From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: School Tax Credits
Date: 30 Sep 92 07:49:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep26.123915.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>
sousa_dab@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:

> 	Allowing tax breaks for people who want to send their children to 
> private schools doesn't address the issue.  The problem with education in 
> America is that the poor recieve inadequate education.  Providing a tax credit 
> saps money from the education system, making poor schools poorer.  You might as 
> well provide a tax credit for people without children.  
> 
> 	And besides, The government is not banning private schools.  It simply 
> chooses not to fund private alternatives in the form of tax breaks.  If you 
> want a handout from the government to send your kid to a private school, then 
> vote Democrat (You know, the "Tax & Spenders"? :) )

You were batting a thousand until the last sentence.  I'm still
surprised at the number of people who don't realize what the real story
here is.

The Reagan and Bush administrations have been consistently for giving
vouchers (paid for with tax dollars) to parents of children attending
private school.  Clinton is against this.

There are three reasons why Bush is for this.  The first is that it
serves his constituency, the upper middle class and up (who are the
ones who can afford private school).   The second is that the idea is
relatively popular amongst a public which perceives a need to improve
our secondary education, and who hope that this will help.  Third, and
I believe this reason is very important to George Bush, it will promote
attendance to parochial secondary schools, which are very common among
the set of all private secondary schools.  

I believe that Clinton is opposed to the Bush plan primarily because of
the third reason.  The Bush plan would take public tax dollars and give
them to parochial schools.  I believe this to be against the intent of
the establishment clause of the first amendment, and I object to tax
dollars being spent in this manner.  I also think that many who are for
this plan don't understand the danger it represents to parochial
schools.  Once these schools are wrapped up in the politicking of
receiving a slice of the education tax pie, they will be at the whim of
the electorate.  The funding level could change drastically, or
disappear altogether if the plan is scrapped.  Parochial schools which
had made capital outlays in anticipation of a certain funding level
(and a certain number of students) could suddenly find themselves in
financial straights.  Let's keep religion and government separate,
especially when it comes to our tax dollars.

Could it have been a "Tax and Spend" Democrat, Senator Sam Ervin, who
wrote the following?

"The Catholic Church establishes and operates its parochial schools to
teach the children of Catholic parents its religious doctrines and
observances.  Since the First Amendment forbids the public schools to
teach any religion, Catholic parents who desire their children to be
taught the Catholic faith send their children to parochial rather than
public schools.  As taxpayers, these Catholic parents pay taxes to help
the state maintain the public schools; and as parents, they bear the
added expense of the instruction of their children in parochial
schools.

Many of these parents and others demand that government should provide
public funds either directly of indirectly to aid and support the
parochial schools.  They base their demand on the propositions that it
is unjust to compel Catholic parents to pay taxes for the support of
public schools and bear the additional expense occasioned by sending
their children to the parochial schools, and that the Catholic church
saves the government enormous outlays of money because the Catholic
children go to parochial rather than public schools.

Without questioning the validity of the unadorned facts underlying
these assertions, these observations are of crucial import:

1.  The Catholic parents voluntarily impose the additional financial
burden on themselves by sending their children to the parochial schools
to obtain instruction in the Catholic faith, instruction that the First
Amendment forbids the public schools to give them.

2.  The Catholic church operates the parochial schools to ensure that
it rather than government will control the education of Catholic
children.

Justices Jackson and Rutledge present irrefutable reasons in their
dissenting opinions in the Everson case why government must refuse to
give financial aid and support, either directly or indirectly, to
parochial and other private schools that teach religion if the
religious freedom the First Amendment establishes is to endure in the
United States."

Please note that I have directed follow-ups to talk.politics.misc.  I
don't read that group, so if you would like me to see your follow-up,
please email me a copy.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle