Note: The following essay is written to provoke thought and attempt to clarify why so much confusion is being fostered regarding “school choice.” The primary question to be answered is, “ Why is there such a coordinated push to implement these government programs across the United States?” This author takes an independent and perhaps unusual interpretation of the answer and is solely responsible for the content herein. Please refer to other related articles for further clarification of school choice legislation.
Across the State of South Carolina backers of Act No. 8 (S. 39), known as the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) passed in 2023, are expressing dismay and outrage at the recent decision from the State’s highest court declaring this law to be unconstitutional. Examining the primary argument we are seeing today to justify continuing the fight for “school choice” gives us an enlightening, if disturbing, look into the deepest implications and reality of this unconstitutional legislative act.
Currently the most prominent opposition to this decision seems to rest on the plight of those families who, very quickly, became dependent on free money to be able to access their proposed right to “school choice.” A fundamental piece of most school choice plans is the provision for financial assistance so that “everyone” will be able to choose the school or educational method they feel is best for their children. Although intended to include “everyone,” these plans generally first benefit special groups of parents. Sounds like a great plan. Very equitable.
However, what is really happening? Thanks to this judicial impediment, the most concerning underlying problem with “school choice” laws and dangerous strategies and goals for pushing them through are becoming evident. The primary problem is getting the money to give away. Strategies must be implemented to allocate a pool of funds from somewhere to give to “deserving” or “qualifying” families.
Once school choice laws are legalized through law, these plans become de facto state programs and require funding. So, where does ALL state funding for its programs actually originate? From TAXPAYERS, who will overwhelmingly be different people than the recipients. A tangled, propagandized illusion is often created so it will seem like somehow money just appears without any repercussions on taxpayers. Schemes to guide the funding must be designed to confuse those who will believe “school choice” is somehow “free” money for the recipients and will not increase the tax burden on everyone. In fact, sometimes claims are made that school choice will lower costs for public schools by reducing the number of children attending public schools so education expenses will remain level. However, a reduction in funding public schools is a pipe dream, particularly given the growing numbers of extraordinary and expensive requirements they being obligated to meet.
Could it be that school choice legislation actually is meant to and does transfer money, i.e. wealth, from one group of taxpayers to another group that “qualifies” for the money? Might school choice be another government program that moves us closer to the reality of a totalitarian government? Transfer of wealth is a foundational tenet of communism, apparently embedded in at least some school choice proposals, that ought not be ignored. We are being led right into a socialist/communist regime’s dystopian world even in this kind of legislative effort.
To help clarify how this might apply in South Carolina, let’s look at a quote from Ellen Weaver, State Superintendent of Education. During an interview conducted by Dr. Steve Pettit on “Connect with Palmetto Family Matters,” aired on YouTube September 24, 2024, she stated “…money is deposited into an account that is controlled by parents; it’s no longer money of the State…” Let’s clarify possible implications of this monetary pathway. It seems she is acknowledging that the money deposited into an account for the parents comes from the State, which she clarifies then is separated from the State and controlled by the parent. Where does the State get this money? By levying taxes.
Different families and individual taxpayers pay different amounts of property taxes, most of which go to fund education. Only a very small number of the taxpayers will get any portion of their tax back through school choice programs. Clearly those who pay more and/or get no money back pay a higher percentage of the costs of this program. Doesn’t this sound like a pretty direct wealth transfer?
How can this be happening? Regarding Act 8, the “ESA mechanism” is implemented as explained by Weaver in the September 24 interview referenced above. The process is then obfuscated, camouflaged, implemented, and supported by appealing to compassion and emotion to garner support for “school choice,” including the willingness by taxpayers to allow their dollars, hidden in their tax payments one way or another, to fund these programs. This is done to meet the desires of qualifying families. The benevolence of legislators and the supporters of school choice is then lauded. This strategy actually has a name. It is “The Weaponization of Compassion.” By appealing to the altruistic, kind, and compassionate nature of the more financially blessed, given the current constitutional dilemma, enough people may be manipulated to force legislators to write a “better” law so that “school choice” can become the law of this state. People must be incited to a level of outrage over the “unfairness” and cruelty of refusing to help those in need. What can’t be exposed is the real purpose for which the money will used. Wealth transfer is inevitable.
It seems probable that we are experiencing the implementation of new socialist/communist techniques to undermine and infiltrate our society and economy. Sophisticated developments in psychological control, once called simply brain washing, and the addition of emotional manipulation, provide a whole new approach to the scope of subterfuge and skullduggery used to enable the efficient transfer of wealth extolled by those who would create an “equitable” society. Once upon a time, facilitating the transfer of wealth, still using the power of greed, envy, anger, guilt, and other powerful emotional and self-gratifying feelings, focussed on instilling sufficient feelings of “injustice” to ignite violence. Wiser proponents of control and “equity” are now using more subtle techniques. But the outcome will be the same.
So have we identified a problem and two key strategies? The problem is finding the money. One strategy is the appeal to “compassion,” covering, as needed, the gamut of useful emotional traits. The other is the need to transfer wealth, one of the key elements in creating communist state control and destroying our capitalist economy. Perhaps we should simply recognize what is happening and be thankful that so far, in the many ways transfers of wealth have already been implemented, it has not been characterized by too much violence. We can pray fervently that violence never occurs, but current events and history do not bode well for that result. It is time to see through initiatives like school choice and stop them before it is too late.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or professional advice. ConservaTruth assumes no liability for any actions taken based on this content. Read more.
Listen to this short audio to find out why you should subscribe to our weekly email updates.
Subscribe to ConservaTruth's Email Newsletter for curated insights on South Carolina's legislative activities and conservative viewpoints, delivered straight to your inbox! With vetted and easy-to-understand information, our newsletter empowers you to become an informed and engaged citizen, actively participating in safeguarding our cherished Constitutional values. Don’t miss out on crucial updates—join our community of informed conservatives today!
Comments