www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Q&A from US Bishops on Health Care Reform

My views of public education are also extremely negative. Not only is it a very serious burden on taxpayers, but it's importance has been exaggerated beyond belief. Does it really require a highly trained professional to teach kindergarten through 8th grade, or even 9 through 12 ? I think we know the answer, and it's the reason that teachers unions are so opposed to home schooling. Maybe the best reason I've ever seen for defunding public education though is to simply compare a 2009 History book with one from 1969.

You, sir, are forgetting the fundamental purpose of public education, from its onset: To prepare and indoctrinate the working class into their role as literate labor.

It has always been a political and sociological indoctrination system.

So, no, the ill educated are not suitable for the indoctrination aspects, and to be honest, many of the educated are not, either.

There was also a strong anti-immigrant and specifically anti-Catholic aspect to public education at its inception (Catholics had to go to courts in several states in order to set up parochial school systems). The purpose was to take Irish Catholics and turn them into good Protestants. Today, the emphasis has changed to taking anyone with any religious faith at all and turning them into secularized multiculturalists. Learning facts is definitely not the first priority.

Those on the right just get nuttier and nuttier...I have seen those in public education fail and I have seen just as many in parochial schools fail...I am speaking as a person who went k-12 to public schools and and as someone who has taught in a Catholic High School...

Just because people continue to "spout off" soundbites...doesn't make it true...

I'm a product of the New York City Public School System, myself. My father is a retired principal from NYCPS, and my sister is an active teacher in the system today. I teach classes at the graduate level, and have seen the product of both public and private schools. I also have two daughters, who have been in both private and public schools--in fact, they attended what US News and World Report has touted as the "Best Public High School in the Country". Don't lecture me, bub. I know whereof I speak.

Your response is far too typical of dialogue from the left--"Shut up, he explained". If you have some substantive observations or comments, I will gladly engage them, but I see nothing to be gained by saying I am a right wing nut job.

Well, it's not true just because people "spout off" soundbites. One looks at the evidence.

I've mentioned before Thomas Sowell. Mr. Sowell is a writer who happens to be both conservative and black. He wrote once about when he was in school in Washington, DC growing up (I think either the 1930s or 1940s). He spoke about the problems of racism, and how the black schools were poorly kept, and how they had the 'hand-me-down' text books. Then he noted that while the test scores from the black schools were never as good as those for the white schools they were always just a point or two behind. Enter the federal government into education, and the growth of teachers unions (which moved from educational concerns to concern only about salary and power). He traces how test scores (and real education) got worse as control moved from the local level to the national level (via both government and unions). What does the evidence show here? Keeping with DC Public Schools we see that they have one of the highest per-pupil expenditures in the nation on education and one of the lowest output of students that can read and write acceptably. Job may think this is a success in spending taxpayer money but most think it is an abuse of taxpayer money.

One can see the same thing across the country - there is plenty of evidence. Job may consider those who want a fair return for their tax dollar "nutty" but I disagree.

That is a separate question. The question on the table is whether it is moral to demand that your neighbor pay for your annual physical, your dentist and (for your point of discussion) the education of the people down the street. Your approach so far seems to be "the ends justify the means". But the moral question must be considered separately. There are lots of good works that need to be done. Basing taxation on the government's opinion of the goodness of the work could lead to 100% taxation (i.e., socialism, which is what the current President and a sizable number of his party promote).

That worked so well in Sweden. NOT!

John:

I've already made my case as to why I have no moral problem with using taxes to support public education, and it's not simply a matter of "the ends justify the means;" rather, I see it as a matter of the common good, something for which all are responsible. The reason I asked you this question was because you stated that you belive that there are ways to fund public education other than through taxation, and I'm interested in hearing what they are.

Thank you,

Ryan

Ryan,

Thanks, but I see in your post an outline of necessary good works, which is different from a moral argument. I don't see any moral imperative in what you wrote to take money form one's neighbor to do good works (do the ends really justify the means?). As I noted above, the need for good works is so strong one could confiscate 100% of the income of every American and still not have enough money to fund what some say is needed. That's not a moral argument.

But is that what you are saying? Are you saying that good works (in this case health care and education) are a moral justification to take money from one's neighbor (to pay for them)? That's a form of socialism. As well as saying the ends justify the means.

