I'm no member, but I do like the Tea Party movement. Why? Anything that the media and politicians hate so much HAS to be a good thing.
Sort of reminds me of an episode of Hogan's Heroes: There was a bomb that fell in the compound that did not detonate. In the scene Hogan has to choose between two colored wires to cut. He asks Klink, "Which would you cut?" and Klink replies with one of the colors. At that point Hogan cuts the other wire. When questioned he responds, "I wasn't sure which was the right one, but I was certain you'd pick the wrong one."
Again, anything the media and politicians hate so much HAS to be a good thing.
©
Emittravel 2011
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
The Cleveland Curse? (Part Two)
(This is part two of a two-part blog entry. If you are reading this first, STOP!! Sorry. Didn't mean to yell. Well, actually, if you have read any of my previous blogs you probably have discovered that I yell a lot. That's what the "caps lock" effect is for. Yelling. Loud. With energy. Anyway, if you are starting with this one please stop and go back and read the first part first. Thanks.)
Disclaimer: I am married to a public school teacher, and yes, that has effected the views described in this column, but not for the reasons you are thinking. I am madly, passionately, and completely in love with my wife; not with her choice of career. I'm sure what she does has an effect on who she is, but who she is has a far greater impact on how she does what she does. Being married to her has exposed me to her career - beyond the "I remember my school teachers" and "they only work a few months out of the year and are overpaid in comparison" understanding I once held. It is not the love for my wife that changed this, but being immersed in her world. I have to tell you: after being with her for over six years, and seeing what she does, there is no amount of money in this world that would convince me to be a teacher. More on this to follow.
If you have turned on your TV lately, listened to the radio, or spent any time at an online news feed, you have had to hear about what is going on in Wisconsin, Indiana, and now Ohio, concerning public school teachers (and public employees in general) and their unions. The governors of these states (and I'm sure there are others going through the same, or will be soon) are desiring to get their states back in the black. Some are even focusing on "busting" the unions. The latter is not the focus of this article. If you have read any of my previous blog entries (No? Really? Hey, take a break and go back to the beginning and work your way here. Come on - treat yourself!) you will know that in My Humble But Accurate Opinion I believe our government (at the federal AND state levels) has spent us into a major hole. Cutting spending is a primary way of getting us out of that hole (see my "The Donkeys Have It!" article in particular). But that is only HALF of the equation.
Cutting spending is a must. There is no question there. But what are we doing about the income side of the equation? If THAT doesn't change we'll be doing the same thing again in five years. What thing? Read on.
Why, all of a sudden, are public employees in the crosshairs? Because the economy is in a major slump. Why is the economy in a major slump? Well, you can blame the banks and "evil" Wall Street, but for the root you have to go back to the politicians. (Oh J.P., there you go again with another rant on the evils of government! If the government was functioning as it was DESIGNED to function you would probably be reading more of my poetry here instead!) If it wasn't for the regulations imposed upon these establishments we wouldn't HAVE a housing crisis (for starters).
(I was listening to a podcast concerning the Japanese interment camps during WWII. Apparently, the President gave an Executive Order that created this non-Constitutional atrocity. Listen: EVERY time our government "leaders" do something that is outside the established limits set forth in our Constitution, we have "crisis". Maybe those powdered-wig wearing old guys knew what they were talking about when they wrote it.)
I have a question for our political "leaders": Since you are all so anxious to force public school teachers, and other public employees, to pay (more) into their health care plans and retirement programs, I want to know how much you are going to pay into your OWN? Leadership is from the top down. Our "public servants" have the best health care (our President made an outrageous statement that he had great health care) and retirement packages in the land. Far better than anyone in the private sector; including those "evil" CEOs they are so fond of. Many get retirement-for-life after only one term! You make grandiose speeches on how we as a nation need to sacrifice. Yet I don't hear you folks "biting the bullet". Maybe if we the people see sacrifices by those in office, we will be a little more open to making sacrifices ourselves.
(Why are teachers better than politicians? You CAN find at least ONE teacher that understands basic economics!)
