Selfishness Vs. The Public Good

Reading along today, I came across an interesting editorial on the Scottsdale, AZ newspaper's website: Selfish pocket pickers. Let me pull out a couple of quotes here if I may:

"They include ... selfish public school parents who want private school parents to subsidize their kids' education...

Disagreeing with me about public education funding, he smugly told me that although his three kids have graduated from public school, he gladly continues to pay education taxes for the public good, implying that he is generous and compassionate.

The fact is, the cost of his kids' public education exceeds what he will pay in public school taxes over his lifetime. In other words, he has taken more from the public good than he will contribute to the public good. Private school parents, on the other hand, will contribute well over $100,000 per household in public school taxes and take nothing from the public good."

I believe in small, limited government. There are really few expenditures that I believe are appropriate for the government to undertake. Public education is one of them.

Will the parent in question ever pay enough in public school taxes to fully cover the cost of educating his three children? Probably not (but he might depending on the value of his house). Does that mean that we, as a society, should have refused to educate his children? Would society be a better place if only those able to fund an education would receive one?

Get real.

Without a public education, a child is more than likely doomed to spend his or her life wallowing away in some menial, minimum wage job never really contributing to society. Often they become welfare recipients or charges of the state. The ongoing, lifelong expense associated with the uneducated is far in excess of the cost of educating them in the first place. It's bad enough that we have to deal with people who choose not to be educated, why are we even contemplating forcing more into similar situations?

Public education also has benefits, even for the childless. One, it allows people to more fully develop their potential, which in turn allows them to make greater and more significant contributions to overall society. Second, educated people tend to make more money, a situation which improves the overall economy and also improves the chances that someone like Mr. Cantoni will be able to peddle his books or public speaking engagements (kind of hard to sell a book to an illiterate, isn't it?). And third, as the economy improves and these publically educated heathen earn more money, they tend to pay more in taxes. This in turn benefits Mr. Cantoni in one of two ways: one, he gets more services from the government for the same amount of taxes he personally pays or two, he gets to receive the same services from his government at a lower personal tax rate.

It's kind of ironic that Mr. Cantoni would find the gumption to complain about the "hoity-toity" and the "highfalutin' elites" when his ideal world, without public education, would create a caste system in this country more deeply entrenched than that of the Dark Ages.

I agree that there are a lot of excesses in government. Many of the items Mr. Cantoni lists are indeed legitimately questionable expenses. But not public education. You can tell me that the public education system is bad and I'll agree. You can tell me that it is the implementation of the system that is flawed and I'll agree. Blame it on the unions, on apathetic students, on disinterested parents, on uncaring teachers - find whatever fault you will with public education and I'll likely agree that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

But the idea of public education is still good. Education, now more than ever, is still needed to have a somewhat livable existance.

Mr. Cantoni complains about the selfish parents, but I find his short-term, money-in-my-pocket approach to whining to be far more selfish over the long haul.