SCOTUS

[Winterborn]

Throw in the fact that the above group is tangentially associated with a group that has claimed (no proof yet) responsibility to multiple pro-life location fire-bombings, along with threats of more. I think we have enough to start a committee on the topic.

You're right. Let's see who Ursus will appoint to the committee.

Not one of those committees. We all know one of those will just fall into either food, fishing, or alcohol related. Probably also will discuss pineapple on pizza and whether or not beans belong in chili.

[UNI88]

You're right. Let's see who Ursus will appoint to the committee.

Not one of those committees. We all know one of those will just fall into either food, fishing, or alcohol related. Probably also will discuss pineapple on pizza and whether or not beans belong in chili.

1) IMO it makes more sense for a Congressional committee to look into an inept but seditious riot that occurred at the US Capitol as an election was about to be certified then it does for one to look into something that happened on Wall St or a local federal courthouse.

2) A CS committee would be just as productive and a lot more fun then a Congressional committee.

[kalm]

Not one of those committees. We all know one of those will just fall into either food, fishing, or alcohol related. Probably also will discuss pineapple on pizza and whether or not beans belong in chili.

1) IMO it makes more sense for a Congressional committee to look into an inept but seditious riot that occurred at the US Capitol as an election was about to be certified then it does for one to look into something that happened on Wall St or a local federal courthouse.

2) A CS committee would be just as productive and a lot more fun then a Congressional committee.

Committees are groups of people who take minutes and waste hours.

[Winterborn]

Not one of those committees. We all know one of those will just fall into either food, fishing, or alcohol related. Probably also will discuss pineapple on pizza and whether or not beans belong in chili.

1) IMO it makes more sense for a Congressional committee to look into an inept but seditious riot that occurred at the US Capitol as an election was about to be certified then it does for one to look into something that happened on Wall St or a local federal courthouse.

2) A CS committee would be just as productive and a lot more fun then a Congressional committee.

f

I agree with both your points. And pretty sure I have never argued against have a committee for Jan 6th. Though what I may have argued about is how that committee is being conducted and the results going to come out of it. i.e. a de-facto 3rd impeachment of Trump (at least they will try)

As to you second point. Of course it would be more fun. One, we all mostly have command of our mental facilities (some more-so than others) and two we generally get along and are not trying to eat out of the same pork barrel our betters in Congress are.

I would also put forth the argument that a CS committee on the subject (or any subject for that matter) would be exponentially more productive than any Congressional committee purely due to the fact that we actually want to see something get done. We could start up a business plan offering "committee's for hire, since the CS members are experts in every subject.

[houndawg]

Haven't we been lead to believe that shutting down a government building is insurrection?

Only when you break windows and shit on the floor.

[houndawg]

You're right. Let's see who Ursus will appoint to the committee.

Not one of those committees. We all know one of those will just fall into either food, fishing, or alcohol related. Probably also will discuss pineapple on pizza and whether or not beans belong in chili.

yes

no

[BDKJMU]

One example of the wackadoodle left being allowed to break fed law outside some of the SCOTUS’s homes..

Pro-choice protesters descend on Coney Barrett's home with blood and doll props

https://www.foxnews.com/us/pro-choice-p ... doll-props

[BDKJMU]

Victory for religious liberty.

Supreme Court rules Maine tuition program violates First Amendment for excluding religious schools
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Carson v. Makin

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday that a Maine tuition assistance program violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause for excluding religious schools from eligibility.

The program provides tuition assistance for students without a local public school to attend private institutions – as long as the funding is not used for religious or "sectarian" teaching...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... us-schools

[BDKJMU]

5 big cases awaiting rulings. The other 4 besides the abortion case.

2. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency

While this case – which is actually four cases consolidated to be decided together – is not centered on hot-button political issues but on the much dryer world of agency action, its outcome can perhaps have the greatest impact of all of these cases.

At issue is whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to issue sweeping rules that could overhaul industry practices and the country's electricity grids to address climate change. 

In 2015, the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan aimed to reduce carbon emissions at power plants. The plan was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2016, and then repealed by the Trump administration and replaced by the less extreme Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. After President Biden took office, however, the ACE Rule became the subject of litigation that led to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacating that rule as well as the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. 

The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision. 

The Biden administration argues that the EPA has the authority to unilaterally enact broad requirements to improve the environment. West Virginia and other states argue that this runs afoul of the "major questions doctrine." This doctrine says that even though federal agencies generally have broad rule-making power as delegated by Congress through the statutes that create them, when it comes to issues of major economic and political significance to the country those statutes need to have clear language to support the agency’s action.  

The Biden administration is also claiming that the case does not even belong before the Supreme Court because the EPA has said that it will not reinstate the Clean Power Plan, opting instead to develop and implement its own rules. The government argued that without any EPA rule currently in place, the other side is merely litigating over a potential future rule, not any actual current harm.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/five-b ... ng-rulings

[BDKJMU]

3. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

In possible the biggest Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in more than a decade, the justices are poised to decide whether New York's process for obtaining a license to carry a concealed handgun is overly restrictive. The current rules require applicants to show "proper cause" for why they need to carry a firearm, and the government can exercise discretion in determining whether someone has satisfied that requirement. The result is that it is extremely difficult to obtain a license.

During oral arguments, conservative justices appeared to challenge the state's position.

"Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.

In an exchange with Justice Samuel Alito, New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood recognized that if an applicant stated that the leave work late at night and have to walk from a subway station through a high-crime neighborhood to get home, that person would be denied because they did not cite a specific threat.

"How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense?" Alito asked, stating that this is at the core of the Second Amendment.

[BDKJMU]

4. Biden v. Texas

This case centers on the Trump administration's Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy under which migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. had to stay in Mexico as they awaited hearings. The Biden administration tried to repeal the policy but was blocked by a lower court.

The crux of the case is whether the federal government can use discretion in carrying out the program or if, as Texas and Missouri are arguing in their lawsuit, the policy is needed to comply with federal law that says migrants cannot be released into the U.S. because the country lacks resources to detain everyone.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar claimed during oral arguments that if the policy was needed to comply with the law, then "every presidential administration in an unbroken line for the past quarter century has been in open violation[.]"

Much of the argument was over statutory language. Prelogar pointed to a statute that said the attorney general "may return" aliens from contiguous territory back to that territory while they await a hearing. Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the same statute says that if an immigration officer determines that a migrant "is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted" to the U.S., the migrant "shall be detained," which the other side was interpreting as a requirement.

[Pwns]

It's really stupid to try and argue the vouchers parents get from the government can't be used for a school of their choice. If you're going to have a problem with that, you might as well argue parents that get tax deductions for kids can't use their money to pay Christian school tuition or donate to their church.

[GannonFan]

I don't have any particular problem with the SCOTUS ruling in the Maine case. Maine has a program where they provide money to families to attend private schools of their choice in really remote parts of the state where there isn't a public school option (so the state hasn't provided a public school for these areas). The Maine law said you can have the money, but you can't use it to go to a school that has any religious aspect to it. IMO, once the state has abdicated on the task of providing public education, and I'd keep it pretty tight to the issues in this case specifically that there weren't any public schools available, then it's really up to the parents on where to send their kids with the money provided.

Outside of specific instances, and mainly in inner-cities, where I would support vouchers for school choice, I am not a voucher proponent, whether the private school be religious based or not. But that presupposes that there is a public school option actually there. In this case of sparsely-populated Maine, there is no public school option. I would read the opinion that way, as a more narrow ruling. And I'm still opposed to school vouchers pretty much everywhere else.

[Winterborn]

I don't have any particular problem with the SCOTUS ruling in the Maine case. Maine has a program where they provide money to families to attend private schools of their choice in really remote parts of the state where there isn't a public school option (so the state hasn't provided a public school for these areas). The Maine law said you can have the money, but you can't use it to go to a school that has any religious aspect to it. IMO, once the state has abdicated on the task of providing public education, and I'd keep it pretty tight to the issues in this case specifically that there weren't any public schools available, then it's really up to the parents on where to send their kids with the money provided.

Outside of specific instances, and mainly in inner-cities, where I would support vouchers for school choice, I am not a voucher proponent, whether the private school be religious based or not. But that presupposes that there is a public school option actually there. In this case of sparsely-populated Maine, there is no public school option. I would read the opinion that way, as a more narrow ruling. And I'm still opposed to school vouchers pretty much everywhere else.

Can you explain your position why not?

In the spirit of openness, I will state I am all for school vouchers and allowing parents to decide to allow their tax dollars to follow their kids.

