Politics

[BleedBlueGold]

House of Cards; Season 3 dropped this morning on Netflix. And you, my puppets, are falling for my political manipulation as planned. Carry on.

 

[IrishGlory]

Let's face it folks, this country has seen it's best days. And I'm saying this as a Marine and someone that loves this land as much, if not more than the next guy. Fact is, the erosion has begun.

When you start legalizing stuff like dope, that is a major red flag. DC's new legalization law just went into effect and allows folks to smoke/grow this garbage in their homes, although it is limited. Like people are really going to limit this. It's all a joke. Oh and cops are no longer allowed to use the sense of smell as probably cause for a drug search in Washington, District of Corruption (this is not a misspell).

Illegal immigrants are treated better and given more privledge than our veterans, our freedom to live out our faith has all been eliminated, criminals have more rights than victims, so forth and so on....

Point is as I mentioned previously, the erosion has started and I'm just frightened by what my children will have to deal with in 20-30 years. I say all this with a heavy heart because it's truly sad.

 

[Wild Bill]

If everyone had a job that paid them enough to afford health insurance, I would totally agree with your position. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. In many cases, the cost of health care insurance would consume the wage earner's total income. That leaves us with very few choices:

1. Universal Health Care for All (Single-Payer)
2. Subsidized Health Care for the Needy with part of the population receiving health insurance as a benefit of employment. Those that can afford it are mandated to purchase it or pay a fine for failure to do so. (Affordable Care Act)
3. Health Care for those that Receive Health Care Insurance as a benefit of their employment or can afford it on their own and want it and the rest be damned.

Obama and the Democrats would prefer Option #1, but they have settled for Option #2. Republicans seem to prefer Option #3. If the Republicans have an option that falls somewhere between Option #2 and Option #3, I'd like to hear/see what it is.

I don't want to pay for able-bodied people (with the one exception mentioned). That does not mean I want the rest to be "damned". Almost everyone struggles financially at some point in their life, and I'm no different. I am well aware how difficult it is to afford an insurance premium while working a low paying job. I got through it by working harder and increasing my value as an employee.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Well, it's a good start. Screw the establishment.

CPAC Boos Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, Cheer Walker - Greg Hengler

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I recently stumbled across a 10y-old collection of short essays on TAC about what differentiates Left from Right, politically. My favorite was Ross Douthat's contribution:

The most welcome rhetorical ploy of the last decade was the decision by liberals tired of being tagged with the dreaded l-word to re-label themselves as “progressives.” Liberalism and conservatism have always been ill-matched antonyms, since the former refers to a set of political philosophies—Lockean liberalism, Rawlsian liberalism, and so forth—whereas the latter is something more nebulous, an orientation toward the world rather than a programmatic approach to it. The term “progressive,” with its implied utopianism, is a more precise antonym for “conservative,” and fans of linguistic precision should join subscribers toThe American Prospect in applauding its revival.

Still, if one accepts that when people say liberal they usually mean progressive, then the liberal/conservative binary is still a useful way of looking at politics in the West and increasingly worldwide. It’s true that neither term is exact enough to enable an observer to discern the definitive “conservative” or “liberal” line on every policy issue and cultural controversy. But even so, if you call someone a conservative or a liberal, anyone willing to accept a touch of ambiguity in their definitions ought to understand what you mean.

Liberals are Baconists: they believe in Francis Bacon’s dictum that the ends of politics are “the conquest of nature for the relief of man’s estate.” A conservative, meanwhile, is anyone who either says no to Baconism, or who says yes, but only up to a point—and so conservatism embraces anyone who has jumped off liberalism’s fast-moving train at any point over the last five centuries. If you’re a monarchist who thinks that liberalism went wrong with John Locke and the Glorious Revolution, step on up. If you’re a West Coast Straussian who thinks it went wrong with Woodrow Wilson, then welcome aboard. And if you’re a neocon who loved the New Deal but found the Great Society and George McGovern to be a bridge too far, there’s a place for you as well.

