Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:16:58 PM
I was reading
Marvin Olasky's column when I was struck by a bizarre double standard. The left seems to think giving government money to charities should give the government the right to set standards for hiring and impose other restrictions upon the groups receiving such funds. However, back in the mid-90's when welfare reform was being debated, the same left argued that taking welfare money could not be used to force welfare recipients to behave in any defined ways, such as requiring job training.
In other words, if you are a productive group and take government money to do good, then the government can force you to live by their rules, but if you are dissolute and take money to maintain your shiftless, dead end lifestyle, then the government cannot ask you to do anything at all.*
Has there ever been a more clear statement of the heart of the Democrat platform?
Then again, this does point out why I am so opposed to school vouchers. By setting up vouchers we let the government define what is a "school" and set standards for the schools receiving vouchers. Rather than benefiting private schools, this will allow the federal government a foot in the door of private education and will in the end turn private schools into clones of our public schools. Who is to say that government funds won't be tied to following a federal sex ed agenda? Or following specific hiring practices? Or using only NEA member teachers? Government funding is the answer to no question, including vouchers for private education. If you want to end public schools and the mess they create, just end them, do not destroy private schools along the way with vouchers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I am not saying all who receive government aid are shiftless. But those who would have to be forced into trying to find a job or better themselves at government expense surely are. Were the government to support me AND pay for free education, I would certainly take advantage. So I think calling those who would not "shiftless" is hardly unwarranted.