TheAgitator.com
No Schools for You
Tuesday, March 10th, 2009Why is it that the Democrats are all about government programs to reduce inequality . . . except when it comes to letting poor people send their kids to the same schools the kids of politicians attend?
The standardized testing data on the D.C. voucher program is inconclusive. But parents are overwhelmingly happy with the program. Which frankly is a hell of a lot better measure of its effectiveness.
I should add here that I favor tax credits for vouchers and voucher contributions over direct government subsidies. But the Democrats’ opposition to the D.C. voucher program is completely disingenuous. The program didn’t take a dime from the District’s public schools. Only New York and New Jersey spend more money per pupil than D.C. And D.C.’s public schools are horrible. Something isn’t right. And the solution isn’t to trap as many kids in those chronically failing schools as possible.
“I favor tax credits for vouchers and voucher contributions over direct government subsidies.”
Not being well-versed at all on this issue, could someone tell me wat this means and he difference between these things, as well as maybe while Radley supports the ones he does. Thanks.
I don’t know why you’d say the parents’ happiness with the program is more important as a measure of its effectiveness than the test scores. The parents’ happiness isn’t nothing–might as well make them happy if it can be done without increasing the cost, but it’s not the goal of a school. If those goals come apart, then the education of the students might well outweigh the parents’ feelings.
Maybe the parents have some insight into the success of their kids, but maybe they’re just happy because they think something is being done, or they feel like their in control now.
I believe that democrats are beholden to the teachers unions, this is why they oppose vouchers. Public schools are mess and many are beyond fixing. I know there are some good public schools, but most of them suck. I believe the answer is private schools, beyond the reach of the teachers unions, that force the worst public schools to shut down for lack of students. Vouchers would be a step in the right direction. Many parents still pick the local crappy public school, even when better options are available. If you talk to many poor people they will talk about the sports programs of their child’s school, not the academics. Sad but true. Vouchers would not solve all of the problems children from poor families, but it is a start.
The answer is of course the unions. Teacher union money is given almost exclusively to the dems, who keep the unions in power by restricting school choice. Nicely closed circle.
I just looked up the national NEA disclosure and decided to start counting the number of people with salaries north of $150,000.00. I stopped at 75 people and got to M in the alphabetical list. Their whole job is to make sure education money goes to union (public) schools. They spend many dozens of millions each year at every level on making sure this happens.
If we who favor liberty spent as much or more on free schools, decriminalization, fair prosecutions, etc. etc. we would have the policy we paid for.
Nick T,
I think the difference is that it puts the money directly into parents’ hands for them to make shoices with instead of letting some gov’t panel funnel money to the “correct” place. I think, but n/s.
I think some form of school choice is good and inevitable. I am not nearly as well versed of the ins-and-outs of how to fund them and how it will work as Radley clearly is. However one point I have heard for decades on this issue is just wrong
“except when it comes to letting poor people send their kids to the same schools the kids of politicians attend?”
I first heard this argument on This Week back when Brinkley was still on. George Will asked Al Gore (I think, though it could have been Ted Kennedy. Some rich liberal suck-up to teacher’s unions) why poor kids shouldn’t have the same chance to go to the same private schools as their kids. It was a red herring then and its a red herring now.
No matter how this issue shakes out, middle and lower class kids will never go to the same schools as the rich. Ever. Sure there will be scholarships and some form of diversity programs to let some in for the school brochure and website photos, but by and large I cannot see the elite private schools of this country cooperating in any program that makes them take in significant numbers of lower and middle class students. Except to play sports, of course.
Any sort of voucher or reimbursement system will just raise the tuition in these schools above the voucher amount. I don’t know what the other schemes are to give parents choice, but I do know that elite schools have teams of alumni who are lawyers and politicians and CEO’s and I cannot imagine they won’t game the system to hang on to these institutions as they are.
The best a school choice program can do is make all of the schools already within their financial and geographic reach available to them. The story that school choice programs will bring Sidwell Friends and other elite schools within reach of your average inner city kid crushed by DC public schools is a myth spread t garner support.
I am open to convincing on this, but my cynicism is a strong current to swim against..
And let me add, there is nothing wrong with this. Private schools should charge what they want, let in who they want, and teach what they want without government interference. That’s the whole point of private schools.
I also have problems with the happy parent model. One thing people should remember is that parents are not taking their tax money and spending on the school of their choice (another canard I have heard over the years) This money comes from all of our taxes. And while I am happy to give the parent some say in where the kids go, I want more than their happiness to show for my tax money. McDonalds has already figured out you can buy that happiness with a Happy Meal toy tied into the latest Disney film. Not that there’s anything wrong with that as long as the parent spends her own money. Start to want to spend my money, and I want to see documented evidence of success. I’m no more be happy with the parent’s happiness on this than I would be with Lockheed’s happiness with their latest military contract.
@Adolphus # 6
“Happiness” with their child’s education, for most parents, is about having their children come out of K-12 with reading, writing and mathematical skills that will give the kids a good chance at college or finding a decent job.
I think that is an entirely reasonable metric.
Unfortunately, it is one that is nowhere on the teacher’s unions’ real (as opposed to official) goals.
@Aresen #7
It might mean that. Or it might mean a school that keeps out blacks or Hispanics, or teaches young earth creationism, or keeps out Mark Twain, Herman Melville, or even Ayn Rand, or makes teachers sign loyalty oaths and requires them to attend specific religious services and open each day with a reading from the bible.
I am continually amazed that how many parents are perfectly willing to compromise the education of their children to enforce cultural and religious purity. Which, again, is fine that’s their business not mine if they are only spending their money, but if you want mine, I’d like to see evidence of academic success in addition to happy parents. Happy parents aren’t nothing, but they aren’t everything.
Adolphus, another reason elite schools want to have bright kids, even when they wouldn’t ordinarily be able to afford tuition, is to keep test scores high. It’s good advertisement for a school if their students rank well on standardized metrics (of any sort) and it’s not just rich people who have smart kids.
I do agree that direct vouchers will tend to be inflationary, especially at schools where parents are already paying a high premium. But, there will be something of an attenuating effect in that more private schools will open up when there are more potential customers. Supply will rise as well as demand.
I have an even greater concern: Any direct voucher system will come with government strings attached that will tend to hamstring the marketplace diversity that currently benefits private schools. It’s only a matter of time before “to protect taxpayer dollars” voucher-accepting schools will be required to hire state certified teachers (which has no impact on teaching ability); to provide mandatory classes in sensitivity, sex ed, “environmental citizenship”, etc. (which may be fine, but which shouldn’t be mandated); to offer certain lunch programs; to forgo religious instruction; to meet Title IX requirements for sports; and, ultimately, to hire union teachers. It is inevitable. There is no way to get government money and not eventually be subject to the whims of the political process.
The tuition tax credit programs are better, but obviously still have their flaws. At least, they will tend to be less inflationary (because parents don’t get a fixed amount of “free money” to spend) and they aren’t as directly subject to meddlesome regulation.
BTW, with vouchers, I understand the desire to have some putatively objective metric for determining how your tax money is spent. And, I agree with it, as long as we are acknowledging that even vouchers with no metric are no worse than public school funding for which you are taxed no matter how badly the metric shows performance to be. The thing is, either way, other people are deciding how your tax money is spent. But, when parents spend it, at least some of them (probably a large fraction) will be demanding better education for their kids and they will reward the schools that appear to be providing that. When politicians spend it, they may talk about better education, but they obviously have less direct interest in educating a child than the child’s parents do and they have all the other interests (such as keeping unions happy) that work against higher education value for your dollar.
Freedomfan: On the first point, I guess I am just more cynical than others. Yes these schools want bright kids, but which scion of a wealthy family (who is probably a legacy) will they cut to let in a poor bright kid? Sure they might let in some, but even if every elite private school opened their arms wide and accepted lower and middle class students, there just aren’t that many schools to give more than a few a leg up. Which is great, but to return to my original point, the rhetoric that if we had school choice ordinary Americans from public schools this year would suddenly be able to send their kids with the Kennedy’s and the Obamas is an exaggeration to the point of being a lie. I am for school choice because it will improve competition among the schools (public and private) already relatively within reach of potential students. Lets be honest about the realistic improvements that can be made. Promising too much will only lead to disappointment and disillusionment and, ultimately law suits when the schools parents chose for their kids won’t let their kids in.
Your second point is the elephant in the room though. If I ran a private school, I’d have to be deep in financial troubles before I’d accept a dime from the government. Eventually, if not initially, that money will come with more strings than a squid marionette and the lawsuits will come with them.
#2 | Justin
‘The parents’ happiness isn’t nothing–might as well make them happy if it can be done without increasing the cost, but it’s not the goal of a school.’
You’re in the teachers’ union, aren’t you? This is the fundamental flaw of govt schools- they do not care about the consumer. There’s more issues to monopolistic schools than educating the children- families living within a certain area are forced to attend the monopolistic school, the kids may be subjected to searches by dogs, guards going through their cars, their lockers, their book bags, their urine or hair being analyzed, and being subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda. Is there really a benefit to having 3rd graders recite pledges of allegiance every day?
Imagine the choices available if school districts were abolished- rough neighborhoods would be much more likely to revitalize, because people wouldn’t be picking their housing based on the school they were being forced to send their kids. Parents would be able to place their children in schools that were more convenient, so, maybe they’d have more time with them. Costs may go down due to specialization. If you don’t care about attending the best football school in town, you could go to a school unburdened with this cost. There are many more factors that go into consumers’ decisions…
The parent is the best teacher and a valuable customer- it’s time we were treated like it.
Why is it that the Democrats are all about government programs to reduce inequality . . . except when it comes to letting poor people send their kids to the same schools the kids of politicians attend?
Why is it that the libertarians are all against government programs to reduce inequality. . .except when it comes to letting poor people send their kids to the same schools the kids of politicians attend? There are lots of things rich people can afford that poor people can’t, and I don’t think that most libertarians find that particularly objectionable. The problem with tax-funded public schools are certainly real, but if I’m a taxpayer without children, why should I continue to fund them when taxpayers with children effectively get to take their money out of the system and direct it where they want it to go?
@Adolphus, I think your cynicism might partly be driven by the kinds of private schools depicted in “Dead Poets Society,” et. al.
I attended private schools for all but 2.5 years of my pre-collegiate education, but they were not quite the elite college prep academies most people think of when they hear the word “private.” They were small parochial schools that gave me an incredibly solid foundation and preparation for college, for about $5,000 a year (I am sure that rate has gone up quite a bit in the 20 years since I’ve been in 5th-6th grade). We had a shorter school year (by about 3 weeks on average) and a shorter day (by about 30 minutes), access to sports and arts programs, and great teachers.
Private does not have to mean Elite, although in my case I think it did mean Better than Public education. My parents thought that my siblings and I should have something better in terms of environment, discipline, and education than what our local public schools were offering, so they made the sacrifice of paying tuition and taxes. How nice it would have been for them to be able to take the paid tuition statement to their accountant at the end of the year and off-set their property tax bill by the amount they spend to privately educate us.
I have no philosophical objection to public schools, and I know many people who had very good public school educations. That said, I definately wanted to go to a private school when I was a kid, so much so that I tried to pay the bill myself (bagging grocercies just didn’t quite cut it, but it was cheaper than you might think). It wasn’t so much that my public school was bad per se, it just wasn’t filling my needs. I think a mixture of public and private schooling is probably the best way to go.
That said, I also believe using parental happiness as your primary metric is not the right way to go. One of many perhaps, but not your primary.
If you talk to many poor people they will talk about the sports programs of their child’s school, not the academics. Sad but true.
