Of course they do. Especially when Congress can funnel hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out a malfeasance mess they foisted upon Wall Street, yet vote to de-fund a successful voucher system that provided a great educational opportunity for hundreds of Washington D.C.'s poor, mostly black, children.
And without that great educational opportunity, many of these children will grow to be adults stranded on the liberal entitlement plantation, dependent on gub'mint subsidies. A vicious cycle some conclude is by design?
"Those benefiting from this vicious cycle - a group that does not include the children or the taxpayers - say the schools need the money.
People of ordinary intelligence, however, recognize that the public schools lose nothing when a student goes to another school. If they don't have the child to educate, they don't need the money to educate the child.
One educator tried to "explain" to me that the public schools have certain fixed costs that remain even when a child leaves. In turn, I explained to him that if 600 children leave, that is one less expensive elementary school that needs to be built.
It was also necessary to explain that the cost of a voucher always is less than the cost of a public school, so the taxpayers save heaps of money. Jay Greene, a Harvard Ph.D. at the Manhattan Institute, also found that Florida public schools showed improvement when forced to compete for students eligible for vouchers.
Then there is the bottom line. By getting an education, poor kids have a shot at becoming prosperous and productive, which also saves future taxpayers gobs of money.
This is all beside the point to the teacher union bosses. Results don't matter to them. All that matters is the input: money."
Your tax dollars at work. What happened to abolishing the Department of Education? (oldie, but goodie.)