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: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (246825)	3/7/2014 8:27:32 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541917

In a way I'm sorry De Blasio is apparently not going to get his pre-shool funding from Albany--that might provide us "experimental" results. As I understand it at the moment, that's not the issue. The issue is the source of the funding for the program not whether to do the program. Cuomo has agreed to funding but is apparently going to take it from some funds source that won't ensure the long term permanence of the program. De Blasio wants the funding to come from that increased tax levy on the wealthy. As for your feeling that we need to check the results of these, I don't disagree. However, in this particular case, there's a rather large body of literature that supports de Blasio. The difference, of course, will be the scale of this operation. I have little doubt that more than a few dissertations, at a minimum, will be built out of the data generated from this. It's a natural for funding. You still haven't told me why you wouldn't support the Heritage Foundation's proposal to not cut a marrying welfare recipient's benefit. As I've said before, their work has no credibility in serious work on policy. It's a self confessed, ideological driven workshop. It's not that it's conservative; it's that it has no commitment to serious scholarly work. To take a different tack, one can argue that the work coming out of Brookings is not conservative (whether it can be labeled "liberal" is a different and more complicated question). But one cannot, at least not seriously and with any degree of credibility, argue that it lacks a reputation for serious scholarly work. So I read and take seriously their work, though I find myself, in fact frequently, in disagreement with their policy conclusions. They are a bit too conservative for my tastes. But it's not only good work; it's top flight work. As for the policy proposal you wish me to support, I'm actually in favor of a stronger safety net than the present frayed one. In almost all respects. In the case of children, they need all the support they can get if that little bit about equality of opportunity is to have even the slightest, dimmest hope of meaning anything at all.