Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (83335)	9/10/2008 1:40:26 PM
From: Stan J. Czernel	Respond to of 544265

Pork projects as sins is a great example as it relates to bigger government. Republicans don't want a surplus, so every time one develops, it is dumped - to the Rich, on a war, on anything but aid for the People. Then - with crocodile tears in their eyes, they turn out their empty pockets and claim. "We're sorry, we don't have the money for health care, social security,public education etc." Pork is minor compared to this wholesale robbery.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (83335)	9/10/2008 2:17:21 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 544265

Smaller government is still argued for by conservatives even though they no longer walk the walk. Still though, there is I believe a huge number of people who want smaller government - meaning less fed involvement in education. Pork projects as sins is a great example as it relates to bigger government. I'll start here, Steve. I assume you didn't mean education funding was "pork." You've, however, placed it in a paragraph which one could easily read that way. Assuming then you don't wish to debate the issue of education as "pork," the issue to discuss is national funding for education. For starters, the quality of education across the board, k-12 and higher ed, is clearly viewed as a national issue in all quarters. It has to do with not only the issues often discussed, a work force that competes globally and a work force that doesn't require federal government subsidies because it lacks the kind of skills required for that competition. It also has to do with at last two other national issues. The first is the commitment to creating opportunity for everyone, one of the basic portions of the national creed. High quality, widely available, publicly funded education is the principle vehicle for that opportunity. We, nationally, are not doing that now in impoverished areas. The very areas in most need. Local funding doesn't deal with these issues well. Second, a good quality education is something we all owe one another, at the local level, the state level, and the federal level. Folk who get such have the opportunity to see the world and themselves differently, to participate in civic affairs differently, to see themselves as connected to the world in different ways, and, just as important, to see themselves connected to the history of humanity in different ways. A good education is a very powerful thing. Now, I gather there are two arguments against it. One an ideological one, that simply favors smaller government and says education should be left at the family level, the local level, the state level, whatever. I couldn't disagree more but will not argue the point here. Unless you wish to do so. The second argument against it is one of control. Control, so the argument goes, should stay at the local level. The problem with that argument is that there is no serious argument for leaving education solely in the hands of family members. (If you take that position, perhaps we can discuss that.) However, once you cede that argument, putting it at the local community level and/or the state level, you agree with the argument, then you are well on the way to the federal government argument. It's no longer simply a qualitative argument. Much of it is quantitative. For instance, few folk have much to say about the education in their local schools. To some degree folk who live in smaller suburbs with well funded schools dependent on local property taxes do. (But that, of course, raises serious questions about educational equity). While they are the favored few, even there it takes serious effort and concern to translate interest into changing the local schools. And, in general, my experience has been that communities have been the worse for many of those efforts: banning books, trying to eliminate certain courses, trying to have teachers with views outside the mainstream fired, etc. Finally, my apologies for the long post. It happens to be something I care about. A great deal.