This is certainly standard rhetoric from the right. They're not trying to privatize public schools out of existence, the argument goes, they're simply trying to use tax dollars to provide new opportunities to "poor and disadvantaged" children.There's always been one part of this argument that bugs me: why does the principle apply solely to education?For Jindal, poor and disadvantaged kids should have the same educational opportunities as kids from wealthy families. Fine. There's ample evidence that vouchers don't work, but let's stick to the larger principle. The next question is pretty straightforward: can poor and disadvantaged kids have same access to quality health care as kids from wealthy families? How about the same access to safe and affordable housing? How about nutrition? And transportation? And political influence?
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment