“With education funding following the student rather than being assigned to government-run institutions in a growing number of states, ” JD Tuccille writes in his annual “National School Choice Week” piece at Reason, “more families are choosing what works best for their kids — and the majority are satisfied with their decisions.”

On the main metrics Tuccille, and other “school choice” proponents use to measure success, that celebratory tone seems justified.

I don’t have a problem with school choice, correctly defined.

I don’t think those metrics correctly define it, so I’m not celebrating.

More and more state governments are, indeed, implementing or expanding “school choice” programs: Vouchers and tax credits for use at private schools, charter schools and “open enrollment” options for government schooling.

But are those programs “steps in the right direction” when it comes to either educational quality or actual choice?

Government (aka “public”) schools, including charter schools, may offer cosmetic differences, but their curricula and other standards are all set by government.

Vouchers and tax credits can be used at private schools … if those private schools accept those government-mandated curricular parameters and other standards. “School choice” as currently defined effectively turns them into government schools.

And government schools, by most methods of accounting — standardized test scores, parent opinion, etc. — don’t seem to do a very good job of teaching kids to read, write, and do arithmetic.

Suppose the government offered you these choices:

It would provide you with groceries in return for your tax payments, but those groceries would consist entirely of apples, ground beef, and white sandwich bread.

Or, it would give you a partial refund of your taxes in the form of a voucher or credit to spend on groceries … defined as apples, ground beef, and white sandwich bread.

“School choice” as currently defined brings to mind an apocryphal quote, attributed to Henry Ford, regarding his company’s Model T: “Any color the customer wants, as long as it’s black.”

Real choice entails a range of options, not just various ways of choosing the same single option.

Today’s “school choice” regimes actually REDUCE real choice by imposing “as long as it’s black” requirements on the institutions where vouchers and tax credits can be spent.

Do supporters of the current “school choice” paradigm believe the long arm of  “as long as it’s black” won’t soon reach out to strangle the surviving bastions of real choice — homeschooling and cooperative “microschool” projects — too?

We can continue to tolerate government control of education, or we can exercise real school choice. We can’t do both. The former, by its very nature, obliterates the latter.

Real school choice requires separation of school and state.

“National School Choice Week?”

No. “National School Choice: Weak.”

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last November (“The DOGE Plan to Reform Government”), Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy asserted that “[r]equiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.”

With Donald Trump’s inauguration as president,  that recommendation from Musk’s and Ramaswamy’s “DOGE” project — a powerless advisory mill disguised as a “Department” of Government Efficiency — actually got accepted. In a day-one executive order, Trump directed department and agency heads to “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.”

So, how “efficient” is that idea, really?

I’m a fan of terminating government employment, whether through resignations or firings. So long as those employees aren’t replaced, it’s a win for America. Not on “efficiency” grounds, though. I don’t want the government doing what it does more “efficiently,” I just want it doing less of what it does.

I’m also a fan of remote work in the private sector. If the work actually gets done, it saves employers money, saves employees time, and saves everyone unnecessary inconvenience.

In the government sector, well, see above — I prefer government employment inconvenient, unpleasant, and expensive so that fewer people are willing to accept it.

But from a “government efficiency” standpoint, the “return to office” mandate is a disaster in conception and will likely prove a disaster in execution. Let us count the ways.

First of all, “efficient” employees are highly motivated to get the job done rather than mess around. The kind of person who will take on an unnecessary commute just to sit all day in an uncomfortable office is probably only motivated to collect a paycheck. In other words, the most “efficient” employees will be the ones most likely to self-terminate and return to the productive sector.  I like that outcome, but “government efficiency” fans shouldn’t.

Secondly, to the extent the departing “efficient” employees get replaced, they’ll be replaced by the same kind of inefficient holders down of chairs who remain, lowering overall “efficiency” even more.

Thirdly, consider the costs to the taxpayer. Every government employee who works from home means less money spent on electricity, building maintenance, security screening at office building entrances, etc. Every government employee who comes to the office means more money spent on all those things. Not very “efficient.”

Finally, consider the inconvenience to everyone, government employee or not. Traffic in Washington, DC and surrounding areas has been the subject of constant complaint for as long as I can remember. It’s about to get much worse. A whole bunch of cars that came off the beltway and sat in the driveway starting in 2020 are about to start moving around again, gumming up the works and slowing everyone down.

Overall, none of that sounds very “efficient” to me.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

During last year’s presidential campaign, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris seemed to disagree on quite a few things. One thing they agreed on — Trump reiterated his position in a speech in Las Vegas on January 26 — is that the federal government should stop demanding income tax payments on tips.

Allow me to be … well, probably far from the first … person to say what a wonderful idea that is.

Usually the phrase “bipartisan agreement” raises the hairs on the back of my neck. When politicians from both “major parties” agree on something, anything, it’s usually terrible news for the rest of us. “Bipartisanship” has given us everything from the warfare state to the surveillance state to the federal government’s “Make America East Germany Again” immigration approach.

But IF we’re going to have taxes (we shouldn’t), and IF we’re going to have income tax (we shouldn’t), and IF that income tax excludes your gift of up to $19,000 per year per recipient (it does), then common sense tells us that your 15% gift to a restaurant server or $5 gift to a delivery worker, etc. shouldn’t be taxed.

What are tips?

They’re NOT part of the purchase price.

You don’t HAVE to give them, in any amount or at all.

They’re. Gifts.

But the federal government wants to have it both ways. If I put $19,000 in a box under your Christmas tree, no tax. If I add $1.90 to the cost of the burger you serve me, tax.

Libertarians have long recognized this scam for exactly what it is. Advocates for Self Government even offers a handy dandy card for libertarians to leave with their cash gifts:

“THIS IS NOT A TIP! THIS IS A GIFT. IT IS NOT RENUMERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT NOR COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. IT IS A GIFT — FROM ME TO YOU. AS A GIFT, IT IS NOT TAXABLE INCOME.”

Since I expect this policy proposal to take a little while (if it passes at all), I just ordered myself a supply.

I already make an extra effort to tip in cash rather than on a card so that hopefully my tips won’t be reported or taxed. So should you.

Ending the scam is a great idea. It’s basic decency and execution of the clear meaning of the Internal Revenue Code vis a vis “gifts.”

Naturally, some disagree. But they have to torture logic beyond repair to justify their disagreement.

At CNN, Alejandra Jaramillo, Kevin Liptak, and Tami Luhby whine that ending taxation of tips would be “costly.”

Citing Republican members of the House Budget Committee, they claim it would “cost $106 billion over 10 years.”

That claim requires a complete re-definition of the word “cost.”

The government taking less of your money doesn’t “cost” them that revenue difference, any more than me not burglarizing your house “costs” me a TV. Your money, and your TV, are yours, not the government’s or mine.

Taxation, not non-taxation, represents “cost.”

The actual “cost” of eliminating income tax on tips would total $0.00.

Consider calling your congresscritter to clarify that point.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY