President Obama said it was time to make some "tough decisions" in his most recent speech, but in the same speech, proceeded to tear apart Paul Ryan for doing exactly that. When Obama talks "tough," it's awfully one-sided.
His idea of a responsible decision is to raise taxes on the "wealthy." Nearly half of all Americans do not pay taxes at all. Is nearly half of America poor? And is the other half "wealthy?"
Before we go attacking our "rich" neighbors, consider the following:
Were we to confiscate 100% of the income of the well-off, it would not cover the national debt. Wouldn't even come close.
Secondly, history has shown time and time again that when tax rates go up, tax revenue goes down. If Obama were serious about bringing down the deficit and debt, he would not be threatening tax increases.
On a somewhat related note, a facebook friend of mine in one post wrote about the injustice of our tax code. He subsequently posted a "recall Tom Luna" post. Here we have the same thing--someone talking about "tough choices" and necessary reform, but rebelling against the elected official who has made some very tough calls which will serve to alleviate the financial strain on our state's budget.
I just wanted to point that out.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Government Shutdown?
One of my favorite books is George Eliot's Middlemarch. If you haven't read it, do! (Or at least watch the TV version.) One of central characters is Dr. Lydgate, an ambitious man with dreams of making important scientific discoveries. His plans are destroyed after he falls in love and marries the beautiful (and vain) Rosamund Vincy as she spends, and spends, and spends, money they don't have so that she can live like a fine lady; ruining his credit, and forcing him into bankruptcy. Every one of Lydgate's gentle attempts to rein in her spending leads to accusations of his abuse and neglect.
Sound familiar?
Check out this article summarizing the Government budget showdown.
Sound familiar?
Check out this article summarizing the Government budget showdown.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
More Food for Thought on Digital Learning Courses
http://biggovernment.com/bmattox/2011/03/29/will-public-schools-co-opt-digital-education/#more-244744
Something that every school board member/trustee/teacher/superintendent/principal/parent should consider when re-vamping education to include technological advances. It doesn't make sense to fit a square peg into a round hole.
On one hand, I can see the need for some kind of deadline. After all, you're looking at (well, just reading) a gal who just got an incomplete on her landscaping course. Actually, maybe that proves the other point--I did have a deadline, I just didn't have time to accommodate the homework. I have kept the reading material, and I WILL learn something about landscaping, but my records are tarnished with an "I".
On the other hand, which turns out to be the same hand after all, as a (former) private violin instructor, I saw first-hand the beauty of "independent" study. Each child can learn the violin, whether or not they are "gifted" or "talented." Some will learn more quickly than others, and the end results will not be the same, but each child can learn to be proficient at anything.
Maybe the one concern that we need to address is motivation and discipline. I was obviously not motivated or disciplined enough to complete my landscaping course in a timely manner. And I have had students who made little progress in spite of their potential because they didn't practice. So, how do we help our kids stay motivated, if they aren't internally motivated?
Something that every school board member/trustee/teacher/superintendent/principal/parent should consider when re-vamping education to include technological advances. It doesn't make sense to fit a square peg into a round hole.
On one hand, I can see the need for some kind of deadline. After all, you're looking at (well, just reading) a gal who just got an incomplete on her landscaping course. Actually, maybe that proves the other point--I did have a deadline, I just didn't have time to accommodate the homework. I have kept the reading material, and I WILL learn something about landscaping, but my records are tarnished with an "I".
On the other hand, which turns out to be the same hand after all, as a (former) private violin instructor, I saw first-hand the beauty of "independent" study. Each child can learn the violin, whether or not they are "gifted" or "talented." Some will learn more quickly than others, and the end results will not be the same, but each child can learn to be proficient at anything.
Maybe the one concern that we need to address is motivation and discipline. I was obviously not motivated or disciplined enough to complete my landscaping course in a timely manner. And I have had students who made little progress in spite of their potential because they didn't practice. So, how do we help our kids stay motivated, if they aren't internally motivated?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
I don't get it
KTVB on the passing of 2 out of 3 Luna bills
from the article:"This is the pay for performance bill. More specifically, this is the bill that gives teachers bonuses when their students do well on tests."
Why are teachers protesting a bill which would reward them when they do a good job? This bill says nothing about punishing teachers whose students don't do a good job.
I understand teachers feeling a little angst about the first bill passed, which perhaps does punish teachers by: not allowing teachers who have received court orders to stay away from minors to get paid, giving more control to local school officers, allowing a teensy-tiny bit more parent input in teacher evaluation, and limiting tenure. It means that they have less job security. But it's no worse than the job security of anyone else who has to maintain a level of performance that justifies the paycheck they receive.
S1113 (Modernization & Reform) increases the student-teacher divisor to pay for a 1:1 ratio of computers to high school students while requiring four on-line classes during high school. Expressed public sentiment was overwhelmingly against this proposal as written. More public and stakeholder consultation and collaboration are necessary so that an improved plan can be crafted and consensus reached.
• Principal has discretion in new hires;
• Parents have some input for performance evaluations (could be as little as 1%);
• Employees ordered by court to stay away from minors put on unpaid leave. This protects kids and frees up more money for education;
• During reductions in force, needs of the students take priority over seniority;
• Courts will review school board action for propriety, but will not hear cases from scratch. Less court costs mean more money for education.
• Master contract limitations of one year allow school board to respond to citizens rather than having their hands tied by past boards that are no longer in office;
• Public negotiations and open records ensure transparency and a more accountable government.
I hope that the information above is helpful to you. If my reply to your message was not immediate, I apologize. I read every message as it arrived and considered its contents carefully. The proposed changes to education have resulted in a flood of correspondence that I have tended to personally with the help of one part-time volunteer. Your message helped shaped my opinion of these proposals. I will keep your message and this reply on file for future reference.
Kindly,
Senator Mitch Toryanski
from the article:"This is the pay for performance bill. More specifically, this is the bill that gives teachers bonuses when their students do well on tests."
Why are teachers protesting a bill which would reward them when they do a good job? This bill says nothing about punishing teachers whose students don't do a good job.
I understand teachers feeling a little angst about the first bill passed, which perhaps does punish teachers by: not allowing teachers who have received court orders to stay away from minors to get paid, giving more control to local school officers, allowing a teensy-tiny bit more parent input in teacher evaluation, and limiting tenure. It means that they have less job security. But it's no worse than the job security of anyone else who has to maintain a level of performance that justifies the paycheck they receive.
UPDATE: This article just appeared in Fox news. Note the last line which reads:
"The biggest piece of Luna's reform package remains stalled in the Senate. That legislation would boost technology in the classroom, require online courses and increase the minimum teacher pay from $29,655 to $30,000..."
Again, I don't understand--griping about an increase of minimum wage? OK, to be fair, the bill also included increasing class size.
I know a lot of great teachers, and I had a lot of great teachers. My guess is that those great teachers' jobs won't be on the chopping block if cuts need to be made.
p.s. A few weeks ago, I wrote to my state senator, and he wrote the following explanation of the bills that are in question:
S1113 (Modernization & Reform) increases the student-teacher divisor to pay for a 1:1 ratio of computers to high school students while requiring four on-line classes during high school. Expressed public sentiment was overwhelmingly against this proposal as written. More public and stakeholder consultation and collaboration are necessary so that an improved plan can be crafted and consensus reached.
• Principal has discretion in new hires;
• Parents have some input for performance evaluations (could be as little as 1%);
• Employees ordered by court to stay away from minors put on unpaid leave. This protects kids and frees up more money for education;
• During reductions in force, needs of the students take priority over seniority;
• Courts will review school board action for propriety, but will not hear cases from scratch. Less court costs mean more money for education.
• Master contract limitations of one year allow school board to respond to citizens rather than having their hands tied by past boards that are no longer in office;
• Public negotiations and open records ensure transparency and a more accountable government.
