Say Anything Blog

I agree with that assessment. Under the Romney plan logic would say that the ideal situation (for public schools) would be for every child to attend home/private school except one--the public school would continue to get funding for all of them.  Hey! Pay raises all around. Would it work that way?

Wait a second; this isn’t a subsidy, but a tax credit.  Although in certain ways it would function in a similar way to a subsidy, it differs fundamentally in that it simply would tend to exempt the money that parents spend on education from taxation.

Minnesota has two of these--a credit for low incomes, and a deduction for most everyone.  It doesn’t make the difference between being able to homeschool and not, or between being able to send kids to private schools or not, but it certainly helps.

It also differs from a subsidy in that it doesn’t quite give the same incentive for the NEA to regulate us as vouchers would.  It’s odd that you’re for vouchers, but against this.  This is far simpler, less intrusive, and less prone to being abused.

How about people who homeschool not paying school taxes? No extra paper work or bureaucracy needed.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

We home educate and we just don’t want to take anything from the federal government in any way.... I know other home educating families disagree with us but that’s just how we are.

Kay, you are not alone! Lots of people don’t want anything from government, with the exception of being left alone. Hence the large numbers of people who qualify for government medical “assistance” and do not sign up for it.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

This is a really bad idea and is just more government interference into parental lives.  Although not a perfect solution, school vouchers enabling children to go to schools of their own choice is much better.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

No, Romney’s plan is a step in the right direction although it should be expanded to include tax credits for private school tuition as well as home-schooled children.

I’m firmly against school vouchers.  If the government is cutting a check to a private school, it isn’t going to be long until liberals then demand to control everything going on at that school just like they do public schools.  If parents get a tax credit, the money is not going from the gov’t to the schools but rather to the parents and therefore insulates the schools from the power of the government purse a bit more than vouchers would.

Very much on the right track with tax credits over vouchers…

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

I’m firmly against school vouchers.  If the government is cutting a check to a private school, it isn’t going to be long until liberals then demand to control everything going on at that school just like they do public schools.

That’s a pretty stupid reason to be against vouchers.

The money isn’t going directly to the schools.  You give the parents a “check” and then you let them pick the school.

Tax credits just aren’t the same thing.  I mean, what about the low-income people who need school choice the most?  They pay very little in federal income taxes.  How exactly do you give them a credit?

Plus, you’re just further complicating the tax code.

It’s a dumb idea.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If the government is cutting a check…

The point about vouchers is that it’s all our money anyway, and with vouchers, we would at least have a choice on how some of it is spent.  Of course, it would be better if the govt didn’t take our money in the first place, and if we got to spend it the way we wanted to, but vouchers are definitely a step in the right direction, even if they aren’t a cure-all.

The secret of financial success:

If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it.  Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.

The point of school choice is to introduce market forces into the education industry.  . . .  Just like a normal business.

Actually this idea is relatively recent in the movement for school choice; introduced by Milton Friedman and Chicago School economists. The original proponents for school choice never made the “market” argument.  Indeed, many proponents today, such as the Catholic Church, would not use the market argument as a justification for school choice. 

The purpose of school choice is not to make schools more efficient, but to simultaneously acknowledge two basic rights—the right of parents to choose the best educational setting for their children and the right of all children to a basic education.

Romney’s plan looks like a step in the right direction.

such as the Catholic Church, would not use the market argument as a justification for school choice. 

Huh??  What is your justification for that inaccurate remark?  Catholic schools are just another private school providing education not available in public schools.  They are obviously market driven since the schools are funded by tuition and donations, not mandarory taxes.  The same is true of most private schools.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

The money isn’t going directly to the schools.  You give the parents a “check” and then you let them pick the school.

The way vouchers are pushed that I hear of, you give parents a ‘check’ as you said that is then given to the school of the parents choice.  But the parents aren’t getting the money, the school is.  So the gov’t is directly paying that school and if you get gov’t purse-strings involved you soon have gov’t control (moreso than they already do in private schools...)

As far as “complicating the tax code”, it’s one additional line out of so many… It’s not really adding anything to the problem…

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

I’m firmly against school vouchers.  If the government is cutting a check to a private school, it isn’t going to be long until liberals then demand to control everything going on at that school just like they do public schools.

So if one of the strings attached to the voucher was teaching “Heather has Two Mommies”, the Catholic schools (among others) receiving the vouchers would become more liberal rather than refuse the money?
Straw man.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

How are vouchers worse?  Private schools don’t get them now.  If they decide to NOT accept them in the future they are IN EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION AS THEY ARE NOW.

It wouldn’t be surprising that some schools would be voucher schools and some not.  We’d still be better off because parents would control which school is best for their kids.  (It’s for the kids).

