If you were to run for office...

[Caveman_Nick]

everybody says "i'd balance the budget by doing an audit and eliminating the waste".  sure is easy to say, but it's mostly hot air.  i don't take it seriously unless they point to specific things they think the government should spend less money on.  personally, i think you have to start with SS and medicare.  that and defense are where the vast bulk of the money goes, and the world is too f'ed up right now to be cutting defense spending.  SS should be means-tested, the retirement age should be raised, private investment accounts should be created, and medicare benefits should be scaled back. 

 

education is a tough issue federally, because i believe the federal education bureaucracy is more a aprt of the problem than part of the solution.  the power with respect to education needs to be local.  i am (reluctantly) in favor of some federal funding for education, but only in order to help poorer districts have enough money to operate.

 

1316237[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Just MHO on a couple of things...

 

You and I can't effectively identify the spots where money is being wasted. I think an auditing system is necessary, but I also think that strategic analysis of audited budgets is the next step that most people miss. All an audit will do is make sure that the money is spent in the fashion it was reported. Streamlining needs to be followed through.

 

Education on a federal level is not so tough. Establish federal standards in certain areas and federal budgets to meet those needs. Put the money directly in the hands of the educational system and make it accountable for meeting the standards of receiving that money.

 

And what type of things am I talking about? How about nutritious food and a safe environment for all the kinds in school so that they don't have to worry about basic survival needs. Good, hot, nutritious food will get a lot of unfortunate kids wanting to go to school. And while they are there maybe they will learn a thing or 2.

[Perchoutofwater]

Here's more than three:

 

1)  Vouchers for education through college--vouchers will be of the same value for all students of the same level of schooling.

 

2)  Campaign finance reform (make campaigns be publically funded and ban most, if not all, private contributions to public officials) 

 

3)  Guaranteed minimum-wage jobs to anyone who wants to work.  All welfare payments to non-disabled persons who choose not to work are ended.  (& making false claims of disability by both doctors and patients criminal (i.e. punishable by jail sentences))

 

4)  Manhattan Project type plan for alternative energy.

 

5)  Decriminalization of Josh Gordon (I've never smoked it, but it makes no sense to put people into jail for it.)

 

6)  Increased funding for basic science research.

 

7)  Increase the severity of punishment (along with increased money for enforcement) for white-collar crimes.

 

8)  Increase the severity of punishment (along with increased money for enforcement) for violent crimes.

 

9)  Rewrite eminant domain laws to prevent property from taken from one private owner and given to another private owner.

1316344[/snapback]

 

The only one I have a problem with is #6. For the most part I think private industry can handle this. If anything, let the government start making little X prizes as incentives or something.

[Azazello1313]

Just MHO on a couple of things...

 

You and I can't effectively identify the spots where money is being wasted.  I think an auditing system is necessary, but I also think that strategic analysis of audited budgets is the next step that most people miss.  All an audit will do is make sure that the money is spent in the fashion it was reported.  Streamlining needs to be followed through.

1316364[/snapback]

 

like i said, it's easy to say audit, streamline, blah blah blah. politicians who say it get elected and do nothing, because it's just hot air. even if thoroughly carried out it wouldn't do much. it's essentially a cop-out answer is what i'm saying. if you really want to cut spending, you have to identify specific things we spend money on that should NOT be priorities. and not piddly things like arts endowment. really it comes down to two things....cut defense, or cut the big entitlements (SS/medicare/medicaid). you can "audit" and "streamline" and "cut waste" all f'n day long, but if you fail to fundamentally address one of those two areas you really ain't done chit. or you can do like bush is doing with his most recent budget, and put a little bit of a squeeze on pretty much every federal agency (except the pentagon). that can result in some minor short term savings against the deficit, but it's sort of a duct tape solution. ultimately, like i said, if you're really concerned about reigning in spending you have to fundamentally address our prioroties when it comes to the things we spend all the money on (defense and SS).

[wiegie]

well, there are major constitutional issues with the first two.  in any case, many of these are probably good ideas, but it's worth noting that they ALL (with the possible exception of 9 and 5, but arguably even those) increase the size, scope and power of the federal government.

