Opinion: Voucher decision was a victory for social justice

To paraphrase a World War II song, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition -- all aboard, we're not a'going fishing." The Supreme Court ruling on the Cleveland voucher program is indeed momentous. It ushers in new ground rules for what is "public education." It redefines public education to mean tax-funded, free-of-charge education sponsored by governmental, independent and religious sectors, and financed through a variety of means.

This decision is really about parental choice and giving socially disadvantaged parents the choices that wealthy Americans take for granted.

Prediction: Voucher programs will grow, and this competitive threat will continue to result in better public schools.

Prediction: The teachers' unions will "circle the wagons" by working to stop the expansion of charter schools and introducing legislation to burden voucher schools with oppressive government regulations under the guise of "accountability."

The court's decision gives those who believe in social justice more ammunition to use in reforming the bureaucratic monopoly that is our government school system. Praise the Lord.
-- Mack R. Hicks, Pinellas Park

An unwise, unsuccessful policy

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the Cleveland school voucher program encourages other states to pursue this unwise, unsuccessful and unpopular policy. Diverting public tax dollars to private and religious schools not only drains money from public schools, but it undermines real reforms such as reducing class sizes.

So far, the voucher program has drained $43-million of public tax funds. And what have we gotten for our money? Ohio's most recent state-sanctioned evaluation of the Cleveland program compared the progress of public school students and voucher students during a two-year period. Over this period, public school students had learning gains that were greater than those achieved by voucher students in language, math and reading. Pro-voucher legislators have claimed that they want to help disadvantaged children, but a closer look at the voucher program shows the opposite is happening. Many of the voucher schools are not willing or able to serve students with physical and learning disabilities. Public schools serve all children, but private schools play by a different set of rules. This may explain why voters have defeated voucher initiatives every single time they've been placed on a state election ballot.

Just because the Supreme Court says we can have vouchers doesn't mean we should.
-- David Denis, Tampa

Fight the enemies of public schools

This U.S. Supreme Court will certainly go down in history as one of the most out of control. From interfering with presidential elections to agreeing with those misguided people who wish to change the United States into a theocracy, the lack of logic, respect for the Bill of Rights and basic scholarly skill is appalling.

There is something that we Floridians can do to protect ourselves from this assault on our freedom.

The Florida Class Size Amendment will make a statement from which the enemies of public schools will have no recourse. There is probably no single factor more important than class size in providing quality education. The passage of this amendment with have an additional benefit, because when we finish upgrading public education in Florida, there will be no money left over to support religious schools.

All citizens can help by contacting the Coalition to Reduce Class Size at www.smallerclasses.org or at (305) 493-9555.
-- Richard Marshner, East Lake

The quality available in public schools

Re: Rhythms of goodbye, June 23.

I'd like to comment on Lane DeGregory's Sunday feature on Linda Clark. It was a well-written, heartwarming story that exhibits the quality available in our public schools. In Linda Clark, it also shows courage and integrity up close. Best wishes to Ms. Clark and her music students.
-- Steve Spina, Zephyrhills

Music teacher sets a fine example

Re: Rhythms of goodbye, June 23.

What a great story about an extraordinary woman -- Linda Clark, the Tyrone Middle School music teacher! The fine example of her dedication and commitment to her students, her selflessness and determination to encourage and see them through all kinds of challenges while in the midst of her own failing health and homefront concerns will certainly be as fine an example of what it is to be a fine human being as they could ever have hoped to experience in their developing years. I believe her effect on each of those young people will last all their lives.
-- Conchita R. Chupko, St. Petersburg

You can't take it with you

Re: Estate tax.

Some call it a "death tax." What a gross misnomer! The last I heard was that you can't take it (wealth) with you, so the dead person is not paying the tax. It's an "inheritance tax," which means the heirs pay the tax on their windfall -- much as they would if they won the lottery. They didn't earn it and pay previous taxes on it, so there is no double taxation on the new owners.

We all think our progeny are deserving of the largest gift we can leave them, but it might be wise not to begrudge a share of that gift to a great country that made our accumulation of wealth possible. Kudos to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett for their stand on not totally eliminating the inheritance tax.
-- Elizabeth Noone, St. Petersburg

Compromise on estate tax

Re: Unconscionable redistribution of wealth, letter, June 22.

