BCT Editorial – 5/26/05

This page was last updated on May 28, 2005.

Local control; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 26, 2005.

The Times continuously promotes socialist principles, and local control has no place in socialism. That’s one reason I get a kick out of this editorial trying to argue a loss of local control is a predictable negative outcome of school vouchers.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The federal government continues to encroach on state and local matters.”

[RWC] As you read this, keep in mind Times editorials consistently support federal government intervention. Nationalized healthcare is only one example.

“The Associated Press reports the U.S. Education Department has announced that it will enforce a little-known provision in federal law that requires that every school and college that receives federal money must teach about the Constitution each year on Sept. 17.

“It’s not that we object to the Constitution being taught. It should be part of every school’s curriculum at some point in children’s education.

“However, we do object to the federal government mandating that it be taught, and on a specific day.”

[RWC] Don’t believe this for a second. You can’t believe in and promote socialism and then complain when the central government behaves exactly as socialism mandates.

“The law also should serve as a reminder to those who support government-funded vouchers for education that when the federal government gives them money, it also can attach strings that make them dance to its tune.”

[RWC] The government doesn’t fund vouchers because it doesn’t have any wealth. Private taxpayers fund vouchers out of their hard-earned paychecks. Socialists tend to forget this fact.

What the editorial states about the federal government is true for all levels of government. There ain’t no free lunch. Take money from any government level and you must dance to the government’s tune.

Who said the feds would serve as a conduit for vouchers? As I’ve stated in previous critiques, providing education is not a constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

The Times doesn’t really care about local control. Indeed, you can’t promote socialist principles and support local control. The Times continuing opposition to vouchers is an example. You see, vouchers put more control in the hands of parents, a form of local control.

If the Times were really concerned about local control, it would oppose federal AND state funding of education. It would also oppose federal and state funding of mass transit welfare.

On a side note, folks like the Times editorial writers make writing critiques easy. Trying to promote socialism is like a person trying to cover up a lie. In the case of a liar, one lie begets another and so on until you dig a hole so deep you can’t get out. In the case of socialists, they defend one baseless position with another baseless position and/or lie until they recognize “the jig is up.” At this point, they resort to character assassination, name-calling, accusations of greed and stupidity, et cetera.