[tribe_pride]

I don't have any particular problem with the SCOTUS ruling in the Maine case. Maine has a program where they provide money to families to attend private schools of their choice in really remote parts of the state where there isn't a public school option (so the state hasn't provided a public school for these areas). The Maine law said you can have the money, but you can't use it to go to a school that has any religious aspect to it. IMO, once the state has abdicated on the task of providing public education, and I'd keep it pretty tight to the issues in this case specifically that there weren't any public schools available, then it's really up to the parents on where to send their kids with the money provided.

Outside of specific instances, and mainly in inner-cities, where I would support vouchers for school choice, I am not a voucher proponent, whether the private school be religious based or not. But that presupposes that there is a public school option actually there. In this case of sparsely-populated Maine, there is no public school option. I would read the opinion that way, as a more narrow ruling. And I'm still opposed to school vouchers pretty much everywhere else.

Don't think you can read the Opinion that narrowly. Part of the Syllabus (taken from the full opinion) states:

The Court considered a state benefit program that provided public funds to support tuition payments at private schools and specifically carved out private religious schools from those eligible to receive such funds. Both that program and this one disqualify certain private schools from public funding “solely because they are religious.” 591 U. S., at ___. A law that operates in that manner must be subjected to “the strictest scrutiny.” Id., at ___–___.

Maine’s program cannot survive strict scrutiny.

Based on that (and more in the Opinion) it's going to be tough to argue that it should be read so narrowly to only apply if only local pubic options are not available. From a legislative standpoint, if the legislature does not want to provide vouchers to anyone, then that is their choice but if they do provide vouchers, the ruling basically states they cannot specifically exclude only based on the fact that it may reach a religious entity alone.

[GannonFan]

I don't have any particular problem with the SCOTUS ruling in the Maine case. Maine has a program where they provide money to families to attend private schools of their choice in really remote parts of the state where there isn't a public school option (so the state hasn't provided a public school for these areas). The Maine law said you can have the money, but you can't use it to go to a school that has any religious aspect to it. IMO, once the state has abdicated on the task of providing public education, and I'd keep it pretty tight to the issues in this case specifically that there weren't any public schools available, then it's really up to the parents on where to send their kids with the money provided.

Outside of specific instances, and mainly in inner-cities, where I would support vouchers for school choice, I am not a voucher proponent, whether the private school be religious based or not. But that presupposes that there is a public school option actually there. In this case of sparsely-populated Maine, there is no public school option. I would read the opinion that way, as a more narrow ruling. And I'm still opposed to school vouchers pretty much everywhere else.

Don't think you can read the Opinion that narrowly. Part of the Syllabus (taken from the full opinion) states:

The Court considered a state benefit program that provided public funds to support tuition payments at private schools and specifically carved out private religious schools from those eligible to receive such funds. Both that program and this one disqualify certain private schools from public funding “solely because they are religious.” 591 U. S., at ___. A law that operates in that manner must be subjected to “the strictest scrutiny.” Id., at ___–___.

Maine’s program cannot survive strict scrutiny.

Based on that (and more in the Opinion) it's going to be tough to argue that it should be read so narrowly to only apply if only local pubic options are not available. From a legislative standpoint, if the legislature does not want to provide vouchers to anyone, then that is their choice but if they do provide vouchers, the ruling basically states they cannot specifically exclude only based on the fact that it may reach a religious entity alone.

That's fine, but none of it really matters if the school isn't giving out tuition vouchers at all. Roberts certainly indicated that if Maine had other things in place (i.e. actual public schools, or even hybrid versions of public schools) then they wouldn't need the vouchers and then this wouldn't even be an issue. Bottom line, don't issue vouchers and you don't need to open the window to having that money flow to religious schools.

[tribe_pride]

Don't think you can read the Opinion that narrowly. Part of the Syllabus (taken from the full opinion) states:



Based on that (and more in the Opinion) it's going to be tough to argue that it should be read so narrowly to only apply if only local pubic options are not available. From a legislative standpoint, if the legislature does not want to provide vouchers to anyone, then that is their choice but if they do provide vouchers, the ruling basically states they cannot specifically exclude only based on the fact that it may reach a religious entity alone.

That's fine, but none of it really matters if the school isn't giving out tuition vouchers at all. Roberts certainly indicated that if Maine had other things in place (i.e. actual public schools, or even hybrid versions of public schools) then they wouldn't need the vouchers and then this wouldn't even be an issue. Bottom line, don't issue vouchers and you don't need to open the window to having that money flow to religious schools.

No argument from me there. No requirement that vouchers need to be provided. Just when you start, can't discriminate based on religion.

