Why the hypocrisy? If the state of South Dakota can support church schools, it should do the same for public schools

Hypocrites!

That’s a common accusation leveled at legislators. With so many proposals, bills, and budget details demanding yes-or-no votes, it’s a task for legislators to avoid inconsistencies.

Conflicting actions make it easy for the public to be critical, although comparing two separate issues can be clouded by details creating an apples/oranges mischaracterization. As decisions are made, though, sometimes two seemingly unconnected results are so obviously at odds with each other that criticism is justified.

Here’s an example from the past few weeks:

A South Dakota legislative committee has rejected a proposal to assist parents who need help paying for student meals. The idea is for the state to step in to be sure students do not go hungry when they depend on the school meals (like those above in a public domain photo posted on wikimedia commons) but their parents haven’t paid the bill.  

The bill was killed by a close vote in committee.  Opponents said it was too costly. It was also said churches and other charities should take on the responsibility of helping the needy.

One legislator said Jesus wanted individuals, not government, to do his work. The projected cost of just under $600,000 was an undeserved “free lunch,” according to the state budget office. 

Earlier in the session, another bill advanced easily — allocating up to $5 million in public money (tax credits) to subsidize parents who want their kids to go to church schools. These are parents who voluntarily choose to leave the public school system.

Public schools are funded according to student numbers, so this choice reduces revenue there, and the state dollars will instead prop up the budgets of the church schools and their families.

Now, some might say, these two separate actions are not related because the dollars for the two options come from two different budget items. That’s true, but public money is public money and in the end it’s a zero-sum game with a finite total revenue amount for all allocations. Dollars spent somewhere could always be spent elsewhere.

Apart from any process arguments about the money, the conflicting concepts alone represent self-evident hypocrisy. 

So, we have two decisions relating to similar situations. Those needing help with their kids’ school meals are not deserving of public dollars; qualifying parents eager to incorporate Christianity in their kids’ schooling are welcome to the money even as it potentially harms public schools. One need is classified to be worthy, one not. 

South Dakota has both outstanding public schools and church schools. This is not in any way critical of the private schools and their parents. But, parents in need of financial help should not be aided only if they choose private schools.

Considered separately and in stand-alone debate, there are reasonable yes and no arguments for both proposals. Viewed together with these contradictory results, the blaring hypocrisy should be unsettling for reasonable legislators.

Mike Levsen is a former mayor of Aberdeen and a regular contributor to The South Dakota Standard.