I wonder whether the proponents of the school voucher program, such as the writer of the Aug. 27 letter “ Ruling denies rights,” would also agree that government support of other programs with similar intent should be continued.
For example, I would think that North Carolina’s non-expansion of Medicaid denies parents the right to provide their children with the best health care possible, regardless of their economic circumstance. Since the writer states, regarding vouchers, that this ruling “denies parents the right to provide their children the best education possible,” therefore, he and other proponents of vouchers must then believe in Medicaid expansion since a similar right is being denied.
It seems the writer and others believe that the creation of vouchers is a case where a government subsidy for economically challenged families is a good idea. Logically, wouldn’t we want a government subsidy to help those same families provide health care, so that the same children they want to educate would be healthy and ready to learn? What about nutrition support, so that the same children they want to educate are also well-fed and ready to learn?
Or is this simply about providing government support only to causes they espouse?