Well-intentioned plans by Bush missing mark

Well-intentioned plans by Bush missing mark

by Dave Whitaker, the Twiggs Times

While I've been a very big critic of newly-elected president George W. Bush, let me say this. I don't doubt he's a nice guy. I don't doubt his recent proposals concerning school vouchers and government money for faith-based organizations are meant to uplift the nation. That being said, both plans are bad ideas, and there are other ways to accomplish the same things without more government involvement.

Let's first take the case of Bush's proposal for school vouchers. He wants to give parents a choice of school for their children if the public school fails to meet certain federal standards over a three-year period. Of course, children need to be educated, and of course the public school system is failing. And of course, the teacher's unions are wrong in thinking that more money for public schools will make a difference.

But, why should a child have to remain in a failing school for three years? If it's failing, that three years could make a difference on whether that child succeeds or fails? And let's say that child's parents do get a voucher. Would it be for any private school or charter school? Or would it only be for one that meets certain federal standards?

Another question would be if vouchers would help all parents? Take Twiggs County for an example. The public school system in Twiggs County has been consistently criticized for its lack of performance and standards. But let's say a Twiggs County parent got a voucher. What choice would they have? The only other school in Twiggs County is Twiggs Academy, and some would argue that's not much of a choice. And any parent who needs a voucher would hardly be able to afford to get their child to a private school in Macon, Dublin, or Warner Robins.

There's a simpler way to do this. Get the federal government out of the education process completely. Close the Department Of Education, and give the money back to the parents. All the money labeled for federal spending for education, give it back to the parents. Then they could have the money to send their kids to whatever school in what city they felt best.

Now, looking at Bush's plan to allow faith-based charities to get government money for programs, I can understand the desire. The private charities doing secular help to others can surely do a better job than the government. But, even though there's no "separation of church and state" the court challenges to this could hamper its effectiveness. And there would be the chance that the federal government could try to place strings upon how the money is used by the charities.

There's a simpler way to do this. Give people back MORE of their money. Cut spending on wasteful government programs, get rid of the income tax and the IRS. I bet you then, you'd see

an increase in charitable giving. Because Americans are decent, and honest people overall. They would give more, if they could have more of their own money, and not have to use it to pay for government.

Like I said at the beginning, George W. Bush is probably a nice guy. But unfortunately, he doesn't realize that big government repackaged is still big government.



	home Well-intentioned plans by Bush missing mark by Dave Whitaker, the Twiggs Times While I've been a very big critic of newly-elected president George W. Bush, let me say this. I don't doubt he's a nice guy. I don't doubt his recent proposals concerning school vouchers and government money for faith-based organizations are meant to uplift the nation. That being said, both plans are bad ideas, and there are other ways to accomplish the same things without more government involvement. Let's first take the case of Bush's proposal for school vouchers. He wants to give parents a choice of school for their children if the public school fails to meet certain federal standards over a three-year period. Of course, children need to be educated, and of course the public school system is failing. And of course, the teacher's unions are wrong in thinking that more money for public schools will make a difference. But, why should a child have to remain in a failing school for three years? If it's failing, that three years could make a difference on whether that child succeeds or fails? And let's say that child's parents do get a voucher. Would it be for any private school or charter school? Or would it only be for one that meets certain federal standards? Another question would be if vouchers would help all parents? Take Twiggs County for an example. The public school system in Twiggs County has been consistently criticized for its lack of performance and standards. But let's say a Twiggs County parent got a voucher. What choice would they have? The only other school in Twiggs County is Twiggs Academy, and some would argue that's not much of a choice. And any parent who needs a voucher would hardly be able to afford to get their child to a private school in Macon, Dublin, or Warner Robins. There's a simpler way to do this. Get the federal government out of the education process completely. Close the Department Of Education, and give the money back to the parents. All the money labeled for federal spending for education, give it back to the parents. Then they could have the money to send their kids to whatever school in what city they felt best. Now, looking at Bush's plan to allow faith-based charities to get government money for programs, I can understand the desire. The private charities doing secular help to others can surely do a better job than the government. But, even though there's no "separation of church and state" the court challenges to this could hamper its effectiveness. And there would be the chance that the federal government could try to place strings upon how the money is used by the charities. There's a simpler way to do this. Give people back MORE of their money. Cut spending on wasteful government programs, get rid of the income tax and the IRS. I bet you then, you'd see an increase in charitable giving. Because Americans are decent, and honest people overall. They would give more, if they could have more of their own money, and not have to use it to pay for government. Like I said at the beginning, George W. Bush is probably a nice guy. But unfortunately, he doesn't realize that big government repackaged is still big government.