VOUCHERS: THE PARENT TRAP

TORCH, TEXAS EAGLE FORUM | MARCH 1999 | CATHY ADANS

[mafree]

Vouchers aren't really a "tax break"- they're more like a free coupon that has a specific use. Some of the families getting them do pay income taxes but others don't. They all pay other kinds of taxes though.

[Trailerpark Badass]

So long as these vouchers remain in the hands of the poor, low income, disabled, or for failing schools only, then, your claim is a tougher sell

Hardly, since those recipients are precisely the ones, through their advocates, who would oppose the creation of tax credits for private secondary education.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Vouchers aren't really a "tax break"- they're more like a free coupon that has a specific use.

Vouchers are government payments; no more, no less.

[rdb3]

RD, how is this a win for "our side"?

Think about it for a second. This decision was a MAJOR loss for the NEA and all of its minions. Also, it was a victory for those who know that their children are not getting a real education. Remember, over 65% of inner-city American black parents supported school choice initiatives while the Democrat legislators did not support the wishes of their own constituents. This is what I mean when I say that political understanding on our side is woefully inept. If we cannot see that this is an opening large enough to drive ten Mack 18-wheelers through, then we are hopeless. But no! Listening to some around here, let's just throw away this political win before we can even begin to use it.

I'm unapologetic when I say that this is absolutely STUPID on our part. We must learn to do better.

Our goal when we voted for Reagan and later for the republican overthrow in Congress was to abolish the federal Department of Education, not to chip away at the iron fist of control over our kids' futures with a shell game like this voucher idea.

Okay. But did you get it? Nope. I agree with the goal of the complete dismantling of the Department of Education because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't provide for education of any kind for any person or persons. In fact, I'm in line with Milton Friedman in that I want to abolish compulsory education altogether. But such radical and wide-sweeping initiatives are difficult if not impossible to accomplish. So, the next best thing is to secure a victory and build from there.

For whatever reason, our side doesn't want "the next best thing." We want all or nothing, and more often than not, we end up with exactly nothing.

A giant win for our side would be to get the dismantling of the DoEd back into the national discourse again.

Yeah, it would be. But we don't have that today, do we? So what are we to do? Work with what we have, that's what.

If you want vouchers in your county, get to work and get the provision adopted.

I'm aiming at a much larger target. This solution is nothing. And you just mentioned something about "too little, too late." You saying that vouchers are "a total pig in the poke" reveals political misunderstanding, and nothing else.

Congress critters don't want this to be addressed at the level of county property taxes because it will leave out everyone who is currently freeloading anyway.

That's an understated slant, but it didn't go over my head. Whatever. If this is "freeloading," how many millions of others have "freeloaded" then? I see terms such as "welfare" and "freeloading" within this subject. I wonder why...

The educational system we have now has been in place for years and years and years. When it came down to the state of the awful education that public schools were giving, especially to our inner-city areas, deserved mockery and disdain were given by our side. It was, and is, terrible. But now that the education issue is addressed where it can actually help push us toward what we truly want (and poorer blacks are the initial beneficiaries), the term "welfare" is thrown about. Question: If going to school before was not described so openly as "welfare," then how the hell is it "welfare" now? I wish we'd make up our minds.

That's how it should be: if you pay property taxes, you can get relief of those taxes in proportion to how much tuition you pay a private school or in proportion to how much county property tax is spent per student in the county schools. that this is not what is being discussed by the politicians should tell you something. It should tell you that they have another welfare scam in mind.

Is this what we have now? No. Can this be initiated tomorrow. No. So your point is... what? It amazes me that you fail to see that this is the first serious step towards this goal. But you don't want it. I'll take it, however. And the reason why I'll take it is that the sooner kids get a quality education, the sooner they'll realize that the world is not how they've been taught previously to view it. Moving away from the Leftist indoctrination that our children receive is a more than worthy goal in my book. And lastly, it's just the start. We must start somewhere. If what our politicos are not saying should tell me something, the amount of wailing coming from the NEA and Democrats should tell you something.

[swampfox98]

Courts have broadened government control over private schools that take government funds.

It depends upon who is the president at the time. As long as the Republicans are in I don't think private schools have anything to worry about. However, Democrats are to be feared. They will take over private schools since they want to introduce their leftist propaganda to every child in America.

[rdb3]

Vouchers are government payments; no more, no less.

Then what was the money given per pupil to the schooling system before?

[Austin Willard Wright]

You are talking to someone who is an ally....though not 100 percent convinced. I am very suspicious of vouchers and am imclined to oppose them for the reasons you give.

Having said that, *all* of your arguments *at least in theory* would apply equally to foodstamps yet the logical conclusion you make (e.g. government will take control of producers) did not happen in that case. For this reason, this apparent pitfall in the anti-voucher argument deserves to be taken seriously. It also deserve an explanation by opponents of vouchers....especially since serious voucher advocates, such as Friedman, make this comparison and draw conclusions from it.

[rdb3]

Hardly, since those recipients are precisely the ones, through their advocates, who would oppose the creation of tax credits for private secondary education.

Even more political naivete. Remember, their "advocates" didn't want vouchers in the first place. Think a little, please. It's not hard to see how your words here will fall flat on their face.

[summer]

You lost me on that one, because those people and their usual advocates are parting ways over vouchers.

