Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » I’LL VOUCH FOR HIS ARGUMENTS
  • I’LL VOUCH FOR HIS ARGUMENTS

    Filed at 12:18 pm under by dcobranchi

    Here’s a meaty, well-done overview of libertarian opposition to school vouchers:

    The main objection to government vouchers is that they are paid for by the taxpayers — the same taxpayers who already fund the public school system. So not only are vouchers an income-transfer program, they amount to a double tax: the taxpayer foots the bill for both public and private schools. Vouchers are “fresh money.” Tax money spent on educational vouchers does not come out of tax money spent for traditional schooling. No current voucher proposal even hints at a reduction in funding for public schools to pay for vouchers.

    I was a “wet” voucherist myself until relatively recently — I thought the subversion of the public system worth the redistribution aspect, but once I realized how much danger the very existence of private education would face when the government started sprinkling dollars around, I swam to the anti side and dried myself off for good.

    3 Responses to “I’LL VOUCH FOR HIS ARGUMENTS”


    Comment by
    Eric Holcombe
    March 25th, 2005
    at 1:21 pm

    Now that the general public is sold on the “it’s in the public interest to educate all children” ideal for justifying taxes on everyone, I think that is the hurdle that has to be crossed to go totally private sector. It will be the general public’s ‘fault’ if not all kids succeed in the private version – as though somehow it isn’t under the current redistribution program.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    March 26th, 2005
    at 1:37 am

    I don’t buy the double-taxation argument. At the state level, all of the proposals of which I am aware use “old” money– that is, some portion of the state funding that would have gone to the public school goes with the child. It’s usually not 100 percent as the schools get to keep a cut to cover fixed costs.

    SC’s non-voucher PPiC is a prime example of a current proposal that doesn’t use “fresh” money.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    March 26th, 2005
    at 1:44 am

    The rest of the piece is quite good, though.