The invaluable Keith Hennessey breaks out the new spending and tax changes being proposed by Obama, and highlights a neat rhetorical ploy the press will be thrilled to ignore. The gist:
- The President is not, as he claims “proposing real, serious cuts in spending.” His proposals would result in a tiny net reduction in spending: -$86 B over 10 years. Almost all of the spending cuts for which he wants to claim credit have already been enacted or accounted for. Almost all the new spending cuts he proposes would be used to offset higher spending in his Jobs bill proposal and for more Medicare spending on doctors.
- The President is proposing about $1.5 T in higher taxes over ten years, offset by about $250 B of tax relief, for a net tax increase of almost $1.3 T.
- Almost all of the President’s new proposed deficit reduction comes from tax increases.
And the ploy:
Simplifying even further, there is a perverse hidden logic to the President’s proposal. It goes like this: ”We cut spending in the spring and summer, so we’re going to propose almost all tax increases this time. That’s balanced.” If you reread the Presidential quote up top, you can see the rhetorical trick revealed:
THE PRESIDENT: … When you include the $1 trillion in cuts I’ve already signed into law, these would be among the biggest cuts in spending in our history. But they’ve got to be part of a larger plan that’s balanced …
You could be forgiven for thinking that the President is claiming that his new proposals are balanced, and that “the larger plan that’s balanced” is what he has proposed this month, consisting of equal-sized spending cuts and tax increases. That is the incorrect conclusion to which you are led, but technically the President is not claiming that. The “larger plan that’s balanced” is one that includes spending cuts enacted over the past six months. The “among the biggest cuts in spending in our history” are not those newly proposed, but those previously enacted.
Once you see how hard Uncle Sam sucker punches people he identifies as expendable, you learn to keep your guard up whenever he comes around.
It is for this reason that Social Security is nowhere in my retirement plans.
Call me crazy, but the idea of trusting the government to take care of me, to provide me with "security" when I'm old and frail is far more frightening than the thought of me trying to make it on my own.
Posted by: Neo | September 20, 2011 at 02:24 PM
So, did those cuts in the grand bargain of a few months back ever really exist? Or was it, as they say in the software biz, vaporware.
This saying something just to say something -- the current Obama approach -- is a pathetic way to run a country.
Posted by: Appalled | September 20, 2011 at 02:26 PM
I have to go off topic, just for Tom's sake although Baseball Games isn't that off topic considering the thread.
Aaron Goldstein at AmSpec dares to say Mariano Rivera isn't the greatest relief pitcher of all time; that Rollie Fingers is.
As a guy who grew up on the great A's of the 70's I'll not hide my sympathies but what does pin strip blooded TM have to say in response to what must seem an outrageous, utterly boob-headed and heretical provocation?
Posted by: Ignatz | September 20, 2011 at 02:36 PM
I've kind of lost track, but I believe the "larger plan's" cuts included the one that we get for not invading Iraq again.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2011 at 02:41 PM
Social Security screws African American males in particular (shorter life-span)
A few other Democratic policies/political positions that seem to create more problems for African Americans standard of living.....
1) increases in the minimum wage
2) K-12 public education (teacher's unions)
3) welfare
4) hostility towards business and business success
Posted by: Army of Davids | September 20, 2011 at 03:03 PM
The whole "cuts" language is meaningless. Reminds me of the joke I always tell of the kid who says to his dad, "Guess what! I saved $2 by walking to school instead of taking the bus." Dad replies, "Well, you could have saved $10 by walking instead of taking a taxi."
Republicans would be best served by forcing an end to these word games and saying "Here's what we propose to spend; here's what the Democrats propose to spend."
Posted by: jimmyk | September 20, 2011 at 03:07 PM
Republicans would be best served by forcing an end to these word games and saying "Here's what we propose to spend; here's what the Democrats propose to spend."
Oh, AMEN, jimmyk.
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2011 at 03:15 PM
--Social Security screws African American males in particular (shorter life-span)--
Then doesn't AA dictate that only white people have their retirement age raised?
Think any of the Dem appointees on SCOTUS would object?
Posted by: Ignatz | September 20, 2011 at 03:16 PM
Unless I am once again confused, I believe Obama is counting as Medicare cuts the increases in premiums he is going to charge the "well to do seniors".
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2011 at 03:17 PM
Ignatz,
if I had my way SS would go away over a couple decades....but there are no good answers.
Government creates multiple problems as it solves one. That's what government does best.
Posted by: Army of Davids | September 20, 2011 at 03:22 PM
--Ignatz,
if I had my way SS would go away over a couple decades....but there are no good answers.--
If I had my way it'd disappear in a couple of years.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 20, 2011 at 03:37 PM
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2011 at 03:37 PM
She also said the Republicans need to get their own Buffett - a notable business owner or CEO who can get in the public eye and make the argument for lower taxes.
You mean like the evil Koch brothers, or T. Boone Pickens? The MSM will hardly give them the air time that they give the Oracle of Omaha.
Posted by: jimmyk | September 20, 2011 at 03:42 PM
Republicans should start by doing as jimmyk suggests, and push Obama for numbers on his big taxing plan.
As for the message:
We can't afford the government we have, and taxing the rich won't make it so we can.
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2011 at 03:49 PM
Oracle of O
mBahMaPosted by: lyle | September 20, 2011 at 03:50 PM
The MSM will hardly give them the air time that they give the Oracle of Omaha.
Always a difficulty. But "the MSM won't give them the air time" could be a universal excuse for not trying. I think the right CEO could get some exposure.
At any rate the GOP has to make its case to the Muddle one way or another.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2011 at 03:55 PM
Whatever we do wrong, at this end of the pond, they can always do worse at the other
one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/16/vince-cable-urgent-economic-stimulus
Posted by: narciso | September 20, 2011 at 03:56 PM
This whole tax the rich, tax, tax, tax...is just sickening. How much money will satisfy this fed government that is sucking the life out of the country?
They have squandered trillions! Why should they get one more dime from ANY American until they can prove they can cut spending.
Posted by: Janet | September 20, 2011 at 04:02 PM
Cute picture of a dog driving a taxi:
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2011 at 04:12 PM
But "the MSM won't give them the air time" could be a universal excuse for not trying.
We don't know that they aren't trying. But I suspect that conservative business people tend not to be such media whores, and that probably won't change. It's the same with Hollywood, with Charleton Heston being a rare exception.
Posted by: jimmyk | September 20, 2011 at 04:13 PM
narc,
Vince has an excuse. He is a member of the oxymoronic political party known as the Liberal Democrats.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2011 at 04:14 PM
Probably so, jimmyk. And anyone who volunteers will get Joe the Plumbered.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2011 at 04:17 PM
This piece, had a hint of chutzpah, or the local equivalent, although maybe if Cameron hadn't apologized so much for Tory Blue, they wouldn't need them in the first place:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039342/Lib-Dem-conference-2011-Vince-Cable-Nick-Clegg-scorn-Tories-power.html
Posted by: narciso | September 20, 2011 at 04:19 PM
Is that Kim Kardashian?
As for conservative businessmen, who wants to be the next Gibson Guitars?
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2011 at 04:21 PM
there's always the Donald.
Posted by: Chubby | September 20, 2011 at 04:23 PM
I should hasten to add, I didn't mean to suggest Heston was a "media whore." But he he was willing to be a spokesman. Most conservatives in Hollywood are more circumspect, and I'm guessing most CEOs have better things to do with their time.
There was another CEO of a high-tech firm some years ago whose name I can't recall who used to speak out quite a bit. Not sure what became of him. (Not very helpful, I realize.)
Posted by: jimmyk | September 20, 2011 at 04:28 PM
John Snow ex CSX & Sec of the Treasury
Posted by: BB Key | September 20, 2011 at 04:30 PM
I believe some or perhaps most of BOzo's cuts to Medicare and Medicaid on this go round are reducing payment to providers.
Posted by: glasater | September 20, 2011 at 04:38 PM
Fred Smith, FedEx, would be a great spokesman. I fear he values his privacy and sanity too greatly to speak out against the oh-so-tolerant-left.
Posted by: lyle | September 20, 2011 at 04:39 PM
According to Rush, Jay Carney has tweeted something to the effect that without the tax increases we will stop spending on education. Now Rush went on about federal spending and involvement in education which I am empathetic to also. But I remember Mort Kondrake when he and Fred Barnes where the anchor twins on Special Report would always cringe when conservatives would say the first thing they would do is eliminate the Department of Education.
Is there anyone here (even Dana and/or Ben Franklin) who can argue the positive contribution a federal department of education has made to increased intelligence and learning in this country over and above what our local tax dollars and administration of schools accomplishes? If we stopped whatever the DoEdu is doing today how would that effect our kids education?
I have never understood why dropping them lock, stock and barrel doesn't resonate more with Americans.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2011 at 04:40 PM
If we stopped whatever the DoEdu is doing today how would that effect our kids education?
It likely would.
For the better.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 20, 2011 at 04:47 PM
glasater-
Oct 1 is the first chop to the providers, at 11.2%
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 20, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Wasserman Schultz has resigned from the House Judiciary Committee:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/sep/20/picket-wasserman-schultz-resigns-house-judiciary-c/
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2011 at 05:09 PM
Reuters:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2011 at 05:14 PM
From Fred Barnes:
For one thing, Obama suffers from what Maureen Dowd of the New York Times has identified as the “speech illusion.” This is the notion that he can swoop down from on high, deliver a speech, persuade millions, and move the political needle in favor of his legislation. And, naturally, make himself more popular.
There might not be so much “speech illusion” had some where along the way Obama had given us all a rest. It’s like the old (wannabe) country song “How can I miss you if you won’t go away.“ Obama just won’t go away or shut up. Any droning will eventually grow wearisome, and Obama has been there for some time now.
Posted by: Neo | September 20, 2011 at 05:44 PM
DoT,
I wonder if Lamar Smith knew this when he wrote Holder to ask for a formal DoJ investigation? But then isn't there one if the FBI made a search? They had to get DoJ to request the warrants, right?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2011 at 05:46 PM
Porch,
Any speculation on why she would resign?
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2011 at 05:46 PM
Neo,
I loved that song:))
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2011 at 05:58 PM
"Is there anyone here (even Dana and/or Ben Franklin) who can argue the positive contribution a federal department of education has made to increased intelligence and learning in this country over and above what our local tax dollars and administration of schools accomplishes?"
Everything was fine when the emphasis was on 'Readin', Ritin', and 'rithmatic.........
I get so tired of hearing about Teachers competency in the Education Crisis. What about Administrators (Boards, Superintendents etc) Why are most of those dead-wood Management types not taking job and salary cuts?
They are the ones who fiddle with education. 'New Math' my posterior.
Japan has been kicking our butts for years in Math education.
I remember a special report that illustrated the difference.
The mathbook in Japanese Middle School was about one-inch thick. The comparable American textbook was 4 inches.
Sounds better. It isn't. The conclusion; the japanese education system allowed for depth in study, while Americans had students skimming over the surface.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 06:00 PM
If you want to attract the highest quality teachers, pay them enough so they don't need a second job.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 06:02 PM
If Obama were in a casino, the management wouldn't let him kite any more checks!
And, Obama's biggest problems come from his mom's side of the family tree!
Check out how many Black people you know ... and see if it computes that they lack common sense.
Mark Twain does a masterful job in Huckleberry Finn to show you that whites lacked common sense. Jim, on the other hand, was saint-like in his ability to reason ... in this tough world.
Obama's major flaws belong to his mother's side of the family! Probably, too, that he didn's see what was wrong with Pelosi. Or Anita Hill ... On first interview.
Posted by: Carol Herman | September 20, 2011 at 06:07 PM
Dana, teachers in WI are paid 40% more than average joes but only work 9 months per year. Money ain't the problem.
Posted by: henry | September 20, 2011 at 06:09 PM
Teachers are underpaid!
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 20, 2011 at 06:15 PM
Tom Maguire now linked in NRO. Wow I am honored to be here. OT-- Solyndra execs take the Fifth! Wow -- Chu better lawyer up -- Imagine if Fitzgerald was the special prosecutor on Solyndra! Did any Enron execs take the Fifth before Congress.
Posted by: NK | September 20, 2011 at 06:19 PM
OK-- Ken Lay and auditor Duncan took the Fifth during Enron hearings.
Posted by: NK | September 20, 2011 at 06:23 PM
"The $51,000 salary figure is further substantiated by district-by-district data provided by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/23/eric-bolling/fox-business-news-eric-bolling-says-wisconsin-teac/
"Alex Knapp asks, "Are Wisconsin Public Servants Overpaid?" He shows that, when controlling for education and hours worked, they actually make 5% less than their private sector counterparts."
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wisconsin-teachers-and-average-pay/
Education levels and corresponding pay makes it difficult to make apples to apples comparison to average Joe.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 06:26 PM
John Stossel ?
You do have quite a formidable sense of humor, TK
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 06:27 PM
All the teachers in my son's school (which is parochial) work for 10% below public school teacher's salaries and do not have full time second jobs. Some do computer stuff on the side, or handle kid's birthday parties, or give tennis and golf lessons but that is not even a vocation as much as a secondary avocation. Disagree totally on teacher pay being the reason we fall down. It has more to do with PC curriculum development and rules of engagement set by poetically charged Boards of Education.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2011 at 06:28 PM
For whatever reason, teaching as a profession encourages teachers to be over-educated for the job they do. There is no reason we should be asking elementary school teachers to pursue masters degrees.
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2011 at 06:30 PM
There is no reason we should be asking elementary school teachers to pursue masters degrees.
This would be El JEFe's idea of a market driven solution.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 20, 2011 at 06:34 PM
No kidding CH!
I don't see the summer and holiday time off factored into the equations used by politifact.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 20, 2011 at 06:37 PM
"For whatever reason, teaching as a profession encourages teachers to be over-educated for the job they do"
Private schools have ABSOLUTELY no education requirements, and the results are, well, sad.
I took my eldest out of Public School in 3rd grade after I asked his teacher, 'why can he read, but not spell?' Her reply.......
"We don't worry too much about spelling, because the kids have
'spellcheck' on their computers"
The first year in the private school my son had a crackerjack (she came from public school system). The remaining years were a nightmare of incompetents who had NO child development courses, but they worked cheap. I heard from one parent that the
Christian school had just promoted an office secretary to be a teacher of English. She had a HS diploma......
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 06:38 PM
Before Jimmy Carter there was no Dept. of Ed. As Ross Perot would ask, if we weren't already doing this, would we start now?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2011 at 06:41 PM
National Center for Educational Statistics
Cheaped out on the poor teacher, huh Ben?
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 20, 2011 at 06:49 PM
Private schools have ABSOLUTELY no education requirements, and the results are, well, sad. [...] The first year in the private school my son had
All private schools? Or are you really just speaking about the one your son went to?
Because if we're going to argue by anecdote,I've got yer high fallutin' education requirements at private school right here.
Posted by: hit and run | September 20, 2011 at 06:50 PM
So why did you keep him in private school? Or did you go back to the public school where he wasn't learning how to spell?
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2011 at 06:51 PM
Check this out:
"Colorado Sen. Mark Udall is concerned that proposed new standards for school lunches could hurt Colorado’s potato farmers.Udall fears the federal proposal limiting the amount of starchy vegetables served to one cup once a week could give potatoes a bad reputation and hurt Colorado’s $300 million potato industry, "
What in God's name is the national government in Washington doing fine-tuning what is served to schoolchildren for lunch? When and how did this become a federal question?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2011 at 06:51 PM
I'd like to see the statistics on these apocryphal "sad" private school results. I've never met a kid - ever - who attended a private school who could not blow his public school counterpart out of the water academically. Unless they started out with developmental or cognitive problems, which is quite a different argument.
But I'm not suggesting you're just making shit up or anything.
I heard from one parent that the
Christian school had just promoted an office secretary to be a teacher of English. She had a HS diploma......
When it requires a Master of Education degree, and certification to show a kid how to diagram a sentence or grade a theme paper, perhaps the higher education system as a whole should be scrutinized.
Clearly this English teacher should have attended a grade-inflated teacher's college at a moonbat liberal arts school for
457 years. She then should have joined a union and demanded an immediate pay raise and tenure. As it happened, the HS grad was probably more competent than the majority of AFT mouthbreathers circulating around out there.If nothing else, she probably knew what an ellipsis is and how it is used. Hell, I know college professors who don't know that much.
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 20, 2011 at 06:56 PM
DoT:
What in God's name is the national government in Washington doing fine-tuning what is served to schoolchildren for lunch? When and how did this become a federal question?
I think it began once it was discovered that the Christian school that Ben sent his son to had ABSOLUTELY no nutrition standards and the results were, well, sad.
Posted by: hit and run | September 20, 2011 at 06:57 PM
"Because if we're going to argue by anecdote"
In my State, there are no education requirements for private schools.
I'm sure there are schools which have internal requirements.
Thanks for prompting the clarification; 'In my State', "there are ABSOLUTELY no education requirements for private school teachers"
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 06:58 PM
...she probably knew what an ellipsis is and how it is used.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Excellent, Soylent.
Posted by: centralcal | September 20, 2011 at 06:59 PM
Private schools have ABSOLUTELY no education requirements, and the results are, well, sad.
Ben, total BS. Don't know about California but I can bet if it is a Catholic school system it is a lot like ours here in Florida. We require BS and certification. You move up the ladder in terms of salary with a graduate degree. [Disclosure, I am on the School board for my son's Catholic school]. We are accredited as a school every 5 years. Our teachers must have both certification and continuing education credits to maintain their jobs. I will give you just one stat that I have provided before:
Our local public high school graduated 550 seniors last year for a total of $500K in scholarships. Our local Catholic high school graduated 83 seniors last year for over $5million in scholarships including all 4 service academies, 5 ivy leagues schools (and God can play tricks) Duke. Tell me what it is our private schools are doing that your public schools are not doing with teachers earning on average 10% less than their public school counterparts.
BTW, our administration is 1 shared bookkeeper with the parish and 1 secretary for the entire school. The public school system has counselors, Vice Principals, Development Directors, PR people, etc. In fact, in my county it is close to a 1 to 1 ratio of Administrative to Faculty.
One other thing, we educate our kids that get all those scholarships without an IB program and at a cost of $5K a year. Public schools are currently at $11K per pupil a year.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2011 at 07:03 PM
"she probably knew what an ellipsis is and how it is used. "
What a surprise ! Snark being substituted for an argument.
Thanks for the weasel word 'probably'. I wouldn't want to think you a liar..
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 07:03 PM
'In my State', "there are ABSOLUTELY no education requirements for private school teachers"
Should Arne Duncan be empowered to mandate teacher education requirements in CA private schools?
Posted by: hit and run | September 20, 2011 at 07:05 PM
"I think it began once it was discovered that the Christian school that Ben sent his son to had ABSOLUTELY no nutrition standards and the results were, well, sad."
I believe it was RWR who created the modern standard of nutrition in schools.
'Ketchup IS a vegetable"
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 07:06 PM
Ben-Dana, was that the son who had the awkward experience in Iraq?
Posted by: MarkO | September 20, 2011 at 07:06 PM
"a nightmare of incompetents who had NO child development courses"
I was taught by truly marvelous teachers in both public and parochial schools. I would wager abhandsome sum that not a single one had ever had a course in "child development."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2011 at 07:08 PM
" I would wager abhandsome sum that not a single one had ever had a course in "child development.""
Yeah, but would you pay up?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 07:10 PM
Oh come on now Ben. Just a little English punctuation ribbing to brighten your day.