[Twodees]

My point exactly. The complaint of people who are opposed to what is being done to local public schools by the federal bureaucracy is that we are paying twice for schools, through property taxes and income taxes and we're also having to pay for our children to get an education since education isn't available through the public schools we're helping to pay for.

Now, as a diversion from our goal of dismantling an unconstitutional and overbearing, wasteful federal department, we have spineless "conservative" politicians wanting us to agree to a new welfare program which will also have the effect of forcing our private schools to accept the little gangsters we're keeping our kids away from by sending them to a private school.

Sure, conservatives who are already sacrificing so their kids don't have to be in public schools should climb aboard the bandwagon of this new welfare deal so we can get a public school education for our kids at private school prices.

There's simply no benefit in this for anyone who has worked to reap a benefit. I won't vote for more welfare. Sorry.

[Twodees]

RD, we're getting worse than nothing of we fall for this liberal, touchy-feely voucher welfare scam. Who says we can't dismantle the DoEd? Why can't we? Conservatives outnumber liberals by a wide margin, as we saw in both of Reagan's campaigns and in the '94 congressional elections.

The department could be gone this time next year if we stood together and demanded it. Instead we're expected to listen to the liberal GOP strategists and "conservative" pundits on TV and keep letting the liberals have their way when they don't have anywhere near the power we have. We have the US Constitution behind us. What do they have? The news media.

Nobody has presented a single thing to show that vouchers will provide any choice for most families. Vouchers are welfare. That's all they are. What vouchers will give us is the gangster kids of welfare witches in the classrooms of our private schools. Once something like that becomes a federal program, then the welfare sucking leisure class has a "right" to it from then on.

Show me where I'm wrong.

[rdb3]

RD, we're getting worse than nothing of we fall for this liberal, touchy-feely voucher welfare scam.

Thanks for proving my point, Twodees. I appreciate it.

[Twodees]

Where the comparison of vouchers to food stamps breaks down is in the fact that the retail gorcery trade is not a government monopoly and isn't controlled top to bottom by a federally protected union.

Grocery stores are selling goods while private schools are selling a service. There are huge differences between a market for consumable and perishable goods and a market for an intangible service.

Education is well established (though in defiance of our Constitution where federal control is concerned) as an area for government control and private schools are a rather fragile exception, serving a rather small, specialized market. For private education to become the larger part of the education industry, it would have to be uninhibited by government control. Government controlled industries are inefficient and prone to failure.

If vouchers are introduced into the current private school industry, private schools will have to expand to fill the new demand. If the demand isn't limited by the ability of the students' families to pay, growth of the private school sector will need to be very fast and the demand for qualified teachers will skyrocket.

How will politicians behave when such a vast opportunity for expansion of their powers opens up for them? I think we both know the answer to that question.

[Twodees]

Great, you're back to being your usual snide smart-aleck self. Fall for liberal schemes if you don't know any better but don't try to pretend you're smarter just because you watch more TV.

[rdb3]

Thank you. Deo Vendice.

[mafree]

Vouchers aren't really a "tax break"- they're more like a free coupon that has a specific use.

Vouchers are government payments; no more, no less.

Of course they are since they come right from the state department of public instruction to the parent and the school(at least in my state.) They still aren't a break on taxes or anything like that since they aren't based on taxes paid and the recipient doesn't count the voucher as income. That's the point I was really making.

[mafree]

I also wish there were no federal department of education and I'm even open to abolishing compulsory education, with limited publicly-funded instruction available for those who would want it. I'm willing to allow that out of concern for the children out there whose parents wouldn't teach them at home in a million years.

In the meantime, I don't want to see parents who accept vouchers stigmatized as welfare grabbers, for they are no more that than if they were sending their kids to public schools. Not to mention all the other "welfare" that the goobermint pays for.

[mafree]

Now, as a diversion from our goal of dismantling an unconstitutional and overbearing, wasteful federal department, we have spineless "conservative" politicians wanting us to agree to a new welfare program which will also have the effect of forcing our private schools to accept the little gangsters we're keeping our kids away from by sending them to a private school.

I feel ya but no private school has to participate in the voucher program and the vouchers cannot be used at any school not electing to be in the school choice program. They also can't be used at private schools outside of the city limits. In my state, the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod (the most conservative of the three main Lutheran synods) opted all of their schools out of participating in the program.

[mafree]

What vouchers will give us is the gangster kids of welfare witches in the classrooms of our private schools.

I know you mean well but this is an inaccurate generalization. I have taught at a voucher school myself and know many families who participate in the program.

One of my good friends is the single mother of four (three at home)- she works full time, always has, drives used cars and owns her home. Her income falls within the limits necessary to get a voucher, so her kids go to private schools on vouchers. Her income has also been low enough for her to get food stamps and Medicaid insurance at various times. Her kids aren't perfect (what kid is?) but they're hardly headed for gangstaville either and she feels these private schools have done better by them than the local publik skools.

I could go on and on. I enjoyed part of my day yesterday with a couple that has actively fought for vouchers. Their kids and grandchildren are in both private and public schools. Again, not a junior gangsta or gangstarette in the bunch- one of their grandsons leaves to start college next month. He went to some private and some public schools.

I could go on and on but you get the point- vouchers allow decent, hardworking but still low-income parents to do better by their child's education. Until we can do better, I will support vouchers.

[rdb3]

In the meantime, I don't want to see parents who accept vouchers stigmatized as welfare grabbers, for they are no more that than if they were sending their kids to public schools.

I see that this thinly veiled nonsense didn't get past you, either.