Teachers are in a tough spot. Again, you couldn't pay me to do their job. I read an interesting article that made the comment that classroom size was a myth propagated by the teachers unions to hire more teachers. (I'm a fiscal conservative, but sometimes "conservative" commentators really get me riled with their ignorance!) The article referred to a statement by Governor Daniels of Indiana that class size was "virtually meaningless". I replied to the article (including a quote from the article [by Mona Charen]) as follows: "Gov. Daniels is wrong. Class size IS a critical factor in quality of education. 'As the Mackinac Center for Public Policy summarized, "(P)upil-teacher ratios have shrunk nationally for at least the last six decades, yet there have been no quantifiable improvements to student achievement nationally or in individual states.:"' does not factor much of the criteria. Six decades ago the biggest worry was chewing gum and talking in class. They didn't have metal detectors in schools. The percentage of children diagnosed with discipline/mental issues (like ADD) has grown significantly. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) baloney wasn't in effect. What teachers, especially in public schools, deal with today is COMPLETELY different than six decades ago. A disruptive class of 40 (or more) is much harder to teach than a not-so-disruptive class of 20. And no, I'm not a teacher. Just a person with a little sense."
So, let's over-regulate what the teachers can and cannot do in the classroom, make them have to follow all of the "guidelines" (read "laws") of NCLB (for starters), base everything on strict test results and complain of teachers only teaching to the test, and then expect them to be the "Mother Theresa" of the classroom or demand their punishment. Think of it this way: you hamstring your horse and expect it to win EVERY race!! Really??
What about charter and private schools? As I responded to that article: "One additional question: if class sizes don't matter so much, what are the class sizes in private and prep schools? All of the horn-honking of how much better an education a child can get there compared to public schools - are they bigger class sizes? If so, you have your argument. If not, you might better research your sources. What about teacher turnover? Charter schools have quite a bit of turnover in comparison. Is that because there are so many lousy teachers there that they keep getting rid of them (because of no unions)?" Some say that teachers leave private schools because they can't make a living there; much better opportunities in the public school arena. That may be true, but honestly, unless our government gets out of the education business you won't see much of a turnaround in our schools.
And when will these elite in office start to figure in the parent/society portion into the equation of a student's success in school? A teacher has a student approximately 45 minutes out of a day - in high school. The rest is in the hands of parents and outside-of-school influences. I've read where a broken home has more of an impact on test scores than hours of "study island".
But maybe if we accepted Jimmy has "two daddies" or "two mommies" they would be more adjusted and perform better in school. But I digress.
Our politicians should be sued for false advertising: they keep calling themselves leaders. You want to be called leaders? Then lead! Don't demand that others make sacrifices concerning their health care, pay, and pensions, without FIRST making sacrifices concerning your OWN health care, pay, and pensions! Before you demand that people like teachers, police, and firefighters take the heat for your fiscal incompetence, start showing us that you are willing to make cuts of your own. Lead by example. Don't just dictate and expect others to jump for joy.
Idiots.
In Ohio, there was so much controversy over a bill to remove collective bargaining rights from public workers that Senate President Tom Niehaus (a Republican) removed two GOP Senate committee members that were in disagreement so the bill could be voted on. That's right. A Republican abused power to stack the deck to get the vote he wanted accomplished. Funny. Isn't that what Republicans were complaining that Democrats like Pelosi and Reid were doing to get ObamaCare passed? I think that Republicans can now shut their mouths. Scum is not limited to only one bank of the river. Both sides are overflowing in slime!
One of the items being pushed in SB-5 (the Ohio Senate Bill concerning the public employee unions) is merit-based pay. Now, this has some . . . uh . . . merit, but we really need to look at this closely. I've already mentioned some of the things teachers have to put up with: NCLB, absent parents, troubled students, broken homes, and the inability to discipline for fear of being sued. These all have an impact on the ability of a teacher to teach a classroom full of students. Most things are out of their control. Does it really make sense that teachers have to "perform" under all of this, and get paid based on criteria set forth by politicians who send THEIR kids to private schools? How about merit-based pay for politicians? THAT wouldn't work; they'd owe US money!
Do adjustments need to be made? Of course. That's obvious. But let's not "punish" public employees (a major portion of the MIDDLE CLASS), who also are tax revenue generators, just to make political points.
Besides, isn't the focus supposed to be for the good of the children?