[Winterborn]

Just read that for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (argued Nov. 3) that either Thomas or Barrett are most likely to be authors (they have not written an opinion for a Novemeber case). My hope is that it will be Thomas, as he has a way with words and will not sugar coat things.

After the above case, the one I am most interested in is: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (argued Feb. 28). Which is a challenge to the EPA's authority for regulating greenhouse gasses.

[GannonFan]

I don't have any particular problem with the SCOTUS ruling in the Maine case. Maine has a program where they provide money to families to attend private schools of their choice in really remote parts of the state where there isn't a public school option (so the state hasn't provided a public school for these areas). The Maine law said you can have the money, but you can't use it to go to a school that has any religious aspect to it. IMO, once the state has abdicated on the task of providing public education, and I'd keep it pretty tight to the issues in this case specifically that there weren't any public schools available, then it's really up to the parents on where to send their kids with the money provided.

Outside of specific instances, and mainly in inner-cities, where I would support vouchers for school choice, I am not a voucher proponent, whether the private school be religious based or not. But that presupposes that there is a public school option actually there. In this case of sparsely-populated Maine, there is no public school option. I would read the opinion that way, as a more narrow ruling. And I'm still opposed to school vouchers pretty much everywhere else.

Can you explain your position why not?

In the spirit of openness, I will state I am all for school vouchers and allowing parents to decide to allow their tax dollars to follow their kids.

There's an economy of scale when the public, as a whole, gets together and does something as the public. For schools, for instance, it's not merely the sum of every parent's tax money that results in school funding. Obviously, too, there are plenty of people with no skin in the game (i.e. no kids) who pay the same school tax as well. In my school district, the price per student to educate them is about double what I pay myself in school taxes. I'm getting the benefit of the public deciding that public education is worth the investment since I have multiple kids and I don't pay anything extra for having kids, let along multiple kids, attending public school. And on the whole, public schools work. Can they be better? Of course they can, I don't know of anything that can't be improved upon.

But once people can pull out their money (and they're not pulling out just the money they themselves pay in taxes, they're taking out the per pupil share that the public has decided to spend on them in the public school setting) then the system begins to suffer. The marginal cost to educate one more student is nothing in the existing public school setting - we're already paying for the buildings, the land, the utilities, etc. One more student, or one less student, doesn't change that. But if we were to give out vouchers, at the full per pupil cost to educate, and let people use that for private schools of their choosing, it would disproportionately hurt what's left behind. A family that decides they want their 3 kids to go to private schools, would now get to pull out something close to 6x the amount they pay in taxes (in my case, I pay 1/2 the cost to educate 1 student, but I would be pulling out the cost to educate 3 students while still just paying that 1/2 cost for 1). So they get more than their share and the public school their leaving behind now has less money per student than they did before with no real change to the marginal costs to do business. The more and more people who pull their kids out, the greater the negative impact on what's left behind.

I have no issue with people deciding that they want something different than public school for their kids. I didn't make that choice, the public schools where I live are more than adequate for a K-12 education (and we moved here on purpose because we knew the schools were that way), and when the schools have needed to be improved in some way we've advocated for or, in some cases, directly supported whatever needed to be improved. It's how collective public endeavors work. However, as a tax payer, I don't feel that I should have to financially support someone who chooses to go a route different than the public option, especially when their decision costs more than what they're putting into the game. If you want private school education, then pay for it yourself, don't look for taxpayers to subsidize your individual decision.

And my position is only slightly different for the inner city schools, or something comparable, where the public institutions have failed so spectacularly that now children are actually suffering to have to stay in that setting. In those rare cases, I'm fine with vouchers because you're talking about kids that don't have the luxury of time for the public institutions to be rebuilt and reestablished so that they can provide an adequate education - by the time that happens the current kids will have already lost their opportunity to be educated. But those are rare in the public school model today.

[houndawg]

One example of the wackadoodle left being allowed to break fed law outside some of the SCOTUS’s homes..

Pro-choice protesters descend on Coney Barrett's home with blood and doll props

https://www.foxnews.com/us/pro-choice-p ... doll-props

So

Doesn't he have a gun?

[tribe_pride]

Can you explain your position why not?

In the spirit of openness, I will state I am all for school vouchers and allowing parents to decide to allow their tax dollars to follow their kids.

There's an economy of scale when the public, as a whole, gets together and does something as the public. For schools, for instance, it's not merely the sum of every parent's tax money that results in school funding. Obviously, too, there are plenty of people with no skin in the game (i.e. no kids) who pay the same school tax as well. In my school district, the price per student to educate them is about double what I pay myself in school taxes. I'm getting the benefit of the public deciding that public education is worth the investment since I have multiple kids and I don't pay anything extra for having kids, let along multiple kids, attending public school. And on the whole, public schools work. Can they be better? Of course they can, I don't know of anything that can't be improved upon.

But once people can pull out their money (and they're not pulling out just the money they themselves pay in taxes, they're taking out the per pupil share that the public has decided to spend on them in the public school setting) then the system begins to suffer. The marginal cost to educate one more student is nothing in the existing public school setting - we're already paying for the buildings, the land, the utilities, etc. One more student, or one less student, doesn't change that. But if we were to give out vouchers, at the full per pupil cost to educate, and let people use that for private schools of their choosing, it would disproportionately hurt what's left behind. A family that decides they want their 3 kids to go to private schools, would now get to pull out something close to 6x the amount they pay in taxes (in my case, I pay 1/2 the cost to educate 1 student, but I would be pulling out the cost to educate 3 students while still just paying that 1/2 cost for 1). So they get more than their share and the public school their leaving behind now has less money per student than they did before with no real change to the marginal costs to do business. The more and more people who pull their kids out, the greater the negative impact on what's left behind.

I have no issue with people deciding that they want something different than public school for their kids. I didn't make that choice, the public schools where I live are more than adequate for a K-12 education (and we moved here on purpose because we knew the schools were that way), and when the schools have needed to be improved in some way we've advocated for or, in some cases, directly supported whatever needed to be improved. It's how collective public endeavors work. However, as a tax payer, I don't feel that I should have to financially support someone who chooses to go a route different than the public option, especially when their decision costs more than what they're putting into the game. If you want private school education, then pay for it yourself, don't look for taxpayers to subsidize your individual decision.

And my position is only slightly different for the inner city schools, or something comparable, where the public institutions have failed so spectacularly that now children are actually suffering to have to stay in that setting. In those rare cases, I'm fine with vouchers because you're talking about kids that don't have the luxury of time for the public institutions to be rebuilt and reestablished so that they can provide an adequate education - by the time that happens the current kids will have already lost their opportunity to be educated. But those are rare in the public school model today.

So are you against Charter Schools as well (except for maybe places like DC where almost 50% of public school students go to charters and New Orleans where 100% of public school students go and regular public schools have done poorly)?

[houndawg]

Can you explain your position why not?

In the spirit of openness, I will state I am all for school vouchers and allowing parents to decide to allow their tax dollars to follow their kids.

There's an economy of scale when the public, as a whole, gets together and does something as the public. For schools, for instance, it's not merely the sum of every parent's tax money that results in school funding. Obviously, too, there are plenty of people with no skin in the game (i.e. no kids) who pay the same school tax as well. In my school district, the price per student to educate them is about double what I pay myself in school taxes. I'm getting the benefit of the public deciding that public education is worth the investment since I have multiple kids and I don't pay anything extra for having kids, let along multiple kids, attending public school. And on the whole, public schools work. Can they be better? Of course they can, I don't know of anything that can't be improved upon.

But once people can pull out their money (and they're not pulling out just the money they themselves pay in taxes, they're taking out the per pupil share that the public has decided to spend on them in the public school setting) then the system begins to suffer. The marginal cost to educate one more student is nothing in the existing public school setting - we're already paying for the buildings, the land, the utilities, etc. One more student, or one less student, doesn't change that. But if we were to give out vouchers, at the full per pupil cost to educate, and let people use that for private schools of their choosing, it would disproportionately hurt what's left behind. A family that decides they want their 3 kids to go to private schools, would now get to pull out something close to 6x the amount they pay in taxes (in my case, I pay 1/2 the cost to educate 1 student, but I would be pulling out the cost to educate 3 students while still just paying that 1/2 cost for 1). So they get more than their share and the public school their leaving behind now has less money per student than they did before with no real change to the marginal costs to do business. The more and more people who pull their kids out, the greater the negative impact on what's left behind.

I have no issue with people deciding that they want something different than public school for their kids. I didn't make that choice, the public schools where I live are more than adequate for a K-12 education (and we moved here on purpose because we knew the schools were that way), and when the schools have needed to be improved in some way we've advocated for or, in some cases, directly supported whatever needed to be improved. It's how collective public endeavors work. However, as a tax payer, I don't feel that I should have to financially support someone who chooses to go a route different than the public option, especially when their decision costs more than what they're putting into the game. If you want private school education, then pay for it yourself, don't look for taxpayers to subsidize your individual decision.

And my position is only slightly different for the inner city schools, or something comparable, where the public institutions have failed so spectacularly that now children are actually suffering to have to stay in that setting. In those rare cases, I'm fine with vouchers because you're talking about kids that don't have the luxury of time for the public institutions to be rebuilt and reestablished so that they can provide an adequate education - by the time that happens the current kids will have already lost their opportunity to be educated. But those are rare in the public school model today.

Having no kids doesn't mean you have no skin in that game - the entire nation has skin in the game, big skin.

[GannonFan]

There's an economy of scale when the public, as a whole, gets together and does something as the public. For schools, for instance, it's not merely the sum of every parent's tax money that results in school funding. Obviously, too, there are plenty of people with no skin in the game (i.e. no kids) who pay the same school tax as well. In my school district, the price per student to educate them is about double what I pay myself in school taxes. I'm getting the benefit of the public deciding that public education is worth the investment since I have multiple kids and I don't pay anything extra for having kids, let along multiple kids, attending public school. And on the whole, public schools work. Can they be better? Of course they can, I don't know of anything that can't be improved upon.

But once people can pull out their money (and they're not pulling out just the money they themselves pay in taxes, they're taking out the per pupil share that the public has decided to spend on them in the public school setting) then the system begins to suffer. The marginal cost to educate one more student is nothing in the existing public school setting - we're already paying for the buildings, the land, the utilities, etc. One more student, or one less student, doesn't change that. But if we were to give out vouchers, at the full per pupil cost to educate, and let people use that for private schools of their choosing, it would disproportionately hurt what's left behind. A family that decides they want their 3 kids to go to private schools, would now get to pull out something close to 6x the amount they pay in taxes (in my case, I pay 1/2 the cost to educate 1 student, but I would be pulling out the cost to educate 3 students while still just paying that 1/2 cost for 1). So they get more than their share and the public school their leaving behind now has less money per student than they did before with no real change to the marginal costs to do business. The more and more people who pull their kids out, the greater the negative impact on what's left behind.

I have no issue with people deciding that they want something different than public school for their kids. I didn't make that choice, the public schools where I live are more than adequate for a K-12 education (and we moved here on purpose because we knew the schools were that way), and when the schools have needed to be improved in some way we've advocated for or, in some cases, directly supported whatever needed to be improved. It's how collective public endeavors work. However, as a tax payer, I don't feel that I should have to financially support someone who chooses to go a route different than the public option, especially when their decision costs more than what they're putting into the game. If you want private school education, then pay for it yourself, don't look for taxpayers to subsidize your individual decision.

And my position is only slightly different for the inner city schools, or something comparable, where the public institutions have failed so spectacularly that now children are actually suffering to have to stay in that setting. In those rare cases, I'm fine with vouchers because you're talking about kids that don't have the luxury of time for the public institutions to be rebuilt and reestablished so that they can provide an adequate education - by the time that happens the current kids will have already lost their opportunity to be educated. But those are rare in the public school model today.

So are you against Charter Schools as well (except for maybe places like DC where almost 50% of public school students go to charters and New Orleans where 100% of public school students go and regular public schools have done poorly)?

I'm not against charter schools, I'm just against publicly funding those schools (other than the types of places you give examples of). Private schools are great, just don't ask me or other taxpayers to subsidize them.

[GannonFan]

There's an economy of scale when the public, as a whole, gets together and does something as the public. For schools, for instance, it's not merely the sum of every parent's tax money that results in school funding. Obviously, too, there are plenty of people with no skin in the game (i.e. no kids) who pay the same school tax as well. In my school district, the price per student to educate them is about double what I pay myself in school taxes. I'm getting the benefit of the public deciding that public education is worth the investment since I have multiple kids and I don't pay anything extra for having kids, let along multiple kids, attending public school. And on the whole, public schools work. Can they be better? Of course they can, I don't know of anything that can't be improved upon.

