VouchersThe proposal by Gov. William Donald Schaefer for...


February 28, 1993


The proposal by Gov. William Donald Schaefer for school vouchers to allow parents to send their children to schools which best suit them seems a reasonable approach.

Our society should allow freedom of choice in matters where there is no overriding reason to deny it. It is clear that the teachers' unions are opposed to the governor's proposal, undoubtedly for a mixture of good and bad reasons.

It threatens their economic power, because private school teachers are unlikely to be unionized and may be paid less.

At the same time, they may have a sincere concern that allowing children a choice may weaken support for public schools.

While there may be sympathy for their concerns, the overriding concern should be the welfare of children and the right of parents to choose what they think is best for theirs.

What enhances the merit of choice is the economics of it. Alternatives to public schools through vouchers or tax credits would save money and could enable Baltimore County to overcome its budget crisis.

It doesn't take much analysis to conclude that a voucher which is cheaper than the over $6,000 we now spend for a child's education in the public schools will save money. The voucher which is being proposed is less than $3,000.

Increasing private school enrollment will reduce the operation and capital budgets of our public schools. Politicians should not resist the voucher system in the name of saving money.

While there will be short-term increases (perhaps a year), the case is compelling that a voucher or tax credit system which provides less than the per capita cost of public school education will be less expensive.

Fortuitously, it will also provide greater community satisfaction by increasing personal freedom, and should increase the quality of the education our children receive. Choice deserves a thorough review by elected officials at all levels in Maryland.

Herm Schmidt


Equal Tax

Why does Mr. Clinton think he is going to get more money from the wealthy? They have so many write-offs on their tax forms that they will probably wind up paying less than before.

The middle-class, hard-working, trying-to-save-a-buck, father of three will pay through the nose.

Why can't the government see that the only fair way to tax everyone is to charge the same percentage, with no exemptions?

A straight 10 percent across-the-board tax rate, with no deductions, will create more money for the debt than what the president is proposing.

Where are all of those smart mathematicians that are advising the president? Come on, America, let's get together on this issue and demand an equal tax for everyone.

Joanne May


Towson Shortages

The extent of the budget crunch at Towson State University as depicted in The Sun Feb. 15 was not surprising.

In the mass communications department, the cuts are hitting hard. Tuition is rising, yet there is no improvement in the equipment and there is a lack of equipment available to the students.

The three radio laboratories available to Radio Production I students are overcrowded. Machinery is also breaking down, making it difficult for students to finish projects. When only allowed to sign up for one hour of lab time a week, this becomes a problem.

Students are not the only ones affected. Professors demonstrating production techniques also have to deal with equipment breakdown.

Computers in the news-writing laboratories are not in proper working order, either. One student actually dropped out of a class because of the stressful condition of the labs. There are too many students and not enough operating computers.

The cuts are indeed widespread. From the point of view of a student looking at the problem, your assessment appears to be quite accurate.

Krystyna M. Coski


Lesson from the Arnick Affair

If the debate over John Arnick's appointment to the District Court was based on whether society should permit back-room political payoffs and mutual back-scratching to decide who our judges will be, the exercise would be profitable and strengthen our republic's bulwark against tyranny.

What we have seen, however, is yet another example of the latest "politically correct" madness:

Any public person who at any time, in any place and under any circumstance has said anything in any way offensive to any group or individual should be ruthlessly cut from the fabric of society and cast into the waste bin.

Furthermore, it is sufficient to prove such wrongdoing with anecdotal examples from the mouths of those who may have political axes to grind.

The attack on Mr. Arnick gains more relevancy when viewed in the perspective of other recent attempts to punish the offensive.

FTC If, 30 years ago, a wealthy, cranky, crude old woman had made some ethnic or racially insensitive remarks, people would have laughed it off as old-fashioned idiocy and recalled the adage of disagreeing with her views but respecting her right to express them.

Today we defame her character, derail her career and deny her the right to conduct her business.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.