Very, very sad, but very true. Sports and other non academic activities have their place in schools, and there are many positive aspects to them, but the wholesale corruption it often brings (and there is no other word for it) outweigh the benefits in my mind. It was a rare teacher who would hold an athlete accountable in the face of pressure from the coaches, administration, and parents. Many coaches and teachers didn’t even bother trying to hide the cheating. And this was at the “best” school in the city. From what my brother the teacher tells me, nothing has changed 18 years later.
I have to agree with #12 Parse. Libertarians shouldn’t be advocating public schools and much less money from the government to families to pay for private school.
I believe that education is worth it in the end and, thus, support public schools. However, I draw the line when it comes to paying for private schools unless the amount is equal to that spent on the child already.
For example, if the cost per student at XXYY school is $2,000 a year, then any parent who wants his kid to attend private school can get a tax credit up to $2,000 to help pay for private school. That means that the government is paying exactly what it would pay for that kid to go to public school and it isn’t costing the tax payers an extra dime to send this kid to private school.
I’m a product of private, Catholic school and struggled through my 11 years there because my parents couldn’t afford to send me there (so my aunts and grandparents chipped in but the payments were usually a few months behind) but chose to because the public schools were horrific where I grew up. My parents sacrificed like hell in order for me to get a good education and I am successful now, in no small part, due to this choice my parents made. I would be more than supportive of this so long as the bill wasn’t a penny higher than the public schools would be (as far as my tax dollars are concerned).
I’m aware of the inflation that will no doubt follow the tax-credit program but parents will have to make their choices based on how much they can afford.
I’m also a big supporter of fixing the system we have now. In Puerto Rico, for example, there are over 60,000 employees of the state that are assigned to the department of education. Out of these, less than 12 percent are teachers and everyone else is expendable, as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure DC is not much different. Why should there be more staff than teachers? It makes no sense. We can start by firing half of these people and doing less with more.
Performance comes from incentives. The problem with public education (as with everything else the government does) is that they have abandoned incentives as a means for promoting excellence. Vouchers buck that trend by allowing some degree of school choice. Lately there’s even been talk that Obama is still for teacher merit pay. Given the rabid hostility of the teachers unions toward anything that ties performance to salary, it will be interesting to see how vouchers, performance pay, and the so-called employee free choice act fare under his administration. I think labor sees Obama and the Democratic Congress as their last chance for a come-back. And Obama needs their vote. I don’t hold out much hope that his administration will do anything significant to promote a free market in schools or labor.
People don’t think the deterioration of the industrial north east has anything to do with the lack of a free labor market, so they don’t see the similarity to what’s happening in education. And this is despite the excellent comprehensive treatment of economics that everyone got in high school. (haha! Just kidding about that last part).
I have no problem with school vouchers, but whatever school accepts them must pass some form of accreditation. There is a private religious school in my hometown whose version of history and science is very different than what the rest of society is taught in school. i.e. The earth is 6 Million years old, Global Warming is a hoax, and Intelligent Design is a proven fact.
I do not want one penny of my tax money funding a child going to a school that mixes God with Science.
@ 15
“I believe that education is worth it in the end and, thus, support public schools. However, I draw the line when it comes to paying for private schools unless the amount is equal to that spent on the child already.”
That’s exactly what a voucher is. It is equal to the amount the school system was spending on that particular student. As far as I’m concerned, it’s returning of one’s taxes that were wrongfully taken from them anyway.
The other issue I have with public education is that the vast majority of the tax revenue going towards public schools come from property taxes. Why should those people who do not have children be forced to pay for the public education of those who do? With that said, a voucher program still forces some people to pay for the education of others against their will. It’s a better program, but it still isn’t perfect.
Apparently the voucher program in DC costs less than $6,000 a year per child, against more than $26,000 per year per child for non-voucher children.
The standardised testing data show similar results for voucher and non-voucher kids.
So the debate is about whether it is better to spend $6,000 or $26,000 to get the same result.
Parse, for those who see the provision of education as a role of the state the democrats are wrong because they are ignoring the demonstrable benefits of competition in improving teacher and student performance.
For those who see education as a private affair which the state ought not to get involved in the democrats are wrong because they vehemently oppose the dismantling of state education.
In either case vouchers are a handy step in the right direction because once the benefits of privately delivered education are made obvious on a larger scale the further argument over who should fund it is much easier to air.
Unfortunately the democrats defying the teachers union seems about as likely as the republicans coming round publically on the teaching of evolution or either party making sense on the drug war (though I wait in joyful hope for good news on the latter).
Although it is a socialist view, I have no problem with publicly funded education. The reason is because we are where we are, as a nation, thanks to the education of our citizens. We wouldn’t be half as prosperous, successful, nor powerful as a nation had we not invested in our citizen’s education. I’m all for this expense, so long as government has no agenda/role in the education of the children. They are not there to be taught how to be “good Americans,” they are there to learn the skills that will make them successful in life and, thus, make our country successful. We are but a sum of our individual parts, after all.
We should skip vouchers and require parents to pay all tuition, perhaps tax deductible, with means tested food stamp like vouchers for parents who can’t afford the tuition. Imperfect, but a lot better than what we have.
#21 | Nando
‘ I’m all for this expense, so long as government has no agenda/role in the education of the children.’
Woodrow Wilson assured us that govt had an agenda when he pointed out that only a small percentage of students deserve a liberal education- he felt the rest (us) should learn just enough to be productive.
He recognized that public schools were tools to create obedient citizens.
Yeah? Well, Woodrow Wilson was a dick.
“And the solution isn’t to trap as many kids in those chronically failing schools as possible.”
The validity of this statement is completely dependent on what the definition of the problem is.
From the perspective of the ruling class, the problem is how to best insulate oneself from the wretched refuse on our teeming shores. State control of education is one of their time-tested solutions.
“Good is the means suited to the purpose,” wrote Delmar England. For the ruling class, the public education system is a world-class success, and it will be maintained at all costs, contrarians notwithstanding.
I don’t think that argument was ever about getting poor children into elite schools.
It only attempts to show the hypocrisy of politicians in charge of public education not even wanting their own kids going to public schools.
Brandon, you don’t have to convince me that the Democrats are wrong. But Radley didn’t describe vouchers as a way to increase competition and improve schools. He touted them as a way to send poor kids to the same kind of schools kids of politicians attend. It sounds like he wants to fiddle with the tax code to redistribute wealth, which is something I’m surprised to hear coming from him.
BTW, the solution for those who want the best education for all children is to divest education from State control completely, which is how it was in the US before Bismarck’s policies were imported here, mainly by John Dewey.
Private school of any stripe is simply not a viable economic option for almost all parents. First, property tax is extracted whether or not one has children, ostensibly to pay for schools. Then, parents desiring to send their children to private school must pay tuition over and above the property tax. Finally, these same parents are unable to spend that tuition money on other desirable things. I call it the “triple tax,” and it is very effective in steering children into public schools, which after all are paid for anyway out of property tax.
Even if private schools are affordable, they are still under State scrutiny as far as curriculum, and the vast majority receive federal funds that have strings attached. It’s almost not worth it at all.
I’ve mentioned it before, but “Dependent on DC” by Charlotte Twight is an excellent treatment of the federal takeover of education in America.
Nick,
A tax credit comes directly off what you pay in income tax. It’s not a tax deduction like mortgage interest or a charitable donation which goes off your taxable income, but comes right off the taxes themselves. So, if you paid $12,000 in federal income tax, and you get a $8,000 credit for being a new home buyer, you’ll only pay $4,000 that year in federal income tax at the most.
Credits are the best solution because they return the most money to the person taking on the expense.
Private school of any stripe is simply not a viable economic option for almost all parents. First, property tax is extracted whether or not one has children, ostensibly to pay for schools. Then, parents desiring to send their children to private school must pay tuition over and above the property tax. Finally, these same parents are unable to spend that tuition money on other desirable things. I call it the “triple tax,” and it is very effective in steering children into public schools, which after all are paid for anyway out of property tax.
