School Vouchers
Update Note: I just added a link to an article by Milton Friedman published in the Wall Street Journal about Vouchers. See link below. 6-14-05.
With Arnold fighting the Public Teachers Union over some very good issues, we should re-examine the real problem with K-12 education in general.
One of the sure ways to have a poor system is to make it part of the government. This statement is not just rhetoric. One of the things that make organizations efficient and successful is competition.
We don't really have much competition in our school system. Private schools can’t compete because most everyone that wants to send their children to a private, (good), school would have to pay twice.
We don't reward good teachers nor chastise bad ones. We give them all tenure based upon how many cobwebs they have. You have been here x number of years you deserve a raise also. Again, cobwebs.
With Vouchers, taxpayers would have some of their tax money returned to them in the form of a voucher that they can only spend on school for their children.
This would allow parents that are currently paying twice for their children to have a good education, once in taxes for public schools, and again for private education, to actually only pay once.
Imagine having the schools competing for our children. Imagine the best teachers getting salaries that are really up where they should be and the poor teachers being paid less.
Milton Freedman is against having public employees administer our schools for a very good reason. See: Opinion Journal
Also there are way too many administrators per teacher. That is classic "empire building 101", where people are paid by the number of subordinates that work for them. So, they fight for hiring more subordinates instead of fighting for more tools to help our children.
It is bad enough that we have a "socialized" K-12 school system; at least we could make it better by introducing some element of competition with vouchers.
The Teachers Unions have been fighting vouchers for years and they will continue to fight that battle because job security and money/power is more important to the Union Hierarchy than what is best for our children.
posted by Free Agency Rules @ 7:14 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
Name a US industry or function that unions haven't ruined. Their only remaining refuge is the government.
It sounds great to me. I think the government has way too much control of our schools already.
Superman,
Yes, imagine that, letting the taxpayers pay for the type of school that they want their children to go to.
Instead of "Sex Education" classes for 2nd graders, yes it's happening, and sensitivity clases or other "feel good" nonsense, we could actually get "Reading, Wriiting, and Arithmetic." What a concept! The schools would actually have to be responsive.
Vouchers are not new. See:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june98/vouchers_4-29.html
It is working best in the ghetto. We are talking about everyone getting a voucher, not just some.
Imiagine having someone from the ghetto who can semd their child to a good school instead of the lousy one they are stuck with "because" of where they live. They could choose a good private school if they wanted to.
There is one example in Chicago that I am unable to find at the momemt where a council woman was having incredable success with a trial voucher program, but here is one from Florida that shows the results of Vouchers:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_02.htm
P.S. Superman,
There is a very good reason why Marx and Engles said two of the 10 best ways to destroy freedom was:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
Scroll to the bottom of this URL:
http://www.juntosociety.com/i_documents/communist.html
for the 10 points of their "Manifesto."
They knew that by having the government running education that they would promote "more" government and instill in our children that the world owes them a living, that there is such a thing as a "free lunch".
Next we will want "free housing", "free cars", and any other "vital" thing that "everyone" should have.
Problem is, "Nothing is free", someone has to pay for it. And that someone always winds up being the "Middle Class" and not the rich because the rich find tax shelters. Just look at how little tax people like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry pay.
Superman,
The Problem is we not only don't have pure Capitalism, we have and are moving toward a Capitalist/Socialist State, where Socialism is overtaking Capitalism.
Welfare, Social Security, Graduated Income Tax, Public Education, etc. These are all forms of Socialism.
The end result of Socialism is everybody shares misery. See my Winston Churchill Quote at the top of my blog.
The end result of Capitalism is the best price for any service, which is all anyone, can ask for, except those who want others to pay for their stuff, which is called Socialism.
I don't understand your comment about Fascism at all.
Fascism is a system of government that is run by a dictator, has stringent socioeconomic controls, and censorship. If anything the left is for P.C. talk (censorship), but not the majority of our citizens, at least not yet.
Capitalism is where the means of production is under private control, (not a dictator.)
I don't see any similarities at all.
P.S.
Mussolini formed a government where he ran most of the industries, not private citizens.
I quote from the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini
Scroll down to just before "Fascist dictatorship"
We read...
