From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:44:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Nathan Engle writes:

>I used 
>to think (because of what Rush has told me) that Democrats were the ones 
>who always complained about the terrible unfairness of our capitalistic 
>system,

Silly generalization.  Are you trying to claim that I, an admitted
Republican and right-winger, am "complaining" about the "terrible
unfairness" of our capitalistic system?  Life is unfair and ...

>but it's really warmed my heart to read so many posts by so many 
>obviously compassionate conservatives.

I assume this is sarcastic.

>In part it warms my heart because 
>it reaffirms my belief that conservatives have compassion,

Oops - maybe you're serious?  Can you be more specific?  Compassion
for whom?  Those who are unable to care for themselves or those who
are able but unwilling to care for themselves?  Are the "homeless"
unable to care for themselves or are they "unwilling" to care for
themselves?  An "average" AIDS "victim" "costs" $80,000.  (This
morning's newspaper.)  That's a lot of compassion.

Let me take this opportunity to express "compassion" for school
teachers - public and private.  Let me also note that a much larger
percentage of money paid to a private school goes to its teachers
compared to the (scandalously low?) percentage of public school
money that goes to the public school teachers.  It seems obvious to
me that the good ones do it for love, not money.

>but mainly it 
>warms my heart because it indicates yet another case in which one of 
>Rush's generalizations is demonstrated to be basically worthless.

This is your conclusion, but I've lost track of which generalization
you are referring to.  So I assume you mean the following:

>You're
>correct that Rush has never said that Democrats "have to" always act on
>symbolism, but Rush has said repeatedly that Democrats *do* act based on
>symbolism rather than substance.

Are you now trying to claim that this distinction is meaningless and
that therefore Rush's generalization is worthless?  Let me try to
claim that Rush says that Democrats OFTEN act based on symbolism
rather than substance.  But let me also claim that Republicans also
SOMETIMES act based primarily on symbolism.  In fact, in a separate
post I have more or less said that the effect of school vouchers
to increase competition is more important than the money itself.
Perhaps this is a case where the symbolism is more important than
the actual dollars that would be transferred.

So now you're trying to claim that Rush's generalization that
"Democrats ALWAYS (or just often) act based on symbolism" is
"worthless".  I disagree.  I think his claim offers a very useful
"starting point" for evaluating a Democrat's motives.  For that
reason, it's not "worthless".  (The other good starting point is
that he's saying that in order to enhance his chances of re/election.)

>    Or how about this scenario? Let's say the government gives these 
>vouchers out and a bunch of parents decide to opt for home schooling 
>instead. That way the parents could pocket their $2000 voucher (partly 
>paid for with my tax dollars) and their kids could get a top notch 
>education by reading Bible verses and getting hands-on computer training 
>on a sleek new C-64.

Sounds good to me. $2000 per year is peanuts.  (At this rate I'll have
wasted that much time on typing in these posts.  Oops - cancel that
last sentence.)

>    When private schools are confronted with irrascible kids with behaivor 
>disorders they can punt the problem kids back out into the public system.
>Let the private schools operate under the same compulsion to deal with 
>every child and then tell me how successful they are.

Public schools punt the kids out too - it just the degree of disruption
required to cause this effect that is different.  Too bad public
school principals can't punt them directly to the peanut farm.
(I don't have much compassion for those who are disruptive.)

>    Ok, let's carry on through with the rest of the possibilities. If 
>Rush's claim is wrong and more money really is required, then Clinton's 
>opposition to Bush's school choice plan is both substantive and essential. 

We are getting way out in center field now.  There are very few federal
dollars currently in the public schools.  Our (Austin) "rich" public schools
are more than 80% funded by LOCAL property taxes.  No income taxes in
Texas.  State aid goes to "poor" districts.  (Until June when all
public schools will be closed by federal court order because the current
system isn't fair.  Good thing they didn't let Bush fill all those
federal court vacancies - it would take a liberal lawyer 30 more minutes
to find a favorable judge if he had.)

So, the federal government isn't going to give anybody any school money
one way or the other and Clinton/Congress doesn't have anything to
do with this problem.  Their actions aren't even symbolic.  The only
"feds" involved in this are the judges that won't let states actually
try out a voucher plan to see what might happen.

>Rush certainly has his own opinion about what's necessary for public 
>education to succeed, however I would note that his opinion is not shared 
>by very many of the teachers and administrators...

Who is watching the henhouse?  The administrators?  That's a funny one.
Are you going to claim that the NEA has the best interests of the
students at heart?  That's a funny one.

>From Clinton's 
>record in Arkansas I would have to say that Clinton *does* believe that 
>more money will help; after all, it did result in improvements in test 
>scores in Arkansas.

If $4000 is better, why not $6000?  $8000?  $10000?  Maybe $200,000
for a class of 20 kids will cause them to learn a lot more?  Maybe
teacher pay could be raised from $35,000 to $40,000?  It's really
hard to argue that money beyond a certain point would simply be
wasted.  It's really hard to argue that kids could get a good education
in the current schools if they really wanted to.  It's really hard
to argue that teacher's pay could be raised without any more money
if some administrators were placed where they really belong.

It's really hard to argue that money couldn't solve every problem
in the world.  Why don't we just print some more?