If everybody’s paying property tax to support schools, including taxpayers with no children, how is tuition payment for private school a tax? That’s like calling money spent to sent mail by FedEx a tax because the postal service gets government support, or saying when I buy a ticket on Greyhound it’s a tax if I’m traveling somewhere that Amtrak provides service to. And if you call it a tax the first time parents pay it, why do you call it a tax again because they might have otherwise spent it on other things?
Sorry Radley, imo you are on the wrong side, on this one. Vouchers are a band-aid on a problem cause by historical inequities and a lack of accountability. There is no logical reason why a public school system can’t give each child a relative opportunity to succeed.
You raise some excellent points, parse. I hadn’t considered all socialist programs before — Amtrak and the Postal Service are triple taxes too! All socialist programs are. None should exist.
Private school tuition is a “tax” because it is reasonable to believe that one’s children are entitled to the education one desires for them. Since public schools paid for by property taxes are by-and-large undesirable, one’s only other options are private school or home school, both of which carry economic costs above and beyond property taxes. Parents who are unwilling to settle for public school for their children MUST incur these costs, thus they are a “tax” on these people.
“And if you call it a tax the first time parents pay it, why do you call it a tax again because they might have otherwise spent it on other things?”
Because opportunity costs are relevant. If you are taxed, your money is being taken from you by force to be spent on things you did not choose to spend it on. By definition, this money cannot then be spent on things you choose, so you must earn that money again to pay for what you choose. Personal finance is very much a zero-sum game, unless you have a printing press.
Parse, if my metaphor was clumsy or the semantics don’t add up, I apologize, but the point is that parents who send their children to private school wind up paying three times for something they should only have to pay for once in a Stateless world.
Cynical, your “triple tax” equation doesn’t make sense. As you explain it, here are the three taxes paid by parents who send their children to private schools:
Tax 1: Property tax, which the government levies to pay for the public schools
Tax 2: Private school tuition
Tax 3: Money earned to replace the money spent on private school tuition
Now, let’s imagine the government gets out of the education business. The government will collect no more taxes for education. And since the three costs described above are taxes, the parents should get them all back, right?
Wrong.
Tax 1: Property tax–no longer being collected to fund education, so you get this back
Tax 2: Private school tuition. Wait, you still have to pay this? But why, if it’s a tax, and the government isn’t taxing for education any more? Because it’s not a tax, that’s why.
Tax 3: Money earned to replace what was spent on priviate school tuition. I’m sure you can see where this is going, cynical–you aren’t getting this back, either. Because it’s not a tax.
Parents who send their children to private schools get taxed once, just like parents who send their children to public schools and taxpayers who don’t have any children at all.
By the way, while you are condemning things as socialist, where to you get this howler: “it is reasonable to believe that one’s children are entitled to the education one desires for them.” How does the particular education a parent desires become an entitlement?
@ Nando again.
“I’m all for this expense, so long as government has no agenda/role in the education of the children.”
That’s kind of naive. All schools, religious or elite or whatever, have an agenda. That’s kind of like saying I’m all for scientific research just as long as the scientists aren’t supporting the agenda of the financiers.
If what you say is true, that we are better off because every adult pays for the education of children whether they have any or not, then people would pay up out of rational self interest. And I actually agree with you here and I believe that people will do their part without having to pay taxes.
When kids come by and sell candy bars to raise money for their schools, people pay. If people go to church that supports a private school, they give to collection plate and a portion of that will go towards the school. Local business already support local schools one way or another, public and private. The willingness is there to fill the demand. If we end tax and government resources for education, the void will be filled by individuals who will see the merit in donating to our youth’s education.
#11 Nope, I’m not in a teacher’s union, and it doesn’t pay to assume your opponents are arguing in bad faith.
And our relation to schools is no more a consumer relationship than our relation to doctors. Parents should no more be able to dictate how their children are taught than patients should be able to dictate how their doctor works.