1316363[/snapback]

I understand that there is a constitutional issue with #2--it might be worth changing the constitution (I am seriously concerned that special interest groups might be hurting our country to such a degree that this change might be warranted)

 

As for #1, there is no constitutional issue if you mandate that religious doctrine not be taught at the schools. You will just get secular private schools being created. While it is almost certainly clear that such a program will help give our students a better education (thereby increasing their human capital and productivity), another significant benefit of the program is that it levels the playing field for citizens--which enhances people's support of free-markets since it makes outcomes more deterministic on factors that people can control rather than on the luck of birth and fortune.

 

It is true that some of the programs might increase the size of the government, they are also intended to make the government programs run more efficiently (such as the campaign-finance reforms, the welfare-reform changes, & the school-choice changes), the crime provisions (#'s 7 & 8) are designed to make markets work better.

 

Items #4 & #6 are national defense related--and the externalities of such programs could make the provision of these items more efficient than the free-market could create on its own.

[wiegie]

The only one I have a problem with is #6.  For the most part I think private industry can handle this.  If anything, let the government start making little X prizes as incentives or something.

1316368[/snapback]

I wouldn't be opposed to those type of awards (in a thread a long time ago I actually advocated for such a type of prize with regards to the development of a source of alternative energy).

[Duchess Jack]

I am very surprised with who all is agreeing with each other here.

 

It gives hope.

[Perchoutofwater]

As for #1, there is no constitutional issue if you mandate that religious doctrine not be taught at the schools.  You will just get secular private schools being created.  While it is almost certainly clear that such a program will help give our students a better education (thereby increasing their human capital and productivity), another significant benefit of the program is that it levels the playing field for citizens--which enhances people's support of free-markets since it makes outcomes more deterministic on factors that people can control rather than on the luck of birth and fortune.

1316402[/snapback]

 

Someone who knows more law than I correct me if I'm wrong. With the vouchers couldn't parents who wanted to send their children to say catholic school send them there? Because the govenment is giving the voucher to the parents and the parents are in turn supporting a religion? I know that I probably could have worded that better but I think you get my point.

[Azazello1313]

I understand that there is a constitutional issue with #2--it might be worth changing the constitution (I am seriously concerned that special interest groups might be hurting our country to such a degree that this change might be warranted)

1316402[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

so you wanna burn up the first amendment so that the government can totally dictate which political candidates can run for office for which parties and what they can say? man, i couldn't disagree more. there are so many better ways to reduce the influence of lobbyists in washington without throwing out vital constitutional political liberties.

[Duchess Jack]

Someone who knows more law than I correct me if I'm wrong.  With the vouchers couldn't parents who wanted to send their children to say catholic school send them there?  Because the govenment is giving the voucher to the parents and the parents are in turn supporting a religion?  I know that I probably could have worded that better but I think you get my point.

 

1316417[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I have a problem with vouchers taking money out of public schools - but if they are allowed, a Catholic school bugs me no less than any other private school. Heck - they could go to a Muslim school for all I care......((who am I kidding))

[Caveman_Nick]

like i said, it's easy to say audit, streamline, blah blah blah.  politicians who say it get elected and do nothing, because it's just hot air.  even if thoroughly carried out it wouldn't do much.  it's essentially a cop-out answer is what i'm saying.  if you really want to cut spending, you have to identify specific things we spend money on that should NOT be priorities.  and not piddly things like arts endowment.  really it comes down to two things....cut defense, or cut the big entitlements (SS/medicare/medicaid).  you can "audit" and "streamline" and "cut waste" all f'n day long, but if you fail to fundamentally address one of those two areas you really ain't done chit.  or you can do like bush is doing with his most recent budget, and put a little bit of a squeeze on pretty much every federal agency (except the pentagon).  that can result in some minor short term savings against the deficit, but it's sort of a duct tape solution.  ultimately, like i said, if you're really concerned about reigning in spending you have to fundamentally address our prioroties when it comes to the things we spend all the money on (defense and SS).

1316393[/snapback]

 

 

I am not saying I don't agree that where we spend money needs to be addressed, but I think you seriously underestimate the amount of bloat that runs around in government if you think major budgetary savings can;t be accomplished through auditing and streamlining. Mit Romney has been doing this in MA for his entire term, and has been doing a good job of it. It's one of the reasons I support him as a presidential candidate.

[Perchoutofwater]

I have a problem with vouchers taking money out of public schools - but if they are allowed, a Catholic school bugs me no less than any other private school.  Heck - they could go to a Muslim school for all I care......((who am I kidding))

1316503[/snapback]

 

I think that the idea that wiegie and I both were suggesting was doing away with public schools as they are clearly broken. I may be speaking out of turn with regard to weigie, but that at least is how I feel, and my wife is a public school teacher. I can see possibly having public schools for troubled kids that the private schools kick out, kind of one step away from juvenile detention, and for mentally chanlenged kids, but that is about it.

[Perchoutofwater]

One thing that would be nice it to eliminate all ear marks. That would cut down on a lot of government spending on frivilious crap.

[Bengal Mania]

As for #1, there is no constitutional issue if you mandate that religious doctrine not be taught at the schools.  You will just get secular private schools being created.  While it is almost certainly clear that such a program will help give our students a better education (thereby increasing their human capital and productivity), another significant benefit of the program is that it levels the playing field for citizens--which enhances people's support of free-markets since it makes outcomes more deterministic on factors that people can control rather than on the luck of birth and fortune.

1316402[/snapback]

 

so you wanna tell Catholic parents who pay taxes that they can't use their vouchers to send their kids to Catholic School?

 

Isn't the whole idea of the voucher system to let parent's, essentially, have their money back to do what they want to give their kids the best education? In many cases, that best education is in fact at the Catholic schools (somebody smarter than me find the studies that compare college prep high school scores between Catholic and public high schools)

 

I think you paranoids out there are taking separation of church and state a little far. Letting a parent use a voucher to pick their school, even a catholic school, is not ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION!!! Hello, is this thing on?

 

Can a government employee donate money to his church? Is it his money or government money?

 

It amazes me how scared some of you are of people who practice religion.

[DKF]

Strong businesses rape the treasury and screw "the mythical little guy."

 

1316246[/snapback]

 

 

 

Absolutely. That is why we have a system of checks and balances. The House represents the teeming masses, while the Senate provides stability and a sound business climate. Both are made to balance out each other.

[Perchoutofwater]

Isn't the whole idea of the voucher system to let parent's, essentially, have their money back to do what they want to give their kids the best education?  In many cases, that best education is in fact at the Catholic schools (somebody smarter than me find the studies that compare college prep high school scores between Catholic and public high schools)

1316556[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I posted several links a while back that showed that private schools blow public schools out of the water. I actually agree with you and your stance here, however there is one variable in the equation you are forgetting. If some one is sending their kids to private school, they normally care more about their childrens education than those that send them to public schools. So they are more involved in their childrens education. By doing this they help place a higher value on education in their children. So it is not as easy as just comparing the test scores of the two.

[Bengal Mania]

I posted several links a while back that showed that private schools blow public schools out of the water.  I actually agree with you and your stance here, however there is one variable in the equation you are forgetting.  If some one is sending their kids to private school, they normally care more about their childrens education than those that send them to public schools.  So they are more involved in their childrens education.  By doing this they help place a higher value on education in their children.  So it is not as easy as just comparing the test scores of the two.

 

1316590[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

agree 100%. This issue isn't really "religion" related.

 

I'm merely saying that a caring parent who would like to give their child the best opportunity ought not be limited because that opportunity is also a school where "religious doctrine" is taught.

 

You know what else is taught at Catholic Schools? Caring for the poor, helping the elderly, loving your neighbor, etc. My god, it's Nazi Germany!

[Perchoutofwater]

agree 100%.  This issue isn't really "religion" related.

 

I'm merely saying that a caring parent who would like to give their child the best opportunity ought not be limited because that opportunity is also a school where "religious doctrine" is taught.

 

You know what else is taught at Catholic Schools?  Caring for the poor, helping the elderly, loving your neighbor, etc.  My god, it's Nazi Germany!