But once people can pull out their money (and they're not pulling out just the money they themselves pay in taxes, they're taking out the per pupil share that the public has decided to spend on them in the public school setting) then the system begins to suffer. The marginal cost to educate one more student is nothing in the existing public school setting - we're already paying for the buildings, the land, the utilities, etc. One more student, or one less student, doesn't change that. But if we were to give out vouchers, at the full per pupil cost to educate, and let people use that for private schools of their choosing, it would disproportionately hurt what's left behind. A family that decides they want their 3 kids to go to private schools, would now get to pull out something close to 6x the amount they pay in taxes (in my case, I pay 1/2 the cost to educate 1 student, but I would be pulling out the cost to educate 3 students while still just paying that 1/2 cost for 1). So they get more than their share and the public school their leaving behind now has less money per student than they did before with no real change to the marginal costs to do business. The more and more people who pull their kids out, the greater the negative impact on what's left behind.

I have no issue with people deciding that they want something different than public school for their kids. I didn't make that choice, the public schools where I live are more than adequate for a K-12 education (and we moved here on purpose because we knew the schools were that way), and when the schools have needed to be improved in some way we've advocated for or, in some cases, directly supported whatever needed to be improved. It's how collective public endeavors work. However, as a tax payer, I don't feel that I should have to financially support someone who chooses to go a route different than the public option, especially when their decision costs more than what they're putting into the game. If you want private school education, then pay for it yourself, don't look for taxpayers to subsidize your individual decision.

And my position is only slightly different for the inner city schools, or something comparable, where the public institutions have failed so spectacularly that now children are actually suffering to have to stay in that setting. In those rare cases, I'm fine with vouchers because you're talking about kids that don't have the luxury of time for the public institutions to be rebuilt and reestablished so that they can provide an adequate education - by the time that happens the current kids will have already lost their opportunity to be educated. But those are rare in the public school model today.

Having no kids doesn't mean you have no skin in that game - the entire nation has skin in the game, big skin.

Obviously. Pretty sure that was implied in my post.

[UNI88]

Can you explain your position why not?

In the spirit of openness, I will state I am all for school vouchers and allowing parents to decide to allow their tax dollars to follow their kids.

There's an economy of scale when the public, as a whole, gets together and does something as the public. For schools, for instance, it's not merely the sum of every parent's tax money that results in school funding. Obviously, too, there are plenty of people with no skin in the game (i.e. no kids) who pay the same school tax as well. In my school district, the price per student to educate them is about double what I pay myself in school taxes. I'm getting the benefit of the public deciding that public education is worth the investment since I have multiple kids and I don't pay anything extra for having kids, let along multiple kids, attending public school. And on the whole, public schools work. Can they be better? Of course they can, I don't know of anything that can't be improved upon.

But once people can pull out their money (and they're not pulling out just the money they themselves pay in taxes, they're taking out the per pupil share that the public has decided to spend on them in the public school setting) then the system begins to suffer. The marginal cost to educate one more student is nothing in the existing public school setting - we're already paying for the buildings, the land, the utilities, etc. One more student, or one less student, doesn't change that. But if we were to give out vouchers, at the full per pupil cost to educate, and let people use that for private schools of their choosing, it would disproportionately hurt what's left behind. A family that decides they want their 3 kids to go to private schools, would now get to pull out something close to 6x the amount they pay in taxes (in my case, I pay 1/2 the cost to educate 1 student, but I would be pulling out the cost to educate 3 students while still just paying that 1/2 cost for 1). So they get more than their share and the public school their leaving behind now has less money per student than they did before with no real change to the marginal costs to do business. The more and more people who pull their kids out, the greater the negative impact on what's left behind.

I have no issue with people deciding that they want something different than public school for their kids. I didn't make that choice, the public schools where I live are more than adequate for a K-12 education (and we moved here on purpose because we knew the schools were that way), and when the schools have needed to be improved in some way we've advocated for or, in some cases, directly supported whatever needed to be improved. It's how collective public endeavors work. However, as a tax payer, I don't feel that I should have to financially support someone who chooses to go a route different than the public option, especially when their decision costs more than what they're putting into the game. If you want private school education, then pay for it yourself, don't look for taxpayers to subsidize your individual decision.

And my position is only slightly different for the inner city schools, or something comparable, where the public institutions have failed so spectacularly that now children are actually suffering to have to stay in that setting. In those rare cases, I'm fine with vouchers because you're talking about kids that don't have the luxury of time for the public institutions to be rebuilt and reestablished so that they can provide an adequate education - by the time that happens the current kids will have already lost their opportunity to be educated. But those are rare in the public school model today.

Well said Ganny!