The analogy cuts both ways, of course: your doctor doesn’t cut until you give him permission. In the same way, it matters a lot if parents think their children are doing well in school. But it’s not the only consideration, and that’s why we shouldn’t think of the parent as a consumer. It’s just a different sort of relationship.
It’s hard to see why you’re taking offense at any of this, aside from my prominent membership in a teachers’ union.
“Parents who send their children to private schools get taxed once, just like parents who send their children to public schools and taxpayers who don’t have any children at all.”
Actually, you pointed out a flaw for me, thanks parse. It is the property tax itself levied for education that creates the entire situation. We went over this before, and I acknowledge it. If you’ll allow, an excerpt from Bill Bonner at the Daily Reckoning:
“According to classical economics (and plain good sense) Amtrak makes us all poorer. It takes valuable resources – labor, steel, electricity and so forth – and turns it into a service – transportation – which consumers judge to be worth less than the resources that went to provide it. Yet, that is the whole theory of the Obama stimulus program! Spend money on things that are unprofitable. (If they were profitable, they wouldn’t need public funding.) Somehow, wasting wealth is supposed to make us all better off.”
So, you are taxed to pay for a shitty service — public schools, Amtrak, whatever (you lose even if you use it), if you want something better you still have to pay for that, and you can’t spend the tax money on something else that you want.
I admit that you would have to spend one part of that on education anyway, so maybe a double tax is more accurate, the idea that taxation steals money from productive options to fund unproductive ones.
The social engineering is evident in the example of public education because most families cannot afford to pay the property tax and private tuition, so they are effectively forced into the public education fiasco, which they would not be if there were a free market in education.
“By the way, while you are condemning things as socialist, where to you get this howler: “it is reasonable to believe that one’s children are entitled to the education one desires for them.” How does the particular education a parent desires become an entitlement?”
My fault for not being clear. As a natural right, parents are entitled to provide the education that they believe their children deserve by being left alone to pay for it once in the manner of their choosing. I hope that clarifies my position.
FWIW, if I’m not clear enough in the future, you may assume that I will NEVER advocate a socialist solution to any problem.
you got that right.
the problem is the unions.
(see, i can change too)
That’s how capitalism works. People who make the most money get the best stuff. If you’re poor than tutor your kid at home or get a second job or cancel your cable or sell your car or don’t have kids. Not to be a bitch, but it’s not my problem.
I pay a lot of money to send my kids to a great school. It’s not like we’re the Rockefellers. We work hard and we scrimp and save to pay for it, but their education is a priority for us.
cynical, according to Bonner’s analysis, doesn’t “classical economics (and plain good sense)” demonstrate that, just like Amtrak, the Interstate highway system makes us all poorer? And that the government creation of the internet made us all poorer?
“doesn’t “classical economics (and plain good sense)” demonstrate that, just like Amtrak, the Interstate highway system makes us all poorer? And that the government creation of the internet made us all poorer?”
When you compare it to what the free market could have done rather than the government, then yes.
You can simply write that you are a socialist, parse. I’d understand and it would save you the time and energy.
Carinna, think how much easier life would be for you (all of us) if you didn’t have to pay property tax on top of the private school tuition. I respect that you part with a good percentage of your income above and beyond to send your kids to private school.
Sorry about the multiple posts, but I just remembered a funny line from Will Rogers: “If you want to eliminate traffic, have private enterprise build the roads and government build the cars.” It’s funny because it’s true.
That represents the value lost from the FIHA. Do interstate highways make us richer? I can grant that premise, because the free market would still have added value proportional to any other government project such as Amtrak or public schooling. A free-market road system would be efficient beyond our wildest dreams.
As for the internet, well, remember that the government now wants to control what people can view on it (porn, political subversion) and what they can do with it (gambling, commerce) — if they get their way (and what’s standing in their way?), then the value of the internet will plummet sharply.
“that’s why we shouldn’t think of the parent as a consumer. It’s just a different sort of relationship.”
Nail on the head there. It is not a consumer/producer relationship. It is a master/slave relationship.