Obama to Send Children to Private School, While Opposing Vouchers
If I lived in D.C., I would send my children to private school too. But then, I support vouchers to allow parents to have choice in where they send their children school. Obama doesn’t.
Choice for me, but not for thee. Or, as John J. Miller puts it: Choice for me, but not for Rhee. (Michelle Rhee is the D.C. schools chancellor, and a Democrat who supports vouchers.)
UPDATE: Commenter “Foo Bar” claims Rhee doesn’t support vouchers. Foo Bar points to this link which quotes a statement from Rhee as saying:
While Chancellor Rhee hasn’t taken a formal position on vouchers, she disagrees with the notion that vouchers are the remedy for repairing the city’s school system.
John J. Miller’s post, linked above, says:
She’s also a supporter of DC’s limited school-choice program, which lets about 2,000 low-income kids attend private (mostly Catholic) schools with vouchers. As she said about a year ago: “I would never, as long as I am in this role, do anything to limit another parent’s ability to make a choice for their child. Ever.”
I’m happy to let the readers sort out the nitpicking details from these links. The overarching question for me is whether Obama is being a hypocrite on this issue.
Obama and McCain sparred during one of their debates over her support for vouchers – he seemed to believe she didn’t want them (wrong). If she succeeds in bucking the die – hard unionists and reforming one of the worst public school systems in the country, then it will interesting to see how Obama’s support for her policies plays out over his first term.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/22/2008 @ 2:56 pmHey, we already actually provide a choice: (i) a neighborhood school for free or (ii) any school in the whole wide world that (a) would agree to take your child, (b) you want your child to attend, and (c) you are ready, willing and able to pay for.
Ira (28a423) — 11/22/2008 @ 3:04 pmThe only thing vouchers would do is make the population as a whole pay twice for that choice: once in providing the public schools and again in paying for the vouchers.
For those of us who abhor Obama’s “spreading the wealth around” ideas, which include raising taxes on the more financially successful in order to have the government make cash payments to the less financially successful, the whole idea of school vouchers should be recognized for what it is: another way of “spreading the wealth around.”
By the way, my kid has always been in private school, so I would benefit from school vouchers. (Actually, I along with everyone else would suffer from school vouchers in the long run.)
Vouchers would lead to fewer kids in public school.
Which would lead to less federal funding for public schools.
Which would lead to fewer teachers working in public schools.
Which would lead to lower union funds for the teacher’s unions.
Which would lead to less fundraising money for the democrats.
No one ever accused the dems of having integrity or anything.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 11/22/2008 @ 3:30 pmThe last two commenters simply do not understand vouchers. Most voucher proposals that I am aware of stipulate the one half of the average daily attendance rate of payment for that jurisdiction be paid to the voucher school selected by the child. That leaves one less child and half the payment for the missing child behind. It would INCREASE funding for the remaining children in the public school. Of course, if all the children leave that school, one half of the budget would be left and the teachers and administrators would have nothing to do.
Most of the inner city private schools that would respond are Catholic schools that have been left behind as the Catholic children and families moved away. There still are some Catholic schools left, like my schools in Chicago, that are all black and supported by white alumni. My former high school, Leo High School, is still going strong with heavy alumni support. One of my classmates from 1956 paid for a new roof for the school about ten years ago. That was 700,000 dollars. Vouchers would help Leo, which charges about 1500 dollars a year tuition and is in a blue collar neighborhood.
Of course, those two commenters could know better and be lying.
96% of Leo graduates go to college. A couple were accepted by the military academies the past couple of years. The graduation rate is similarly high, unlike Chicago public schools.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/22/2008 @ 3:49 pmSorry, I missed the sarcasm in Taltos post. I’m used to the teacher union letters to the editors that misstate these facts.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/22/2008 @ 3:51 pmthe whole idea of school vouchers should be recognized for what it is: another way of “spreading the wealth around.”