Maybe we can discuss education separately? I would get the government out of education (at least at the federal and state levels). I would need to consider it, but I would probably fund education though a combination of fees (let people pay directly for their children's education rather then pay a government to educate them) together with charity for those who cannot afford it. That would spur capitalism in education, leading to better outcomes at lower cost. It's been shown to work over and over again, and most recently with the DC Vouchers Program (which President Obama canceled because the teachers unions complained it was too successful).

John

John:

How does one justify taxation for anything? I want back whatever portion of my taxes have been used for anything that did not directly benefit me-especially those portions used to fund any military action in which the USA has been involved since I first paid taxes, since I believe that no military action in which we have been involved during my lifetime has been justifiable, either morally or in terms of being vital to our national security. How about ending the use of taxes to build public roads, and let's make every road a toll road, so that only those who use them pay for their costs, after all, we don't all make equal use of the roadways. I hope everyone can see that what I'm saying is absurd and that I don't really take that position (except with respect to my beliefs about the justification for the wars, but I still don't believe that gives me a right to demand that my taxes be returned). John, I really am having a hard time understanding where you're coming from on this. In all honesty, as someone whose family, and indeed entire community would not have been educated without taxpayer supported public schools, I'm not just perplexed, but scandalized by your position.

In my experiences with family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers (not including my current co-workers who are public school employees) I've almost never, prior to now, encountered such opposition to paying taxes to support public schools. Most I've encountered were educated in the public schools, most send their children to public schools, and most have no objection to continuing to pay taxes to support public schools once their own children are educated, because they realize that others shared in the cost of educating their children. Also, most I've encountered seem to believe that, all their deficiencies and problems aside, public schools exist not just for the benefit of the students they educate, but for society as a whole.

I would also add that based on my experiences as a public school teacher, I share your desire to get the federal government out of education. I fail to see how 535 Congressman and Senators working in DC are better positioned to determine the needs and problems existing in schools than are the people and local officials living in the communities in which schools are located. I don't entirely agree with you concerning the state-sometimes there is a need for a higher level of authority to step in when a local school system is thoroughly incompetent or corrupt.

Sincerely,

Ryan

This is a very interesting subject, but we've gotten way off topic, and so I'd like to recommend this thread be split into two seperate threads.

It seems that in this thread, those who support "small government" and those who support the so-called "big government" are at extreme odds with each other. I believe it also needs to be pointed out that those who support this "small government" approach believe they are the supreme authority on what is morally justifiable. This same group constantly pushes our loyalty to directive issued from the Holy See and the Bishop's Secretariat, until it comes to a social issue and then these Hierarchs issuing statements are overstepping their boundaries and are then straight up wrong.

I see no moral problem giving my money for universal health care, education, publicly subsidized housing, etc... I am glad that part of my wages can be used for the benefit for others. I feel, through my own sinfulness and imperfection, that if I alone were responsible to set aside these funds, that the amount would be much smaller and at times non-existent.

I agree, but in all fairness, those who believe in "big government" are just as prone to believing themselves to be the supreme authority on what is morally justifiable. I am generally a supporter "big government" and I recognize in myself the propensity to think of myself as a more competent authority of what is fair, just, or moral than are those who disagree with me. I believe that this is a symptom of human weakness, not a propensity limited to believers in "small government."

Ryan

Fine. Nothing is stopping you from doing so. But please, leave me out of it.


You'd be better off, and make more of a difference, if you gave that money directly to the poor, or those who work directly with the poor, than giving it to the government, which squanders it and does very little for the poor--even with programs intended specifically to help them. In fact, most government anti-poverty programs are remarkably counterproductive (true around the world, and as true of foreign assistance as it is of domestic welfare programs).

.

So, the basic point of these programs (as many of us must have suspected) is to assuage your sense of guilt?

Otto von Bismarck, when he established the German National Pension System in the 1870s, had a more honest and realistic goal: he said by making the workers and the bourgeoisie dependent upon the government for their security in old age, the pension system would ensure the loyalty of the workers and the bourgeoisie. A perfect symbiotic relationship. Did it ever occur to you that the main reason government engages in such programs is not to ameliorate want, but to buy votes?

It is no coincidence, as I have pointed out before, that private charity is lowest in those countries (and in the U.S., those states) that have the highest taxes and the most comprehensive social welfare systems.