Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vouchers allowable under constitution
Centre Daily Times ^ | March 10, 2011 | Richard Komer

Posted on 03/10/2011 6:54:43 AM PST by triumphant values

Pennsylvania’s General Assembly is considering a proposal that would empower parents whose children are trapped in failing public schools to choose, if they so desire, to enroll their children in a private school and receive a scholarship, or voucher, to help pay the tuition.

While the debate swirls, one fact is certain: School vouchers are constitutional under the federal and Pennsylvania constitutions.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of school choice programs like that proposed in SB 1 in 2002 in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The High Court rebuffed a challenge that Cleveland’s scholarship program violated the federal Establishment of Religion Clause. Provided that such programs are religiously neutral and that any students who attend religious schools do so based on the independent decisions of their parents, the programs pass federal constitutional muster.

Publicly funded school choice is constitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution because the funds are not appropriated for or given to private schools. The funds are appropriated and given to parents for the support of children who desperately need educational alternatives. Parents — independent of any government official — select the school that is best suited to their child.

As long as the program does not provide any incentives that would skew parents’ choice toward or away from a religious school, the program is perfectly constitutional. Under the current proposal, the state is neutral with regard to religion. The proposal merely expands parental choice in education.

(Excerpt) Read more at centredaily.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: constitution; education; schools; vouchers
If anybody is familiar with the Section 8 voucher system and how it grew and morphed, and how it destroyed once thriving neighborhoods, I can't imagine how they could support school vouchers.
1 posted on 03/10/2011 6:54:46 AM PST by triumphant values
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

Vouchers let parents choose schools that they feel are best for their own children.

Shitty schools will be weamned off the government teat. Amen!


2 posted on 03/10/2011 7:00:34 AM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Vouchers let parents choose schools that they feel are best for their own children.

Shitty schools will be weamned off the government teat. Amen!

Let me re-word that as an argument heard in the 70s in favor of Section 8 housing vouchers.

"Vouchers let parents choose neighborhoods they feel are better for their own children.

S***ty housing projects will be weaned off the government teat."

Same result will happen.

3 posted on 03/10/2011 7:07:22 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

Because, Vouchers should be universal.

How possibly could a neighborhood get worse if a student from the public school is allowed to go to the private school a block away? The school is still allowed to either accept or reject the voucher student based on skills, grades and discipline.

Vouchers should be expanded to all, regardless of economic situation. This would cause public schools to compete for the dollars and improve their terrible records, or close.

In major cities private and public schools are in the same neighborhoods.


4 posted on 03/10/2011 7:49:36 AM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

The voucher system would be Constitutional when offered to every child.


5 posted on 03/10/2011 8:02:25 AM PST by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

So your base argument is that if those students who most need vouchers are allowed to have them, then they will ruin the private schools that are good?

And you are comparing this to Section 8 housing vouchers?

I really want you to clarify this position, because you sound like what you are really saying is that you want children of certain races to be stuck in crappy schools so they don’t “infect” the good private schools with their presence.

If that is not correct, then state so.


6 posted on 03/10/2011 8:03:47 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
How possibly could a neighborhood get worse if a student from the public school is allowed to go to the private school a block away?

I think you missed that it was an analogy. The private schools will have happen to them through school vouchers, what happened to the inner suburbs through Section 8 vouchers.

The school is still allowed to either accept or reject the voucher student based on skills, grades and discipline.

At first, but once the schools get dependent on the money, the state will wield their fist and start calling the shots.

In major cities private and public schools are in the same neighborhoods.

I'm in Chicago so I'm well aware of the fact that it is the cost of my child's school that keeps the dysfunctional students out and that's what makes it desirable.

7 posted on 03/10/2011 8:24:31 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
So your base argument is that if those students who most need vouchers are allowed to have them, then they will ruin the private schools that are good? And you are comparing this to Section 8 housing vouchers?

