House GOP advances bill to spend $5 billion on private school vouchers
"This is going to be able to deliver scholarships for the families who need it most, so that they can attend private and parochial schools," said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-New York) at the committee hearing. "This bill actually benefits middle-class families and working families like the ones I represent in Staten Island and Brooklyn."
Families who earn under three times their local median income and who receive the federal scholarships created by the program could choose to spend the estimated $5,000 they receive on tuition or other schooling needs at private schools, parochial schools or homeschooling. The average private school in New York state costs $21,903 per year, according to the website Private School Review.
House Republicans have proposed that the program would be funded through tax credits. For every dollar an American donates to a nonprofit that grants scholarships, the federal government will reduce the person's taxable income by a dollar. The donation limit is capped at $5,000 or 10% of a person's taxable income.
Trump signs executive order Bolstering school choice
A win for the larger GOP-led school choice movement
Trump directed the U.S. Department of Education and multiple federal agencies to prioritize school choice programs shortly after he entered office.
The president's support and the federal funding proposal add to the momentum for school choice in the United States particularly in GOP-led states.
Families in Texas can now use public funds to pay for a nonpublic education after Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a $1 billion school voucher bill into law. The program there allows for government spending of public funds on private schools, including religious schools, and homeschooling.
At least 35 states, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico already have some school choice programs without federal dollars to back them, according to a national school choice dashboard from EdChoice, a national nonprofit group that advocates for school choice legislation.
Texas Gov. Abbott: Signs school vouchers into law. What we know about the school choice bill
What do people say about school choice?
Supporters for school choice largely argue that parents should have a right to choose where their kids attend school regardless of the cost and be supported with tax dollars, arguing that local public schools are often academically inferior to private or parochial schools.
"If a child is stuck in a failing school, a mother should be able to move her child to a better one," wrote U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), who earlier this year reintroduced the Educational Choice for Children Act, on May 14 on X. "That's what my school choice bill does--and it's in the House tax plan. A better educated American people is a better America."
School voucher program opponents often say the programs benefit wealthy families already enrolled in private schools, and who already can afford them. They also argue that school choice programs strip crucial state funding from public schools that are required to take every student, while not everyone lives near private schools or can be accepted into them
"Your expansive definition includes an entirely new $20 billion voucher system that seems to encourage parents to abandon our public schools," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX.) to House Republicans about the provision to their budget reconciliation bill at a committee's markup session on May 14.
Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@usatoday.com. Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
44 minutes ago
- Spectator
Bibi has run rings around Trump
Donald Trump likes to see himself as the Great Negotiator but on this occasion Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, appears to have outplayed him. Since April, the Israeli leader had been pressurising Trump and his White House aides to give him the green light for a large-scale attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. While Netanyahu was reassured by his military advisers that Israel could go it alone to target Iran's four nuclear sites, he wanted not just US backing but also American firepower to achieve what Trump and his predecessors all agreed on: that Iran must never be allowed to build a nuclear bomb. However, Trump entered the White House for his second term on a no-war ticket. He announced his intention to bring the war in Ukraine to an end and sent his special envoy and billionaire friend Steve Witkoff to pave the way and to divide up his spare time to sort out the war in Gaza, too. Neither of these objectives have yet to bear fruit. The nuclear challenge presented by Iran was also high on Trump's list. But he made it clear his priority was to be a peacemaker. He wanted to avoid conflagration. This was a message that clearly didn't go down well with Netanyahu who apparently told every American official who came to Jerusalem and in every phone call to the White House that this was the moment, the unique moment, when Iran's nuclear sites could be bombed before it was too late. Netanyahu and his complex operational plan to attack Iran, codenamed Operation Rising Lion, which had taken months, if not years, to develop and hone, was ready to launch two months ago. But Trump demurred. He wanted Witkoff to keep going with diplomatic efforts. He made his case to Netanyahu earlier this week when he said he wanted Witkoff to complete his round of negotiations with the Iranians in Oman. One more meeting to give peace a chance had been set for Sunday. However, Trump was becoming increasingly aware that his appeals were falling on deaf ears. Operation Rising Lion was as good as set in stone. Mossad agents who had covertly entered Iran were in position to launch deadly drone attacks on the homes of the top hierarchy of Iranian generals and nuclear scientists. The call between Trump and Netanyahu on Thursday was, by the sound of it, a one-way declaration by the Israeli prime minister. Israel was going to bomb Iran, and he hoped Trump would not stand in his way. Trump came away from that conversation, knowing that within hours 200 Israeli jet fighters and bombers would be hitting pre-selected targets in Iran. It was a fait accompli. There was nothing Trump could have done. He had been out-negotiated. In one way, it was his fault. He had set a timetable of 60 days for Iran to reach a diplomatic deal to resolve the nuclear crisis. Thursday was the last day of Trump's