Election Issues 2004: July 2003 Archives

by David Remer July 29, 2003 --PoliWatch.Org--

The 2004 elections will determine the fate of America's educational system, but also, in no small part, the future of America's work force which depends directly upon today's educational system. The fundamental issue is whether to voucher (fund) private schools from federal tax dollars and local public school funds or, provide more resources to the poorer public educational systems.

This appears to be a Democrat vs. Republican issue though, members of all parties can be found on both sides of the issue. The appearance is deceptive, however. The issue is really one of contention between moderate tax paying property owners and religious plus economic conservatives.

Before making the argument, let's see where the parties stand on this issue of school vouchers.

The Natural Law party is emphatic on this issue in their platform.

"The Natural Law Party also supports federally funded vouchers to increase parental options for school choice and to foster competition among schools."

The Constitution Party's position is probably for vouchers as indicated by this in their party platform:

"We support the unimpeded right of parents to provide for the education of their children in the manner they deem best, including home, private or religious."

The America First Party is ambiguous in their party platform:

"Parents will decide where and how their child will be educated, whether in public, private or religious education." ... "Every child should be allowed to have prayer at school, during recess, lunch, or after school on school property. They should be allowed to have religious classes on their own time. These schools are paid for by 'We the People.'"

On The Green Party web site, I could not find a specific reference to vouchers. However, it appears they do not support vouchers in light of their policy issue statements found under education:

Greens Advocate: Educational funding formulas that avoid gross inequalities between districts and schools. We are deeply concerned about the intervention in our schools of corporations.

The Libertarian Party 2000 platform addresses vouchers this way:

Democrats want to spend more of your money on all the failed federal programs that have done so much damage to America's schools. Republicans want to extend these bad programs to private schools - by issuing vouchers that will force private schools to obey federal rules.

Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, wants to get the federal government completely out of education - and repeal the income tax so you'll have the money to put your child in any school you want.

The Democratic Party opposes vouchers as evidenced by the following from their web site: "But Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), kept school vouchers out of the bill and ensured that schools in low income communities were targeted for additional funds."

The Republican position as evidenced by Children First America:

Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican and longtime advocate of school choice, said he is eager to sign the bill, while the Colorado Education Association, representing 36,000 public school teachers, has threatened a legal challenge.

In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, and leaders of both houses of the Republican-controlled Legislature have teamed with Rep. Ron Wilson, a black Democratic lawmaker from Houston, to support a similar voucher bill.

In Louisiana, where the Legislature just opened its new session, Gov. Mike Foster, a Republican, has offered a pilot voucher plan to give students in low-performing schools the option to transfer to private schools that take part in skills tests required by the state.

President Bush, a strong advocate of expanded school choice, included $75 million in his proposed fiscal year 2004 budget for pilot voucher programs throughout the country.

In every case of school vouchers the majority of the funds will come from the funds now used, and required, by public school systems. Even the $75 million in the 2004 proposed federal budget for voucher programs is $75 million less going to the support of the poorest public school systems. The consequence to tax payers and state budgets and public school systems cannot be overstated.

Proponents of school vouchers from President Bush on down state that vouchers will help the underprivileged student in an academically failing school to move to a passing or excelling school, improving that student's chances for learning and success. And at the same time, the President says his $75 million dollar program "is the beginning of an experiment that will show whether or not private school choice makes a difference in quality education in public schools. I happen to believe it will." (July 1, 2003)

Opponents to school vouchers such as the Texas Freedom Network ( a non profit organziation working against the religious right) says:

A Pilot Voucher program would siphon hundreds of millions of dollars in public tax dollars out of neighborhood public schools to fund private and religious schools. If the voucher lobby achieves their stated goal of a statewide voucher program, that amount would exceed $3 Billion!

Vouchers don't create 'choice' for parents and kids; they create 'choice' for private schools at taxpayers' expense. The private voucher experiment in progress in Edgewood ISD confirms that private schools will use vouchers to recruit the most talented and academically motivated kids out of public schools at taxpayers' expense, leaving behind the children who can't get into private school.

The math is interesting. An excellent article by the Star Tribune explains how the math touted by voucher proponents does not add up.

Tuition doesn't cover the cost of a private-school education. At St. Paul Academy and Summit School, one of the Twin Cities' most prestigious prep schools, the average tuition will be $15,900 next year. But the cost of educating the average student will be $17,800, higher than the per-pupil cost of any public school district in Minnesota.

The gap is greater at many other private schools. Tuition and fees at Victoria's Holy Family Catholic High School in 2000-01 were $6,800 per pupil, but the total cost of educating that student was $10,136. That's a higher per-pupil cost than all but 11 of the state's 345 public school districts. Private schools make up much of the difference by soliciting donations from parents and alumni.

The property owning tax payers who fund the bulk of public education in America obviously stand to lose a great deal if a portion of their taxes supporting their child's public school goes to educate students at private or religious schools. Their property taxes must go up over time if they wish to make up the funding loss to the school system for a small minority of students who leave the system for private schools. This is the heart of the opposition's stance to vouchers. They wish to protect their tax dollar investment in the public school their children go to.

What do the voucher advocates stand to gain? Let us first look at who the advocates are.

First there is the religious right. Deorah Kovach Caldwell, Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News reports:

Leaders of a rapidly growing movement of conservative Christians are urging followers to withdraw their children from public schools by next year in order to bring down the government school system.

At least four organizations have sprung up around the country in recent months to press parents to abandon what fund-raising letters describe as atheistic and unclean public schools in favor of home schooling and Christian academies.

Next there are the entrepreneurs: William Bennett, a conservative founder of K12, has a web site which states: "K12 also serves homeschooling families by making a portion of its curriculum available for direct purchase by consumers." Mr. Bennett has been in Texas lobbying mightily in the state's congress to pass a voucher system there. He and his company's investors of course stand to profit nicely.

Noam Chomsky writes:

In fact, a couple of years ago already, the big investment firms, like Lehman Brothers, and so on, were sending around brochures to their clients saying, "Look, we've taken over the health system; we've taken over the prison system; the next big target is the educational system. So we can privatize the educational system, make a lot of money out of it."

Then there are the neoconservative Milton Friedman followers who believe that free markets alone produce the best goods and services and that all education should eventually be provided by private institutions and thus add stimulus to the economy. His followers, (President Bush among them if you read his speeches) fail to observe however, Friedman's implied warning that because a corporation's sole responsibility and goal is to maximize profits; ethics, morality or even compassion have no place in the corporation save as public relations, marketing/advertising tools, or increasing market share.

Finally, there are the students. There is no doubt that some students who leave a failing inner city school using a voucher to attend a superior school will find their educational experience enhanced, perhaps even greatly so. But, at what cost to the remaining students and their families?

When one does the math objectively, taking into account all of the costs for educating a student including public subsidy of private school nurses, books, educational materials, and out of pocket expenses by parents for non-tuition costs, private education costs more per student than public education. Since, the cost of vouchers will come from property tax payers, the cost of property taxes must eventually go up.

The dollars spent on vouchers equal dollars not being spent on public school students, which inevitably will result in a vicious cycle of lowered quality of education at public schools, greater vouchers to transfer students, resulting in even more funding losses to public schools, leading to more vouchered students in private schools, etc. etc. until public schools are no longer viable. End result a completely privatized school system in America which will cost more than the public system did.

The cost of privatizing America's school systems is great. The first and perhaps greatest cost will be to the students themselves. The reason for this is the profit motive. Ultimately, a privatized educational system will be answerable to its shareholders, and not to parents or students. When profits go down due to competitive forces, educational quality will follow suit. And ironically, when monopolization occurs, as will be the case as one or another competitor in the market eventually becomes the largest market shareholder, a stabilization will occur where the lowest cost education is provided at the highest sustainable profit levels. As we have all seen in this latest recession, the profitability of corporations was maintained by most through cost cutting efforts. This same free market force will take place in a privatized educational system.

The next major cost of taking vouchers to its logical conclusion is the elimination of the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. This clause prohibits the government from establishing a national religion. When most of us think of private schools, we think of Catholic schools or private Christian schools. These schools will be direct beneficiaries of the voucher system. In fact, it may not be an accidental coincidence that vouchers and faith based legislation are occurring simultaneously. Note this from the The Christian Science Monitor:

[...]the two items may be very closely tied together by the Supreme Court's ruling. "Christian organizations and scholars have been working to nudge the court into a new interpretation of the First Amendment that would open the door to widespread change, putting faith institutions on an equal footing with secular groups as recipients of public funds," writes Jane Lampman. "They've had small victories in recent years, but hope this serves as the 'tipping point.'"

Finally, there will be the cost to the future work force. As corporatization of education takes place, the chief consumer of that education will be corporations. That is to say, corporations already spend large sums of money at college campuses not only in recruiting graduates as new employees, but, also in influencing the higher institutions in regard to curriculum. Hewlett Packard, Microsoft other large corporations lobby the educational system for the shaping of the student's education in accordance with the needs of the industry. Students may become better trained for the work force, but, will they become better people, capable of managing their lives well and fully?

There is no reason to believe that such large dollar influence will not immediately make its mark on K-12 education when K-12 schools become corporations themselves. Of what value is social studies or literature or fine art to corporations making widgets or selling services here and abroad, especially if another semester of computer programming would benefit the employer dramatically? What is the value of that lost social studies course or fine art course to the student? Well, they don't call such courses Humanities for no reason.

It is not about Democrats and Republicans when it comes to voucher issue in 2004. It is clear that corporate interests, religious right interests, and conservative economicians support the Republican Party. These same interests desire private schools over public schools. Such a coalition does not exist in the Democratic Party. As education is and will be an issue in the upcoming 2004 elections, there is a clear choice for voters on this issue at the ballot box. Democrats, Libertarians and the Green Party oppose school vouchers. The Republican and other major third parties support vouchers either directly or by implication.

by David Remer July 22, 2003 --PoliWatch.Org--

The 1960's saw a social revolution brought on, in part, by a failure of the political parties to address the issues pressing upon lives of draftees, blacks and college youth. A similar revolution is taking place today but, the issues have changed. This article is the second in a series to discuss the social issues pressing on American voters as we move into the 2004 election cycle.

Political Fundraising is an election topic which is as important as any other facing voters in 2004. While this is a politically and constitutionally complicated subject, the heart of the matter is easy to get to. Note the following from a 1999 House committee hearing:

In the course of striking down several campaign finance reform measures in that case, the Buckley Court explained that ''[i]n the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not the Government, but the people, individually as citizens and candidates, and collectively as associations and political committees who must maintain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.''

In this quote, chairperson Canady points directly at the issue for voters, whether 1st Amendment protection by way of funding political campaigns should extend to "associations and political committees". There is no debate that individuals should be able to contribute to the candidate or party of their choice but, a heated debate ensues over whether collective financing (e.g. unions and corporate lobby groups) to candidates and political parties should be permitted.

What is wrong with current campaign financing is the publicly perceived servitude of the election victor to the collective donors once he or she is in office. If the official knows they are going to need that collective financing for reelection in two, four or six years, will their law or policy making reflect the public good or the donor's interests? Far too often, it appears to the public that the donor's interests win out over public good. Democrats love to accuse Republicans of favoring corporate interests over public good and conversely, Republicans accuse of favoritism toward unions and trial lawyers. So, the issue is whether or not collective organizations should be permitted to contribute to candidates or parties?

The Constitutional Dilemma! There were no political parties when U.S. Constitution was drafted and George Washington was elected president. They appeared very shortly thereafter, however, as the advantage of collective voter affiliation toward one view over another became an obvious advantage in the next election.

The Supreme Court has established the central first amendment framework for campaign financing in Buckley vs. Valeo where money contributions were viewed as a protected form of speech. The first amendment protects the public's right to freedom of speech. It does not however, state that bribery is a protected form of speech. In fact, the Constitution in Article II, section 4 states an official shall be removed from office for accepting a bribe.

Therefore, the issue of campaign finance reform hinges upon the view of whether our politicians are in fact being bribed by contributions of large corporations and organized groups who fund, in the multi-millions of dollars, the election of candidates. In an excellent CACEF research of voter confidence in collective funding of officials, between 60 and 70 percent of respondents indicated concern over how such contributions affect elected officials performance in office. There are a host of other such research projects demonstrating similar results. If campaign finance reform is an issue with such widespread public interest, why is it so difficult to change the system?

Quite simply, the answer is because Democrats and Republicans would need to pass such legislation. Neither of these parties really wants campaign finance reform. Not only would large amounts of funding be cut off, but, predictability, campaign strategy and history, and issue orientation would completely be altered and thrown into the realm of the unpredictable. Both parties would find it difficult to predict or even develop campaign strategy where large collective interests were not there to support their elections and their platform positions. The parties would have to reinvent grass roots political support rather than rely heavily upon collective support for campaign funding. Even the parties issue campaigns would be thrown into question, since, they would have to shaped toward individual voter donations rather than corporate and organization donations.

Getting Campaign Finance Reform Anyway! The constitutional obstacle is surmountable. With the growth and pervasive intrusion of third parties upon national elections, the pressure on representatives incrementally grows to reform campaign financing. This is so, precisely because, third parties have campaign financing reform as key to their party platforms. See their positions at the end of this article. Or, campaign finance reform could come in one fell swoop with a constitutional amendment. One possible amendment would be:

Where money as political speech is concerned, only the the money collected from individual American citizens to a political party or an individual to a candidate shall be protected as speech under the first amendment of this constitution.

Such a constitutional amendment would be logistically very difficult, and improbable in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is more likely that the pressure and influence of third party voters will bring about an incremental increase in campaign finance reform. If this issue is important to you as a voter, you will find the third party positions on campaign finance reform near the end of this article. It is very unlikely that meaningful campaign finance reform will come from the two major parties, alone. But, like so many other difficult issues facing Americans, there is the promise of finding solutions as more and more voters turn to the third parties for representation.

In his excellent work, Multiparty.Org, Matt Grossmann, points out the three potential sources for growing multipartism in America.

As Diana Dwyre and Robin Kolodny put it, "One can easily imagine three sources of change: pressure from within the major parties, the court system, and the ballot box."

Factions represented by the likes of Sen.'s John McCain and Russ Feingold can nudge campaign finance reform from within the two major parties, but, as we have seen in the last year, such reforms are too small and weak to have any major effect on the structure of influence peddling in campaign financing. The court system has the potential to move campaign finance reform along. However, it appears that the Supreme Court will be moving to a more conservative bent in the near future and such a court would not likely abridge current interpretation of money as free speech in favor of eliminating bribery at the campaign level.

That leaves the Ballot Box as the prime mover toward real campaign finance reform. The more voters who pull votes away from the two major parties and place them in one or another of the third parties, the greater the pressure will be on lawmakers to reform campaign financing. First, larger numbers of third party voters weaken the two major parties at the ballot box. This forces the two major parties to consider third party issues for competitive advantage in their next campaign. Second, more third party votes translates into a greater case of mandate for lawmakers like Feingold and McCain. Finally, the greater the number of voters who vote third party, the stronger third parties will become through party membership and hence, third party contributions. Third parties with greater financial resources will no doubt tackle the greatest obstacle to becoming a major party, which is the two party stranglehold on large donor collective campaign financing. This will no doubt raise the priority level of campaign finance reform as a platform issue in each of the third parties.

So, which third party should I support? I have decided it does not much matter. I personally like aspects of The Green Party and The Natural Law Party, but, have not found a third party that meets all my criteria. However, I have decided that the third party that will represent my values and ideals will only come to exist if I vote any third party candidate today.

As argued above, it is only with the growth of third party voters at the ballot box, that third parties will grow and thus pressure the two major parties to shape their policies toward those voters. Therefore, when I go to the ballot box, I have decided to vote for almost any third party candidate if they are on the ballot. As millions more Americans do the same, we will see true campaign finance reform that will foster the growth of multiple parties and focus partisan politics on the people's issues instead of lobbyist issues. And that is ultimately what we voters want, is it not?

Major third party positions on campaign finance reform:

From The Green Party 2000 platform:

Public Campaign and Party Financing: Equal public campaign financing and free broadcast media time for all candidates who agree not to use private money. Equal free broadcast media time for party broadcasts. Public financing of parties through matching funds for party dues and small donations up to $300 a year.

From the Libertarian Party 2000 platform:

We urge repeal of the Federal Election Campaign Act which suppresses voluntary support of candidates and parties, compels taxpayers to subsidize politicians and political views which many do not wish to support, invades the privacy of American citizens, and protects the Republican and Democratic parties from competition. This law is particularly dangerous as it enables the federal government to control the elections of its own administrators and beneficiaries, thereby further reducing its accountability to the citizens.

From the American Reform Party 2000 platform:

Reduce the influence of money and special interests in campaigns. Establish public funding options for clean elections and shorten election cycles. Eliminate soft money from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals. Prompt Internet disclosure of campaign contributions and voting records. Lobbyists provide information, not money.

From the Natural Law Party 2000 platform:

Support long-overdue reforms to ensure (a) equal access to the ballot, the media, and the public for all qualified candidates, (b) the elimination of PAC and soft-money funding of campaigns, and (c) a shift toward public sponsorship of campaigns in order to reduce the undue influence of special interest groups on election outcomes. Such reforms will fulfill every American's right to complete information about all candidates and their platforms while freeing elected officials to focus on serving their country rather than seeking campaign contributions.
Encourage voter participation in the election process by shortening the campaign season to two months, making election day a national holiday, and abolishing the Electoral College. Restrict lobbying and limit congressional privileges.

Important issues facing voters in 2004: (Note: articles on issues in bold below can be found in the archives in the Third Party column.)

Voter party identification

Campaign Finance Reform.

Public vs. Private education.

Schools: Local Standards vs. National Standards.

Public Debt.

War Powers: congressional vs. executive.

Government: open or secret.

One party or multiple party government.

Economic Mix.

Lobbyist Power.

National Security: Offensive vs. Defensive.

Wealth Distribution.

Media Responsibility and Ownership.

Public Resources: To privatize or not.

Globalization: Diplomatic Leadership vs. Force.

Environment: Proactive vs. Reactive policy.

After a review last night of about 40 liberal and conservative editorials published on the web last week, it occurred to me that a tremendous amount of bandwidth is being spent discussing everything but the real issues facing voters in 2004. American Democracy and culture are in the throes of change and demanding direction by the people. Unless the voters focus on the core issues and vote their conscience on those issues, we face losing the cohesiveness that binds us together as Americans.

The 1960's saw a similar upheaval and rip in the fabric of society brought on by a war we could not afford, a huge surge in educated youth and middle class wealth, and a rise in activism to address horrible disparities between a predominantly white middle class and the poorer ethnic groups in the south and west. A social revolution ensued that brought rioting to our streets and neighborhoods, brought guns into the California legislature, and brought the U.S. Military to fire upon and kill unarmed demonstrators exercising their 1st Amendment rights.