Let's reword that to the 1970s argument: "So your base argument is that if those families who most need Section 8 vouchers, are allowed to have them, then they will ruin the neighborhoods that are good."

Can you tell me why this is different?

8 posted on 03/10/2011 8:28:19 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

So you are a racist. Got it.


9 posted on 03/10/2011 8:31:39 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
By the way, when did Conservatism sign on to radical egalitarianism where those who can't afford something should be able to have what those who can afford it have?

I'd like to know that.

10 posted on 03/10/2011 8:34:13 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Eric Holder, is that you?

Why didn't you just answer the question.

11 posted on 03/10/2011 8:35:58 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

Not really.

1a. Housing has always been a personal responsibility with private free enterprise rewarding value for money. Poor people have always had poor housing, with private charity intervening voluntarily.

1b. Federal intervention created pubic housig slums run by the government (a federal wealth trasnfer scheme that failed).

1c. Federal government added a new wealth transfer scheme where people moved out of the failed government “projects” into private slummy apratments. This resulted in the neighborhood blight you mention where the projects are, and also in federal money subsidizing private slumlords.

2a. Pubicly-funded schools have always been a local government responsibility, with a government monopoly and no competition except privately funded schools. This worked well until unions got control of the schools.

2b. Federal intervention into local pubic schools almost instantly made those schools shitty by any measure, and very costly (a federal wealth trasnfer scheme that failed).

2c. Local legislators now wish to end the government school monopoly and force shitty schools to compete for the privilege of educating children and for public dollars. This will give schools a huge incentive to get better results and reduce costs.

Those who are against this are for big government wealth transfer programs that get bigger and more expensive each day, and for government and union indoctrination of chidlren. End of story.


12 posted on 03/10/2011 8:37:08 AM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
Tell me you are not racist.

Your implications in equating Section 8 housing with school vouchers is that it will allow blacks and hispanics into good schools and thereby cause them to degrade in quality.

If this is not what you are saying, then clearly refute this implication.

13 posted on 03/10/2011 8:38:50 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Not really.

Yes really, because I can take your entire post and replace the word "schooling" with "housing" and vice versa, and make the same point.

Those who are against this are for big government wealth transfer programs that get bigger and more expensive each day, and for government and union indoctrination of chidlren. End of story.

Those who are for this are for getting the government's hands in private schooling and ruining it.

14 posted on 03/10/2011 8:43:03 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

1. Yes there is a danger that private schools will be controlled by the lure of federal dollars.

2. Apparently you think the bloated shitty federally controlled government school systems are doing a good job.


15 posted on 03/10/2011 8:43:03 AM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Your implications in equating Section 8 housing with school vouchers is that it will allow blacks and hispanics into good schools and thereby cause them to degrade in quality.

You're the only one who has brought race into this thread.

If this is not what you are saying, then clearly refute this implication.

Why don't you just answer my question first?

16 posted on 03/10/2011 8:45:33 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
2. Apparently you think the bloated shitty federally controlled government school systems are doing a good job.

No, I think the private schools are doing a good job and I want to keep it that way by keeping the government out.

17 posted on 03/10/2011 8:46:47 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

You refuse to acknowledge important distinctions.

Historically, the citizens of the USA have chosen to have local government provide a free education to local children.

Like it or not, this is a fact.

Private schools who refuse to accept government money will be free to keep on doing so. There is nothing in the voucher proposal that requires private schools to accept vouchers. Private schools will be free to compete on their own terms. If a “private school” becomes a virtual clone of public schools, that will be apparent to well-informed parents, who can avoid that school. Private citizens who are concerned are free to alert the private schools they support about the dangers of accepting government money.

It is all quite American, in the best sense of the word.

The system we have is corrupt and ineffective. It is sinful, in fact.


18 posted on 03/10/2011 8:57:09 AM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
Why don't you just answer my question first?

Because I asked you first. I won't fall into this "answer my question before I'll answer yours" nonsense.

You clearly said that Section 8 "destroyed once thriving neighborhoods". When you say that, it clearly has a racial identity tone to it.