How's that old saying go?
"If you can't laugh at yourself, you're the only one."
Something like that. I forget now. I blame public school.
By the way, an ellipsis has three dots (but by golly you have that sucker bracketed).
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 20, 2011 at 07:11 PM
Why would you send your child to a bad private school?
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2011 at 07:13 PM
[sucker]
Bahahahhahhaha!
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 20, 2011 at 07:13 PM
In my state, one cannot teach in a public school without spending two years getting a "certificate". Thus, when I retired I could not teach a course in, say, math, English or history in the high school from which I graduated, and which is within walking distance of my house.
Nothing I might have done to demonstrate my ability to teach such courses would have mattered one whit. The union must be obeyed.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2011 at 07:15 PM
I wonder if Bakunin's teachers took courses in child development.
I think the answer might be relevant here.
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 20, 2011 at 07:17 PM
""If you can't laugh at yourself, you're the only one.""
Well, I was laughing when I wrote...
"I wouldn't want to think you a liar.."
...but not at myself.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 07:26 PM
Well, I was laughing when you wrote...
"I wouldn't want to think ...."
You might just hurt yourself lol.
Posted by: boris | September 20, 2011 at 07:29 PM
I response to TM, I will respectful stick with:
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
For virtually anything coming out of Zero's pie hole. Even the AP is off the reservation on his lies...
Posted by: Gmax | September 20, 2011 at 07:30 PM
Ben- did you keep your son in the bad private school or go back to public school?
Posted by: MayBee | September 20, 2011 at 07:30 PM
And is there anything good for the WH when Solyndra execs invoking the 5th amendment not to INCRIMINATE themselves is seen on the evening news? Maybe we can shoot Osama again? How about millionaires and billionaires getting another whipping?
Posted by: Gmax | September 20, 2011 at 07:35 PM
I think you stumped him, Maybee. There might be a miscue as they switch Bens.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 20, 2011 at 07:36 PM
"I wouldn't want to think ...."
It would be a refreshing change from the rote cut and paste routine...
Posted by: Gmax | September 20, 2011 at 07:37 PM
For those interested, and I know there are many, "Cupcake Wars" is now showing on The Food Network.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 20, 2011 at 07:39 PM
Has MSNBC ever mentioned Solyndra in the morning or primetime shows? Up to now I havent noticed.
Posted by: Mikey | September 20, 2011 at 07:42 PM
"I invoke my right to not answer the question on the grounds that an answer might tend to incriminate me".
That is going on a loop for the cable television stations, over and over.
I love it. Sucks to be in a culture of corruption, dont it Democrats.
Posted by: Gmax | September 20, 2011 at 07:45 PM
I hope they make the Solyndra execs take the fifth in person. Over the years, we seem to have gotten away from that, instead cancelling hearings for people who have announced the strategy ahead of time. Let them sit there and answer questions with the fun words.
"Based on the advice of my lawyer, I choose not to testify..."
Posted by: Extraneus | September 20, 2011 at 07:49 PM
"as they switch Bens."
Still Stumped, TK?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 07:51 PM
In House Hearings: Must television cameras be turned off if the witness takes the Fifth? House Rules?
Posted by: NK | September 20, 2011 at 08:01 PM
My son also went to a private school which did not require certification. When he started most of the teachers also had no courses in child development or methodology. They did, however, have Masters and Phds in the subject matter they taught.
Also because the school spent its money on other things, the kids brought their own damn lunches to school.
Posted by: Clarice | September 20, 2011 at 08:01 PM
Ben,
I am not stumped.
You have more BS than Batchey. He was the local honey-dipper where I grew up.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2011 at 08:03 PM
Damn that Ted Kennedy.......
"After all, we’ve have a decade of standardized-test-based school reform under the No Child Left Behind law that educators warned was narrowing curriculum and turning too many classrooms into test prep factories rather than places of real learning. Meanwhile, issues facing the rising number of English language learners and children living in poverty have been given short policy shrif.
