DeSantis--School Vouchers For All!

I don't think California has price controls for anything, we love handing out subsidies in America, but regulating prices is for commies. So we get the worst of both worlds, more money to buy stuff that you still have to finance to afford.

 

I think even that's giving them too much credit, its donor service. But I suppose that is their ideology.

 

Bud, I live in a pretty nice So. FL house, and my (homesteaded) property taxes wouldn’t even cover 1 of these vouchers.

Let’s say a family has 4 kids. Who the heck do you think legitimately paid $32k+ into local public schools? About the only way I see that as plausible is some ultra wealthy with a beachfront estate. Perhaps the appropriations from that type of property tax assessment might touch that amount. But for the most part, even most well to do people would obviously be taking out far more than they put in from these vouchers. This policy is like EITC on crack, except instead of income for poors it’s giving more subsidies to the wealthy. It’s completely nonsensical, there is nothing fiscally conservative about it, and without strong controls as to accreditations and how the money is spent I think it will make Florida a Mecca for education fraud scams.

 

Appeals to hypocrisy aside, I think on a principled level that this is actually good policy. Could it be better and more fine-tuned like some posters here have pointed out? Sure. But generally, it's good policy.

Why is it good policy? Because education is considered such an important issue in this country that everyone has a right to it. We offer public education to everybody, but over time, policy has caused public schools to generally gravitate in a similar direction (that most people don't like) causing the demand (and price) for private education to skyrocket.

So now, we have people making a decision for the next generation on where to send them to school where price is likely the primary factor for most households. If perception is reality, and the quality of public school education is actually worse... then you're enabling this cycle of poverty where the next generation actually have a harder time getting out of poverty due to a lack of investment and a lack of choice. Vouchers do not completely level the playing field (nothing ever will), but it's a step in that direction.

It's kind of ironic because this sort of policy is typically a leftist or progressive pitch or tactic, but leftists/progressives are so beholden to protecting "public schools" rather than protecting "education" that they want to block this sort of thing in its tracks.

As to why conservatives support this: I think they draw the line here for a number of reasons:
1. The people bearing the largest negative cost of where they go to school generally are not responsible for where they go to school. It's the parents' decision, yet the child bears the cost. Typically for most welfare issues, you're dealing with people who bear the consequences of their own decisions, for better or worse. This often-times is not one of those cases.
2. Private schools are more likely to offer environments that are conservative-friendly so they would rather help them, even if it's at the expense of public schools... especially if the market preference is for private schools.
3. This is the most important reason. Education is unique when compared to housing, food, and drug prices because it teaches people how to fend for themself. You ask a conservative if the government should pay for a poor man's fish, and they're much more likely to say "no" than if you ask if the government should teach the poor man who wants to be a fisherman how to fish. One teaches you how to escape the cycle of poverty, the other is a bandaid on a gaping wound. And if conservatives would invest in welfare, it's welfare towards people in a manner that specifically is meant for them to lift themselves out of whatever unfortunate circumstances they may be experiencing. Education is much more likely to do that than food or housing. That's not to say you don't need food or housing (you do), but giving people food or housing doesn't actually address the underlying problem.

 

One a day sounds about right. The financial obligations requirement is not in the Florida constitution, and the State does not tell the ex-convict how much he or she owes. On top of that, legislation was just passed that states that the ex-convict cannot rely on the State to tell him or her whether he or she is allowed to vote. So, how many ex-convicts are going to risk going back to jail if they vote and are then possibly charged with a felony for illegally voting? Not many, and I am guessing that you know that.

 

The True Cost Of Public Education In Florida 2.0.

"The most commonly reported per-student spending figures in Florida are based solely on funding provided through the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP). For the 2017-18 school year, Florida public schools would have spent an average of $7,307 “per student” in FEFP funding."

"The Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) calculated an average expenditure per unweighted FTE based on reported District expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2017-18 of $10,856, which includes expenditures such as debt service, capital outlay, and other funds that are reported separately from FEFP funds."

That money came from somewhere.

 

Yep, it's just the public/private divide. Some folks want everything to be privatized. It's a very similar issue to healthcare except with healthcare, private was the default system and people have been trying to make it more public (with Medicare, Medicaid, and hopefully eventually a public option for everyone). With education, public was the default system and people are trying to make it more private.

 

The gamble seems to be whether the people of Florida generally trust private education over public education.

And I think that's a darn good gamble.

 

How does rent control work in California?

"Select U.S. cities have rent control laws, including New York City and Washington, D.C., while many states ban rent control outright. In 2019, Oregon and California became the first states to pass statewide rent control laws."

 

Local taxing districts
Separate building/capital allocations which are through a different mechanism in State and local govt


In general, this is a tax break for the rich combined with helping to fund religious ideology. The for profit schools invested in by individual legislators is just icing.

 

The Florida Constitution expressly mandates that the State make adequate provisions for public schools.* To the extent taxpayer dollars are siphoned off and given to private schools, I think those private schools need to be held to at least the same standards. Otherwise, it would seem to be an inherent violation of the State's legal obligation to public education.

*The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require.

Statutes & Constitution :Constitution : Online Sunshine

Let's not forget about this provision either:

SECTION 3. Religious freedom.—There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

Statutes & Constitution :Constitution : Online Sunshine

 

The point of my post was addressing the concern of "who is going to pay for it?" I know, it's funny that the progressives here are now echoing conservative talking points when discussing policy.

And my response indicated that somebody was already paying around $8,000 per student (in public school) under the current low taxes system of Florida, so it obviously can be done.

 

Because he has friends who will benefit financially.

 

That's a fair question and I have to respond by saying "yes." I have no impression, though, that it will go well.

 

Rent control is good policy, also you dont typically get cash subsidies to pay it. Typically it just means they cant increase the rent by too much year too year, and it is more difficult to evict someone.

 

First you said California doesn't have price controls, that price controls are for commies, now you're conceding that they do, but price controls are good policy.

 

does anybody disagree with this statement?