[Austin Willard Wright]

Your argument that he who pays the piper, calls the tune is persuasive but your example is that of a government subsidy to providers (namely state governments), not to the consumers (namely parents) as would be case under vouchers. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you but you have yet to provide a strong counterargument to this specific point as I outlined in my two previous posts.

[concerned about politics]

Your argument that he who pays the piper, calls the tune

The parents.

[Twodees]

Enough with the food stamp argument. A voucher system designed and approved by politicians is so unlikely to be anything like what you're describing as to be laughable.

There is simply no way in hell that any politician is going to relinquish a dime he's extorted without gaining more control in return. Do you envision vouchers as a simple break in taxes in the amount paid by a parent in tuition? Do you envision it as a food stamp redeemable at any private school in the range of travel of a family?

What is almost a dead certainty is that politicians envision vouchers as a food stamp redeemable only where they say in advance. Politicians will see to it that any private school accepting vouchers as payment for tuition will be subject to every lunatic union regulation and court ruling that public schools are subject to.

Surely you don't think that politicians have all suddenly become saints, or even normal human beings, do you?