According to the College Board, which owns the SAT and just released scores for graduating seniors in 2011, average scores were down three points in critical reading compared with those of the year before.
The picture looks even worse if you look back several years: Since 2006, the year after the SAT added a writing section to the verbal and math parts of the college entrance exam, scores for all test takers are down six points for reading, four for math and eight for writing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/2011/09/16/gIQAx35kdK_story.html
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 08:03 PM
And our new superintendent is from Chicago, fancy that.
Posted by: narciso | September 20, 2011 at 08:08 PM
Light showing through cracks in GOP unity?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/im_prepared_to_look_at_that032320.php
"The question is what GOP lawmakers are prepared to say and/or do about it. Today, ABC posed a question about tax fairness to Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. I found his response pretty interesting..
Sessions said he’s willing to consider something that would bring tax equity by ensuring the rich pay as high a percentage in taxes as middle-class taxpayers, but cautioned that such a move could backfire.
“I’m prepared to look at that,” he said, “but let me tell you about capital gains….”
What I find noteworthy are these minor cracks in the GOP’s wall of opposition. On Capitol Hill, phrases like “I’m prepared to look at that” are often seen as a signal of potential support, or at least something far short of outright opposition.
And it comes against the backdrop of related fissures. Freshman Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) told voters last week he’s willing to talk about higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires.
What’s more, last month, four far-right House Republicans participated in a joint town-hall meeting in a very conservative area. Three of the four said they’re open to additional revenue, and one said he wouldn’t rule out tax increases on those earning over $700,000 a year.
A week later, Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) was badgered by constituents at a town-hall meeting on the need to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and reluctantly said he’s open to ending oil-company subsidies and closing tax loopholes. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), confronted by 200 angry constituents the same week, said the same thing."
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 08:10 PM
"I am not stumped."
Which Ben am I ?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 08:12 PM
Keep hope alive, Dana. There's a pony for you under there somewhere.
if tomato ketchup isn't a vegetable, what is it? Animal? mineral?
The much larger (and still unanswered) question is why, when and how did any of this become a federal question? It is insane.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2011 at 08:16 PM
Dupage Cty, one of the favorite seats of Duke and Dukedom.
Posted by: narciso | September 20, 2011 at 08:20 PM
If my recollection serves me, education became a federal issue about the time the Dems noticed they'd lost the white male vote and had to some up with a way of getting white women who generally paid little attention to politics to make up the difference.
Posted by: Clarice | September 20, 2011 at 08:21 PM
"if tomato ketchup isn't a vegetable, what is it? Animal? mineral?"
Mostly corn syrup and chemical additives with some tomato.
But to your serious question..."when and how did any of this become a federal question? It is insane.". I would say I agree. It shouldn't be necessary for the 'feds to intervene, but it shouldn't be necessary
for McDonalds to issue fatwas warning customers that their coffee is hot. People behaving stupidly, sometimes requires action, often stupid in itself, by the Feds.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 20, 2011 at 08:22 PM
The Feds have so far chosen to go with original intent and stay the hell out of the "Cupcake Wars." Since the latest is a peanut butter and butter cream entry, only non-partisan polling can answer whether the majority is in favor, but I'm doubtful.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 20, 2011 at 08:23 PM
DoT,
Its a Federal question because of the golden rule (which we as tax paying lemmings have contributed to its permanency) which states:
He who owns the gold makes the rules.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 20, 2011 at 08:25 PM
I seem to recall that as of late it has been the practice not to require a guy to show up and take the 5th if he says in advance that that's what he's going to do. Don't know whether it's an unwritten rule or what. I think the last time someone was forced to do it a big stink was raised; can't remember which party forced the issue and which party was supposedly aggrieved.
Stephen Chu may become the poster child for "smart in school, dumb on the bus."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2011 at 08:26 PM
--The much larger (and still unanswered) question is why, when and how did any of this become a federal question?--
You haven't noted the marked improvement in all metrics of K-12 since federal involvement?
Then you're just not paying attention.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 20, 2011 at 08:27 PM