The argument against the estate tax in this letter can be made against virtually any tax -- if a tax is imposed on people with money and not upon people without it, a redistribution has occurred. The issue is really one of degree and balance -- what amount, and on what basis, should those with money pay in order to run the government?

All taxes are onerous. However, the estate tax with a reasonable exemption seems to me to be least so. The arguments for it include:

a) It helps reduce the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots." This consideration can be regarded as just some socialistic mantra -- but accurately so only if the tax is too onerous. If it is too small, the gap between rich and poor accelerates, with the threat of instability and revolution. It is in the "haves" best interests for stability to prevail.

b) Equal opportunity is an American credo. Inherited wealth is at odds with it. Carried to a not so illogical extreme, one could easily argue that the inheritance tax should be 100 percent. The children of wealth receive the best possible dental care, medical care, education, business/political connections -- without their inheritance, they are already miles ahead of persons "who didn't choose their parents properly." So let's compromise with a reasonable exemption and rate.
-- Donald H. Barnhill, New Port Richey

No panhandling Rockefellers

Re: Americans aspire to wealth and Unconscionable redistribution of wealth, letters, June 22, and Dumbfounded over opposition to the estate tax, by David Broder, June 16.

So, now I get why most Americans appear to support the repeal of a 100-year-old tax institution, the "death tax." After all, our newest crop of billionaires from WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing, Immunex, Tyco and all the other hardworking executives who have raped American workers and their pension funds with their illegitimate activities (note I didn't say "illegal" because of the mile-wide gaps in our corporate accounting rules which the rest of us didn't know about) must be rewarded in perpetuity beyond whatever was reaped by past captains of industry such Vanderbilt, Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, et al. -- people who actually built businesses, created jobs in this country and established charitable foundations that continue to do good works today, in part because of the "death tax."

And please spare me the story of the small-business owner, like myself, whose heirs will have to share with the government that allowed me, despite the scams of those on Wall Street and their paid-for allies on Capitol Hill, to attain some modicum of financial success. Anyone who can add 1 and 1 knows that if Democratic proposals to increase the exclusion permanently to $6-million passed, 99.9 percent of all estates would be excluded.

As for the rest, has anyone seen a Vanderbilt, Morgan, Rockefeller or Carnegie panhandling lately? And if they are, after five generations, they need to get a job. We don't need a perpetual nobility of money in this country. It's hard enough to deal with first-generation money's influence on our institutions.
-- Martin Altner, Safety Harbor

Wealthy should pay fair share

Re: Americans aspire to wealth and Unconscionable redistribution of wealth, letters, June 22.

The responses to David Broder's June 16 column Dumbfounded over opposition to the estate tax prompts the question, "Where do we make up the lost revenue from the estate tax?" Since we no longer have a budget surplus, any revenue loss has to be made up from another source. Where does that come from? From redistribution of wealth. Once again the government would have to turn to the lower and middle class to make up for another tax cut that benefits only the very wealthy.

Reagan redistributed wealth by cutting the federal income tax and then raising the Social Security tax. The wealthy saw their income go up, the poor and middle class saw their income go down. Redistribution of wealth. Currently we see Bush and his tax cuts at the same time that he is using the Social Security surplus to finance his war on terror. The wealthy are paying less while the poor and middle class finance the war and the arms buildup from their Social Security taxes. Again, redistribution of wealth.

Is this class warfare? Of course it is. It's being waged by the wealthy on the poor and middle income earners. Remember Reagan making sure that waiters and waitresses paid their fair share? We never heard anything about making sure the wealthy paid their fair share, did we? We now see that the IRS is upping its audit rate -- not on the high income earners where they may find something but across the board. Across the board, of course, means 80 percent of the audits will be the low and middle income earners.

Unconscionable? What's unconscionable is the raid on the surplus by the wealthy. What's unconscionable is that the wealthy don't contribute at the same rate that the rest of us contribute.
George Bickner, Largo

Good news is a blessing

Re: It's raining blessings, by Mike Brassfield and Moffit receives record gift, by Tamara Lush, June 26.

Yes, it truly is a blessing to read "good news" articles on the front page of your newspaper. Perhaps, if your news media look hard enough, we could read more of such pleasant news. Thus, we would not have to depend so heavily on the comics to relieve us of the frequent bad news.
-- Claudia Sodaro, Tarpon Springs

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page