To Chattanooga Time 31 Jan ’13; next is list of blog’s contents

by andrewlohr

To Times ( ed 31 Jan A.D. 2013

You fear “to distort” a ‘market’ in which everyone pays for one competitor, whether or not they choose its services, and its services are offered at no fee as if they didn’t cost close to $10,000 per year per student, while no one not using other competitors has to pay for them? Some market. Letting people who opt out of public schools take at least some of their money with them would reduce distortion, just as my money leaves McDonald’s if I go to Burger King.

Paying students who leave public schools half of what they save the system by leaving it would leave more money per student in the system; would increase diversity in education by helping students go to all kinds of schools; would increase accountability since schools that don’t satisfy their ‘customers’ would lose money; would increase parental involvement, and reward parents who care, by giving parents real power. You oppose this diversity, accountability, parental involvement, and incentive to improve?

Vouchers, you say, would take the best students out of schools full of poor students. “Ye fools and blind” (Mt 23), are the students for the schools, or the schools for the students?

The students are poor (in more ways than one). What one thing would help the most? Probably intact families would help the most (in more ways than one). So put a moderate sin tax on fornication when it happens to be caught, to increase the number of two-parent households and so improve education, health, and wealth and reduce the corresponding social pathologies. What, Harry, your girlfriends (or boyfriends as the case may be) wouldn’t like this? Wasn’t Dan Quayle right? Wasn’t St Paul–“run away from fornication”–right? (“Harry” = then editor Harry Austin)