The fact that you refuse to denounce racism or even declare that you are not racist is evidence that is precisely why you believe that Section 8 "destroyed once thriving neighborhoods".

19 posted on 03/10/2011 8:58:05 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
You clearly said that Section 8 "destroyed once thriving neighborhoods".

It did. That's an irrefutable fact, and one that is pointed out and discussed often here on Free Republic, without people like you screaming "racist" like a Jesse Jackson clone.

20 posted on 03/10/2011 9:02:07 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
Well, I am in Cleveland where we actually have a voucher system for the city. There are a limited number and are for poor residence only. However, my children and my neighbors and family all go to parochial schools, all have inner city voucher kids in their schools and classes and ALL the voucher kids are held to the same level as the others.

They also MUST pay extras out of pocket.This keeps the parents involved. Even though it is only a couple hundred dollars a year.

They are heavily screened BEFORE they are admitted to the school and are bounced if they become a problem or academically are unsuitable. The voucher kids are as successful as most of the other children in the school. They are also limited to a certain percentage of the school enrollment.

The schools that accept the vouchers are NO NONSENSE. They are one strike and out and are among the best schools in the state and the country.

The fact is that every parent should have the opportunity to send their child to the school of their choice. They should have a voucher for their child and the parent should decide which school gets the money. Good schools would succeed poor schools would close. It's called competition and it works every time. A true voucher system would revitalize the inner cities, help to level the field in educational opportunity, and save buckets of money by making public schools competitive both educationally and financially with their private and parochial schools counter parts.

21 posted on 03/10/2011 9:09:12 AM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Historically, the citizens of the USA have chosen to have local government provide a free education to local children.

It wasn't free, they were taxed for it. We also have been historically taxed for poor houses, county farms and asylums for the indigent.

If you didn't want to live there you paid for own and if you didn't want to have your children educated in the government schools you paid for your own.

If a “private school” becomes a virtual clone of public schools, that will be apparent to well-informed parents, who can avoid that school.

I guess we'll just chalk that school up as a casualty of egalitarianism. No thanks, I've seen enough casualties of egalitarianism through government.

The system we have is corrupt and ineffective.

Most of the private schools are fine. If people can't afford it, that's life. You get what you pay for.

It is sinful, in fact.

What's sinful is redistributing even more money through the school voucher system to people who already aren't net taxpayers.

22 posted on 03/10/2011 9:13:33 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
There are a limited number...

What happens when we go to an unlimited system?

The fact is that every parent should have the opportunity to send their child to the school of their choice.

They do if they can pay for it. What's wrong with people who can afford things getting higher quality if they can pay for it?

Like I asked before, when did "it's for the children" egalitarianism become a rallying cry for Conservatives?

23 posted on 03/10/2011 9:19:36 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

Your solution: keep as the primary practical option government schools that are absolutely controlled by centralized government bureaucrats, and that indoctrinate students and provide a shitty education.

Voucher sulution: return local citizen influence to local public schools by giving parents a direct choice that will force government schools to adapt to the educational needs of those they serve, rather than dictate to those they serve what their needs must be.


24 posted on 03/10/2011 9:23:31 AM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

Private schools are NOT forced to accept vouchers. Your cry of “egalitarianism” rings rather hollow.

Ending the wretched government monoply on the bloated public education system is very good thing. Right now tax dollars are flushed down the toilet when they are spent on pubic schools. You wish to keep that system in place. That is not defensible.

It might be a good idea to enlarge your social circle. The ideas you have stated are often rightly associated with anti-social cranks, and I don’t suspect that you are such a person.


25 posted on 03/10/2011 9:28:29 AM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Your solution: keep as the primary practical option...

It has nothing to do with practical. It has to do with "can afford".

Oh no, some people can't afford what others can! This looks like a job for Compassionate Conservative Man!

26 posted on 03/10/2011 9:44:09 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Ending the wretched government monoply on the bloated public education system is very good thing.

