Top Republicans Back Parental Choice
Each of South Carolina’s top GOP gubernatorial contenders are starring alongside Gov. Mark Sanford and former President Ronald Reagan in a new mailing supporting the passage of parental choice legislation in the Palmetto State.
Henry McMaster, Andre Bauer and Gresham Barrett all appear and are quoted in the mailing, which reaffirms the South Carolina Republican Party’s support of parental choice.
In case you’ve forgotten the official SCGOP position on this issue (as a lot of Republican lawmakers apparently have), here it is:
We embrace the healthy competition that will result from a comprehensive school choice plan that includes the private sector, and believe such a system should be instituted from kindergarten through 12th grade. In addition to improving public school performance, a system of school choice that includes tax credits, scholarship granting organizations and vouchers would
offer more compassionate and better opportunities for all children in South Carolina.
Yup, that’s pretty unambiguous language if you ask us.
Reagan, who introduced education tax credits way back in 1983, is quoted in the mailing as saying “it is of great importance to the continued vitality of our society that parents have a meaningful choice between public education and the many forms of private education that are available.”
Hopefully Sen. John Courson – who claims to be a ‘Reagan disciple’ and yet has spent years blocking choice – will take special notice of that quote.
Sanford adds that “a monopoly on education is bad for consumers and bad for taxpayers, and we believe that only by unleashing the power of the marketplace can we achieve the truly transformative change in education that our state so desperately needs.”
The other quotes can be viewed by clicking on the mailing below.
In addition to McMaster, Barrett and Bauer, other 2010 Republican gubernatorial prospects are also supportive of parental choice.
Sen. Tom Davis and Rep. Nikki Haley – both favorites of fiscal conservatives – are longtime choice supporters who are co-sponsoring this year’s parental choice legislation.
And with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Robert Ford obviously leading the charge in the S.C. Senate, that leaves Sen. Vincent Sheheen (D-Kershaw) as the only announced gubernatorial candidate on either side of the aisle that’s not backing a comprehensive parental choice plan.
WEB EXTRAS:
Comments
By sclawyerIII on April 1st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
If you want to send your kids to private school, feel free. That’s your choice and there are plenty of options for it. It isn’t illegal and no one will be upset about it.
I’m just not sure why you expect someone else to pay for it.
A fairly significant number of the private schools in this state stink.
If we are honest with ourselves, this is an attempt to subsidize middle class people’s efforts to get their kids away from the kids who aren’t doing well in public schools.
I am against the government subsidizing private education.
The cost of operating public schools, which will have to continue to be operated will not decrease. So essentially, the government will be subsidizing public and private education. That seems like a foolish thing.
By all means within the public system let there be magnets and concentrated schools and some degree of choice in that regard. Merit based schools even makes sense.
But let’s not color putting more money in middle class folks who send their kids to private school pockets as some sort of solutuion to any problems.
Basically it is a back door approach to separating out the kids that aren’t problems away from those who are problems.
That can just as easily be accomplished within the public schools if that is the desire.
And private school remains something that families can choose to make by saving and budgetting the money.
By Old Bike Dude on April 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
If only all these whitebread parents would get off their ass and get involved in THEIR public schools, what a difference they could make for the well being of all children. Some of us are old enough to remember when just about 95% of kids went to public schools. Guess what ruined it for so many.
Here in the real lowcountry we have $4500/year private schools that really suck. The private schools that try to offer the same level of facilities and programs (including sports) that are offerred at public schools are running 13-16K per year and other than small classes have no advantage over public schools. Public school per student is around $8800. An honest evaluation of private schools would be an eye opener, but hey, there are no standards for private schools.
And sic, were you even alive when Reagan was prez? Reagan was the original telepromter hero.
By Toyota Kawaski on April 1st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
OLD Bike Dude i agree with everything u say except “there are no standards for private schools” that is incorrect sir there are.I send my son to private school because i choose but to ax others to pay is well same ole crap from sick willy style and his head bitch twice removed from his anus gland Howie big bitch Rich along with Gov.Moonbeam,Senator from Wisconsin, and et.al
By Scott on April 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
It is good to see that these Republican candidates support the Republican platform on school choice. All children deserve a great education. We need to think about students and less about what system delivers the product. More about public and private not public vs. private.
By anonymous on April 1st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
What you Sanford lovers can’t get through your hard heads is that the US and SC is going to be in the exact same amount of debt whether the King of Clowns takes the money or not. The debate is over, Obama is spending the money. That is where we are, so wake up and take the money and improve this backwards state or let some other state spend the money and you can pay for that. Either way you pay. It’s as clear as can be , the King of Clowns is playing politial BS with money that should be spent here, since it will be paid back from here. Impeach the King of Clowns now is my advice. He does not represent the people.
By calhoun faws on April 1st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Reagan threw a bone to certain factors in the GOP back then. But, the issue was not important to Reagan. Further, Reagan compromised to get something done on various issues, unlike Governor Sanford. Comparing Mark Sanford to Ronald Reagan? Good grief. If you know anything about how Reagan governed California and the United States, you would call him a RINO.
Reagan’s driving agenda was destroying communism. He cut whatever domestic deals he had to in order to get that agenda through. Under his watch as Governor and President, funding of public education dramatically increased.
Reagan might have voiced some favor for vouchers, (not tax credits), but he was no crusader for the issue. It is a stretch to portray him as such. Cutting taxes and destroying communism was his agenda. Heck, Reagan was even opposed to term limits and did not even attend church on a regular basis. There is no doubt that he would be a RINO today to so many “real” Republicans.
I wonder what’s next? Did Lincoln express a view about school choice? How about Washington or Teddy Roosevelt? Maybe Elvis had something to say on the matter.
Sorry, this mail out gives me the same feeling as those infomercials on late night cable.
By Neil on April 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Calhoun,
The reason Reagan went to church (if you would study up) is that it was such a hassle for security detail he did not want to infringe on the parishioners time of worship in church. Reagan loved the Lord and if you would read a lot of the new books you would understand that. Also, Reagan was not a Rhino he believed in cutting taxes, small government and a strong defense to defeat communism. Unfortunately, his position was compromised with Dems on the spending aspect so that the tax cuts would pass. As he said in his final address of leaving the country: “Not bad, not bad at all.”
Trackbacks