Respect returns to Missouri Catholic Bishops

...as they display "courage and compassion."

I am so pleased to see that the editorial page editor of the News-Leader has mended fences with Missouri Catholic Bishops and is no longer questioning their motives. See: Bishops' letter on immigrants changes debate (here's an excerpt):

"Missouri Catholic bishops changed the nature* of the debate about illegal immigration in this state this week by sending a passionate letter* to the governor and lawmakers urging the politicians to stop their pandering attempts to look tough on immigration.

We offer a resounding "Amen!" to the bishops for their courage and compassion."*

That's much better than the time the editorial editor questioned their motives when they came out in support of tax credits for benevolent contributors to the Betty L.Thompson Scholarship Program (failed HB808):

"Other conservative supporters and Catholic schools say the tax credits help build scholarship funds for needy students and offer families more choices. Teachers groups say the vouchers and private-school tax credits take money away from public schools and undermine the education system."

"...what is the true motivation of those trying to get it passed?"*

My guess is that supporting our State's poor students toward more choices for better education took a lot less "courage and compassion" on the part of Missouri Bishops.

Shucks, they were just talking about making tax credits available to benevolent contributors to Scholarships for Children in Failing Urban School Districts (the Betty L.Thompson Scholarship Program) to provide grants for low income parents so they could afford to send their children to the school of their choice, the school they educated themselves about and chose as one that could provide a better education to their failing child and heck, it could've even been a public school they chose. Shhh, let's not mention there were no vouchers (the tax credited scholarship program didn't quack like a duck and it didn't walk like a duck).

I'm just thankful that the News-Leader's editorial board has returned to an attitude of respect regarding opinions of Missouri Catholic Bishops. Aren't you?

*emphasis mine

TIF districts good, school vouchers bad

We can always count on certain local media and press to challenge the issue of school vouchers because they claim that if the State of Missouri authorizes or approves the usage of school vouchers they are in essence "abandoning" the public school system.

Yes, how many stories have been penned by journalists or editorializing newspaper representatives who want to make certain teacher's unions recognize their righteous support of public schools?

That's why it seems disingenuous when the same paper issues favorable reports on TIF revenue being used on pet city projects.

In a special report about the incentives included in the city's deal with McGowan Walsh on the Heers agreement, the News-Leader reports that the developer can request Heers be designated as part of a tax-increment financing (TIF) district and, apparently, it raises no cockles:

"- A tax-increment financing district. Property tax revenue collected on new development in a TIF district can be used to pay for projects that will benefit the public. Without a TIF, that additional revenue would go to the city, county, Springfield school district and city-county library system." (emphasis mine)

The duplicity leaves one questioning whether it's okay for funds to be pilfered from the Springfield school district to offset costs incurred by the developer in the restoration and remodeling of the Heers building (since I'm not aware of the News-Leader taking issue with TIF in the past) but please, it's out of the question to pilfer revenue from the Springfield school district if it means the revenue will be used for the actual purpose of educating children (part of its original intended use).

I guess it depends on who supports the pilfering. If the politicians in the City of Springfield wish to use revenue which would otherwise go to the Springfield school district for the purpose of revitalizing the downtown district, for restoration of the "crown jewel of Springfield," Springfield Public Schools be damned. If the purpose is for tax paying citizens interested in school choice who would like a voucher system put in place to offset the cost of educating children via other options, well, that, apparently isn't good use of the ciphoned revenue....

And why wouldn't the teacher's unions be as up in arms about TIF districts "abandoning" the public schools as they are about those nasty parents who would prefer to educate their children in another manner? Why the difference? Why no outcry when funds are siphoned from public schools and libraries for redevelopment and revitalization of TIF districts all across the state but such railing and rallying of newspaper editorialists when that siphoning includes a bit of competition being thrown the way of the teacher's unions?

Is it really the revenue loss that teacher's unions and their supporters are upset about or is it competition that has them up in arms?