Numerous #nevleg tweets from Democrats have attacked Nevada’s new school choice laws as designed by Republicans to help the wealthy more than the poor.
Oh really, Democrats?
Government always, always benefits the upper classes before the poor. The upper classes have the time and resources to develop close connections with the state and are the first to learn of new government initiatives. Many of the wealthy write the laws and regulations themselves.
School choice laws help parents and students become independent of the state, while progressive government programs make recipients more dependent on government. Nevada’s school choice laws are structured so that those leaving the public school system do not take away money targeted for education. In the unlikely event wealthy students were indeed to leave en masse, the remaining teachers will actually have more resources and smaller class sizes to educate the remaining students.
New tax revenues means that now Nevada teachers must step up and show results. The Nevada Department of Education has promised teachers will be held accountable for their new revenues by tougher performance standards. Nevada teachers should be tweeting about how they will meet these new standards. Instead, they are playing silly class warfare games on Twitter.
The history of school choice shows the reform is driven by the needs of minorities and the poor. The opponents of school choice are often wealthy enough to afford to send their own children to expensive private schools. New charter schools and private educational opportunities will grow with the choice programs.
In other news, Nevada Republicans like Gov. Brian Sandoval and Sen. Dean Heller oppose the resettlement of Syrian refugees in our state.
Let me get this straight. Republicans are saying that Daesh (ISIL or ISIS) will send potential terrorists into a two-year FBI vetting process in order to insert them into the U.S. to form terrorist cells. President Obama rightly asked why Daesh would bother to go through this time consuming, arduous process, when it would be far easier to send terrorists as students or tourists?
Republicans use the same logic, or lack thereof, when they fantasize that teenage boys will undergo medical and psychological evaluations, hormone therapy and even reconstructive surgery, just so they can sneak a peak at girls in the ladies room.
As ESPN’s Chris Carter would say, “C’mon, man!”
Republican presidential candidates like Donald Trump correctly point out that the Paris terrorists took advantage of a European gun-free zone to kill unarmed Parisians.
In Washington, D.C., however, we hear demands to hang Edward Snowden, and to repeal moderate metadata collection reforms like the USA Freedom Act. There are renewed calls for government back door keys to internet encryption. Some even want to take away gun rights from those on the abusively mismanaged no fly list.
In fact, the Parisian terrorists used unencrypted, open cell phone communications to organize the attacks, at an estimated cost of $7,500. It was bureaucratic snafus like French security’s failure to heed Belgian and Turkish warnings that enabled the massacre. The terrorists got black market guns, but legal guns were not available to their victims.
A diffuse threat calls for diffuse defenses. We need an unorganized militia. In fact, we already have one. It started with Flight 93. Government should acknowledge this option, not demand more useless unconstitutional spying powers.
The Swiss have a wonderful civil defense program. So do the Israelis. The U.S. Constitution authorizes a strong militia several times. It shouldn’t be very organized. That would defeat its purpose. But we need new ideas to stop the gun-free zone attacks. Let’s try encouraging local civil defense. Emphasize training but do not mandate it. Liberty is compatible with security.