From: johnch@test22.sun.com (Slam the Crank from Wheezer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limba
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:58:12
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
NNTP-Posting-Host: test22
In-reply-to: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu's message of Wed, 13 Jan 1993 18:29:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan13.182944.3608@cs.wayne.edu> mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman) writes:
   In article 44414@watson.ibm.com, strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
   >In article <oJLaXB5w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>, caliban@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (James) writes:
   >|> I think that the problem most libertarians-and-others who
   >|> support school choice have with Clinton's decision is not

   Now, Bill talks like an egalitarian, but he acts otherwise. When presented with a
   program that redistributes wealth- a real classic liberal program, you'd think- and
   one that allows everyone greater access to the kind of school that Bill has 
   shown he thinks is better- he rejects it. This seems very odd indeed.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.  Bonnie and Clyde
redistributed wealth, defense contracting corporations redistribute
wealth, Randy's donut shop redistributes wealth.  They do it in
different ways, to different purposes, stated and unstated.

   The reason has nothing to do with education or students. It has to do with the
   power of government. 

   Vouchers weaken the power of the state, and Bill is very much a stateist. He and

Most of those who run for office do basically believe in the political
structure they are trying to join.  Is a stateist someone who believes
there is a role for government in human events?

   his party have a vested stake in making as many people as possible dependant on
   the state for their livelihood and for basic services. That way the state, or
   rather the party in charge, can grant and withold favors in order to coerce
   behavior.  

This is a basic problem with any political system.  Unfortunately,
until people get a lot better at voluntarily respecting each other's
rights, the alternative (no political system) looks pretty unworkable.

   It's as if Chicago aldermen ran the country.

But then they wouldn't be . . . oh never mind.

   By opposing vouchers, Bill sews up the vote of the unionized public school
   teachers, a highly paid and (on average) poorly skilled population that could
   not make equivalent salaries if they had to compete with others in the workplace.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not necessarily mean that
he has ugly motives.  Do you think there might be any other factors
involved?  That maybe people who do *not* stand to gain personally
from "opposing vouchers" would do so because the idea doesn't seem
sound?

   Is that clearer?

Oversimplification often strips away those troubling ambiguities and
considerations of, "but then on the other hand . . . ."

I can't say that *no* system of vouchers could work, but unless
you give someone enough to pay the whole tuition at a private school,
what you're likely to end up doing is to create a situation in which
the wealthy get a big discount on their educational expenses and the
poor get some piece of paper they can't do much with, unless a school
opens up that is willing to take the voucher as full, or nearly full,
payment.  Public schools will tend to lose students and funding, and
will deteriorate even further than they have already.  The end result
will be cheaper education for the rich and third-world education for
the poor.  The middle class will have to pay up to go to private
school, or get on the third-world track.  Not an auspicious way to
enter the new millenium.

-- John C
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20894 alt.politics.elections:25061 talk.politics.misc:69139