No, the idea is to allow parents the freedom to allocate their tax dollars to the school of their own choosing, rather than allowing their local government to waste it on a public school that they’d never send (or choose to send if they had the option) their kid to in the first place. The tax bills that we have to pay here in Chicago are astronomical, and the disasterous conditions of the public schools share a large part of the blame – Obama knows this, which is why his children have never attended a Chicago public school in their lifetimes.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/22/2008 @ 3:52 pmJake Tapper interviewed Mr. Obama back in June re education,
TAPPER: You talked about the need to change the status quo in education today.
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: But one of the ways that proponents of school choice say that the best way to change the status quo is to give parents, inner-city parents a choice. Why not?
OBAMA: Well, the problem is, is that, you know, although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you’re going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom. We don’t have enough slots for every child to go into a parochial school or a private school. And what you would see is a huge drain of resources out of the public schools.
So what I’ve said is let’s foster competition within the public school system. Let’s make sure that charter schools are up and running. Let’s make sure that kids who are in failing schools, in local school districts, have an option to go to schools that are doing well.
But what I don’t want to do is to see a diminished commitment to the public schools to the point where all we have are the hardest-to-teach kids with the least involved parents with the most disabilities in the public schools. That’s going to make things worse, and we’re going to lose the commitment to public schools that I think have been so important to building this country.
TAPPER: So it would help some kids, but overall it would be bad for the system?
OBAMA: I think it would be overall bad for most kids.
Brilliant. Because only some will benefit from a voucher system, therefore by default making it unfair, then none will be allowed to benefit from it. Students will instead receive a sub-par education but that’s alright because it will be a fair distribution…
If competition is what Mr. Obama believes will stimulate more productive schools with a higher quality of education, what could spur this more than seeing children leaving a broken system for a solvent one? Why should parents continually be required to pay for an inferior product when they might instead be paying for a superior one?
Dana (79a78b) — 11/22/2008 @ 3:53 pmWhy do you hate capitalism?
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 11/22/2008 @ 3:55 pmIf you can’t afford to send your kid to private school sans vouchers, then start swimming real hard and try to make it to the deep end of the gene pool.
Everyone in this little room makes enough money to pay for private school, no sweat. That’s part of why you wanted McCain’s taxes rather than Obama’s.
So what’s the problem?
I would add that a distinct problem with a federal voucher program. It opens up parochial and Christian schools to controls and mandates that do not currently apply and quite obviously these could be very problematic and in direct opposition to their belief systems – and the very reasons many parents opt for these places of education.
Dana (79a78b) — 11/22/2008 @ 3:57 pmBecause American colleges have to compete for students, American colleges are the best in the world.
American public schools don’t have to compete for students and among developed nations, they are about the worse schools in the world.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 11/22/2008 @ 3:57 pmComment by Larry Reilly — 11/22/2008 @ 3:55 pm
I hope I’m not mireading the sarcasm of your comment but in answer to it, we sent three kids through private school on our own dime. While we earn a very good living, putting an extra 22K a year on top of regular living expenses was not easy but because we believed in the investment we were committed to working very hard and viewing it as a priority. We drove old cars, vacations always involved a tent and campfire, and we went without as many bells and whistles as possible – because the investment was worth it. My point is, it can be done and many people, if willing to make the sacrifices, could also.
My objection to not providing vouchers is that while I was homeschooling and/or paying private school tuition, I was also required to pay to support public education. Why should parents not have the choice of precisely which sort of education they want for their children? If they wish to opt out of an inferior system for a superior one, why not?
Dana (79a78b) — 11/22/2008 @ 4:11 pm$30,000 per year per child. Somewhere is there is a catch 22 which calls for the taxpayers to pay the bill.
Hussein O’s promises were written on a roll of toilet paper. He now carries it with him for daily use.
Good to see the lefties met their match. Hussein O is as big a liar as the rest of the left.
Grinning as I typed this..
Scrapiron (dda662) — 11/22/2008 @ 4:36 pmMy wife and I refer to public schools as Government schools.
rab (7a9e13) — 11/22/2008 @ 4:37 pmThis terminology is more accurate in defining what we are talking about.
Larry shows how silly Democrats are. They think that capitalism means both taxing people for public schools and expecting them to pay for private schools.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/22/2008 @ 4:37 pm(Michelle Rhee is the D.C. schools chancellor, and a Democrat who supports vouchers.)