© Emittravel 2011
Disclaimer: I am married to a public school teacher, and yes, that has effected the views described in this column, but not for the reasons you are thinking. I am madly, passionately, and completely in love with my wife; not with her choice of career. I'm sure what she does has an effect on who she is, but who she is has a far greater impact on how she does what she does. Being married to her has exposed me to her career - beyond the "I remember my school teachers" and "they only work a few months out of the year and are overpaid in comparison" understanding I once held. It is not the love for my wife that changed this, but being immersed in her world. I have to tell you: after being with her for over six years, and seeing what she does, there is no amount of money in this world that would convince me to be a teacher. More on this to follow.
If you have turned on your TV lately, listened to the radio, or spent any time at an online news feed, you have had to hear about what is going on in Wisconsin, Indiana, and now Ohio, concerning public school teachers (and public employees in general) and their unions. The governors of these states (and I'm sure there are others going through the same, or will be soon) are desiring to get their states back in the black. Some are even focusing on "busting" the unions. The latter is not the focus of this article. If you have read any of my previous blog entries (No? Really? Hey, take a break and go back to the beginning and work your way here. Come on - treat yourself!) you will know that in My Humble But Accurate Opinion I believe our government (at the federal AND state levels) has spent us into a major hole. Cutting spending is a primary way of getting us out of that hole (see my "The Donkeys Have It!" article in particular). But that is only HALF of the equation.
Cutting spending is a must. There is no question there. But what are we doing about the income side of the equation? If THAT doesn't change we'll be doing the same thing again in five years. What thing? Read on.
Why, all of a sudden, are public employees in the crosshairs? Because the economy is in a major slump. Why is the economy in a major slump? Well, you can blame the banks and "evil" Wall Street, but for the root you have to go back to the politicians. (Oh J.P., there you go again with another rant on the evils of government! If the government was functioning as it was DESIGNED to function you would probably be reading more of my poetry here instead!) If it wasn't for the regulations imposed upon these establishments we wouldn't HAVE a housing crisis (for starters).
(I was listening to a podcast concerning the Japanese interment camps during WWII. Apparently, the President gave an Executive Order that created this non-Constitutional atrocity. Listen: EVERY time our government "leaders" do something that is outside the established limits set forth in our Constitution, we have "crisis". Maybe those powdered-wig wearing old guys knew what they were talking about when they wrote it.)
I have a question for our political "leaders": Since you are all so anxious to force public school teachers, and other public employees, to pay (more) into their health care plans and retirement programs, I want to know how much you are going to pay into your OWN? Leadership is from the top down. Our "public servants" have the best health care (our President made an outrageous statement that he had great health care) and retirement packages in the land. Far better than anyone in the private sector; including those "evil" CEOs they are so fond of. Many get retirement-for-life after only one term! You make grandiose speeches on how we as a nation need to sacrifice. Yet I don't hear you folks "biting the bullet". Maybe if we the people see sacrifices by those in office, we will be a little more open to making sacrifices ourselves.
(Why are teachers better than politicians? You CAN find at least ONE teacher that understands basic economics!)
Teachers are in a tough spot. Again, you couldn't pay me to do their job. I read an interesting article that made the comment that classroom size was a myth propagated by the teachers unions to hire more teachers. (I'm a fiscal conservative, but sometimes "conservative" commentators really get me riled with their ignorance!) The article referred to a statement by Governor Daniels of Indiana that class size was "virtually meaningless". I replied to the article (including a quote from the article [by Mona Charen]) as follows: "Gov. Daniels is wrong. Class size IS a critical factor in quality of education. 'As the Mackinac Center for Public Policy summarized, "(P)upil-teacher ratios have shrunk nationally for at least the last six decades, yet there have been no quantifiable improvements to student achievement nationally or in individual states.:"' does not factor much of the criteria. Six decades ago the biggest worry was chewing gum and talking in class. They didn't have metal detectors in schools. The percentage of children diagnosed with discipline/mental issues (like ADD) has grown significantly. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) baloney wasn't in effect. What teachers, especially in public schools, deal with today is COMPLETELY different than six decades ago. A disruptive class of 40 (or more) is much harder to teach than a not-so-disruptive class of 20. And no, I'm not a teacher. Just a person with a little sense."
So, let's over-regulate what the teachers can and cannot do in the classroom, make them have to follow all of the "guidelines" (read "laws") of NCLB (for starters), base everything on strict test results and complain of teachers only teaching to the test, and then expect them to be the "Mother Theresa" of the classroom or demand their punishment. Think of it this way: you hamstring your horse and expect it to win EVERY race!! Really??
