Which is better, vouchers or tax credits? Yes.
Author: Joshua Thompson
The Cato Institute's Andrew Coulson has a very interesting piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer arguing that education tax credits are fundementally superior to education vouchers. His main argument is that, "donations made under the tax credit are private and voluntary, and the donors decide which [school tuition organization] receives their money. Under a voucher program, every taxpayer must support every type of private school – even ones that may violate their convictions." It is an interesting argument, and one that doesn't strike me as intrinsically flawed.
Indeed, since the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, tax credit schemes may be the simplest avenue for education reformers to inject some much needed choice into the government education monopoly. And if tax credit schemes are more easily enacted by legislatures, then by all means, let's stop the constant bickering over vouchers and enact the tax credit schemes ASAP. Education reform is needed now, and vouchers or tax credits are both dramatic improvements over the status quo.
Yet, I think Mr. Coulson oversells his case for tax credits when he writes, "[c]ompelling every taxpayer to support every type of education is, in the words of Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Declaration of Religious Freedom, 'tyrannical.'" No, vouchers aren't tyrannical. I wouldn't even say a government run education monopoly is "tyrannical." (Though the latter is much, much closer than the former).
Are tax credits better than vouchers? Quite possibly. Mr. Coulson has definitely done the research, and his argument makes intuititive sense. But let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. There is no need to bash vouchers on the way to making the case for tax credits.
What to read next
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.
Minnesota bans political apparel at polling places across the State. The government interprets “political” broadly: the ban applies to shirts with classic American phrases such as “Liberty” or “Don’t tread on me,” as long as those phrases appear alongside a tea party logo — no matter how small.
Sunday marks the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Pacific Legal Foundation celebrates Constitution Day this year with a column about a Founding Father and signer of the Constitution who now stars in the Broadway hit musical, Hamilton. We also use the opportunity to remind our federal legislators about the importance of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. The opinion piece will run in newspapers from coast to coast this weekend.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently announced that it will hear oral argument in the Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould on November 17 in San Francisco. In that case, PLF represents California citrus growers in their constitutional challenge to a law that forces them to give up their property for the benefit of union organizers.
As you will recall, since last year, Christina Martin has been keeping you up to date on Michigan’s unjust, and unconstitutional foreclosure law in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Before PLF took over the direct representation of the victims of this unfair law, including Wayside Church, it filed an amicus brief to support them in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It explained how Michigan’s tax scheme violates the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Recently, the Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed entitled “Why Fish and Wildlife is right on endangered frogs” that criticized a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of California farmers and ranchers. The op-ed misrepresents the lawsuit and perpetuates a misconception about the Endangered Species Act.
PLF’s lawsuit does not question whether the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was right to list three California amphibians as protected species under the ESA. Nor does it question whether the Service was right to designate critical habitat to conserve the species. Under the law, the Service is required to make these determinations.
What does it take to get the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to follow the law? For the citizens of Bonner County, Idaho, and members of the Idaho State Snowmobile Association, the answer is AT LEAST one petition, two formal comment letters, and three federal lawsuits. That’s ridiculous!
This past Friday, on behalf of Bonner County and ISSA, PLF sent a 60-day notice of our intent to sue the Service for failing to reach a final determination on its May 2014 proposal to remove the Southern Selkirk Mountains population of caribou from the Endangered Species List. The Endangered Species Act requires the Service to issue a final rule on a proposal within one year. The Service is over two years late meeting that obligation.