Not true. Here is a statement she released on October 16:
Now, you might try to point to this WSJ interview cited here in which Rhee declines to denounce a pilot voucher program that started in 2004, but that’s hardly the same as supporting vouchers. In any case, that WSJ quote is almost a year older than the October 16 statement, which addresses the question much more directly.
In light of the October 16 statement, I don’t think you can justify claiming that she supports vouchers.
Foo Bar (03f778) — 11/22/2008 @ 4:38 pmWe right wingers aren’t going to get very far in going after the Obamas for sending their girls to private schools. Like it or not, the media has bought into the idea the Clinton’s popularized 16 years ago that you can separate your family decisions from your policy positions. Couple that with Obama’s high popularity, and there is no way we can win by calling the Obamas on their hypocrisy.
What we ought to do instead is calmly and politely call upon the Obama family — who has a fairly substantial net worth which will only get bigger over time — to simultaneously sponsor two inner-city Washington DC schoolchildren and pay their tuition at Sidwell Friends too. We should adopt this tactic with all rich liberals who “support” public education but choose private schools for their own progeny. If we really want to be nasty, some rich conservatives ought to fund scholarships for the urban poor to attend private schools. They can derisively name them Obama Scholarships, Clinton Scholarships, Gore Scholarships, Kennedy Scholarships, and the like.
That said, the GOP should reall go to the mat if Obama attempts to increase federal spending on public education without including a voucher program. This is an area where a united GOP can attract some interesting allies among the Democrats and provide some very uncomfortable for the public education establishment and its Congressional supporters.
JVW (89c289) — 11/22/2008 @ 4:43 pmI like the part where vouchers actually increase the amount of money PER STUDENT for Public Schools while decreasing the amount of kids in Public School.
Mind boggling, Another reason to despise the Teacher’s Union and the Democratic Party.
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 11/22/2008 @ 5:05 pmAbortion on whim must be Federally funded, because a poor woman who wants an abortion might not be able to afford it.
But vouchers must not be permitted, because it wouldn’t be fair to allow poor people to choose private schooling for their children.
Regards,
Ric Locke (db2f9f) — 11/22/2008 @ 5:38 pmRic
Liberals love to skewer conservatives as hypocrites when they preach about family values and then fail to live those values, e.g., Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig and Mark Foley. I think that’s fair. I also think it’s fair to return the favor when liberals betray the values they hold dear, e.g., Barack Obama and his daughters’ privileged education.
So how many liberal commenters will excuse Obama’s decision that would never tolerate excuses from conservatives about Larry Craig? Or, put another way, how many will speak out against Obama’s decision the way they claim conservatives should speak out against Larry Craig?
DRJ (a50047) — 11/22/2008 @ 5:48 pmLimousine liberals talking out of both sides of their mouths?! Wow, how unusual!
The Obamas sending their kids to a private school (run by stuffy old Quakers, no less?!) is similar to Barack giving a speech early this year about the horrors of global warming, held at a location that he drove to in his SUV.
Or merely a variation of Obama, and, before him, John Kerry, and, before him, Al Gore, embracing the philosophy of do-gooderism and generosity while their tax returns indicated they’ve been anything but generous in charitable contributions, particularly in light of their rather cushy income brackets.
Mark (411533) — 11/22/2008 @ 6:16 pmDana, I loved your post. It illustrates exactly how inept and unqualified Mr.B Hussein Obama is.
libocrat (c9651d) — 11/22/2008 @ 6:27 pmHis logic….(David Brooks creamed his jeans illustrating that Obie went to Columbia and Harvard), Barry Obama’s logic is that to give VOUCHERS would take the cream and leave the crap.
MAYBE SO. The public schools are going to either have the CRAP or HAVE THE CRAP. What Barely Obama is telling you, is that you CANNOT save your kid from the cesspool, because to do so, would leave the CRAP behind. YOU MUST STAY WITH THE CRAP!!! It is LIBERAL IDEOLOGY at it’s worst.
And it feeds the UNION MONSTER.