You're claiming "monopoly" while at the same time arguing that vouchers should pay for the alternative which exists, which is private schools.

Maybe a dictionary lookup of the word "monopoly" would help this argument.

You wish to keep that system in place.

No, I'd like to see, for instance, the Chicago Public Schools abolished and the earth salted. Other than my property tax bill shrinking, we'd hardly notice the difference

27 posted on 03/10/2011 9:52:08 AM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
“What happens when we go to an unlimited system?”

In an unlimited system all schools would get better, poor schools would go out of business, and children with discipline and educational problems would be funneled into specialty schools that can help them to achieve. You would also begin to reap the benefits of the tax dollars that you are forced to pay.

YOU AND I BOTH DOUBLE PAY FOR OUR KIDS EDUCATION. Whether by paying taxes and paying tuition or by moving to an overpriced, overtaxed suburb that segregates based on wealth, and in our country wealth also means RACE, let's not kid ourselves.

****A rising tide raises all boats. As Conservatives that is a core belief. We believe that ALL people can achieve and succeed regardless of where they start in life.****

“They do if they can pay for it. What's wrong with people who can afford things getting higher quality if they can pay for it?”

People already pay for it in their taxes. That is the point. The City of Cleveland spends $13,000 per student in the public schools. they are paid for with tax dollars. Many working class and middle class people, as well as poor people to a lessor extend, pay the taxes for the schools. Yet a voucher is only $4,500. This is enough to pay for an education in almost all the private and parochial grade schools in the city.

You have an elitist attitude. You believe that YOU and YOU alone should have access to the best simply because you have the money, I do as well. However, trapping people in bad schools perpetuates the continued underclass of America.

Education is and will be the civil rights struggle in this century. It is patently unfair that the wealthy and upper middle class have to pay twice for an education for their children. It is equally unfair that the poor are excluded from future success by being excluded from higher quality education simply because their parents can not afford to double pay. It is Particularly unfair when the money could be made available through a fair and equitable voucher system. The best part is it would probably lower the cost of education. Capitalism and competition always lower the end users cost.

28 posted on 03/10/2011 10:04:33 AM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
I'm sure all on this thread are genuinely well meaning, but I'm flabbergasted at the level of naivety I'm encountering on a Conservative forum.

It seems more like I'm debating a bunch do-gooder college girls who just walked out of a "social justice" symposium, not conservatives who would be cognizant of the thousands of institutions that were destroyed when government money flowed into them.

How anyone can read story after story on FR, of government co-option, transformation, mission creep, and not see vouchers for the glaringly obvious Trojan Horse they are baffles me.

In an unlimited system all schools would get better...

An exclusive private school is not going to be bettered by the admittance of voucher students. That's absurd. They're getting the cream of the crop as it is now. With waiting lists in many cities.

... and children with discipline and educational problems would be funneled into specialty schools that can help them to achieve.

Oh, just public school special ed. Yeah, that works well.

YOU AND I BOTH DOUBLE PAY FOR OUR KIDS EDUCATION.

I pay taxes for a lot of things I don't or won't use. Short of anarchy, it's inevitable. I could use the bus I'm taxed for, but I prefer the exclusivity of my car.

We believe that ALL people can achieve and succeed regardless of where they start in life.

What? That's a talking point more suited for a political speech. It certainly isn't reality here on planet Earth where genetically inherited abilities are handed out in extreme disparity.

That's liberal, egalitarian nonsense. And hell lies on the path of those who would attempt to correct for that disparity with government program after government program as the left has attempted for a century now.

People already pay for it in their taxes.

Less than 50% of Americans are net taxpayers, and the numbers shrink more and more each day.

You tell me how you're going to hand out 5,6 or 7 thousand dollar vouchers per child and not increase that? That's welfare plain and simple. Why do you want to see more handouts for those aren't net taxpayers?

You have an elitist attitude.

Well, on other threads I'm often called a know-nothing populist. So I must be toeing the Good Line pretty good to have such varying opinions on my beliefs.

You believe that YOU and YOU alone should have access to the best simply because you have the money, I do as well.

Yeah, I unashamedly claim, without remorse, that people should be able to purchase higher quality if they can afford it.

I guess shame on me for not being a leveling Bolshevik.

It is equally unfair that the poor are excluded from future success by being excluded from higher quality education simply because their parents can not afford to double pay.

If they're poor it's extremely doubtful they're double paying. They are much more likely than not already a net recipient of tax money and you want to funnel them even more.

Education is and will be the civil rights struggle in this century.

Is Al Sharpton hacking accounts here at Free Republic today or something?

29 posted on 03/10/2011 5:20:41 PM PST by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values; Notwithstanding
I will now explain why vouchers are a conservative value. Perhaps if you cleanse your aura and listen with your better angels you may learn something.

1) Government money: It is not government money it is a voucher that is controlled by the parent. It is money already slated for SCHOOLING. It is simply applied by the parent instead of the government.

The money would follow the student regardless of which school they attended. The only restriction should be that it is an accredited school. The school could be either a charter school , religious or strictly private school.It , now this might shock you, could be a public school in another district. (Kinda ruins the idea of white flight doesn't it)

********************************************************
"An exclusive private school is not going to be bettered by the admittance of voucher students. That's absurd. They're getting the cream of the crop as it is now. With waiting lists in many cities."

Of course they would get better. Their would be more than just the white shoe crowd knocking on their door. Remember top prep school are limited to only those that can afford them, regardless of waiting lists, lots of limited Ted Kennedy's in the ranks as apposed to a significantly more intelligent and worthy poor kid, And their are many smart poor kids that are brushed by the system long before they have the opportunity.

Also, as much as I downplay diversity,their is something to be said for knowing an array of different people from different backgrounds. It would do a World of good for some of the elitist snobs, like yourself, to be exposed to some other socioeconomic levels.

******************************************

“You tell me how you're going to hand out 5,6 or 7 thousand dollar vouchers per child and not increase that? That's welfare plain and simple. Why do you want to see more handouts for those aren't net taxpayers?”

NO. I would hand out a voucher that equaled the average cost of the education that the local public school would receive to educate them. IE: In the City of Cleveland that would be around $13,000. . With increased competition,we may actually find that some schools would actually be less expensive or offer alternative activities that would draw more children, and hence more money,to them. . As far as it being Welfare, how exactly is it Welfare. It is money that would be spent for that child at the public school. If a voucher is Welfare, a free public school education is Welfare. As much as one may believe it is welfare it is not. If you think it is Welfare, you better start rewriting allot of State Constitutions. M<most have some sort of GUARANTEED childhood education in the constitution.

*******************************************************

“Oh, just public school special ed. Yeah, that works well.”

Dedicated stand alone Special Education works quite well. It is the attempted mainstreaming of children with disciplinary, psychological, and mental and developmental disabilities that often have a negative effect on both the child with the problem as well as the other members of the class.

Besides, why wouldn't enterprising educators set up specialty schools that would cater to special needs children? Of course they would $13K a pop is allot of cash and a specialty school with 400 kids would gross $5million a year. More than enough to attract high end educators and administrators. You could eve weight extra dollars to those children with Developmental and social problems. This would create even more of an incentive to educators.

************************************************************

I pay taxes for a lot of things I don't or won't use. Short of anarchy, it's inevitable. I could use the bus I'm taxed for, but I prefer the exclusivity of my car.

Irrelevant argument. People still pay if they use the bus. It is subsidized, not free.

************************************************************
“What? That's a talking point more suited for a political speech. It certainly isn't reality here on planet Earth where genetically inherited abilities are handed out in extreme disparity.