(Mussolini formed)..."a new capitalist system in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries."
Notice that is not Capitalism, where the means of production, (industry), is in the hands of private citizens.
Superman,
Yes, I love a civil debate. As long as people are nice and don't resort to name-calling and don't get emotional, I think it is great.
First lets look at what kind of "Corporatism" existed under Fascism. From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
"Under Fascism in Italy, business owners, employees, trades-people, professionals, and other economic classes were organized into 22 guilds, or associations, known as "corporations" according to their industries, and these groups were given representation in a legislative body known as the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni."
Notice that groups of employees, trades-people, etc. formed groups that were granted state privileges.
Under pure laissez-faire Capitalism, no business is given any state privileges. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
"The laissez-faire school of thought holds a pure capitalist or free market view, that capitalism is best left to its own devices; that it will dispense with inefficiencies in a more deliberate and quick manner than any legislating body could. The basic idea is that less government interference in private economic decisions such as pricing, production, and distribution of goods and services makes for a better system."
Currently we have the Democrats who fight against corporate America, and we have Republicans fighting for the government to stay out of the affairs of business.
In Corporatism, the government grants privileges to corporations. We have anti-trust laws and others that fight corporations at every turn.
I wish the government would just stay out of it.
Now lets look at Socialism. From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has evolved and branched to a great degree, and though highly politicized, is strongly related to the establishment of an organized working class, created through either revolution or social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. It has also, increasingly, become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist also refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed."
Focus on the “with the purpose of building a classless society.” The purpose of the “graduated income tax” is to try to redistribute the wealth, to try to make the poor richer, and the rich poorer.
Under Socialism, the government acts like “Robin Hood” where it “takes”, (Steals), from the rich to give to the poor. This happens in every case of what is called “entitlement programs.” Stealing is not fair, even when the government is doing it. It is also not moral. When we vote for entitlement programs, we are voting to allow the government to steal for us.
Please read the few paragraphs of the synopsis of the book “The Law” at this URL: http://unix.dfn.org/printer_af_FrederickBastiat_theLaw.shtml
It is the most important book about government anyone will ever read, if they will truly read it with an open mind. You will see that “work” is sub-consciously viewed as “pain.” Humans will sometimes “steal” because it requires less effort.
Under Socialism, people use the government to “steal” for them, by redistributing the wealth, so that in theory there would be one big middle class and no rich or poor. It never works because some will fake the inability to work and get a totally free ride. When enough people do this the whole system crashes.
P.S.
Also note that it concentrates on "social reforms within modern democracies"
That's what's happening here.
I think we have not seen the true face of Capitalism which is Laissez-faire.
Our Country never has had a complete Laissez-faire system. We have seen a "Late Capitalism" only because of the shift towards a "Socialistic/Capitalist" system.
Big Government, Big Labor Unions and Big Buisness are all bad to a degree. It is because of our government getting involved into these areas that we are having problems, not the other way around.
Please read the link to "The Law" synopsis I provided in my earlier comment.
Here it is again:
http://unix.dfn.org/printer_af_FrederickBastiat_theLaw
Bastiat was a Frenchman with incredible insight into the human condition. He was around during a social revolution and it gave him a unique vantage point.
Armed with this information you can see why he says that having a Congress that is composed of a single class, (the rich lawyer class), that they will pass laws to gain an advantage for their class.
Ever notice that most of Congress is comprised of rich lawyers who pass entitlement programs that they say the rich will pay for, yet the rich lawyers pass loop holes to make sure that only the middle class pay for everything.
Ever wonder why Kennedy and Kerry pay so little in taxes?
They pass loop holes to insure they won't loose any of their opulance, all the while screaming how they are the champions of the poor and middle class.
Does John Kerry need a $7,000.00 mountian bike and a $4,000.00 bike outfit?
What if Terisa Heinz Kerry, would divest herself of 80% of her late husband's holdings in his "Heintz Ketchup" fortune, and distribute the money to the poor. She would still be left with an oppulent life style.
She won't do it, and neither will any of the other super rich Democrats that claim to be looking out for the "little guy."
