Vouchers: A New Entitlement Program and Wealth Re-Distribution Scheme
Bob Bernick Jr. did a great job in this piece making what I think is the best argument against Referendum 1.
The cost of vouchers for students who never would have gone to public schools in the first place will likely far exceed any savings promised by this plan’s supporters. That means we will be using tax money from the general fund to subsidize many students from families who historically haven’t needed any public help paying for private school. Why should taxpayers be stuck with paying for this new entitlement?
Vouchers are a bad idea for Utah.
Hat Tip: Democracy For Utah
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Yup, Bernick hit a homer with this one.
Comment by Part of the Plan — October 5, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Bob just described the public ed system. Yes, it is an entitlement program. Yes, it is a wealth distribution program. Where’s the news in that? All the Parent Choice in Education scholarships do is empower parents with additional choices in meeting the educational needs of their children. Children left behind by the system is bad.
Comment by John Dougall — October 8, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Yes we will be paying for future rich kids that we otherwise wouldn’t have to pay for, but if it helped the worst off kids in schools to get a better education, then it might be worth it. It is the same reason why we pay doctors more, by paying them more we help out everyone. But if they only kids that end up going to private schools are the same ones that would have done so without vouchers, then it is a good point. I don’t know what will happen.
Comment by The Independent Mormon — October 9, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
You ask a very good question Jeremy. I think that question need to be taken to its logical conclusion. Your argument seems to be that vouchers are bad because taxpayers pay some part for the education of children who would not have gone to public schools in the first place. But doesn’t that beg the question–why are taxpayers paying for the education of all of these upper and middle class kids in the first place? The vast majority of parents could afford private school for their children. If the goal is not sticking taxpayers with costs, why don’t we charge the parents of all children who make more than 150% of the poverty line, for example, for the cost of sending their children to school?
Comment by Daniel — October 9, 2007 @ 10:23 pm