responded to my article with emotional outbursts, while men responded with reasoned arguments. Sadly, this has been the case whenever I've written about public education.
For example, one mom sent a nastygram and said, "My children deserve a high school in their neighborhood, and I think you're a jerk for trying to stop it." Another said, "We are not loaded and want our child to attend public school, not as a privilege but as a right." She went on to say that she "won't walk away from making sure that all of our kids have a right to a free and appropriate education!!!"
Neither women offered a logical argument for spending taxpayer money on an unnecessary high school. They simply squawked as mindlessly as mother blue jays looking for more bugs for baby blue jay.
Dads, on the other hand, were open to having an intelligent debate about the facts of the matter, about whether public education is still providing a public good and about different funding mechanisms. One wrote, "Vouchers would allow rich and poor students to attend the school of their choice instead of being told by the school board what school they can attend."
If he knows what's good for him, the dad won't say that in front of mother blue jay. Squawk! Peck, peck!
In previous articles, I have raised a fairness issue of parochial parents having to pay double for education, once in public school taxes and once in private tuition, in order to exercise their right of religious freedom. I suggested that a fairer system would be for them to receive a tax credit equal to what they pay in public school taxes for each of the 12 years that their children are in private school. Since the average household in my home state of Arizona pays approximately $190,000 in public ed taxes over the adult lives of the heads of the household, the credit would be about $45,000, thus leaving a balance of $145,000 for public schools.
Squawk, squawk, squawk. For suggesting that private school parents keep $45,000 of their own money while letting public school parents take $145,000 of it, I was attacked by flocks of screeching blue jays, as if I were a cat trying to get into their nest and eat their offspring for lunch. One squawked, "You're mean-spirited and selfish!" Another peeped sorrowfully about her lot in life: "You don't care that I have bills to pay and have to drive a minivan instead of a nice SUV." Still another made a birdbrained remark that no one forces parochial school parents to send their kids to private school, apparently not realizing that they are forced to pay public school taxes, although their kids don't attend public school.
Over the years, I have learned how to stop the mommy blue jays from pecking at me. I say, "Okay, your arguments are so compelling and intelligent, that I'll drop the tax credit idea if you send a thank-you card to me or another private school parent for giving you tens of thousands of dollars." It's like asking Medicare recipients to please send a thank-you card to my son or other another kid for picking up the multi-trillion-dollar tab for their medicine and medical care that will be imposed on future generations by our benevolent and munificent government.
I never hear from the blue jays again. My request doesn't change their entitlement mentality, but at least it stops their mindless squawking. ___________
Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT). He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
Well, if you think the funding for public education is greater than the funding for Social Security, you are grossly misinformed.
Secondly, I can beef about ending Social Security entitlements: I will be cutting my own entitlements. I don't know about you, but most of the people I have heard talking about cutting off education funding received their benefits already. (Granted, there are homeschoolers and private schooled, but for some reason they don't seem to be among those agitating for ending public school funding.
Thirdly, Most public schools are funded from state and local governments, and, except in certain states, they are discretionary spending. The federal governmnent has (wrongfully) spent considerable sums on education since the Eisenhower administration set up the National Science Foundation. This is also discretionary funding.
Unemployment (also a state issue), Social Security and Medicare are "entitlements" becuase the recipient has paid money to be guaranteed he will receive these benefits should be need them. If you buy a contract with AOL to receive internet access for the next fifty years for a single, low payment of $5.99, it doesn't matter that the value of what you receive is far greater than $5.99; AOL still is required to provide that service. Likewise, it doesn't matter that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme which cannot fund itself and will need massive taxpayer bailouts in the future; those who have paid into it are legally *entitled* to receive their Social Security checks.
Then again, 150 years ago I was legally entitled to any slaves I owned. The government that giveth can most certainly taketh away.
So where is their contract that proves this? If there isn't one then they are not legally entitled to it and no, projected benefits statements are not a contract. If congress were to eliminate SS tomorrow the people would have a legal right to absolutely nothing.
>> If congress were to eliminate SS tomorrow the people would have a legal right to absolutely nothing.<<
I believe that while discretionary spending has to be re-appropriated each year, Social Security does not. Congress would have to change the law to prevent the checks from being printed. But of course Congress can change any statute.
That's great. Now how about those of us that don't have kids at all? Where's our check?!
One of the problems with pubic schools is that there are not enough alternatives. I believe that public schools are a necessity. But not all children are suited for them. They tend to favor gregarious, outspoken children. I've heard too many stories of parents sending their shy, scared, & unwilling kids into a situation they are not yet suited for, and their instincts tell them they shouldn't, but they're convinced that it will benefit the children in the long run, only to find otherwise later on. But for too many people, educating children means attending public schools or no education at all. Only the wealthy have alternatives, and everyone else should have them too. There used to be vocational high schools, which prepared their students for a specific trade? What happened to those? Let the public schools have competition.
"One of the problems with pubic schools is that there are not enough alternatives."
The real problem is the government has no business in the education business. Government schools have no place in a free society. The idea that bureaucrats should educate children is no different than the idea that bureaucrats should provide healthcare.
The government school is the first socialist program most people encounter in life. We have a society that embraces government schools for the same reason we have an underclass that embraces government housing, food stamps, medical care etc. They grew up on the government dole so they believe it is the right thing to do and their right just because they want the service.
Never mind that they are forcibly extorting money from others to pay for something that is their responsibility to provide for themselves and their families, they are used to getting it. It’s just like the 4 and 5 generations in the projects or on the welfare rolls.
If you want to have some fun tell a teacher in a government school that he is a bureaucrat. Most are so lacking in their own education they don’t know they are bureaucrats. When you pull out a dictionary and show them that that’s what they are some argue that the dictionary is wrong. LOL
Put your children in free market schools. Vote against every school budget and bond issue. Ask your friends why they are turning their children over to bureaucrats to be educated and why they support a socialist system. Most people don’t even know that’s what they are doing.
"Put your children in free market schools"
That's a good idea, for those who have high incomes. I know that your post has merit. If I were a wealthy parent, that's what I'd do. But most people can't afford such an option, be it private academy or parichial school. That's one of the main purposes of the public schools, education for those who otherwise couldn't afford it. I'm not saying they're doing a spectacular job of it, but it has to be done by someone.
That's the argument people in the projects use for staying there and the people on food stamps use for staying on that socialist program.
You manage to get the money for doctors, cloths, food, and housing, etc., without a government handout. You could get a free market education for your kids too.
I did it. I worked two jobs for 9 years and we lived in a small house in a not so great neighborhood to keep our kids in a free market school. It is all a matter of priorities and just refusing to take their welfare.
If most people pulled out of the government schools, the cost of free market schools would tumble. Just like there are more Wall-Marts than Neiman Marcus stores. There would be schools that every one who wanted to could afford.
The point is, you would go to great lengths before taking food stamps or a welfare check. Putting your kids in government school is no different. If you put your kids in government schools, you are on welfare, just like the people in the projects or on food stamps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.