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

such as the Catholic Church, would not use the market argument as a justification for school choice.

Huh??  What is your justification for that inaccurate remark?

Let’s just say I am very familiar with the Catholic Church’s actions on this issue.  Just take a look at all the church statements in support of school choice.  Notice also that the Catechism does not appeal to the market to make the case for school choice.

No one denies that market effects might reduce the costs and might improve schools, but they are seen as possible indirect consequences and not as a reason for school choice programs. 

Your comment about Catholic schools being market driven goes to the ability of Catholic schools to exist in today’s environment, not the justification for school choice, which is a justice and moral issue, not economic.

As to whether the market affects the ability of Catholic schools to exist, of course it does, but only to a certain extent.  After all, no religious school can completely respond to the market.  Doing so might jeopardize their missions.

Even if the Catholic church doesn’t bend to market forces, the students (and their parents) of the schools will.

I understand that many non Catholics attend Catholic schools because it is the only affordable way to get their kids a decent education.  That’s market forces at work. 

And Kudo’s for the Catholics for taking them in!

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

For what it’s worth, the Minnesota example does indicate that the state will do some level of interference, even with tax credits or deductions.  That said, when government actually writes the check, the argument for regulation is a little bit more compelling than otherwise.

And yes, it does complicate the tax code by a few lines, and about a page in the preparation books--just like vouchers will also make the law more complex. 

The argument for either is that the funds parents spend to take care of their own ought not be subject to tax.  Vouchers are a little more generous and a little more subject to causing more regulations (’he who pays the piper calls the tune’, that’s all.

Subsidies for homeschooling is still moving in the wrong direction; we should remove all subsidies for education, especially those that prop up the failing govt schools.

The secret of financial success:

If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it.  Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.

So if one of the strings attached to the voucher was teaching “Heather has Two Mommies”, the Catholic schools (among others) receiving the vouchers would become more liberal rather than refuse the money?
Straw man.

The schools would become ineligible to receive the vouchers and parents that would otherwise send their students to that school would not be able to because of funding.  Like I said, the voucher would be used as a method of manipulating schools by taking away their funding.

How are vouchers worse?  Private schools don’t get them now.  If they decide to NOT accept them in the future they are IN EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION AS THEY ARE NOW.

Consider my scenario:  A school voucher system is set up and becomes very widely used.  Private school ABC has a large attendance and 50% of the students there are attending the school with the help of vouchers.  If government imposes a certain policy and the school, by refusing the policy, eliminates itself as a school eligible for vouchers, and half of the students using the vouchers cannot afford the school WITHOUT the vouchers… then the school, by refusing the government policy, would be at risk of losing 25% of its students.  That is a LOT of power given to a future government over what are now very private schools.

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

I am a homeschooler and have been since the early 90s.  I cannot imagine the homeschooling community embracing this idea.  Strings follow money.  I don’t want strings.  I can do without the money. 
What I do believe is that homeschoolers should be exempt from school property taxes or be able to deduct that portion of property taxes from Federal taxes. And I think we should drastically cut public school funding.  Homeschoolers educate children on less than $2000 a year. Why do the schools need $15000 per child then whine for more?

Mom, you are exactly what is hacking off the leftards in NEA and Congress. You can do without their crap and money.

Shame on you! Being all independent and such. You are going to drive those poor idiots out of their cushy, Unionscum jobs. And how dare you even suggest keeping your money,,er,,THEIR money. You are after all the property of the State, They will decide what is best.(sarc)

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Strings follow money.  I don’t want strings.  I can do without the money. What I do believe is that homeschoolers should be exempt from school property taxes or be able to deduct that portion of property taxes from Federal taxes.

In an ideal world, a voucher could be used for tuition in a public or private school or used to subsidize textbooks, supplies and field trips for homeschoolers.
Don’t hold your breath!
Also, don’t expect the government types that pass tax law to come up with your exemptions any time soon! First, they would view that as a tax subsidy, so they would have any number of requirements before you would qualify. I believe those are called “strings”.
Second, they peddle influence for tax breaks. Which side do you think their bread would be buttered on? A small handful of homeschoolers who turn out students with really high grades or a larger body of unionized teachers who turn out really high campaign contributions and free labor around election time?
Sign me: A former home schooler with grown kids.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

What I do believe is that homeschoolers should be exempt from school property taxes or be able to deduct that portion of property taxes from Federal taxes.

You must not do your own taxes… you deduct all state and local taxes from your property taxes already… And that kind of deduction is similar (credit, not deduction, but similar in principle) to what Rommney wants done so how can you be against something you’re advocating?  I’m confused…

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!