School Vouchers

[Supercharts]

If this point has been made before please ignore it.

Under the "GI Bill" [post WWII] vets could go to any school they wanted and get an education. Many will argue that this was one of the best things the Goverment ever did.

My question: If a "GI" could go to any school for an education [State Colleges and Universities, Yale, USC, Notre Dame, Loyola, Rabbinical school etc.] doesn't this set a precedent in the sense that a Government grant is up to those who receive it to choose for themselves what type of education they want?

Never heard a good counter-argument once this point has been made.
But I could be wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

[whistle] Wow, that's a pretty good one.

I don't know that much about how the GI Bill works or how it's funded, but assuming that soldiers must be in the armed forces for a certain period of time before they can use the GI Bill, you could argue that the GI Bill is an earned benefit. In other words, after a soldier works for the government for x number of years, they are "paid a bonus" of money that is placed into a special account specifically meant for their later education. It is money they have earned and money they can spend as they choose, within certain guidelines (i.e. for education only).

edited to add: My future father-in-law used the GI Bill to go to trucking school. But, hey, he's happy so that's what counts.

School funding, however, is derived through public taxes. It is money that students, nor their parents really, have not earned even though, as a society, it is our duty to provide it to them. Vouchers would allow private individuals then to determine how public funds are spent. We, as tax payers, have no say in how our tax money is being used. So, it becomes a taxation without representation issue.

Now granted, I just made that up off the top of my head and it's probably a much more complicated issue than that. However, that would be a counter-argument. I don't know if its a good one.

 

[Grammatron]

[whistle] Wow, that's a pretty good one.

I don't know that much about how the GI Bill works or how it's funded, but assuming that soldiers must be in the armed forces for a certain period of time before they can use the GI Bill, you could argue that the GI Bill is an earned benefit. In other words, after a soldier works for the government for x number of years, they are "paid a bonus" of money that is placed into a special account specifically meant for their later education. It is money they have earned and money they can spend as they choose, within certain guidelines (i.e. for education only).

edited to add: My future father-in-law used the GI Bill to go to trucking school. But, hey, he's happy so that's what counts.

School funding, however, is derived through public taxes. It is money that students, nor their parents really, have not earned even though, as a society, it is our duty to provide it to them. Vouchers would allow private individuals then to determine how public funds are spent. We, as tax payers, have no say in how our tax money is being used. So, it becomes a taxation without representation issue.

Now granted, I just made that up off the top of my head and it's probably a much more complicated issue than that. However, that would be a counter-argument. I don't know if its a good one.

Not entirely correct, but close. Some contracts will allow you to go to school before you join the military (you have to be part of ROTC in the mean time). After you done with school you then go into whichever Armed Forces you signed up with for four years.

 

[Upchurch]

Not entirely correct, but close.

But still, the money is either earned or given on "credit" with the promise to pay it off later in service to the country, right?

 

[Grammatron]

But still, the money is either earned or given on "credit" with the promise to pay it off later in service to the country, right?

Indeed. Going back to what you were talking about, I don't see how vouchers are taxation with out representation. It's the money that is already allocated for school, it's not like we are giving parents cold hard cash to do with it as they please. The only difference is, parents can now choose to send their children to a different school AND make sure that school gets the money.

 

[shanek]

But why not just give the parents a tax credit in that case? Why give it directly to the schools? The only reason I can think of is so strings can be attached later and the government can start dictating to the private schools what they can do, threatening to cut funding if they don't. This is exactly how it happened with higher education.

 

[Supercharts]

The "GI Bill" was passed on June 22, 1944.
http://www.higher-ed.org/resources/GI_bill.htm

It stipulated that if you served in the military on or after Sept. 16, 1940 you could get vocational reimbursement. It did not restrict itself to secular vocational training.

Sure - the bill has been amended many times but it hasn't been restricted to secular or government sponsored institutions.

So - to sort of restate my question - if you can earn these benefits by serving in the Military [a condition set by Congress] then why can't Congress allow school vouchers for private schools? Congress can set the condition. The SCOTUS doesn't enter into it because a precedent has been established.

Even today a recent Vet can go to Rabbinical school and the Government will help pay tuition.

My point is that unrestricited school vouchers - as proposed by George W. - is well within the law - both in terms of Congress, SCOTUS and precedent.

But I could be wrong.

 

[Lurker]

Interesting point about the GI Bill. On a broader point, my problem with vouchers is they would take considerable money away from the public schools. Considerable!

Lurker

 

[Upchurch]

I don't see how vouchers are taxation with out representation. It's the money that is already allocated for school,

Yes, but it was allocated for a specific public school, based on my location. A school that I may or may not support and can vote weither to allocate more or less money too. I can also run to be on that school's board or I can vote for the members of that school board.

With vouchers, students and parents are allowed to take that money and put it into whatever institution they choose (again, within the restriction of education) and (1) I have no say where that money goes or (2) what is done with it once it is there.

it's not like we are giving parents cold hard cash to do with it as they please.

Actually, that's precisely what we would be doing with the one limitation that it must be spent on the student's education. Otherwise, they're free to do as they like.

 

[Tmy]

(Govt grants and student loans are also used for private colleges. Then again govt isnt required to provide college education)

These parents dont deserve a damn thing. Theyve got some nerve. If you dont like the govt schools then dont use them, but Ill be damned if my taxes go to these people. I dont have any kids. Im the one who should be getting the tax break, not the parents of those govt service eating brats.

