the ``leave no child behind'' phrase is such a great one, because every American believes in that. No American wants to leave a child behind, and it is a great way to point out what we want to do as a country for our children. But I just want to point out that as a necessary corollary to what the gentleman was saying just a moment ago, the only reason that one would oppose tax credits would be either that one wants to retain the bureaucratic control in Washington, D.C., to be able to order those districts around, or wants fewer dollars to go to education. I just want to make that clear, because I think people are out there debating, who is opposing this and why? I think it is important to understand that. Given that under this structure we leave the existing structure in place, and it still gets the resources that are directed to it, the Federal dollars to education that are flowing through the Department of Education are still there, and they still go out with all the strings and all the bureaucracy. This is not in place of that, this is an add-on in addition to that.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of tax credits for education funding.
Share
More from John Shadegg
Oh, the cost went up. Wait, the cost went up? They have forced everybody in Massachusetts, like this bill would do, to buy a health insurance plan on the premise that the cost would go down. But in Massachusetts where they did it, the cost…
The gentleman started by commenting about the shutting down of the switchboards and whether or not individual citizens could get through to their Member of Congress today and express their feelings, and I would suggest right now maybe…
I presume that makes those Senators who got these deals into the bill that aren't going to be stripped very happy.
It seems to me morally indefensible, morally indefensible to say to the American people, If you work for a big, big, big employer--like you and I do, the Federal Government--or like we'll say, General Motors or Intel or Motorola or AT&T or…