I hope that the information above is helpful to you. If my reply to your message was not immediate, I apologize. I read every message as it arrived and considered its contents carefully. The proposed changes to education have resulted in a flood of correspondence that I have tended to personally with the help of one part-time volunteer. Your message helped shaped my opinion of these proposals. I will keep your message and this reply on file for future reference.
Kindly,
Senator Mitch Toryanski
Friday, March 4, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Wisconsin Riots
Informative article by John Fund at WSJ.
When teachers call in sick to attend a protest, often bringing their own students with them, and then say that they are doing this "for the children," or because they "love their jobs," I smell a rat. They would sacrifice 5,500 jobs throughout the state of Wisconsin so that they could continue to suck the coffers dry? They would continue to force other laborers to pay union dues, even though they do not want to belong? (In the state of Washington, my brother does not belong to a union, but he is required to pay dues anyway.) They think that they shouldn't have to put as much away towards their own health and retirement benefits as the rest of us, but they say they are protesting "for the children?"
When teachers call in sick to attend a protest, often bringing their own students with them, and then say that they are doing this "for the children," or because they "love their jobs," I smell a rat. They would sacrifice 5,500 jobs throughout the state of Wisconsin so that they could continue to suck the coffers dry? They would continue to force other laborers to pay union dues, even though they do not want to belong? (In the state of Washington, my brother does not belong to a union, but he is required to pay dues anyway.) They think that they shouldn't have to put as much away towards their own health and retirement benefits as the rest of us, but they say they are protesting "for the children?"
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
My 2 cents on Luna's Plan
1. Intense debate is good. Vandalism, not so much!
2. My kids don't need a laptop. I don't want you (as in the taxpayer) to buy them one.
3. Plus, they will be out-dated before they are done using them and graduate from High School.
4. Not to mention the headaches that the IT guys at each school are going to get trying to fix each and every abused computer that we gave to the kids.
5. I like school choice. On-line education classes could benefit a lot of students. If they are quality courses, kids will want to take them. (In fact, maybe they will want to pay for them if they want them that badly.) But no one should be forced to take an on-line course.
6. YES to ending teacher tenure, and YES to restricting collective bargaining.
2. My kids don't need a laptop. I don't want you (as in the taxpayer) to buy them one.
3. Plus, they will be out-dated before they are done using them and graduate from High School.
4. Not to mention the headaches that the IT guys at each school are going to get trying to fix each and every abused computer that we gave to the kids.
5. I like school choice. On-line education classes could benefit a lot of students. If they are quality courses, kids will want to take them. (In fact, maybe they will want to pay for them if they want them that badly.) But no one should be forced to take an on-line course.
6. YES to ending teacher tenure, and YES to restricting collective bargaining.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Interesting Video on Charity
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4478336/charitable-giving-democrats-vs-republicans?playlist_id=87185
When I post this, I don't mean to brag or boast, or turn charitable giving into a contest. What I want to do is combat false assumptions that so many people believe to be true. Again and again, I hear that Conservatives are wealthy and greedy, while Liberals are generous. You can hear that sentiment in the opening of the video posted above. But study after study shows that the opposite is true. I don't mean to say that democrats don't care--I think they do--but they are more comfortable with turning "charity" over to the government. But that is problematic in at least two ways. First, charity isn't charity when it's forced. And secondly, half of the money intended to "help" ends up in the pockets of government workers, who generally earn more money than the average worker. (There are studies about that, too.)
Some links about recent studies:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009361375685394.html?KEYWORDS=Charitable+giving
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576036010174911064.html?KEYWORDS=Charitable+giving
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=402
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18218
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Good quote
Too many people debate as if the point is to show who is smarter, rather than which conclusion is correct.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Food Safety Modernization Act (SB 510)
The Daily Caller featured this article. I'm not seeing much said about SB 510 anywhere else, except for a youtube video that talked about some of the possible scenarios we could end up with in the event of a national crisis.
Like most bills that ever go through Congress, this one has a nice name that really doesn't mean anything. We all believe in food safety. Most of us like modernization, although in the context of growing and preparing food, I'm not sure I do like the sound of it that much.
SB 510 advocates say that this bill will help protect us, by ensuring that farms and food manufacturers follow safety procedures that will prevent future scares like the recent egg recall. Opponents say this is just more government overreach that will hurt small farms and local farmers markets.
I've read that Monsanto is a huge lobbyist behind this bill. Just the first paragraph in the link is enough to convince me that I do not want Monsanto behind anything regarding food safety. They're all about pesticides and growth hormones and genetic engineering.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not an environmentalist by any means. I'm a free-market girl, and I believe that we should have the choice to support Monsanto, or to support our local farmers' market. Living in Boise, there are a lot of ways to buy fresh, local, organic food. This bill will make it harder for those local farmers to produce food, and could possibly make it more difficult to buy heirloom seeds for our own gardens. It will likely end the sale of raw milk (there's a place that sells it a half mile from my house), and I think that I should be able to buy raw milk if I want to.
Like most bills that ever go through Congress, this one has a nice name that really doesn't mean anything. We all believe in food safety. Most of us like modernization, although in the context of growing and preparing food, I'm not sure I do like the sound of it that much.
SB 510 advocates say that this bill will help protect us, by ensuring that farms and food manufacturers follow safety procedures that will prevent future scares like the recent egg recall. Opponents say this is just more government overreach that will hurt small farms and local farmers markets.
I've read that Monsanto is a huge lobbyist behind this bill. Just the first paragraph in the link is enough to convince me that I do not want Monsanto behind anything regarding food safety. They're all about pesticides and growth hormones and genetic engineering.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not an environmentalist by any means. I'm a free-market girl, and I believe that we should have the choice to support Monsanto, or to support our local farmers' market. Living in Boise, there are a lot of ways to buy fresh, local, organic food. This bill will make it harder for those local farmers to produce food, and could possibly make it more difficult to buy heirloom seeds for our own gardens. It will likely end the sale of raw milk (there's a place that sells it a half mile from my house), and I think that I should be able to buy raw milk if I want to.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
TSA
I'd post a link, but there are too many already--you'll see if you haven't already, about the new security measures being forced upon ordinary travelers. I don't know which airports around the country have installed these measures, but they include an x-ray machine that allows an agent to see your naked body. If you don't like that, you can "opt out," and receive an invasive and uncomfortable pat-down--the kind you see police officers give criminals on TV.
This cannot be the best way to promote security and safety. If you think that invading my privacy or molesting my body increases your security, then you must think that I'm a terrorist. And I'm not. (DUH!)
With all of the ways the government keeps tabs on us (ever try to get out of paying taxes?), don't they have a way of identifying those who might pose a risk--say, those with criminal backgrounds, previous arrests, anyone who has spent a significant amount if time in a nation that sponsors terrorists? How about, when you buy a ticket and show up at the airport, they check to see if your identity matches the one you supplied when you bought the ticket. How about--if someone buys a ticket with my husband's credit card, and doesn't look like my husband--they stop that person from boarding! (A couple of years ago, someone took a trip to Jordan and Egypt on Dave's credit card. I'm appalled that neither the credit card company nor the TSA noticed anything amiss.)
Instead, you and I, our grandparents, parents and children are violated in the name of security. It's madness.
This cannot be the best way to promote security and safety. If you think that invading my privacy or molesting my body increases your security, then you must think that I'm a terrorist. And I'm not. (DUH!)
With all of the ways the government keeps tabs on us (ever try to get out of paying taxes?), don't they have a way of identifying those who might pose a risk--say, those with criminal backgrounds, previous arrests, anyone who has spent a significant amount if time in a nation that sponsors terrorists? How about, when you buy a ticket and show up at the airport, they check to see if your identity matches the one you supplied when you bought the ticket. How about--if someone buys a ticket with my husband's credit card, and doesn't look like my husband--they stop that person from boarding! (A couple of years ago, someone took a trip to Jordan and Egypt on Dave's credit card. I'm appalled that neither the credit card company nor the TSA noticed anything amiss.)
Instead, you and I, our grandparents, parents and children are violated in the name of security. It's madness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)