Why not gove vouchers to people who DONT use public transportation. They can use the money to gas up their SUV's.

 

[Grammatron]

But why not just give the parents a tax credit in that case? Why give it directly to the schools? The only reason I can think of is so strings can be attached later and the government can start dictating to the private schools what they can do, threatening to cut funding if they don't. This is exactly how it happened with higher education.

You may be right, but last thing we need is another tax code for people to be confused about.

Edited to Add:

Also, what if people do not make enough to send their children to school, a very realistic problem.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

But why not just give the parents a tax credit in that case? Why give it directly to the schools? The only reason I can think of is so strings can be attached later and the government can start dictating to the private schools what they can do, threatening to cut funding if they don't. This is exactly how it happened with higher education.

Whoa there pardner !!

While your follow up comments may be true, they don't address the heart of the matter..

The tax credit route, would deny the government their usual ' shipping and handling' charge ...

Gotta pay the light bill for all those fancy administration offices, and pay the salaries of those do-nothing administrators...

 

[Supercharts]

Here is one source for the current GI Bill:
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,32674-mil_status_active-1,00.html

It states there :
"If you're a full-time student enrolled in a Regionally or Nationally Accredited College or University, you can get up to $900.00 a month (current rates) to cover education benefits, including high-tech or vocational-technical programs. It all adds up to a total benefit of over $32,000 -- and these benefits are increasing every year. But don't delay in using the GI Bill -- these benefits are usually good only up to 10 years after you separate from the military."

The precedent has been established is my point.
There is nothing that says it has to be a public school [ie. funded by Federal Taxes or other taxes]

So the 1st. Amendment isn't an issue - IMO.

It's a benefit earned while serving in the Military. BUT - "how" this benefit is earned don't make a diddly bit of difference in the sense of the Government paying $'s. Congress could say that if you are an American Citizen, have Children of school age, pay taxes, and reside in a really "cheeseburger" [see, I can be nice] school district, then there is no Constitutional bar to them passing a law for vouchers so you can send your kids to Sr. Mary Imaculate Conception's first grade class at St. Francis School in Bayonne, N.J.

That's my point.

 

[Grammatron]

Yes, but it was allocated for a specific public school, based on my location. A school that I may or may not support and can vote weither to allocate more or less money too. I can also run to be on that school's board or I can vote for the members of that school board.

With vouchers, students and parents are allowed to take that money and put it into whatever institution they choose (again, within the restriction of education) and (1) I have no say where that money goes or (2) what is done with it once it is there.
Actually, that's precisely what we would be doing with the one limitation that it must be spent on the student's education. Otherwise, they're free to do as they like.

You don't think Vouchers could improve the horrible inner city schools?

 

[Grammatron]

Here is one source for the current GI Bill:
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,32674-mil_status_active-1,00.html

It states there :
"If you're a full-time student enrolled in a Regionally or Nationally Accredited College or University, you can get up to $900.00 a month (current rates) to cover education benefits, including high-tech or vocational-technical programs. It all adds up to a total benefit of over $32,000 -- and these benefits are increasing every year. But don't delay in using the GI Bill -- these benefits are usually good only up to 10 years after you separate from the military."

The precedent has been established is my point.
There is nothing that says it has to be a public school [ie. funded by Federal Taxes or other taxes]

So the 1st. Amendment isn't an issue - IMO.

It's a benefit earned while serving in the Military. BUT - "how" this benefit is earned don't make a diddly bit of difference in the sense of the Government paying $'s. Congress could say that if you are an American Citizen, have Children of school age, pay taxes, and reside in a really "cheeseburger" [see, I can be nice] school district, then there is no Constitutional bar to them passing a law for vouchers so you can send your kids to Sr. Mary Imaculate Conception's first grade class at St. Francis School in Bayonne, N.J.

That's my point.

You are a bit off on this one. It's not that Congress is paying them for school, it's that congress is paying them in the form of school money, think of it as University Vouchers.

 

[shanek]

Whoa there pardner !!

While your follow up comments may be true, they don't address the heart of the matter..

The tax credit route, would deny the government their usual ' shipping and handling' charge ...

Gotta pay the light bill for all those fancy administration offices, and pay the salaries of those do-nothing administrators...

Ah, yes, that is very true. How sloppy of me.

 

[shanek]

You don't think Vouchers could improve the horrible inner city schools?

How many of those "horrible inner city schools" are private schools? How can you fix a problem with government schools by giving money to private schools?

 

[Occasional Chemist]

It's a benefit earned while serving in the Military. BUT - "how" this benefit is earned don't make a diddly bit of difference in the sense of the Government paying $'s.

Unless the kids or their parents are government employees, I don't see how the GI Bill is at all relevant to the issue of school vouchers. That the benefit is part of the way the military pays its soldiers *is* important.

You could probably argue that a precedent has been set for a GI Bill for kids - meaning that the kids (okay, most likely it'd be their parents) are on the hook for 'x' years to the US military in exchange for the funds. These funds could be used at the primary/secondary school of your choice.

 

[Grammatron]

How many of those "horrible inner city schools" are private schools? How can you fix a problem with government schools by giving money to private schools?

By eliminating government schools in favor of private?

 

[shanek]

By eliminating government schools in favor of private?

Works for me, but how do vouchers achieve that?