As frantic believers in “school choice” search for ways to use government funding to provide “school choice,” it is incumbent, on those who have the power to legislate these schemes into law, that they grasp the implications inherent in any proposal involving government funding. Below are some perspectives for consideration.
VOUCHERS
Vouchers for “school choice” are outright monetary gifts to recipients from their state or school district, often tax-deductible. Sometimes they are called “scholarships,” so the two terms are related, but not identical. Vouchers are coming under increasing suspicion because they are blatant financial gifts to special interest groups, identified in a number of ways for the purposes of “school choice.” Vouchers, like any monetary gift, can be difficult to accurately track to be sure they are used for the purposes they are awarded, although proponents often appear to ignore that reality. In this world of complex tax reporting, financial manipulations, and other subterfuges that obscure the use of individual money, vouchers present a number of challenges for the donors. Donors like to think the money is used for the purpose specified, especially if the giver is the government, which does not release funds without strings to ensure funds are used for the intended purpose—which the government defines.
SCHOLARSHIPS
Scholarships also are gifts, akin to vouchers. A myriad of schemes are being developed to enable legislators to write laws that seem to guarantee these gifts are used for “school choice.” “Scholarship” has been used as the title for the way money is gifted, perhaps because this word tends to sound so beneficent and noble. However, the funding of these scholarships is suspect, just as any other government endorsed financial scheme should be. In some schemes of this nature private funders are offered incentives to provide funding, often tax credits, i.e. government financial rewards. This may help to obfuscate the actual source of the funding and/or its requirements, controls, and ultimate ramifications.
It may be that proponents of the misguided idea of “school choice” have realized that it is not realistic to keep the funding within the private sector and avoid government largesse and resultant strings. The pool of willing private donors is simply not adequate for the ultimate scope of “school choice” schemes. Therefore, funding schemes have found it necessary to involve the government in ways that ensure adequate funding—but also give the government increased control over the education of all children. This should be a red flag.
Scholarships, like all monetary benefits meant for special use, also generally require some eligibility requirements. Qualifications may range from simply proof of residency to proof of need or membership in a specially identified class or group of families (particularly in the case of “school choice”), or any number of designations, which enhances the public’s perception that this is a good and benevolent offering and entices recipients, unknowingly or without care, to give up their autonomy.
TAX CREDITS
With the objections to vouchers and scholarships that are emerging in public dialogue, tax credits are being increasingly proposed as the best solution. Upon examination, regrettably, obvious dangers appear. Since there is no overt monetary transfer of funds, people may think there would be no strings or costs involved. However, a credit is clearly a financial benefit, albeit one where instead of receiving a payment, no money is overtly transferred.
As tax credits for “school choice” are a little more vague than outright giving options and appear “harmless,” their pitfalls are less obvious. They appear attractive to those who are determined to put these schemes in place, often and perhaps primarily for their own self-image and promotion, particularly evident when legislators promote bills for ”school choice.” They also seem to be less dangerous and not as obviously indicate their cost and inequitable use. Of course potential recipients laud tax credits—who doesn’t want to pay more taxes than absolutely required? Tax credits can also be more complex to administer, so they become more of a challenge to design and implement. They are often not the first funding avenue to be tried by those bewitched by “school choice.”
In reality, tax credits are clearly a financial gain provided by the government under law. They follow the axiom that any monetary benefit provided by the government will have strings attached. It is reasonable to expect that to qualify for a tax credit for educational “choice” (CHOICE—NOT FREEDOM) one must first have children—which already distinguishes a special interest group which already gets a deduction for each child on most tax returns, state and/or federal. This places a greater burden on taxpayers without children. While tax credits reduce payments for some people, tax revenue requirements do not change because some people will have their tax burden reduced. Therefore, other taxpayers have to make up for the loss caused by these credits. In effect this is a transfer of wealth.
Further, there will be specific criteria that must be met to qualify for the credit. One of them spreading already in most “school choice” legislation is proof of need. This is blatantly redistribution of wealth. In addition, there will be requirements that prove the funds are going toward approved educational expenses—as if this means that the budget of the family will somehow not benefit from this largesse. Anyone who has knowledge of how budgets work knows that there are endless ways to adjust living expenses when additional income, loss of income or reduction of living expenses, such as taxes, occurs, even in government where there are supposed to be strictly “designated” funds. Those who request this credit will be required to prove that they will comply with the conditions of the tax credit. A list of the criteria to qualify will surely include proof that money was spent on items approved by the government. That list is government control.
It is important to consider all the questionable aspects of any of these schemes, which have been extensively raised in many other articles on this website and elsewhere, by wise and experienced people often with extensive knowledge of the financial dangers of government funding through legislation, particularly for education.
In conclusion, there is no possible way to provide a financial benefit without transferring the burden for meeting revenue requirements to other taxpayers (transfer of wealth). Government cannot and will not provide a financial benefit without qualifications and strings, leading to the coming certainty of total state control of educational services. Educational freedom will cease to exist. For educational freedom to be real, the only solution is to allow all parents the right to choose where and how their children will be educated.
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