What about charter and private schools? As I responded to that article: "One additional question: if class sizes don't matter so much, what are the class sizes in private and prep schools? All of the horn-honking of how much better an education a child can get there compared to public schools - are they bigger class sizes? If so, you have your argument. If not, you might better research your sources. What about teacher turnover? Charter schools have quite a bit of turnover in comparison. Is that because there are so many lousy teachers there that they keep getting rid of them (because of no unions)?" Some say that teachers leave private schools because they can't make a living there; much better opportunities in the public school arena. That may be true, but honestly, unless our government gets out of the education business you won't see much of a turnaround in our schools.
And when will these elite in office start to figure in the parent/society portion into the equation of a student's success in school? A teacher has a student approximately 45 minutes out of a day - in high school. The rest is in the hands of parents and outside-of-school influences. I've read where a broken home has more of an impact on test scores than hours of "study island".
But maybe if we accepted Jimmy has "two daddies" or "two mommies" they would be more adjusted and perform better in school. But I digress.
Our politicians should be sued for false advertising: they keep calling themselves leaders. You want to be called leaders? Then lead! Don't demand that others make sacrifices concerning their health care, pay, and pensions, without FIRST making sacrifices concerning your OWN health care, pay, and pensions! Before you demand that people like teachers, police, and firefighters take the heat for your fiscal incompetence, start showing us that you are willing to make cuts of your own. Lead by example. Don't just dictate and expect others to jump for joy.
Idiots.
In Ohio, there was so much controversy over a bill to remove collective bargaining rights from public workers that Senate President Tom Niehaus (a Republican) removed two GOP Senate committee members that were in disagreement so the bill could be voted on. That's right. A Republican abused power to stack the deck to get the vote he wanted accomplished. Funny. Isn't that what Republicans were complaining that Democrats like Pelosi and Reid were doing to get ObamaCare passed? I think that Republicans can now shut their mouths. Scum is not limited to only one bank of the river. Both sides are overflowing in slime!
One of the items being pushed in SB-5 (the Ohio Senate Bill concerning the public employee unions) is merit-based pay. Now, this has some . . . uh . . . merit, but we really need to look at this closely. I've already mentioned some of the things teachers have to put up with: NCLB, absent parents, troubled students, broken homes, and the inability to discipline for fear of being sued. These all have an impact on the ability of a teacher to teach a classroom full of students. Most things are out of their control. Does it really make sense that teachers have to "perform" under all of this, and get paid based on criteria set forth by politicians who send THEIR kids to private schools? How about merit-based pay for politicians? THAT wouldn't work; they'd owe US money!
Do adjustments need to be made? Of course. That's obvious. But let's not "punish" public employees (a major portion of the MIDDLE CLASS), who also are tax revenue generators, just to make political points.
Besides, isn't the focus supposed to be for the good of the children?
© Emittravel 2011
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Taxing into Oblivion - Is That Even Possible?
It is funny to me that the environmentalists have been screaming that we need to find alternative sources of energy and that we need to cut back our energy use drastically, due to the limited amount of oil in the earth, but politicians believe that there is an endless supply of tax dollars to be had, and they think they need to spend more so that we don't run out.
Just let that (incredibly long sentence above) soak in for a minute. I guess that goes to prove that opposites do indeed attract; environmentalists and big-government politicians do seem to spend a lot of time together . . .
Now I do not consider myself an environmentalist. Heck, the way the city I live in got me to recycle was by a monetary incentive: the city pays (we pay via our tax dollars) for trash pickup by the pound - the company that picks up our recyclables does not charge the city, for they make their money in the processing and selling of said recycled materials - for every pound we recycle we save tax dollars - incentive!! But I do believe we are called to be good stewards (managers) of what we have.
In MHBAO, fossil fuels ARE limited and we will EVENTUALLY run out - but not tomorrow. So, we SHOULD be looking at alternative energy sources, but without panic and ESPECIALLY without government mandates. And I also believe, and common logic verifies this, that eventually the feeding of government will exceed the sources of food (taxes).
During the last presidential election, the definition of what was considered "rich" was questioned. If the money to pay for everything was to only be taken from the rich, what, exactly, would make a person fall into that category? Would $500k? Or $250k? Maybe it was $150k? How about $100k? Is that combined income for couples, or is that for singles? And is that amount adjusted for inflation? But hey, as long as I make less (and resign myself to NEVER making more) they can punish those "evil" rich.
Just a quick look at Social inSecurity would tell you that the government is incapable of keeping their word on anything. Social inSecurity was designed for a tiny percentage of the population, and was to be paid for by a tiny percentage of the population - the most wealthy (a.k.a the "evil rich"). Today I'm not considered part of the "evil rich", according to the gyrations of the oh-so-wise-and-benevolent politicians, but when I look at my pay stub I see quite a large amount being taken for Social inSecurity. So, what am I?
Oh, and let's not forget that the "trust" fund that originally held the money put in, so that there was something to draw from upon retirement, has been sucked dry already. That's right folks, nothing but I.O.U.s. (Quick lesson: there is NO such thing as being taxed and having that money going ONLY for a certain purpose - it is all just one big pie to the politicians.) You and I are paying for those currently receiving it. Think about the effect unemployment has on that!
Before you think I'm just meandering in this blog article, I do have a point to make. The money for all of these "necessary" bailouts, stimulus, and other programs, is supposed to be coming from those "evil rich". We are told that is one of the reasons for eliminating those "evil" Bush tax cuts. But like Social inSecurity, what happens when that oil well runs dry? They start drilling in YOUR wallet. At one point, and we are darn close to it now, there will be more spending taking place than revenue sources.
The solution is simple: you can only raise taxes so much (before you cripple the economy and cause a major collapse). Politicians need to do the unpopular and cut spending. I know, I know - that is political suicide! After all, isn't that what they were elected to do? Spend your money better than you can? They say that if you rob Peter to pay Paul you are guaranteed Paul's vote. What happens when you run out of Peters? Will they decide we've spent enough at that point?
There is an old proverb: When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall.
©Emittravel 2010
Just let that (incredibly long sentence above) soak in for a minute. I guess that goes to prove that opposites do indeed attract; environmentalists and big-government politicians do seem to spend a lot of time together . . .
Now I do not consider myself an environmentalist. Heck, the way the city I live in got me to recycle was by a monetary incentive: the city pays (we pay via our tax dollars) for trash pickup by the pound - the company that picks up our recyclables does not charge the city, for they make their money in the processing and selling of said recycled materials - for every pound we recycle we save tax dollars - incentive!! But I do believe we are called to be good stewards (managers) of what we have.
 |
| (willing to save a buck!) |
In MHBAO, fossil fuels ARE limited and we will EVENTUALLY run out - but not tomorrow. So, we SHOULD be looking at alternative energy sources, but without panic and ESPECIALLY without government mandates. And I also believe, and common logic verifies this, that eventually the feeding of government will exceed the sources of food (taxes).
During the last presidential election, the definition of what was considered "rich" was questioned. If the money to pay for everything was to only be taken from the rich, what, exactly, would make a person fall into that category? Would $500k? Or $250k? Maybe it was $150k? How about $100k? Is that combined income for couples, or is that for singles? And is that amount adjusted for inflation? But hey, as long as I make less (and resign myself to NEVER making more) they can punish those "evil" rich.
 |
| (the truly "evil rich" - who are exempted from most of what they dish out) |
Oh, and let's not forget that the "trust" fund that originally held the money put in, so that there was something to draw from upon retirement, has been sucked dry already. That's right folks, nothing but I.O.U.s. (Quick lesson: there is NO such thing as being taxed and having that money going ONLY for a certain purpose - it is all just one big pie to the politicians.) You and I are paying for those currently receiving it. Think about the effect unemployment has on that!
Before you think I'm just meandering in this blog article, I do have a point to make. The money for all of these "necessary" bailouts, stimulus, and other programs, is supposed to be coming from those "evil rich". We are told that is one of the reasons for eliminating those "evil" Bush tax cuts. But like Social inSecurity, what happens when that oil well runs dry? They start drilling in YOUR wallet. At one point, and we are darn close to it now, there will be more spending taking place than revenue sources.
The solution is simple: you can only raise taxes so much (before you cripple the economy and cause a major collapse). Politicians need to do the unpopular and cut spending. I know, I know - that is political suicide! After all, isn't that what they were elected to do? Spend your money better than you can? They say that if you rob Peter to pay Paul you are guaranteed Paul's vote. What happens when you run out of Peters? Will they decide we've spent enough at that point?
There is an old proverb: When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall.
©Emittravel 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)