That is one lesson that should not get lost in all the debate that took place last week in Columbia.
The chief economist for the state Board of Economic Advisers, warns that vouchers -- as proposed by Gov. Mark Sanford and sponsors in the House of Representatives -- would come with a price. It would take money away from state and local governments.
Economist Bill Gillespie, who does not take sides in political questions but provides facts for those who do, said the voucher program would reduce state revenue by $32 million in the first year. The five-year phase is set begin in 2005-06. That figure would balloon to $234.4 million by 2009-10.
Over the same period, the bill would reduce local property tax revenue by $5.1 million next year to $37.8 million.
South Carolina cannot afford this program that proponents pushed in a mailout last week saying, "If it passes, YOU will be given money ..."
That money, which would flow to the parents of students in private schools or home schools in the form of tax credits, is needed by the 660,000 students in South Carolina's public schools. Society must use its resources exclusively for public schools, not private schools that are not accountable either fiscally or academically to the public.
This state cannot afford to lose revenue, that's for certain. But neither can it afford the heavy cost to society that would come through dwindling government and family support for public schools. The proposed voucher bill would give parents up to $4,600 for private school education, while Sanford proposes only $1,810 in base students costs for the public schools.
The House Ways and Means Committee was wise to postpone debate on the proposed legislation last week, a move that some feel will derail the plan for the current legislative session.
The state chamber of commerce opposes the bill because it lacks accountability for public dollars.
Superintendents, principals and teachers oppose it because of the harm it can do to public schools, which are showing solid improvements and need to be nurtured, not bashed.
The voucher proposal simply does not add up.