Mark, Barry Obama gave a speech in Pennsylvania that the MSM called TRANSCENDING RACE.
B.HUSSEIN gave that speech in response to BARRY’S own pastor being a WILD EYED AMERICA HATING RACIST.
Obama’s very essence is of a “wronged” black man.
libocrat (c9651d) — 11/22/2008 @ 6:39 pmHis own words belie what he NOW proclaims.
As a libertarian, I can get my mind around the idea that society as a whole benefits when government funds education, at least for K-12. However, I cannot see how society benefits when government runs education. That’s why I support vouchers. Government has no business running our schools.
Even better to me would be a fully refundable income tax credit. That would eliminate the bureaucracy surrounding distribution of vouchers, but I admit it’s not a completely bullet-proof plan.
Steverino (db5760) — 11/22/2008 @ 6:43 pmBut hey, he’s very likable.
PrestoPundit (ff5e16) — 11/22/2008 @ 6:48 pmYet he will still get 97% of the AA vote in 2012. Good thing people vote on the issues.
Mr. Pink (9d3ec5) — 11/22/2008 @ 6:49 pmI would hope this would disgust people. Not for my “partisan” considerations, just for the simple and clear case of hypocrisy. I mean screw voting Repub if you do not want to, but jesus you are voting in pols that MAKE you do something they wouldn’t do if you paid them.
Mr. Pink (9d3ec5) — 11/22/2008 @ 6:51 pmI think vouchers are the way to go.
However I think that for any president with kids people should expect that they would send the kids to a private school, safety being the primary reason. If he sent them to public school there are some who would complain about the cost of security involved – no win situation.
Since I was in the military while my kids were in school I couldn’t afford private schools. We had to do it the other way which was to research the school districts and perfomance, then buy a home in the district we were best able to afford.
voiceofreason2 (1de61b) — 11/22/2008 @ 7:18 pmTwo of the three have graduated from college and the third is a sophomore in college. They turned all right despite their public school education. A lot of that had to do with the level of our involvement in their education. In other words we never left it up to the teachers and made sure they got plenty of instruction at home as well.
Voice noone is arguing with that fact. People just want the best schools for their kids. That can better be accomplished when people are given the liberty and freedom to choose where they go to school. You chose wisely, other people do not have any option that is good. They are fucked.
Mr. Pink (9d3ec5) — 11/22/2008 @ 7:46 pmObama cares more about allowing public teachers and administrators to keep their jobs than he cares about providing the best education.
Roy Mustang (ad5f36) — 11/22/2008 @ 7:50 pm_________________________________________
safety being the primary reason
I’ll buy that excuse for the extraordinary nature of protecting a US president’s family. But don’t think for a minute that folks like the Obamas would be any different if they were merely anonymous drones — school teachers, perhaps — residing in AnyCity USA.
And since a high number of school teachers lean left politically, and since most school districts, particularly in urban settings, are heavily into Democrat/liberal politics, it’s even more disgusting that such people cling to their “progressive” idelogy. It’s even more pathetic that they refuse to take blame — and acknowledge the bankruptcy of their political bent — for the never-ending poor performance of far too many public schools.
So they look in the mirror, and instead of seeing a knucklehead staring back, they proudly proclaim, “oh, I’m a do-gooder, and I love Obama, and I love the Democrat Party, and I love “progressivism,” and nothing else matters! As for how do we voters improve the public classroom?! Support MORE taxes, HIGHER salaries, STRONGER teacher unions!!!”
Mark (411533) — 11/22/2008 @ 7:51 pm_________________________________________
Like it or not, the media has bought into the idea the Clinton’s popularized 16 years ago that you can separate your family decisions from your policy positions.
This attitude will never change, due to the fact that the members of the Washington press corps. all send their kids to the same private schools as the politicos they cover.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/22/2008 @ 7:58 pmSPQR is onto something but, as usual, it’s not what he thinks.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 11/22/2008 @ 8:16 pmHey, don’t tax anybody for education and don’t have “public education.” Period.
Otherwise, why do you hate capitalism?