 

1316627[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree with you, and I live in a location that has two religious schools and two secular private schools. If I were going to send my kids to one of them it would be the Catholic school and we are not even Catholic. Luckily since my wife teaches in the district where my kids go, she gets to litterally pick who thier teachers are going to be. And so all of my oldest's teachers have been great. My youngest doesn't start until next year. Howver if the district continues to go down hill I might be sending them to private school once the get to middle school or high school age. Primarily for the safety factor.

[wiegie]

Someone who knows more law than I correct me if I'm wrong.  With the vouchers couldn't parents who wanted to send their children to say catholic school send them there?  Because the govenment is giving the voucher to the parents and the parents are in turn supporting a religion?  I know that I probably could have worded that better but I think you get my point.

 

1316417[/snapback]

 

 

 

You could easily stipulate that the vouchers could not be used at any school that taught any form of religious indoctrination. (Basically make the schools follow the same rules that public schools already follow.)

[Bengal Mania]

You could easily stipulate that the vouchers could not be used at any school that taught any form of religious indoctrination.  (Basically make the schools follow the same rules that public schools already follow.)

 

1316674[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That would be BS.

 

Following the same rules as our worthless public schools is PRECISELY the opposite of what we should do.

[Perchoutofwater]

You could easily stipulate that the vouchers could not be used at any school that taught any form of religious indoctrination.  (Basically make the schools follow the same rules that public schools already follow.)

 

1316674[/snapback]

 

 

 

Couldn't you argue the voucher is similar to a tax refund and that the parents can use it on any type of education they feel is best for their children. In a way once the voucher is given the government is one step removed, like right now once the taxes are paid the tax payer is one step removed.

[wiegie]

so you wanna tell Catholic parents who pay taxes that they can't use their vouchers to send their kids to Catholic School?[

How would that be any different than what we are already doing.

 

Isn't the whole idea of the voucher system to let parent's, essentially, have their money back to do what they want to give their kids the best education?  In many cases, that best education is in fact at the Catholic schools (somebody smarter than me find the studies that compare college prep high school scores between Catholic and public high schools)

 

I think you paranoids out there are taking separation of church and state a little far.  Letting a parent use a voucher to pick their school, even a catholic school, is not ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION!!!  Hello, is this thing on?

 

Can a government employee donate money to his church?  Is it his money or government money?

 

It amazes me how scared some of you are of people who practice religion.

 

1316556[/snapback]

 

 

 

first off--I am a product of Catholic schools and my mom teaches at one (and has for more than 30 years). If the courts have said that state funding can't go to religious schools then that is the way that it is. You might not like it, but it does not mean that a voucher system won't create a better school system than what is already in place now. Edited February 9, 2006 by wiegie

[wiegie]

so you wanna burn up the first amendment so that the government can totally dictate which political candidates can run for office for which parties and what they can say?  man, i couldn't disagree more.  there are so many better ways to reduce the influence of lobbyists in washington without throwing out vital constitutional political liberties.

 

1316445[/snapback]

 

 

 

I'm all ears--let me hear them. (seriously)

[Bengal Mania]

Couldn't you argue the voucher is similar to a tax refund and that the parents can use it on any type of education they feel is best for their children. In a way once the voucher is given the government is one step removed, like right now once the taxes are paid the tax payer is one step removed.

 

1316678[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You religious fanatic, you!

 

Government one step removed, blasphemy. (Oops, that was a religious term wasn't it). What is the scientific equivalent (and non-religeous-indoctrinating) term for "blasphemy"?

[Perchoutofwater]

What is the scientific equivalent (and non-religeous-indoctrinating) term for "blasphemy"?

 

1316684[/snapback]

 

 

 

Liberal

[Bengal Mania]

How would that be any different than what we are already doing.

 

first off--I am a product of Catholic schools and my mom teaches at one (and has for more than 30 years).  If the courts have said that state funding can't go to religious schools then that is the way that it is.  I does not mean that a voucher system won't create a better school system than what is already in place now.

 

1316681[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I like what Perch said, consider it like a tax refund to be used however you see fit.

 

I can't believe anyone feels that using one for a catholic schoold would somehow be unconstitutional on the basis of "separation of Church and State".

 

You went to a Catholic school, and yet you have posted many times in these forums with thoughts/ideas that would not correlate with your religeous indoctrination. Maybe the good nuns need to throw you back in the pot for some more Jesus-learning.