http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/11/09/142142329/it-stinks-but-the-only-way-to-fix-the-economy-is-to-squeeze-the-middle-class
I honestly did not see this coming, but I am glad I read this. Originally, I was a side by side with the Occupy Wall Streeters in my thoughts about taxing the richest, but apparently I need to rethink that notion. In doing so I came up with my own plan that has three parts. I can't remember the third part..oops, sorry. Actually I can. Here they are. 1) Lower corporate taxes to 25% and close loopholes. 2) Raise middle class taxes 6% 3) Cut Federal Education Spending. With my limited understanding 10% should do...yeah I said it.
1) You cannot convince me that there is not a way to close the mile wide loopholes that these corporations have been driving Mac trucks through all these years. A drop to 25% and tightening of loop holes should make up for the cheating 2% on the middle class taxes. The wealthy need to pay more, they make more. Yes it's their money, yes it socialism to take it away from them. They are not, however, going to have people come work from them if they cannot afford to work, which is what is going to happen if taxes on the middle class increase too much. People will simply stay at home and draw off the government.
2) I am middle class. As I said earlier I thought the wealthiest could carry the full load, but I will take this article at face value and assume it is correct. (If it is not then I get another blog out of it) By no means can the middle class take more than a 10% rate increase, 8% mentioned in the article is too high for my blood, but I will settle for 6%. With loopholes closed and my plan to cut Federal Education spending, we should be ok.
3) My argument against Federal education spending starts at the beginning. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any word about education. (Yes it is a slippery slope to be quoting the Constitution) Education is a state issue per the Tenth Amendment that reserves any powers not enumerated in the Constitution to be left to the states. I therefore, support that education is a state issue. Most federal education mandates go sadly un/underfunded anyway. By tightening the belt, we might, hopefully, get rid of wasteful programs like Race To The Top, and No Child Left Behind (A race by nature means someone is left behind).
Federal education leaves schools pinning for moneys that are not worth the troubles they cause. By everything I have seen (with my own two eyes,see also http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/education/tennessees-rules-on-teacher-evaluations-bring-frustration.html?pagewanted=all) these federal mandates are only hurting education. Besides, cutting federal funding will force localities to run their school boards more efficiently and effectively. People do not realize the monumental paradigm shifts made in the education world to obtain federal monies. Far too often school boards cut off their noses to spite their faces, and in the end it is the educators and students that are hurt. Programs labored over for years, often in search of more money, are torn down over-night in search of more money. In addition once federal monies do come in, it leads to wasteful spending on things like cheesecakes, I-Tunes cds, hardhats, and Ipads that remain locked in offices. As my grandfather was known to say "They can't chase you if you don't run." Schools cannot waste money they do not have.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
You Win Some, You Lose Some
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/300876
Yesterday's election was bittersweet for this blogger. In the Franklin County Sheriff's race, the county replaced what seemed to be one of the worst PR blunders for the county in Ewell Hunt. The former Sheriff has been a ticking time bomb of gaffs since I have been here, and apparently it started before my time in the fair county. The race was in question the entire time with two Independent candidates running against an incumbent Republican. Many felt as though the two would run against each other and drive a wedge between those voters who wanted (for lack of a better term) a new Sheriff in town. Thankfully the voters of Franklin County proved wise enough to see the need for better leadership behind the badge and voted Hunt off the force.
While the vote was a success at the immediate level, it was (I my opinion) less so on the state level. Republicans won a 20-20 tie in the State Senate. In the House of Delegates there were several upsets and Republican victories due to jerrymadnering of district lines. None more obvious than the race between Poindexter and Armstrong. For every tense and purpose Armstrong simply out classed, smarted, campaigned, and issued Poindexter. Armstrong won nearly every battle but was not able to prevail.
What gets me was that Poindexter is literally not smart enough to notice his own blunders and stupidity. Yes, Armstrong ran on a fairly narrow platform, but in what world was Poindexter's broad. Poindexter was attempting to put Armstrong at the "Obama Democrat" table, which could not be further from the truth. My bias notwithstanding, Armstrong was as grounded, moderate a Democrat as you are going to find, and certainly not an "Obama Democrat" (as if that would have been a bad thing) Besides, was this not a House of Delegates race? What real contact would a Delegate from the new 9th District of Virginia really have with President Obama. Doubtful there is a little red phone in the office in Richmond that has a direct line to a little red phone in the Oval Office. This just goes to show that sometimes, even the people in government do not fully understand the government as much as they should.
There is more that could be said, but I will not. I guess we can say, Congratulation Mr. Poindexter, you got lucky, and if you ever..ever...ever have your picture taken with a Republican President, you'd better not go waving it around. You might just become a "Cain (or worse) Republican"
Yesterday's election was bittersweet for this blogger. In the Franklin County Sheriff's race, the county replaced what seemed to be one of the worst PR blunders for the county in Ewell Hunt. The former Sheriff has been a ticking time bomb of gaffs since I have been here, and apparently it started before my time in the fair county. The race was in question the entire time with two Independent candidates running against an incumbent Republican. Many felt as though the two would run against each other and drive a wedge between those voters who wanted (for lack of a better term) a new Sheriff in town. Thankfully the voters of Franklin County proved wise enough to see the need for better leadership behind the badge and voted Hunt off the force.
While the vote was a success at the immediate level, it was (I my opinion) less so on the state level. Republicans won a 20-20 tie in the State Senate. In the House of Delegates there were several upsets and Republican victories due to jerrymadnering of district lines. None more obvious than the race between Poindexter and Armstrong. For every tense and purpose Armstrong simply out classed, smarted, campaigned, and issued Poindexter. Armstrong won nearly every battle but was not able to prevail.
What gets me was that Poindexter is literally not smart enough to notice his own blunders and stupidity. Yes, Armstrong ran on a fairly narrow platform, but in what world was Poindexter's broad. Poindexter was attempting to put Armstrong at the "Obama Democrat" table, which could not be further from the truth. My bias notwithstanding, Armstrong was as grounded, moderate a Democrat as you are going to find, and certainly not an "Obama Democrat" (as if that would have been a bad thing) Besides, was this not a House of Delegates race? What real contact would a Delegate from the new 9th District of Virginia really have with President Obama. Doubtful there is a little red phone in the office in Richmond that has a direct line to a little red phone in the Oval Office. This just goes to show that sometimes, even the people in government do not fully understand the government as much as they should.
There is more that could be said, but I will not. I guess we can say, Congratulation Mr. Poindexter, you got lucky, and if you ever..ever...ever have your picture taken with a Republican President, you'd better not go waving it around. You might just become a "Cain (or worse) Republican"
What Do You Get When You Make Teaching Into A Clecrical Job?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/education/tennessees-rules-on-teacher-evaluations-bring-frustration.html?pagewanted=all
I have come across several articles lately about teaching and the education profession that have just thrown me for a loop. One I will not even justify with a post here because it is so absurd I would not be able to be concise and to the point without flying totally off the handle. My response was visceral to say the least.
This article caused a much more tempered, even response and raised more questions than responses. For an all too brief second I will climb on my soap box and respond. Education is not going to the toilet in this country. There are dedicated, hard working, fun, bright people in the teaching profession. In response we get (for the most part) good, dedicated, hard working, fun, bright young people in our schools. People who say the education system is going down hill do not spend time in schools. Ignore them.
Soap box disengaged. Several questions arose in reading this article that I need to ask. The first being: Did we have problems with schools before someone created a means to measure problems? My gut instinct says "No." My guess is, someone in the periphery of education (a professor, principle, consultant (who are the swine of education), or superintendent) needed to study something in order to obtain some lackluster degree and created the fascination with measurable outcomes in education. The American education system was moving on a respectable clip, until suddenly forms (that appear magically from the friendly neighborhood central office) start telling us otherwise. Again this is only my speculations
My second question is: Is all this paper work effective? Gut instinct again “No!” It is been my experience to watch moral at schools amongst teachers tank with an inordinate amount of paper work has been put into place. It interferes with planning, preparing, expanding of knowledge and growth. A teacher is hampered by paper work in the same way as a law enforcement officer. Teaching is an action. By nature we do not take time to fill out after action reports, we are moving on
Finally: Who wins in this paper dragon chase? Politicians do because they can say “Oh look at the schools of my state, they did great with all the money (because it boils down to money) I brought them.” Beaurcrates, like Secretaries of Education, look great because they can say “Gee Mr. Representative, look at what I did with all that money you brought me.” This goes down the line until it stops at the teacher. The teacher does look good in this situation, but it takes a lot of shine to polish a terd. Teachers are not the terds here either. The terd here is not even the students, it the finish product that is the terd. The final report that we send up the latter is the terd. We teachers have to bend, stretch, work and fudge to make these reports look good. We have to give students multiple choice test (that don’t really test knowledge..no matter how well worded) in the stead of honest to goodness learning. Tests are what shows if a teacher is teaching. Test, not well rounded students, are determining (incorrectly I might add) who is deemed a good teacher or a bad one. Teachers used to be judged on the student for which they taught. Was the student well rounded, could they think for themselves, could they stand alone, and stand out in a crowd? Now, I am judged on what kind of test scores I am able to produce. Snarky as it my be, Emory never made me take a standardized test, and I turned out ok
I have come across several articles lately about teaching and the education profession that have just thrown me for a loop. One I will not even justify with a post here because it is so absurd I would not be able to be concise and to the point without flying totally off the handle. My response was visceral to say the least.
This article caused a much more tempered, even response and raised more questions than responses. For an all too brief second I will climb on my soap box and respond. Education is not going to the toilet in this country. There are dedicated, hard working, fun, bright people in the teaching profession. In response we get (for the most part) good, dedicated, hard working, fun, bright young people in our schools. People who say the education system is going down hill do not spend time in schools. Ignore them.
Soap box disengaged. Several questions arose in reading this article that I need to ask. The first being: Did we have problems with schools before someone created a means to measure problems? My gut instinct says "No." My guess is, someone in the periphery of education (a professor, principle, consultant (who are the swine of education), or superintendent) needed to study something in order to obtain some lackluster degree and created the fascination with measurable outcomes in education. The American education system was moving on a respectable clip, until suddenly forms (that appear magically from the friendly neighborhood central office) start telling us otherwise. Again this is only my speculations
My second question is: Is all this paper work effective? Gut instinct again “No!” It is been my experience to watch moral at schools amongst teachers tank with an inordinate amount of paper work has been put into place. It interferes with planning, preparing, expanding of knowledge and growth. A teacher is hampered by paper work in the same way as a law enforcement officer. Teaching is an action. By nature we do not take time to fill out after action reports, we are moving on
Finally: Who wins in this paper dragon chase? Politicians do because they can say “Oh look at the schools of my state, they did great with all the money (because it boils down to money) I brought them.” Beaurcrates, like Secretaries of Education, look great because they can say “Gee Mr. Representative, look at what I did with all that money you brought me.” This goes down the line until it stops at the teacher. The teacher does look good in this situation, but it takes a lot of shine to polish a terd. Teachers are not the terds here either. The terd here is not even the students, it the finish product that is the terd. The final report that we send up the latter is the terd. We teachers have to bend, stretch, work and fudge to make these reports look good. We have to give students multiple choice test (that don’t really test knowledge..no matter how well worded) in the stead of honest to goodness learning. Tests are what shows if a teacher is teaching. Test, not well rounded students, are determining (incorrectly I might add) who is deemed a good teacher or a bad one. Teachers used to be judged on the student for which they taught. Was the student well rounded, could they think for themselves, could they stand alone, and stand out in a crowd? Now, I am judged on what kind of test scores I am able to produce. Snarky as it my be, Emory never made me take a standardized test, and I turned out ok
Friday, November 4, 2011
Why Can They Not All Be Like This
http://alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=NewsArticles&ContentRecord_id=66b44683-8a43-49f1-a6a6-0acd4705bd8b&ContentType_id=cc3ac18e-c52f-4861-b310-83ea6a7150c1&Group_id=303dc633-2307-45c8-ae71-4ba2ace2189b
Understandably there is some biases present in this post. The first is Senator Alexander is from Tennessee, the second being: I read this article because it was sent to me by subscription from Senator Alexander's office. We teach our students to detect bias, but I just made it very easy to spot it in regards to the sources. Also, I am sure that there are others out there in the Senate and the House that work as hard/well with the other party to make things better.
I would however like to make a few comments on this notion that people have to work "across party lines." We pat them on the back as if it was something done at great danger to their political careers. What happened to the notion that they were in Washington to make things better for ALL of us, not just the party. Yes, as Senator Alexander points out, times have been harder. Yes, things have been worse (I'm guilty of saying "It could be worse"), but why can it not be better? By no means am I attempting to negate Senator Alexander's work, in fact I am writing to thank him.
Last month, I went to see Dorris Kearnes Goodwin in Roanoke. During her presentation she spoke about this subject and how bi-partisan Washington has been in the past. She spoke about the genius Lyndon Johnson had in reaching across the lines to get things done. Understandably it was done with the "Johnson Treatment" but some of the most important legislation singed during the Johnson Administration was steared by Democrats and Republicans. Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL),Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humprey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) wrote a revision of the bill during the inital fillibuster for the bill. If both parties can work as well to pass something as controversal then, why not now? We do not need a partisan Superman that will save us from our woes. We need 535 men and women to help sign on to what the American people have been saying for awhile now.
Understandably there is some biases present in this post. The first is Senator Alexander is from Tennessee, the second being: I read this article because it was sent to me by subscription from Senator Alexander's office. We teach our students to detect bias, but I just made it very easy to spot it in regards to the sources. Also, I am sure that there are others out there in the Senate and the House that work as hard/well with the other party to make things better.
I would however like to make a few comments on this notion that people have to work "across party lines." We pat them on the back as if it was something done at great danger to their political careers. What happened to the notion that they were in Washington to make things better for ALL of us, not just the party. Yes, as Senator Alexander points out, times have been harder. Yes, things have been worse (I'm guilty of saying "It could be worse"), but why can it not be better? By no means am I attempting to negate Senator Alexander's work, in fact I am writing to thank him.
Last month, I went to see Dorris Kearnes Goodwin in Roanoke. During her presentation she spoke about this subject and how bi-partisan Washington has been in the past. She spoke about the genius Lyndon Johnson had in reaching across the lines to get things done. Understandably it was done with the "Johnson Treatment" but some of the most important legislation singed during the Johnson Administration was steared by Democrats and Republicans. Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL),Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humprey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) wrote a revision of the bill during the inital fillibuster for the bill. If both parties can work as well to pass something as controversal then, why not now? We do not need a partisan Superman that will save us from our woes. We need 535 men and women to help sign on to what the American people have been saying for awhile now.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
"They're A Bunch Of Socialist"
I had a colleague today, who is older, go on a diatribe about the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and how “they are nothing but a bunch of socialist!” I will not refer specifically to his occupational status, but if you read carefully you will be able to deduce the nature of it. While this is not the time or the place to be critical of my colleague, it is a place where I might voice my opinion on the matter of that “bunch of socialist!”
I have two points on the “socialist” bit. 1) Social Security, Welfare, Workers Compensation, and basically any other public service are all socialistic programs. They create a burden on all society. Please do not accuse people of being socialist as if it were a bad thing. If anything they would be Communist but now I split hairs 2) The OWS movement asks for is that those who make far more money than the rest of us to by more in taxes than those of us trying to scrape by.
1) Social Security, Welfare, Workers Compensation, and basically any other public service are all socialistic programs. They create a burden on all society. Please do not accuse people of being socialist as if it were a bad thing. Merriam- Webster’s dictionary defines socialism as follows
1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Under my comprehension of those definitions, government programs would fall under the distribution of goods. Is Social Security, a program that takes money from working people and give it to those who have worked their entire lives, that bad? I think not. Retirees deserve to benefit from their hard work and giving up of their money to the Social Security network. I pay into Social Security; I pay into the Unemployment Benefits fund. Is it as definite that I will benefit from either program as those benefiting now? No. In fact I will not be able to do so if projections remain true. There are solutions to this problem and it leads me to my next point.
Besides the large programs like Social Security and Welfare, there are small, no less important, programs that we all pay for and others benefit from. Those who claim others to be socialist pay taxes that go to a variety of services they may never use. A person pays taxes that go towards fire a rescue service, but may never use them. Tax money can be spent to build county, state and federal roads that would be nearly impossible for every tax paying citizen to drive on. Sound like a bad thing? I know without a doubt that I did not/ will not directly benefit from every tax dollar taken from my pay check. Some of it will go to salmon research in Alaska
2) The OWS movement asks for is that those who make far more money than the rest of us to by more in taxes than those of us trying to scrape by. In what universe is it just, fair, decent or otherwise that someone who becomes a teacher, goes so far into debt, yet people who already have money obtain college educations, go to work on Wall Street, and make millions of dollars? Yes, I chose to be a teacher. Yes, I understood that I would not make large sums of money doing so, yet I did so because I thought teaching would be stable and lucrative enough to provide for the kind of family structure I would like. Those in the middle see the ground crumbling away, and need someone to support it. Why should we place an every growing burden on those beneath us, when those above could easily do the job? Besides, the wealthiest of the wealth did not get there but on the backs of teachers, laborers, and factory managers. It is only just to take from those who have so much, and give to those who have little or less. Wealthy people should pay more. They make more. Heaven knows they do not make it legally, or dare we say morally. My parents taught me “Easy Come, Easy Go.” It is easy for the wealthy to make more money because the cards are stacked in their favor. All the OWS is asking for is a new deck that is not stacked as tall.
Too as a bonus…Why would any working person not like a system in which pay is according to work done? That might mean that those corporate bums would get paid for what they really done: which is nothing as to compared to the work done by say, any other profession except athletes who are over paid as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)