But here’s the rub, and the reason for a great deal of recent conservative confusion: the Right actually won a victory in the latter half of the 20th century, after centuries of defeat, and turned modernity away from a particularly pernicious path. This unexpected triumph has meant that many people who became accustomed to calling themselves “conservatives” when the conquest of nature seemed to require socialism or Communism are back on board the Baconian train, racing happily down a different track into the brave new future. These are the people who insist that conservatism ought to mean “freedom from government interference” and nothing more—the Grover Norquists of the world, for instance, or the Arnold Schwarzeneggers. In fact, they are ex-conservatives, because they are no longer sufficiently uncomfortable with the trajectory of modernity to be counted among its critics. They were unwilling to give up freedom for the sake of progress, but they’re happy to give up virtue.

The picture is further complicated by the fact that because conservatism only really exists to say “no” to whatever liberalism asks for next, it fights nearly all its battles on its enemy’s terrain and rarely comes close to articulating a coherent set of values of its own. Liberalism has science and progress to pursue—and ultimately immortality, the real goal but also the one that rarely dares to speak its name—whereas conservatives have … well, a host of goals, most of them in tension with one another. Neoconservatives want to return us to the New Deal era; Claremont Instituters want to revive the spirit of the Founding; Jacksonians want to rescue American nationalism from the one-worlders and post-patriots; agrarians and Crunchy Cons pine for a lost Jeffersonian or Chestertonian arcadia. Some conservatives think that liberalism-the-political-philosophy can be saved from liberalism-the-Baconian-project and that modernity can be rescued from its utopian temptation; others join Alasdair MacIntyre in thinking that the hour is far too late for that, and we should withdraw into our homes and monasteries and prepare to guard the permanent things through a long Dark Age.

Liberals, on the other hand, dream the same dream and envision the same destination, even if they disagree on exactly how to get there. It’s the dream of Thomas Friedman as well as Karl Marx, as old as Babel and as young as the South Korean cloners. It whispered to us in Eden, and it whispers to us now: ye shall be as gods. And no conservative dream, in the 400 years from Francis Bacon until now, has proven strong enough to stand in its way.

That middle paragraph about libertarians as "ex-conservatives" neatly describes why wizards and I don't agree on anything.

 

[Irish#1]

Tough questions. I don't know how much of that cost is passed on to the insured consumer (has to be something, I assume). The obvious answer is simply to deny access to those who are uninsured and the costs are eliminated. I'm not sure if the cost savings to us as a society would justify the harsh results. I do know it would motivate any reasonable person to make sure their insurance premiums are paid.

It's pretty simple. Hospitals already account for those who can't pay in their existing rates. They know almost to penny what that number is and adjust accordingly. You pay for those whenever you get treated. Thar's one reason rates are so high and vary from hospital to hospital.

 

[Irish#1]

something different then healthcare, but what does everyone think of Ted Cruz wanting to abolish the IRS?

Never going to happen. This debate and tax reform has been going on since I was a little tyke.

You can't eliminate the IRS and have another arm collect taxes without adding the bodies to that arm for collecting the tax. Theoretically, you could get away with fewer employees if you went to a simplified tax code, but that's not going to happen either.

 

[RDU Irish]

Our tax code is a mess. I can dream of abolishing the IRS but it will never happen. As is, people fear any changes and assume they are being screwed and won't take the time to understand anything. Taxes are so complicated it serves to keep 90%+ of the electorate ignorant and scared of change.

Funniest thing to me is FICA. It is half of the revenue coming into government but people don't appreciate that it is no more than a regressive income tax.

 

[Irish#1]

Our tax code is a mess. I can dream of abolishing the IRS but it will never happen. As is, people fear any changes and assume they are being screwed and won't take the time to understand anything. Taxes are so complicated it serves to keep 90%+ of the electorate ignorant and scared of change.

Funniest thing to me is FICA. It is half of the revenue coming into government but people don't appreciate that it is no more than a regressive income tax.

Most people believe that the wealthy don't pay their fair share, but if a flat tax or simplified tax code that eliminates most deductions was enacted, everyone would pay the same percentage.

 

[EddytoNow]

Most people believe that the wealthy don't pay their fair share, but if a flat tax or simplified tax code that eliminates most deductions was enacted, everyone would pay the same percentage.

You would also have to tax dividend and investment income at the same rate as salary and wages. The reason someone like Mitt Romney can pay taxes at a lower rate than the average worker is that most of his income is tax-free or taxed at a lower rate because his money is made from investments, not a salary or wage. If all income was taxed at the same rate without a cap like currently exists with FICA, then a flat tax might be the fairest way. You will also have to eliminate overseas tax shelters and every other way of shielding income from taxes.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

You would also have to tax dividend and investment income at the same rate as salary and wages. The reason someone like Mitt Romney can pay taxes at a lower rate than the average worker is that most of his income is tax-free or taxed at a lower rate because his money is made from investments, not a salary or wage. If all income was taxed at the same rate without a cap like currently exists with FICA, then a flat tax might be the fairest way. You will also have to eliminate overseas tax shelters and every other way of shielding income from taxes.

Didn't Ross Perot pay like 8% on his $200+ million income a while back? Tax-free muni bonds, baby.

 

[Cackalacky]

Chris Christie Administration Paid $600M In Financial Fees In 2014

That accounting change comes at a time when the Christie administration is under scrutiny for investing pension money in high-fee firms whose executives made campaign contributions to Republican political groups. The move obscuring the increase in reported fees also comes on the heels of Christie telling New Jersey teachers, firefighters, cops and other public workers that “there are no alternatives” to cutting their retirement benefits because the state pension system is so strapped for cash.

“The lack of transparency, skyrocketing risks and fees and chronic underperformance makes New Jersey the poster child for the kind of shenanigans happening in pension systems across the country,” said former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Ted Siedle, who conducts forensic investigations of state and local pension systems.

 

[EddytoNow]

Christie is just following the Republican game plan to punish union emplyees and to blame all shortages on public employees. Scott Walker did pretty much the same thing in Wisconsin. And Rick Snyder annually raids the school-aid fund in Michigan.

Here in Michigan, Snyder just took another 300 million dollars from the school-aid fund, money specifically ear-marked for K-12 education. As a further insult to the intelligence of the voters he is proposing a sales tax increase to fund road repairs and to provide 250 million dollars to schools. The mention of schools is meant to attract Democratic voters, but does anyone really think that money will really make it to the schools? Snyder began his regime by cutting nearly 1 billion dollars from school aid while providing a billion dollar tax cut to his wealthy cronies. Now he cuts 300 million dollars from school aid and tries to get voter support by promising to provide 250 million dollars if voters will only approve his road repair tax increase. The only certainty is that schools are receiving nearly $400 less per pupil than they were when Snyder took office.

Don't believe anyone that tells you schools have received an increase in funding. Like I stated earlier, Michigan schools receive an average of $400 less per pupil than they received prior to Snyder's agenda being put in place. The rich get richer and public employees get blamed for the shortages.

 

[phgreek]

Christie is just following the Republican game plan to punish union emplyees and to blame all shortages on public employees. Scott Walker did pretty much the same thing in Wisconsin. And Rick Snyder annually raids the school-aid fund in Michigan.

Here in Michigan, Snyder just took another 300 million dollars from the school-aid fund, money specifically ear-marked for K-12 education. As a further insult to the intelligence of the voters he is proposing a sales tax increase to fund road repairs and to provide 250 million dollars to schools. The mention of schools is meant to attract Democratic voters, but does anyone really think that money will really make it to the schools? Snyder began his regime by cutting nearly 1 billion dollars from school aid while providing a billion dollar tax cut to his wealthy cronies. Now he cuts 300 million dollars from school aid and tries to get voter support by promising to provide 250 million dollars if voters will only approve his road repair tax increase. The only certainty is that schools are receiving nearly $400 less per pupil than they were when Snyder took office.

Don't believe anyone that tells you schools have received an increase in funding. Like I stated earlier, Michigan schools receive an average of $400 less per pupil than they received prior to Snyder's agenda being put in place. The rich get richer and public employees get blamed for the shortages.

IDK...If there is shit going on that select politicians are perpetrating that wasn't part of a plan people knew about, then bust their ass. But a POS politician doesn't make public employee unions palatable to tax payers.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Weeks' Michael Brendan Dougherty just published an article titled "Why a Clinton-Bush presidential race fills me with nothing but despair":

Have you ever felt as if a mysterious black cloud of despair was rising from the great depths of the universe? That it was cresting over the horizons of your life, blotting out all sunlight as it closes in and paralyzes you in fear? And maybe you felt that this slow-motion tsunami of dread was a deserved punishment for you personally, and humanity in general. And you realized, as I have, that this unstoppable, groaning wave was a natural outgrowth of your own moral torpor — the listlessness you had demonstrated over and over again, allowing injustices, petty cruelties, and incompetence to extend their reign over everything you loved, until finally it crashed on you, plunging you into a darkness beyond the reach of light, hope, and redemption.

That's pretty much exactly what it feels like to read the words "clintonemail.com" for a whole week, and realize that Democrats have no other response to that story but to shrug and press on. It's that feeling that grips your throat when you realize that Jeb Bush is buying up every brain on the right-wing worth buying, and that his challengers look confused and weak.

It's really happening to us.

The inevitable Bush-Clinton presidential campaign is gathering itself along the horizon. It will be a boring, substance-less grind that turns on just which candidate's operation can direct slightly more of the public's disgust over the worst parts of the last two decades at the other candidate.

They'll both say they are for the middle-class families. They are friends of small business and the little guy. They want border security and a path to citizenship. They want to put the social safety net on a secure footing, but keep taxes low. They want a strong assertive foreign policy that confronts our enemies but not with the costs of the Iraq War. Perhaps they'll venture that they want to make health care better and cheaper. It will be like the presidential campaign of 2000. But darker.

Remember the great issues of the 2000 presidential campaign? Me neither. If you're a real junkie you'll remember Al Gore talking about a social security "lockbox," and George W. Bush promising over and over again to "restore the honor and dignity" of the presidential office. Maybe you recall Will Ferrell's memorable coinage of the word "strategery." Look at the debate transcripts, if you dare. About the hottest it gets is George W. Bush saying that he feels strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman. And Al Gore responding, "I agree with that." Sometimes Bush said, "It's just a difference of opinion."

2016 will be like that, but worse. If the past two weeks is prologue, Bush III vs. Clinton third-term will turn on a series of stories that are meant to enliven your prejudices about Bushes and Clintons. There's Jeb Bush's wife's jewelry box. So much more lavish than your own. Rich. Bush. Plutocrat. Hedge Fund.

Now there is Hillary Clinton's personal email and foreign donor scandals. Sleazy. Grifter. Corrupt. Secretive.

A Bush-Clinton race is just what the country needs. And when I say the country needs this race, I mean that in a divine-chastisement way. America needs Bush-Clinton like the Israelites needed the Babylonians.

I'm sure that cruel fate will cooperate with the necessary illusion that the Bush-Clinton choice matters much. Maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg will develop a serious cough in August 2016. Or Vladimir Putin will start conducting military "exercises" along the border of Estonia. By September 2016, we'll convince ourselves that the great fate of the nation is at stake and tune into our Apple watches for the latest attack ad. Maybe Jeb Bush will spend five figures on veterinary bills for his grief-stricken wife's pet. If we're really lucky Hillary Clinton will get a sext from a Clinton foundation-donor-slash-third-world-kleptocrat.

The great dread cloud gathers beneath our feet. We should resign ourselves now to the fact that we deserved this for not stopping them a long, long time ago. And then we should do the decent thing and throw ourselves down into the darkness.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Christie is just following the Republican game plan to punish union emplyees and to blame all shortages on public employees. Scott Walker did pretty much the same thing in Wisconsin. And Rick Snyder annually raids the school-aid fund in Michigan.

Here in Michigan, Snyder just took another 300 million dollars from the school-aid fund, money specifically ear-marked for K-12 education. As a further insult to the intelligence of the voters he is proposing a sales tax increase to fund road repairs and to provide 250 million dollars to schools. The mention of schools is meant to attract Democratic voters, but does anyone really think that money will really make it to the schools? Snyder began his regime by cutting nearly 1 billion dollars from school aid while providing a billion dollar tax cut to his wealthy cronies. Now he cuts 300 million dollars from school aid and tries to get voter support by promising to provide 250 million dollars if voters will only approve his road repair tax increase. The only certainty is that schools are receiving nearly $400 less per pupil than they were when Snyder took office.

Don't believe anyone that tells you schools have received an increase in funding. Like I stated earlier, Michigan schools receive an average of $400 less per pupil than they received prior to Snyder's agenda being put in place. The rich get richer and public employees get blamed for the shortages.

Phase 1 - Defund education and slash teacher pay and pensions
Phase 2 - Watch schools struggle and good teachers leave the profession
Phase 3 - Complain that schools are failing our students
Phase 4 - Privatize (i.e., profit!)

 

[Bubbles]

Phase 1 - Defund education and slash teacher pay and pensions
Phase 2 - Watch schools struggle and good teachers leave the profession
Phase 3 - Complain that schools are failing our students
Phase 4 - Privatize (i.e., profit!)

My kids' private education does far more with less (per student funding) than the public schools in my area. I'm am ALL FOR subsidizing private education via tax incentives when the public schools fail to meet expectations.

If anything I would like to see the best and brightest teachers well compensated for their efforts. On the flip-side, I would like to see the worst and dullest kicked to the curb, but that's a difficult proposition with the unions.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

My kids' private education does far more with less (per student funding) than the public schools in my area. I'm am ALL FOR subsidizing private education via tax incentives when the public schools fail to meet expectations.

If anything I would like to see the best and brightest teachers well compensated for their efforts. On the flip-side, I would like to see the worst and dullest kicked to the curb, but that's a difficult proposition with the unions.

I have both a private and public school background. By in large, public school teachers are doing incredible work.

Privatization is based on the idea that the free market will improve anything. In this case, a free market will motivate teachers to be better. The only problem is that education is not a free market. Public school teachers are mandated to teach everyone who walks through the door. That means working with kids with behavioral issues, special needs, anxiety issues, and any number of learning disabilities. Generally, those kids are mainstreamed (i.e., all put in a single class). In other words...public school teachers can't fire their employees.

Those same teachers and schools are then assessed by how well their kids do on standardized tests. Never mind that those tests don't do a very good job of assessing critical thinking, creativity, and humanity. Those teachers and schools then face an apples to oranges comparison to the charter school down the block that can reject any kid it wants.

Bad teachers can get fired. But teachers deserve due process. That's all "tenure" is.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I have both a private and public school background. By in large, public school teachers are doing incredible work.

Privatization is based on the idea that the free market will improve anything. In this case, a free market will motivate teachers to be better. The only problem is that education is not a free market. Public school teachers are mandated to teach everyone who walks through the door. That means working with kids with behavioral issues, special needs, anxiety issues, and any number of learning disabilities. Generally, those kids are mainstreamed (i.e., all put in a single class). In other words...public school teachers can't fire their employees.

Those same teachers and schools are then assessed by how well their kids do on standardized tests. Never mind that those tests don't do a very good job of assessing critical thinking, creativity, and humanity. Those teachers and schools then face an apples to oranges comparison to the charter school down the block that can reject any kid it wants.

Bad teachers can get fired. But teachers deserve due process. That's all "tenure" is.

It depends on the school district. My mom worked for my home town's district for about 15 years. The stories she would bring home were awful. Old teachers not caring and never being reprimanded, teachers aides practically taking over as teacher out of need, and rampant corruption and incompetence in the administrations. Bless her soul, it killed her to leave the kids, who loved her. But she was constantly neglected and abused. I agree that privatization is not the panacea, but it can work in some areas for some people. Heck I was taken out of the school district because my mom knew how shitty it was.

 

[IrishLax]

Christie is just following the Republican game plan to punish union emplyees and to blame all shortages on public employees. Scott Walker did pretty much the same thing in Wisconsin. And Rick Snyder annually raids the school-aid fund in Michigan.

Here in Michigan, Snyder just took another 300 million dollars from the school-aid fund, money specifically ear-marked for K-12 education. As a further insult to the intelligence of the voters he is proposing a sales tax increase to fund road repairs and to provide 250 million dollars to schools. The mention of schools is meant to attract Democratic voters, but does anyone really think that money will really make it to the schools? Snyder began his regime by cutting nearly 1 billion dollars from school aid while providing a billion dollar tax cut to his wealthy cronies. Now he cuts 300 million dollars from school aid and tries to get voter support by promising to provide 250 million dollars if voters will only approve his road repair tax increase. The only certainty is that schools are receiving nearly $400 less per pupil than they were when Snyder took office.

Don't believe anyone that tells you schools have received an increase in funding. Like I stated earlier, Michigan schools receive an average of $400 less per pupil than they received prior to Snyder's agenda being put in place. The rich get richer and public employees get blamed for the shortages.

I don't know if this is still true, but it was a few years ago.

DC public schools spent more per pupil than anywhere else in the country. And the results were atrocious. Money allocation in and of itself has little bearing on how successful schools are at educating/advancing kids.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I don't know if this is still true, but it was a few years ago.

DC public schools spent more per pupil than anywhere else in the country. And the results were atrocious. Money allocation in and of itself has little bearing on how successful schools are at educating/advancing kids.

The best predictor of academic success remains the socioeconomic status of the students. DC has tremendous poverty. In my opinion, that's not a reflection of the failure of the schools. It's a failure of the social safety net. It goes to Maslow...why care about algebra when you're hungry?

Add that teaching is less and less attractive as a career. It used to be that we would never be rich, but we could retire at some point and be comfortable. That's no longer the case in a lot of places. Just look at Doug Ducey's new budget in Arizona. Look at Kansas and Brownback. Look at Wisconsin and Scott Walker. We're balancing budgets on the back of teachers in favor of further lowered taxes on the wealthy.

You can't disincentivize something so much and then complain that there aren't enough good people in the profession.

Watch Minnesota vs. Wisconsin, Kansas, and Arizona over the next decade. These are real life petri dishes of what happens when you have different views on taxation and education funding. It's already playing out.

 

[pkt77242]

The best predictor of academic success remains the socioeconomic status of the students. DC has tremendous poverty. In my opinion, that's not a reflection of the failure of the schools. It's a failure of the social safety net. It goes to Bloom's Taxonomy...why care about algebra if you're hungry?

Add to the mix that teaching is less and less attractive as a career. It used to be that we would never be rich, but we could retire at some point and be comfortable. That's no longer the case in a lot of places. Just look at Doug Ducey's new budget in Arizona. Look at Kansas and Brownback. Look at Wisconsin and Scott Walker. We're balancing budgets on the back of teachers in favor of further lowered taxes on the wealthy.

You can't disincentivize something so much and then complain that there aren't enough good people in the profession.

Watch Minnesota vs. Wisconsin, Kansas, and Arizona over the next decade. These are real life petri dishes of what happens when you have different views on taxation and education funding. It's already playing out.

Minnesota is kicking their asses and I am loving it.
Our view: Minnesota is winning this border battle

 

[IrishLax]

The best predictor of academic success remains the socioeconomic status of the students. DC has tremendous poverty. In my opinion, that's not a reflection of the failure of the schools. It's a failure of the social safety net. It goes to Bloom's Taxonomy...why care about algebra if you're hungry?

I agree with everything you said. But the point is that there were many places with equal or worse poverty that spent much less per pupil and had better results.

Add to the mix that teaching is less and less attractive as a career. It used to be that we would never be rich, but we could retire at some point and be comfortable. That's no longer the case in a lot of places. Just look at Doug Ducey's new budget in Arizona. Look at Kansas and Brownback. Look at Wisconsin and Scott Walker. We're balancing budgets on the back of teachers in favor of further lowered taxes on the wealthy.

Funny and 100% true story... coming out of college, the money I was offered to be a science teacher in a poor DC suburb was about $10k more a year than what I was offered for a field engineer position for a Government contractor. Now, I'm sure this was atypical and a product of the program setup to recruit engineering/math/science graduates to teach in a bad area, but I've always found it funny.

I know funding and salaries vary by location and by teacher, but at least in this area teachers do fine for public employees. They all complain about it, but they're compensated similar to what Federal Government employees make in most cases (these people also complain), and my uncle has a $500k+ house as a FCPS school principal.

I can't speak for the other 48 states in the union, but in the DMV it's my opinion that teacher's are fairly compensated for their work product. If you're not able to live a comfortable life and retire on a teacher's salary, then I agree that's a problem. Whatever happened to teacher pension programs?

You can't disincentivize something so much and then complain that there aren't enough good people in the profession.

Watch Minnesota vs. and Wisconsin, Kansas, and Arizona over the next decade. These are real life petri dishes of what happens when you have different views on taxation and education funding. It's already playing out.

I mean... I think it's a dangerous game to play saying "tax the rich more" as a state in order to make teaching better compensated. For starters, the "rich" can move. And California is in the shitter in large part thanks to their tax rates pushing a lot of wealthy people elsewhere. And that's freaking CALIFORNIA! They've got a built in captive amount of entertainment and tech money that can't easily go elsewhere, or is willing to shell out more just for location. But many people with options have moved out of the state. Texas and Florida and places with low or zero income tax have seen a huge boom.

So the Wisconsin governor balancing the budget by cutting public employee benefits *might* turn out poorly, but the alternative of driving the $$ out of the state via higher taxes doesn't seem all that pragmatic.

 

[NDohio]

I have both a private and public school background. By in large, public school teachers are doing incredible work.

Privatization is based on the idea that the free market will improve anything. In this case, a free market will motivate teachers to be better. The only problem is that education is not a free market. Public school teachers are mandated to teach everyone who walks through the door. That means working with kids with behavioral issues, special needs, anxiety issues, and any number of learning disabilities. Generally, those kids are mainstreamed (i.e., all put in a single class). In other words...public school teachers can't fire their employees.

Those same teachers and schools are then assessed by how well their kids do on standardized tests. Never mind that those tests don't do a very good job of assessing critical thinking, creativity, and humanity. Those teachers and schools then face an apples to oranges comparison to the charter school down the block that can reject any kid it wants.

Bad teachers can get fired. But teachers deserve due process. That's all "tenure" is.

My wife teaches HS English. She taught in OH for 11 years and has taught in SC for three. While in OH she consistently had 90+% passing ratings for standardized testing. Her first year teaching in SC she had 56%, worked a lot harder, and had a lot more stress(and 12% less pay).

She is changing careers after this school year. What is going on in public school districts is truly not fair to teachers.

 

[IrishLax]

Minnesota is kicking their asses and I am loving it.
Our view: Minnesota is winning this border battle

That's a fascinating article. Thanks for sharing.

What's most interesting to me is that Minnesota doubling down and borrowing money to get through the recession was clearly a brilliant move vis a vis cutting spending like Wisconsin. They always say that cutting spending in a recession should be avoided at all costs, and this example illustrates why.

A lot of the stuff in that article you can't normalize because of the different factors the article brings up. Which is disappointing, because it's a great case study, but no two states are created alike.

 

[pkt77242]

I agree with everything you said. But the point is that there were many places with equal or worse poverty that spent much less per pupil and had better results.



Funny and 100% true story... coming out of college, the money I was offered to be a science teacher in a poor DC suburb was about $10k more a year than what I was offered for a field engineer position for a Government contractor. Now, I'm sure this was atypical and a product of the program setup to recruit engineering/math/science graduates to teach in a bad area, but I've always found it funny.

I know funding and salaries vary by location and by teacher, but at least in this area teachers do fine for public employees. They all complain about it, but they're compensated similar to what Federal Government employees make in most cases (these people also complain), and my uncle has a $500k+ house as a FCPS school principal.

I can't speak for the other 48 states in the union, but in the DMV it's my opinion that teacher's are fairly compensated for their work product. If you're not able to live a comfortable life and retire on a teacher's salary, then I agree that's a problem. Whatever happened to teacher pension programs?



I mean... I think it's a dangerous game to play saying "tax the rich more" as a state in order to make teaching better compensated. For starters, the "rich" can move. And California is in the shitter in large part thanks to their tax rates pushing a lot of wealthy people elsewhere. And that's freaking CALIFORNIA! They've got a built in captive amount of entertainment and tech money that can't easily go elsewhere, or is willing to shell out more just for location. But many people with options have moved out of the state. Texas and Florida and places with low or zero income tax have seen a huge boom.

So the Wisconsin governor balancing the budget by cutting public employee benefits *might* turn out poorly, but the alternative of driving the $$ out of the state via higher taxes doesn't seem all that pragmatic.

California only really lost the wealthy with Prop 30 which pissed people off because it was retroactive, not just because it raised the tax rate (retroactive tax increases are a sure way to piss people off). Also a state like Minnesota is showing that intelligent tax increases can work to help balance the budget and it doesn't have to hurt the economy (in fact Minnesota is seeing an increase of people in the highest tax bracket per year) while also having great job growth.

Cutting public employee benefits are important but what will really kill these states is the slashing of education funds. Businesses that need highly educated workers do not appreciate it when the state cuts funding to education.
Former Intel CEO blasts education in Arizona

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I agree with everything you said. But the point is that there were many places with equal or worse poverty that spent much less per pupil and had better results.

You should disagree with the bit about Bloom's Taxonomy, which is all about lower vs. higher order thinking skills. I meant Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. I love ironic mistakes.

I know funding and salaries vary by location and by teacher, but at least in this area teachers do fine for public employees. They all complain about it, but they're compensated similar to what Federal Government employees make in most cases (these people also complain), and my uncle has a $500k+ house as a FCPS school principal.

Trust me, that's not the norm. I know 7-8 year veteran teachers in Arizona with Master's Degrees who make about $37,000-38,000, can be fired with no cause, and have dwindling pension protection.

Whatever happened to teacher pension programs?

They're being cut.

I mean... I think it's a dangerous game to play saying "tax the rich more" as a state in order to make teaching better compensated.

It's not that most places are raising taxes on the rich to pay for teacher pensions (though Minnesota did actually do that). It's that we're cutting teacher pensions in order to pay for tax cuts.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

California only really lost the wealthy with Prop 30 which pissed people off because it was retroactive, not just because it raised the tax rate (retroactive tax increases are a sure way to piss people off). Also a state like Minnesota is showing that intelligent tax increases can work to help balance the budget and it doesn't have to hurt the economy (in fact Minnesota is seeing an increase of people in the highest tax bracket per year) while also having great job growth.

Cutting public employee benefits are important but what will really kill these states is the slashing of education funds. Businesses that need highly educated workers do not appreciate it when the state cuts funding to education.
Former Intel CEO blasts education in Arizona

Correct on every point.

 

[pkt77242]

That's a fascinating article. Thanks for sharing.

What's most interesting to me is that Minnesota doubling down and borrowing money to get through the recession was clearly a brilliant move vis a vis cutting spending like Wisconsin. They always say that cutting spending in a recession should be avoided at all costs, and this example illustrates why.

A lot of the stuff in that article you can't normalize because of the different factors the article brings up. Which is disappointing, because it's a great case study, but no two states are created alike.

I think that is a great point. It is generally why I am against a balanced budget amendment. I would like to see the government get close to or even balance the budget normally but during a recession it could become a death spiral of decreased revenue which leads to benefit/spending cuts which lead to job loss which leads to decreased revenue, etc.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

That's a fascinating article. Thanks for sharing.

What's most interesting to me is that Minnesota doubling down and borrowing money to get through the recession was clearly a brilliant move vis a vis cutting spending like Wisconsin. They always say that cutting spending in a recession should be avoided at all costs, and this example illustrates why.

A lot of the stuff in that article you can't normalize because of the different factors the article brings up. Which is disappointing, because it's a great case study, but no two states are created alike.

This has always been Paul Krugman's prediction. The United States didn't do austerity nearly as much as Europe did following the Great Recession. The Euro Zone is paying the price now. That's one of the reason's our recovery is so impressive. No one else is experiencing the same expansion that we are.