own timeline. It was a gift for Netanyahu. All he had to do was remind Trump of his own deadline and then push the button for Operation Rising Lion. There has been no transcript of the Thursday phone call. But Marco Rubio, secretary of state and acting national security adviser, confirmed that Washington had been notified of the imminent attack on Iran. After the attack began, a further statement was made which emphasised that the US played no role in the strikes. The challenge for Trump now is whether the US should switch from this non-participant position to being a full player. Only the US possesses the type of weapon system capable of penetrating the concrete and reinforced steel to reach the underground facilities where Iran carries out its most sensitive and critical nuclear research and development programmes. Even the US Air Force's 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) dropped by B-2 stealth bombers would have difficulty detonating close enough to these facilities, some of which are half a mile down. However, MOP would have a better chance of actually reaching Tehran's most secret underground plants. So far, Israel has caused extensive damage but largely to surface laboratory facilities., as well as Iran's air defence systems. The greatest achievement of Operation Rising Lion so far has been the killing by Mossad of so many high-powered generals and nuclear scientists. That alone will set back Iran's nuclear programme. The question for Trump is whether he has the appetite for taking on Iran once and for all. At present he has adopted a different line: warning Tehran to grab the diplomatic route before facing annihilation. However, if Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, refuses to send his diplomats to meet with Witkoff in Oman and focuses only on military retaliation against Israel, Trump might find himself forced to do what Netanyahu has been urging on Washington for a long time: to join with Israel in totally destroying Iran's nuclear programme. If that is what happens, Netanyahu will have achieved his greatest legacy: picking his moment and the right American president to end the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Greenland is a European territory, says French foreign minister
PARIS, June 15 (Reuters) - Greenland is a European territory and it is normal that Europe and France show their interest, French Foreign Minister Jean Noel Barrot told RTL radio on Sunday when asked about French President Emmanuel Macron's visit to the Arctic island. Macron visits Greenland on Sunday, in a show of solidarity with Denmark that is meant to send a signal of European resolve after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to take over the island.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Why the Israel-Iran war could raise your taxes
If Rachel Reeves is to have any chance of making it to her autumn budget without U-turns or raising taxes, the improved economic forecasts of recent months need to come true. Missiles flying between Israel and Iran may destroy that hope. Things had been getting better for the Chancellor. Look at economic forecasts from the aftermath of Trump's 'liberation day', and there was a common theme when it came to Britain. Because of the nature of our economic relationship with America – as a massive exporter in services (we're their call centre) and with more or less balanced trade in goods – we would be shielded against the worst impacts of a trade slowdown. Global GDP growth would suffer, but the effects would not come to Britain. The real boon, if one was being positive, though was what effect these tariffs might have on inflation. While raising prices in the shops for American consumers, the view of the economic world was that for the UK they may in fact be disinflationary. That's because, as the consultancy firm Oxford Economics explained to their clients last month, dampening demand for commodities such as oil and gas would reduce the cost of products consumed in Britain. But all that was before the first Israeli missiles landed in Iran. A barrel of Brent crude now goes for over $70. On Monday it went for $65 – so there has been a 9 per cent in just five days. On Friday morning, it briefly spiked to nearly $80 in what was the sharpest price spike since Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago. Within hours of Reeves delivering what director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Paul Johnson yesterday called an 'incomprehensible' spending review speech, economists were warning that tax rises in the autumn were becoming likely. Just a day later, a worse-than-expected GDP contraction turned likely into very likely. If oil prices continue climbing as the war escalates, tax rises could become certain. Some 20 billion barrels of oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz, or about 30 per cent of total global trade. So it's easy to see how if Tehran tried to attempt to close the Strait – as Iranian news reports it is considering – or even attacked a few tankers, the oil price would quickly head northwards again. Indeed the FT reported yesterday that the world's largest oil tanker company has stopped accepting new contracts to sail through the Strait. If oil prices do continue to rise – and some say disruption in the Strait could send the price over $100 a barrel – it would be mere days before Brits start paying the cost at the petrol forecourt. But oil supplies are crucial to much more than petrol and diesel and taken together, it's easy to see how the rate of inflation remains sticky or even begins to rise again. Given that the bond markets are keeping the cost of UK debt far higher than the Treasury has been used to – much more because of inflation worries and the after effects of money printing than is understood in Westminster – any signal that prices were rising again are not going to give them faith in Britain as a debtor. If that were to happen and gilt yields remain high, or even climb further, then Reeves could find herself in heaps of trouble. It surprises many City economists just how unequivocal the government has been about sticking to fiscal rules and indeed keeping Labour's manifesto promise not to 'raise taxes on working people' given how hard that is when Reeves only has £9.9 billion of headroom. Before her Spring Statement the chancellor talked of the economic challenges posed by a 'changing world'. Things in the middle east have a habit of spilling over and the world seems to be changing again. Could this once more be the excuse the chancellor has to reach for?
