Re: Vouchers lost in court, deserve no new chance

buckeye wrote:
> Vouchers lost in court, deserve no new chance
>
> http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2008/03/2...
>
> Palm Beach Post Editorial
(Discussion deleted...)
> These amendments relate neither to taxes nor the budget. They relate to
> policy issues that didn't stand up in court, and seek to get around the
> court ruling. They are deceptive, a waste of time and none of the
> commission's business.

The Supreme Curt of Florida (SCOFLA) did not rule on Church/State
grounds. The Florida Constitution requires the State (through local
school districts) to maintain a uniform system of pubic schools.
Somehow the Court interpreted this to mean that Florida's taxpayers
may sup****t only schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. That
legal reasoning is bogus, but immunized them from reversal by the
Federal courts, which would have happened had they ruled on US
Constitutional "establishment" grounds. So long as sup****t flows at
the direction of parents, to schools whose eligibility is determined
by religiously neutral criteria, there is no Church/State violation.
See Federal Appelate Court Judge Michael McConnell's article on the
constitutionality of vouchers in the Brookings  institution study
__Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services__.

The editorial errs in its supposition that vouchers will cost Florida
taxpayers more than the current system. Competition between providers
generally lowers costs and improves goods and services. If the amount
offered as a voucher is some fraction 0 < a/b < 1 of the district's
regular-ed per pupil cost, the district per pupil budget rises with
every escapee from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's wretched schools.
Teachers will gain from the voucher environment's expanded employment
options. Taxpayers will gain from reduced costs and improved overall
system performance. Only incompetent teachers, crooked contractors,
and the out of classroom paresites who infest large school districts,
will lose.