Boehner set to revive DC school voucher program Democrats eliminated
posted at 1:50 am on January 27, 2011 by SusanAnne Hiller
[ Congress ]
Yes, the Democrats killed it (can we still say that) and I’ve been calling out the party of good will, kindness, caring, and tolerance Democrats for more than a year about their shameful and deliberate actions. And now, it’s game on:
The speaker, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., on Wednesday plans to introduce legislation to revive a controversial program that provides private-school vouchers for kids of low-income parents in Washington, D.C. Boehner has long been a supporter of that program, which started to wind down in 2009, but is devoting some serious political capital to the cause this week.
[snip]
The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, as it is known, was launched in 2004 as the first federally funded program providing K-12 education grants. Though supporters say it gives poor students an alternative to the city’s underperforming public school system, teachers unions and other opponents say it draws sorely needed money away from the public system.
Lawmakers opposed to the program succeeded in eliminating it after Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. — who could not be reached for comment Tuesday — attached an amendment to a 2009 spending bill. President Obama stepped in and agreed to allow students currently enrolled to graduate. But the program is no longer accepting new applicants.
To recap, the Omnibus appropriations act of 2009 defunded (roll call vote here) the successful program–effectively eliminating any opportunity for poor DC schoolchildren to escape the horrid DC public schools. The Democrats, namely Dick Durbin, claimed that the program funding would take away from the money the DC public schools needed.
Speaker Boehner and Senator Lieberman put out this video statement:
This move to reinstate this program is a bold one for Boehner–especially when calls for spending decreases are deafening and we are broke (H/T Allah for the video). However, when the Obama administration spent more than all previous administrations in his first 19 months in office, it’s hard to say that this wasn’t a deliberate cut on the part of the Democrats–especially after 3 months in office.
Furthermore, this is going to be a tricky issue for Obama and the Democrats–one that will further define the Democrats as bought-off, public-sector union hacks and self-serving politicians who continually oppress and exploit others for their own political gain. Some of you may think, yeah, those Republicans, but I will remind you–it was the Republicans who originally started the DC scholarship program and the Democrats (and a few of the usual RINOs) who filibustered it. Kinda like the 1964 Civil Rights Act–Democrats filibustered that one, too. Look it up.
Does anyone see a pattern here?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Unfortunately, operating the DC municipal government is an authentic Constitutional duty of the Feds, so it’s in. The Department of Education, however, is still an exercise of overreach, so let’s hope it goes out.
cthulhu on January 27, 2011 at 3:51 AM
It would really be great if Boehner and Lieberman could find a way to make the voucher program revenue neutral. Otherwise, it’s Republicans spending money we don’t have on programs Republicans like. I smell the distinctive scent of hypocrisy.
BigAlSouth on January 27, 2011 at 6:31 AM
For these DC children, Boehner is Superman.
txmomof6 on January 27, 2011 at 6:56 AM
indeed….
cmsinaz on January 27, 2011 at 7:50 AM
Wait, how can a voucher program be anything but revenue neutral?
All this program does is give parents a choice where their tax money is going to be spent, or does the Washington, D.C. education establishment presume they keep the same level of funding while students go somewhere else for a proper education?
Skandia Recluse on January 27, 2011 at 10:37 AM
Unbelievable that Durbin could actually claim that the problem with the DC school district was lack of money. They spend more per-capita that almost anyone else. I bet you could halve their funding and nothing would happen to the quality of education they’re putting out.
David Shane on January 27, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Since you asked, it’s rather obvious that there’s a pattern of shrill and silly prose and simpleminded partisanship rather than honesty in your posts.
audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Audi, I just call it like I see it. Silly prose is when you deliberately misspell someone’s name to portray them as a Nazi. I’ve seen that frog elsewhere on the web. Smooth move at your blog–hateful and shameful. But I would expect no less from you.
SusanAnne Hiller on January 27, 2011 at 11:42 AM
I sure hope Boehner and all sees to it this is done. There is no reason a parent can’t decide to have their children get the best education they can. It would be great for every state to do this also.
L
letget on January 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM
and that crap from you is exactly why I say that you’re dishonest. somebody at a blog that I frequent does something and you try blaming it on me.
you really aren’t making yourself any more than a scuzzy sort of cheap shot artist when you indulge in that guilt by association sh1t, SusanAnne.
I had hoped that you would do better this year.
Try…. for the children, if not for yourself.
audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 11:54 AM
for starters, some funding to school districts is based on number of pupils enrolled. take the pupils out and funding decreases proportionally while expenses do not.
audiculous on January 27, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Trackbacks reveal lots of information on the back end.
SusanAnne Hiller on January 27, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Must read!
Black and Blue
Boehner is terrifying the Democrats with this move. This is the as first step in destroying the blue voting model
Theworldisnotenough on January 27, 2011 at 1:29 PM
If the bill is deficit-neutral and tax neutral — doesn’t increase the deficit or taxes — then what’s to lose? The kids get the quality education our tax dollars are supposed to be giving them (but aren’t), and we get a better ROI for our taxes.
unclesmrgol on January 28, 2011 at 3:13 PM
True. But if the district is not doing its job with respect to educating the students, then
a) the students deserve a quality education, and
b) they need to be allowed to go where they can get a quality education, and
c) the tax dollars which would have been spent giving them a crappy education need to be reallocated to those giving them a quality education.
The above means that a student, if dissatisfied with the level of education they are receiving, gets to take the tax dollars allocated to their education to a new place. The tax dollars go with the student, not with a particular school district.
And if the district is not doing its job with respect to educating the students then
a) the taxpayers should not be rewarding bad behavior on the part of the district or the teachers’ union, and
b) the taxpayers should be allowed to redirect their hard earned tax dollars to those educational institutions which do work.
Right now, the public school system is a monopoly by law — it has defined attendence boundaries, and every student in those attendence boundaries is obligated to either attend the public school for free, or pay for their own education at another institution. The system is designed to prevent poor students (poor from a money standpoint) from leaving their bad public school for a good private school, because they cannot afford the costs. It is my belief, and the belief of many others here, that they should be allowed to take the tax dollars allocated to them at the bad school and move themselves and those dollars over to a good school.
Now, what is a “good school”? That’s where the arguments are.
unclesmrgol on January 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM
and that’s a fair argument.
it just leaves a few holes.
it presumes things about the public school system that may or may not be accurate.
it presumes things about private schools that certainly aren’t always accurate.
it leaves open whether the advocacy of private education by one party may be driven by things other than concern for the poor children of the District of Columbia.
it doesn’t address the core question of whether there’s a general obligation to operate a system of public schools and an obligation to collect taxes to fund their operation.
removing money from them at the discretion of each individual is pretty much an indirect answer in the negative, but I hold that making support for public education optional is a lousy choice.
audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 4:34 PM