To submit your own opinion about any of these issues or make comments about this site, e-mail heathen@scientist.com.

Proposition 38: School Vouchers

Last updated Wednesday, October 04, 2000

Summary: Provides payments by the state government of around $4,000 per student to private schools in the form of vouchers.

Text of Proposition: www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_bp.htm

More Information: California Voter Foundation Initiative Watch 2000

Pro sites: www.localchoice2000.com, www.38yes.com

Con sites: www.noonprop38.com

Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee: YES

Libertarians endorsed what is arguably the most controversial initiative, Proposition 38, the school voucher initiative. "Government schools have clearly failed to educate children. Prop. 38, while not perfect, is a significant advance over the status quo," Hinkle stated.

Libertarian Party of San Mateo County: NO

Webmaster: NO

School vouchers only make sense in one context -- people who do not have children in a public school should receive a tax refund or deduction. Then it is up to those people to spend or not spend that money as they want, whether it is to provide private schooling, home schooling, or buy a set of encyclopedias. If the government is in charge of distributing the funds to private schools, then the government will insist on dictating the policies of those schools. That will only result in private schools becoming as bad as public schools.

Christopher Schmidt, Secretary, LPC R41 (San Mateo County): NO

Libertarian advocates of this measure claim that Prop 38 "will result in a reduction in the tax burden caused by government-run public schools because per-pupil government expenditures are greater than the voucher amount."

Their claim fails to consider to the implications of (1) additional spending for current private school students, (2) "fully fund[ing] the demand for programs offered by the community colleges", (3) changing the funding formula for all K-12 students, and (4) giving the power to interpret that formula to the Director of the Department of Finance.

Even if the theoretical savings were possible, the advertised application of that savings to tax reduction is pure fantasy. The state would experience the increased spending for the vouchers, but it would be up to the counties and school districts to realize the implied "savings" by firing employees and closing public schools. Then, yes, in theory they could "reduc[e] the tax burden" by issuing property tax rebates (of the money they formerly spent on schools). Dream on!

Vouchers: "Medicare for Schools"

Like Prop 38, Medicare was once touted to save money and enhance private health care using similar arguments. Has medical care gotten cheaper -- or more expensive? Has government involvement in health care decreased -- or increased -- since taxpayers started picking up the tab? Subsidies always increase prices and the one who pays the piper always calls the tune. Goodbye, "affordable" "private" schools!

Richard Rider: YES

Johann Opitz: NO

Proposition 38 has four fatal flaws:

1. It creates a new formula for determining average per student spending. This formula has not yet been implemented to analyze the actual spending for all 50 states. This is an extremely large unknown that needs to be immediately quantified.
2. It guarantees minimum funding for an extremely bureaucratic public system of waste, fraud, abuse, and low-performance. No true conservative would advocate gov't doing such to keep poorly managed private sector companies operating and, thus, they shouldn't advocate gov't doing such for anything in the public sector.
3. The guaranteed minimum funding has another serious flaw in that if CA funding under the new formula is below the national average then CA spending increases, thus moving the national average up -- thus giving reason for another increase in funding. The "do loop" has no exit -- funding will go up every year driven just by the increase in the prior year's CA funding.
4. The guaranteed minimum funding ensures the public education system, which delivers a marketable commodity, never goes away when it should be totally turned over to the private sector.

Remove the guaranteed minimum funding and Prop. 38 is far better.

A better route would be the use of "tax credits" instead of vouchers.

I ask that all Libertarians who agree with me to also take the same position of not renewing their LPC membership and not funding the LPC. Hopefully we can get the statists in the LPC to resign.

Jack Hickey, Chair, LPC R41 (San Mateo County): NO

I endorse a NO vote on Prop 38.

My position as posted on www.dnet.org follows:

I urge a NO vote on Prop. 38!

I have been a long time supporter of education vouchers as a means to break up the government schooling monopoly which is a blight on our Constitutional Republic.

In 1979, I authored the "Hickey-Canfield - Performance Voucher Initiative". That measure was endorsed by Milton Friedman (sometimes referred to as the father of the voucher).

In 1993, I gathered more than 1000 signatures to help qualify Prop. 174, the Parental Choice in Education voucher Initiative. During the campaign leading up to the November election, Republican Tom Campbell was running for this same Senate seat vacated at that time by Senator Becky Morgan. When Tom flip-flopped on his support of Prop. 174, and lost the endorsement of Milton Friedman, I entered that race for State Senate as a spokesperson for Prop. 174.

Since that time, I have changed my party affiliation from Republican to Libertarian. I also have refined my voucher position to one of only supporting temporary vouchers which are payable only based upon student performance.

My Performance Accountability Voucher for Education (www.PAVE2000.com) is the culmination of my efforts.

I urge a NO vote on Prop. 38 for the following reasons:

Proposition 38, also known as "The National Average School Funding Guarantee and Parental Right to Choose Quality Education Amendment.", is a Trojan horse voucher plan which will derail legitimate voucher efforts aimed at a goal of separating school and state. It would guarantee an upward spiral of taxes in support of education which traditionally should be a family responsibility. It would place a minimum spending guarantee in our State Constitution alongside the tax and spending limits pioneered by Jarvis and Gann!

I believe in limited government.

I urge a NO vote on Prop. 38!