Let the markets work. If you can’t afford to send your children to school, then put them to work for minimum wage or whatever the going wage is for small and relatively weak young persons. Let that begin at the age at which previously they would have been forced to go to public school on SPQR’s dime. And tax them enough that we don’t have to end the tax cuts for those among us who might re-invest capital and create wealth.
Also, if we can avoid the perils of universal health care there will be a winnowing of those who cannot go to school and are good for little more than menial labor anyway.
There are, after all, two games going on at once: Win-win. Lose-lose.
Larry – Do you have a newsletter? One of my kids is supposed to bring examples of misguided political thinking to school and I think you are a winner in that category!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/22/2008 @ 8:29 pmhttp://www.americancivicliteracy.org/index.html
slightly off topic but see if you score better than our elected officials on civics.
voiceofreason2 (1de61b) — 11/22/2008 @ 8:35 pmLike it or not, the media has bought into the idea the Clinton’s popularized 16 years ago that you can separate your family decisions from your policy positions.
Disagree. They want Dems to win, end of story. Whatever supports that is AOK.
PS. Yes I do sound like a raving right wing lune what I say that, but for the last 2 years I was bombarded with propaganda. Cut me some slack but I am pretty sure I am right. There is no “conspiracy” persay, just they are same thing.
BTW happy Thanksgiving.
Mr. Pink (9d3ec5) — 11/22/2008 @ 8:36 pmThe Obamas have never sent their children to public schools. They had the choice to move somewhere within Chicago where there were good schools, but Obama chose expensive private schools. I don’t know if the schools in Hyde Park are good, but there are enough wealthy people there that they could be. There are parts of town where the schools are good, but Obama chose his home based on political motivations.
MayBee (995268) — 11/22/2008 @ 10:09 pmI don’t begrudge them that, but I don’t want to hear about inequality in schools, or about “educational debt”.
Sidwell Friends charges the money it does to keep out the unwanted people. If Obama’s ok with that, I don’t want to hear negative things about people moving to the suburbs to get good educations for their own children.
We just went through this in Utah and big time.
Vouchers represent a threat to the UEA. So anythime they are brought up one hella battle is going to be waged, and your children will be engauged in such as well as their teachers, who should be mum on the subject will do all they can, coached of course, to influence the kids in hopes of influencing the parents, it works. Not to mention the millions of bucks a state with 2.5 million folks can seem to rais to spend against such a proposal.
But as I see it, one major problem with a voucher program is. If a state is spending say 4500$ per student, the state voucher offered is but about half that amount. WHY?
If the state admits it can’t educate on 4500, then what in the hell makes them think that a private school can do the REAL job on half that amount. Even though most private schools are funded well above the 4500 level, such does not matter.
Competition is great! It forms educated folks.
Without it, well I ask my children regularly, did they teach you to learn today, or did they teach you to believe?
Public funded, union controlled facilities, and that is exactly what our public education system is, have zero real competition. Voucher systems provide them with what they claim to be teaching our kids, which is better gets the gold ring, but they continue to fail at way to many points, consistently.
Sorta like an NBA coach that can’t seem to put together any sort of measurable winning season, fans don’t like that, revenues go down, and yer gonna git fired!
I figure within one or two years, the general might actually learn to think a bit more for themselves, mostly because if they don’t do something different, nobody is gonna feed them any longer, and if they turn to stealing, they will get shot!
Desperation is the mother of invention.
TC (0b9ca4) — 11/23/2008 @ 12:42 am“The overarching question for me is whether Obama is being a hypocrite on this issue.”
Why is this hypocritical? Is he using vouchers? He’s making a choice, sure, to spend his money.
imdw (7c85b9) — 11/23/2008 @ 9:19 amTo fill out FooBar’s comment,
Rhee’s office quickly issued a statement that said she “disagrees with the notion that vouchers are the remedy for repairing the city’s school system.“ But she reiterated to Fast Company that she has “not taken a formal position on vouchers,” and she said she won’t—because she’s more concerned about fixing the schools where nearly 50,000 kids are still being educated.
I don’t think Obama is being hypocritical – he has the money to pay for private school and is not depending on anyone else to pay the tuition. That said, its his garbled reasoning to penalize other taxpayers and limit their opportunities that I object to.
Dana (594bf4) — 11/23/2008 @ 9:58 am“I support vouchers to allow parents to have choice in where they send their children school.(sic)”
Psyberian (37b2ae) — 11/23/2008 @ 10:23 amGee, and they wonder why people label him as an elitist.
Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/23/2008 @ 11:02 amBaracky just wants to keep the unwashed masses away from his kids, and wants to make sure that the less fortunate are not given the same chances as he and his children had.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/23/2008 @ 11:05 amOBAMA: Well, the problem is, is that, you know, although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you’re going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom. We don’t have enough slots for every child to go into a parochial school or a private school. And what you would see is a huge drain of resources out of the public schools.
If you don’t have enough slots, why is it a huge drain ?
More left wing logic.
It would be a huge drain on teachers’ unions because there ARE enough slots once the market gets going. All those Sylvan Learning Centers and private tutoring centers could easily form private schools. And it would save the remaining Catholic schools that are disappearing.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/23/2008 @ 11:18 amWell, the problem is, is that, you know, although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you’re going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom.
More left wing logic.
God forbid we should only benefit “some” students. Better that everyone be forced into a third-rate education than a select few be able to get something better, right Mr. Redistribute-the-Wealth?
JVW (89c289) — 11/23/2008 @ 11:27 amRe: #34, On the civics quiz, I hope public school teachers can do better than “elected politicians.”
Across the board, the results are extraordinarily poor, but the knowledge gap between citizens and politicians is nothing short of disgraceful.
I suspect commenters here, including lefty numbskulls, and even some of the obnoxious trolls, can answer more questions than “elected politicians.”
Ropelight (5b609a) — 11/23/2008 @ 11:43 amLarry, you are still demonstrating only your own confusion.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/23/2008 @ 11:51 amObama should also be against elite colleges like Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia. After all, Obama wants everyone to go to college so shouldn’t we stop draining resources from public colleges to benefit a privileged few?
DRJ (a50047) — 11/23/2008 @ 12:57 pmFrom what I read, I really like Michelle Rhee. I bet she finds out that the Democratic Party really does not support her world view. Of course, the Reps don’t either.
Maybe one day we will get a true liberty, small government party.
A girl can dream…
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/23/2008 @ 1:10 pmDRJ – ‘Tis good for me, but not for thee is a common theme emanating from the Baracky camp.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/23/2008 @ 1:40 pmGod forbid we should only benefit “some” students. Better that everyone be forced into a third-rate education than a select few be able to get something better, right Mr. Redistribute-the-Wealth?
When I was in my 3rd year of highschool the school board in their infinite wisdom abolished tracking because it was supposedly unfair or some other nonsense. So I ended up going from classes comprised of students in the 90th percentile that managed to not just cover the curriculum but extra material to being in a pre-calculus class with students who had a flimsy at best grasp of basic algebra.
I think the ideological left believes that if they close their eyes and wish really hard they can turn the bell curve into a vertical line.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 11/23/2008 @ 1:41 pmClosing their eyes and wishing real hard is what they did in the voting booth this year.
Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/23/2008 @ 1:42 pmBut it’s okay, you see, because it’s a Quaker school, a school run by the Society of Friends. They’re very very concerned about social justice those Quakers. That’s why it’s necessary to charge parents close to $30,000 a year to attend them.
A Quaker school in suburban Philadelphia has even adopted a school in Havana and brings their girls basketball team to play a goodwill game in the states against the Quaker high school all-stars. Of course the Castro loving principle of this upper class boarding school always has to buy shoes and coats for the entire team. But hey a small price for the revolution, right? A friend of mine is a graduate of the school and took me to the game one year. There was not a single Cuban girl that was anywhere near younger than 19 and they beat the American girls 96-25.
Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 11/23/2008 @ 2:14 pmNice guys advocate unionized government schools for your kids, while sending their own children to exclusive, non-union private schools.
It’s the decent thing to do.
Greg Ransom (ff5e16) — 11/23/2008 @ 6:32 pmIf he *really* wanted to kill vouchers, I’d recommend he name them “refundable tax credits.” That way we could get the wall street journal to be against them.
“Baracky just wants to keep the unwashed masses away from his kids, and wants to make sure that the less fortunate are not given the same chances as he and his children had.”
The kids are at Sidwell. You think any form of voucher plans are going to allow the ‘unwashed’ to afford Sidwell? That’s going to get mighty pricey. Here’s how Sidwell will react: Tuition is 29K, so you’re giving out 29K in vouchers? Ok, tuition is now 58K. The net? More money for Sidwell, with no ‘unwashed.’
imdw (949e9f) — 11/23/2008 @ 8:59 pmHe should name vouchers “refundable tax credits.” That way the WSJ will oppose them and wignuttia will follow suit.
“Baracky just wants to keep the unwashed masses away from his kids, and wants to make sure that the less fortunate are not given the same chances as he and his children had.”
His kids go to Sidwell. I can’t imagine how much you want to spend on vouchers, but if you want the “unwashed” to afford Sidwell, that would be quite pricey. Here’s how I see Sidwell acting should you try: Tuition is 29K, oh you everyone got a voucher for 29K? Ok, tuition is now 58K.
So Sidwell gets to have even more moolah, while the “unwashed” still don’t go there. I wonder if the teachers there are union.
imdw (201504) — 11/23/2008 @ 9:31 pmLet me go on record to say Barack Obama will not be paying to send two kids to 30K per year private schools.
Neither he, nor his wife, make enough POST TAX to pay for it.
I am sure someone will “take care of it” as they did the Clinton’s millions in law suit bills when they were allegedly “broke.”
I love the hypocrisy. I will celebrate all bad that befalls them.
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 11/23/2008 @ 9:35 pmHigh performance organization don’t have Unions. They are not needed. Usually there is enuff to pay everyone well.
Da'Shiznit (089453) — 11/23/2008 @ 9:37 pm“Neither he, nor his wife, make enough POST TAX to pay for it.”
They made a couple of million in the last few years. Mostly from his book sales. You think that amount is going down?
imdw (23c2b4) — 11/23/2008 @ 9:37 pmSecurity would be a nightmare at a public school.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 11/24/2008 @ 3:01 amYeah, in a public school it would be more difficult to keep the riff-raff at arm’s length.
Ropelight (5b609a) — 11/24/2008 @ 5:00 amYes, it is. Sitting presidents don’t sell books and Michelle appears to be leaving her job.
That said, of course the First Kids aren’t going to DC public schools and it’s ridiculous to argue that they should. The hypocrisy lies more in the fact that they didn’t go to Chicago public schools. There’s more in the dog and pony show of visiting the DC schools, as if that was actually an option to be considered.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/24/2008 @ 5:38 amYes, it is going down. Sitting presidents don’t sell books and Michelle appears to be leaving her job.
That said, of course the First Kids aren’t going to DC public schools and it’s ridiculous to argue that they should. The hypocrisy lies more in the fact that they didn’t go to Chicago public schools. There’s more in the dog and pony show of visiting the DC schools, as if that was actually an option to be considered.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/24/2008 @ 5:39 amIf you don’t support vouchers then at least support public school reform, starting with giving them the ability to expel students who do not meet reasonable standards of behavior.
It is better to put those students on the streets than to turn the schools into the streets. I object to my education tax dollars going for mere baby sitting.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 11/24/2008 @ 5:50 amI don’t agree. Obama’s getting a hefty pay increase. What’s left of $400K after taxes and living expenses, should be enough to cover it. If not, I’d be very suspicious of his ability to manage his personal finances.
Steverino (69d941) — 11/24/2008 @ 7:03 amThe hypocrisy lies more in the fact that they didn’t go to Chicago public schools.
Part of the benefits package at the University of Chicago is free tuition for your children, from kindergarten all the way through college. U of C’s lab school is a very good school. I can’t see Michelle passing it over in favor of CPS for a political or philosophical point. Personally, I would think less of the Obamas had they done that.
nk (5fa892) — 11/24/2008 @ 8:21 am