They make sure that they don't have to worry about making a living, all the while forcing money out of the middle class to pay for all their entitlement programs.
Does this seem right to you? There are better ways to fund the disadvantaged than having the government steal the money from the middle class to give to the poor class.
Superman,
The banks caused the great depression of 1928 by doing what is commonly called "Margin Calls."
The rich bankers wanted a "National Banking System" so they could monopolize and control the money supply.
That is the only reason Laissez-Faire was thought to fail.
Too much is placed upon the stock market. It is driven by too much emotion. It is all about "precieved" economic health.
If it wasn't for the bankers causing the crash, we would have a system that would be 1,000 times better than what we have today.
P.S.
I don't think that the only way to provide for the poor is to have the government steal from the rich or the middle class.
Stealing is wrong period.
When the government "takes" from those who have earned it and "gives" to those who haven't, it is stealing.
Taxation is where we give willingly to support the proper roles of government.
Here is the full text of "The Law." It is the best book I have ever read on "The Proper Role of Government."
http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/main.htm
See why entitlement programs are not taxes by reading this book.
That link wasn't complete, lets try it again
http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/the%20law.htm
We both agree that the needy should be cared for, it's just a matter of what is the best way.
Freedom is only possible if all of society protects 3 things...Life, Liberty, and Property.
When we use the government to assult property, by passing laws to plunder property from the few or the many, we are destroying Freedom.
The book "The Law" is by a very intelligent Frenchman who wrote this book just a few years prior to when Marx and Engles wrote theirs.
It is a very short read. Perhaps 50 - 75 pages if my memory serves me.
It does a wonderful job of answering all of the questions you posed.
And it's free of charge. :)
Yep, I remember reading about some of their works from my College Days.
Might have been in my study of Philosophy that I did on my own after being introduced to "Immanuel Kant" and other great philosophers in my "Critical Thinking" PHL 251 class during my Senior Year. ( Or was it my ethics class? )
I love reading about Physics, Philosophy, and Politics. What I call my 3-P's.
I changed Majors 3 times and accumulated almost 200 credits even though I only needed 124 to graduate.
Started out in BSEE then switched to MBA program, and finally changed to BS in Information Technology. So I wound up taking a lot of electives and non related classes to my Degree.
I'll have to go back and review my Philosophy books and see which of those three I actually bought books that they wrote. I have a great library, several hundred books.
Any way, I don't believe that we are the only super power. Anyone that discounts China as not being a worthy Super Power equal or even mightier than the U.S. has not been paying attention to the facts.
They are just waiting for their opportunity to strike and believe me they will.
Russia, the new Russia, is also going to be a Super Power again.
The main point from Bastiat is to understand how government's primary focus is to protect life, liberty and property, and without protecting property, (our assets like income included), that society will vote to plunder, (legal theft), each other for some false philanthropy. Forcing people to be charitable by having the government take from some to give to others, is still force no matter how you look at it.
It's funny how both sides accuse the other about being materialistic.
On the left, all of their solutions are about money.
More money for schools, more money for the poor, more money for our Congressmen to spend on everything that needs to be "Fixed" by their enlightened class. Socialists and Communists philosophy is all about how to "divide up materialism" and having an "equal material class" at the expense of others hard work.
While the conservatives are more likely to forego a second income to have a "stay-at-home" parent and are more concerned about the "spiritual" things by trying to protect property and freedom by doing two major things.
1. Keeping the government out of our affairs as much as possible. And
2. By working on improving their own lives first and not trying to "take the beam" out of their neighbors eyes. As the "do gooders" on the left do.
Having a better world starts by each person becoming a better person on their own. The golden rule, etc.
Also Conservatives give a lot of their "material" things, (money), to the poor. Several Billion Dollars worth.
You are absolutely correct that Wisdom does not equate necessarily with College and I wasn't inferring such, just that I have interests other than my Computer background.
And the term "do gooder" was not meant to be negative, merely that a lot of people try to "do good" with good intentions, but with the wrong tools, i.e., O.P.M., (Other peoples money.)
I probably should refrain from using that term since on second thought I can see how it could come across wrong.
I guess both sides wear labels that seem harsh.
Post a Comment
<< Home