(I find the embrace of the voucher issue by the right interesting from a couple of ideological perspectives, by the way. As I just opined, the voucher issue tends to disrgard the law of supply and demand; the right, perceived as being pro-business, should know better. It's also interesting that the right advocates what amounts to massive government subsidies. I'm being snide, but so be it.)
I just posted a lengthy screed on the subject of media bias, in which I criticized journalist for an absence of critical reporting. The voucher issue is one example of this, as its supporters have dubbed the issue "school choice." (How could you be agaisnt school choice?!) But there's always been school choice; you can attend any school you can afford. I attended Catholic school from third grade clear through high school, and my family paid for it, you betcha. My suspicions are always raised when anyone adopts a highly charged terminology for their issue, and any reporter who uses the term outside of a direct quote (and you can bet that supporters of the issue will sprinkle the term into their sound bites whenever possible) is slipping advocacy, conciously or not, into the coverage. Bottom line: "vouchers" is a neutral term; "school choice" is anything but.
I also see one big problem with education as an issue in a democratic society: education is a long-term thing. By the time almost anything a politician does to effect education for good or ill takes effect, he or she is likely to be out of office.
Okay, enough of this political shiznit; I'm going looking for something swank.