That's liberal, egalitarian nonsense. And hell lies on the path of those who would attempt to correct for that disparity with government program after government program as the left has attempted for a century now”

This may possibly be the most prejudiced and despicable statement I have ever read on FR. . Just because people are different, geneticaly or otherwise, doesn't mean they have less of a right to the chance to advance in life. Just because a child is born to poor parents doesn't make them genetically inferior to anybody. Those that are truly genetically inferior require MORE assistance than others. This is part of what the government does. . We have hopefully long passed the age of the poor house and the work house for the indigent an feeble minded. Even the staunches Conservative believes that those incapable of caring for themselves must be taken care of for not only their own good, but for the good of all society. . What kind of a warped attitude makes you believe that a child born in poverty is deserving of that poverty because of a genetic component? Just because a parent is poor, doesn't make them less of a parent or person. Many of the most successful in history where born poor. . Lincoln was dirt poor, Reagan's father was a straight up drunkard that had difficulty keeping a job. Edison had nothing at birth. Orphans raised without parents become titans of industry, IE Dave Thomas of Wendy's Inc. Truman was a failed haberdasher. Justice Thomas was the son of a share cropper. They didn't even have indoor plumbing, yet he is now on the Supreme Court. . In your view of America, the wealthy would never change, yet in the REAL America, the wealthy change all the time. sixty years ago, no one ever heard of Buffet, Gates, Spielberg, or Lerner. In your America the real movers and shakers are still the Carnegie's, Mellons, Vanderbilt's, & Rockefeller's. . After All: "Families are always rising or falling in America" 'House of the Seven Gables' by Nathaniel Hawthorne. . A voucher is not a government program, It is the elimination of a government MONOPOLY. A monopoly system that rewards mediocrity and failure with six figure salaries, gold plated benefits, and retirements. A Voucher System would increase competition. regardless of whether it improves the private schools it will damn sure improve the public schools.

Look to cities that have a vibrant charter school programs. These school have been booming. Not all are good, but the good ones, and exceptional ones have waiting lists. They also have many children in them from other districts, paying tuition to go to those schools. WHY , because they are a better alternative to even some public schools in the suburbs. The poor Charter Schools go out of business quickly, because they do not serve the interest of the parents and work quickly spreads.

Why do you think the teachers unions and the Democrat Party fight so hard against vouchers and charter schools? Do you think it is ‘for the children’?

************************************************************ 'If they're poor it's extremely doubtful they're double paying. They are much more likely than not already a net recipient of tax money and you want to funnel them even more.' . Totally off-base thinking. Poor people pay taxes as well. They pay taxes on payroll if they work, they pay sales taxes, and they also pay taxes trough property taxes either directly, or through their rent payments. . What about working class and lower middle class people. They certainly pay taxes, besides, how are we giving "THEM" whomever 'THEM" may be, more? It is the same amount paid on their behalf to the local public school. It is simply offered to the parent to make the decision as to where the money is actually spent. The parent receives no net boost in income or benefit. Their child receives the boost in educational opportunity. ************************************************************ “Is Al Sharpton hacking accounts here at Free Republic today or something?”

NO, Al Sharpton agrees with you, He doesn't like vouchers either. He wants all the money to be monopolized by his friends in the teachers unions. They pay him. ************************************************************ "I'm flabbergasted at the level of naivety I'm encountering on a Conservative forum." . Let me tell you straight up, YOU ARE A BIGOT! Plain and simple. You do not want those less fortunate than yourself the opportunity to advance. Call it what you will, but it is straight up prejudice. Search your soul. It is may be a little tarnished and need of some attention.

Perhaps you have mistaken a Conservative forum for the KKK Forum. You may be more comfortable on that sight. I hear you get a nice white bed sheet and pointy hood to go along with the bigoted attitude. . To think that Conservatives are not interested in Civil Rights, We are the guarantors of true Civil Rights. We believe in a true color blind society, one that rewards people based on their efforts and their merit, not where they come from or how wealthy or poor their parents are. . My God, your attitude is stunning and off putting.

30 posted on 03/10/2011 11:14:13 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson