Budget Deficit Would Turn To Surplus In 2 Years Without Dubya's Tax Cuts

[Nbadan]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d68/lefty48197/BudgetdeficitgraphandBushtaxcutresu.jpg


The Congressional Budget Office has projected that if Bush's tax cuts for his rich friends expire in 2010 as per current law, then the federal budget will return to surplus only two years later, in 2012.

"...if those tax cuts are allowed to expire after 2010... ...the budget would begin showing a surplus in 2012, the CBO's budget projections showed.

"Bush wants Congress to make the tax cuts permanent before he leaves office in 2009."

"In its annual budget and economic report, the agency estimated that this year's deficit will be $337 billion, up $19 billion from 2005. It said the deficit will be about $360 billion if extra anticipated costs for Iraq, Afghanistan and the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast are added."

"The long-term budget forecast is gloomier, particularly if Bush and Congress agree to extend the tax cuts. In 2016, the deficit would be nearly $400 billion..."

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060127/a_deficit27.art.htm)

New forecasts issued by the Congressional Budget Office confirm that if the tax cuts and Alternative Minimum Tax relief are extended, the nation faces large and growing deficits over the next ten years, with total deficits of between $3.5 and $4 trillion over that period.

[Peter]

Heard you the first time, chief.

[Nbadan]

Heard you the first time, chief.

It's not like this news is from a leftist, propaganda website, unless of course, the CBO has been inflitrated by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.

[Peter]

I don't really care who it came from. It's quite obvious that you could deal with deficits by reducing spending growth.

[2centsworth]

tax cuts raise tax receipts (after a little tricky accounting)
you're dumb.

[2centsworth]

It's not like this news is from a leftist, propaganda website, unless of course, the CBO has been inflitrated by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.it's stupid and faulty logic. the tax cuts are the reason the economy is growing so they are assuming higher tax rates on the a higher tax base that's attributed to the tax cuts. Increasing taxes will slow growth substantially, so higher tax rates will be applied to a shrinking base. If youR brain can't work around this concept study what decreasing capital gains tax rate under Clinton did to the collection of capital gains.

[Yonivore]

tax cuts raise tax receipts (after a little tricky accounting)
No, no tricky math. Cutting taxes increases capital investment, wages, discretionary income spent on consumer goods, etc...

Reducing the tax rate and cutting taxes actually raises tax receipts (to a point) because you broaden the tax base paying at the lower rate.

[Nbadan]

I don't really care who it came from. It's quite obvious that you could deal with deficits by reducing spending growth.

So your for across the board cuts? Cuts in defense spending? Who else you gonna squeeze?

[Nbadan]

it's stupid and faulty logic. the tax cuts are the reason the economy is growing so they are assuming higher tax rates on the a higher tax base that's attributed to the tax cuts. Increasing taxes will slow growth substantially, so higher tax rates will be applied to a shrinking base. If youR brain can't work around this concept study what decreasing capital gains tax rate under Clinton did to the collection of capital gains.

Reread what I posted Sherlock. The projections by the CBO take into consideration some expected growth in the economy, and even with a larger tax base, the numbers still don't add up. Wrap your mind around that for a second.

[2centsworth]

Reread what I posted Sherlock. The projections by the CBO take into consideration some expected growth in the economy, and even with a larger tax base, the numbers still don't add up. Wrap your mind around that for a second.
There will be no growth if rates are raised. That is not in those numbers.

[boutons_]

With taxe rates (on the rich) much high than now over the past 50 years, increase in wealth and size of US economy has been fantastic.

[smeagol]

The question is how much longer will America live on borrowed money.

[Nbadan]

The question is how much longer will America live on borrowed money.

Excellent question. Watch the valuation of the dollar over the next year, and you'll get your answer.

[Nbadan]

With taxe rates (on the rich) much high than now over the past 50 years, increase in wealth and size of US economy has been fantastic.

That's true. Clinton actually raised taxes and the economy still grew, the Stock Market trived on news that our nation's debt oligation wasn't being over-looked by the politicians, then in Big Dog's second term with a $1+ trillion projected surplus in our future debt oligations, he lowered taxes.

[101A]

The tax cuts are not only for the rich.

I received quite a bit of relief. My taxes went from about 18.5 K to 16.2 for equivalent income years.

I am not rich. $1,500 of the savings came from the child tax credit (I have 3).

You want the government to waste more of your money? Go ahead and give it to them. I'll keep as much of mine as I can, thank you.

[2centsworth]

That's true. Clinton actually raised taxes and the economy still grew, the Stock Market trived on news that our nation's debt oligation wasn't being over-looked by the politicians, then in Big Dog's second term with a $1+ trillion projected surplus in our future debt oligations, he lowered taxes.
The stock market explosion started with Reagan when he dramatically reduced income taxes. It continued through the Clinton Administration because of relative peace and the Internet Bubble. Also, Clinton reducing capital gains taxes didn't hurt much either.

[2centsworth]

That's true. Clinton actually raised taxes and the economy still grew, the Stock Market trived on news that our nation's debt oligation wasn't being over-looked by the politicians, then in Big Dog's second term with a $1+ trillion projected surplus in our future debt oligations, he lowered taxes.
you talking about the contract with america?

[Peter]

Since there would obviously be no economic impact from mammoth tax increases and since we apparently are past the point of even hoping for a slowdown in the rate of spending growth, let's jack those rates up.

It's amazing how partisanship makes people stupid.

[Peter]

The question is how much longer will America live on borrowed money.

A way to look at it is, America is offshoring lower margin business activities and specializing in the higher margin ones. The US remains a good investment due to this. The problems, of course, lie in a shitty government dominated K-12 educational system which fails to prepare students to take advantage of the US' move up the value chain. If Phyiuck Yiu in China wants to work in a factory for 10 cents an hour making shoes so that Americans can pay less for footwear, well, is that a blessing or a curse? Depends on whether or not you're a member of a Shoemakers Local in the States.

The problem as I see it is not that employment in the US is ever increasingly moving to IP, it's that students are ill-prepared to deal for that reality. The mode of thinking in this country in government and education is based on an industrial style economy and not an IP one. We buy plenty of shit from around the world where it is cheap to make it, something which I think is great, but then we have to buy highly skilled workers from abroad because we can't fill those roles in our economy.

The education deficit in this country is much more dangerous to its future than the trade or budget ones.

[Nbadan]

Since there would obviously be no economic impact from mammoth tax increases and since we apparently are past the point of even hoping for a slowdown in the rate of spending growth, let's jack those rates up.

It's amazing how partisanship makes people stupid.

The point is that consistant growth occurred in the economy under Clinton even though his tax rates were higher, help despelling the Republican myth that higher tax rates will necessarily lead to slower growth. You wanna see real growth in the Stock Market and the economy, raising tax rates will tell foreign investors financing our debt that we are serious about dealing with that debt and this should lead to lower interest rates for average consumers.

[Nbadan]

A way to look at it is, America is offshoring lower margin business activities and specializing in the higher margin ones. The US remains a good investment due to this. The problems, of course, lie in a shitty government dominated K-12 educational system which fails to prepare students to take advantage of the US' move up the value chain. If Phyiuck Yiu in China wants to work in a factory for 10 cents an hour making shoes so that Americans can pay less for footwear, well, is that a blessing or a curse? Depends on whether or not you're a member of a Shoemakers Local in the States.

Foreign lobbyist and Multinational Corporations have funneled big bucks into the American political system for the right to take your high-paying job, white-collar and blue-collar, to India, China, and Indonesia. Just yesterday, the Dell corporation announced that they were hiring 5,000 more employees - all in India. American schools in Texas and other southern states may be suffering from years of Republican neglect and malficance, but we are still as a whole the highest-educated and most productive population in the world. However, when a company can pay a person in India or bring them here to work for $5 per hour to answer a phone and work those "IP" jobs, versus the $8-$20 it takes to pay a comparable American, guess which employee the company is going to hire?

[Peter]

Predictable hollow partisan response. No solution, no plan, no nothing.

It's not about students receiving an education to be able to take customer service calls. That's not at all what I was referring to.

[Juice]

I think Dan's plan on education is laid out very well in Wesley Clark's speech today. More money on Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering, and Early Childhood Education. Partnerships in education between parents and teachers. Accountability of teachers to parents of students and not to standardized tests. No school vouchers.

[Peter]

Clark's speech wasn't cited in this thread. Anyways, more money to whom? Throwing more $ into the same shitty system will yield the same shitty results. Standardized tests came on the scene because teachers weren't accountable to parents. The system is fucked up. When we want something done right, we don't give the government a monopoly on it.

[gtownspur]

Becuase more money thrown at public schools is a proven winner as compared to a private education,...right....

[Nbadan]

The education system is dysfunctional because Judges have taken control of the classrooms away from teachers, Principals and local school boards, where it belongs, and have given it to Parents, Administrative desk-jockies, and standardized tests. Teachers must watch their step carefully when dealing with disciplinary problems and are less-free to 'ad-lib' situational learning. If a parent wants more for their kids than a public education can afford to offer, there are alternative schools for those kids to attend, or they can home-school - so the public school system is far from a monopoly.

[Nbadan]

Becuase more money thrown at public schools is a proven winner as compared to a private education,...right....

Show me a country anywhere on the planet that has a private education system which is better than the public education system.

[Peter]

The education system is dysfunctional because Judges have taken control of the classrooms away from teachers, Principals and local school boards, where it belongs, and have given it to Parents, Administrative desk-jockies, and standardized tests.


Nope. It's dysfunctional because politicians have never been willing to take on the institutional inertia against change in the system.

Why is it naturally assumed that every teacher is doing a wonderful job? Why is attempting to evaluate their performance a bad thing? It's odd how it's a bad thing to make an attempt to have a system in which teachers are accountable for their performance. These are our kids, right? Who cares if some bad teachers and administrators actually are held to account?





Teachers must watch their step carefully when dealing with disciplinary problems and are less-free to 'ad-lib' situational learning. If a parent wants more for their kids than a public education can afford to offer, there are alternative schools for those kids to attend, or they can home-school - so the public school system is far from a monopoly.

Those aren't viable competitive alternatives. I didn't say it was a perfect monopoly, but it effectively is in this country. It's also the worst kind of monopoly, the one imposed by law.

[Peter]

Show me a country anywhere on the planet that has a private education system which is better than the public education system.

Look at university education in this nation. It's a mixed system, but ask yourself why it is that the US is full of world class universities and dogshit high schools.

[Yonivore]

Look at university education in this nation. It's a mixed system, but ask yourself why it is that the US is full of world class universities and dogshit high schools.
I was getting ready to say, the private education system in THIS country is better than the public education sytem.

[2centsworth]

The point is that consistant growth occurred in the economy under Clinton even though his tax rates were higher, help despelling the Republican myth that higher tax rates will necessarily lead to slower growth. You wanna see real growth in the Stock Market and the economy, raising tax rates will tell foreign investors financing our debt that we are serious about dealing with that debt and this should lead to lower interest rates for average consumers.

Clinton Raised taxes early in his presidency and it slowed the recovery from the '91 recession. In fact, in '93 we had a double dip in the market because of those increases. It wasn't until Clinton's hand was forced to Cut Capital Gains taxes that the Stock Market and Economy took off.
Long Term Rates were reduced from 28% to 10% and the esclusion for homes was increased from $150k home equity to $1mm w/o having to reinvest in aa home so much of that money found it's way into to the private sector and Stock market. Huge amounts of capital went into the stock market because of those cuts alone. Overall, the boom didn't start until Reagan Cut Marginal Tax Rates and then slowed early in Clinton's administration with an explosion at the end. Compare that to how the country fell apart economically under Carter and his 90%, yes 90% marginal tax rates.

[RandomGuy]

I don't really care who it came from. It's quite obvious that you could deal with deficits by reducing spending growth.


Yeah, just cut out the Iraq funding and the department of homeland security....

I would also point out that "spending growth" will be hard to contain when one has to make interest payments on all that new debt AND the trillions of old debt already out there.

[RandomGuy]

IRT to elpimpo's quote "tax cuts raise revenues"

you're dumb.


Dude this was a joke. Elpimpo does that a lot, and is quite good at it, heh.

[boutons_]

"private education system in THIS country is better than the public education sytem."

There is no such thing as a private education "system", only private, independent educational institutions.

Of course, if the US's best private universities, world-class, cost $30K - $50K per student, with well-paid professors, highly selective of only the best students, then you expect to get results, and we do.

( Compare with expenses for prisoners who cost $20K - $30K /year. )

When "citizens" refuse to pay sufficient taxes for public schools and pay pubic K-12 teachers peanuts, you get monkeys. garbage in, garbage out. We spend more for a prisoner-year than for a public-student-year.

I suppose the right-wing idealogues who deny health care safety nets to the poor because "health care" isn't a "right" would also like to destroy public schools on the idealogy that education isn't a "right". You would get education and health care only if you're rich enough to buy them.

[RandomGuy]

No, no tricky math. Cutting taxes increases capital investment, wages, discretionary income spent on consumer goods, etc...

Reducing the tax rate and cutting taxes actually raises tax receipts (to a point) because you broaden the tax base paying at the lower rate.

Actually there has been some pretty credible number crunching that has debunked the "tax cuts raise enough revenues to pay for them" myth.

Simply put:
Increaseing borrowing to pay for tax cuts does not make financial sense. The amount that the economy grows is not large enough to pay for the increased debt payments through greater revenues. From a fiscal standpoint, it is a large net loss.

[RandomGuy]

"private education system in THIS country is better than the public education sytem."

There is no such thing as a private education "system", only private, independent educational institutions.

Of course, if the US's best private universities, world-class, cost $30K - $50K per student, with well-paid professors, highly selective of only the best students, then you expect to get results, and we do.

( Compare with expenses for prisoners who cost $20K - $30K /year. )

When "citizens" refuse to pay sufficient taxes for public schools and pay pubic K-12 teachers peanuts, you get monkeys. garbage in, garbage out. We spend more for a prisoner-year than for a public-student-year.

I suppose the right-wing idealogues who deny health care safety nets to the poor because "health care" isn't a "right" would also like to destroy public schools on the idealogy that education isn't a "right". You would get education and health care only if you're rich enough to buy them.


Well those silly poor people shouldn't be poor anyways. I mean, what were they thinking being born in the wrong place... Anybody with any sense would be born to rich families. :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

"private education system in THIS country is better than the public education sytem."

There is no such thing as a private education "system", only private, independent educational institutions.
Sure there is.

There are systems of private schools who share a common curriculum and strive for common goals. There is home schooling which employs cooperatives and common curricula.

I don't know how you define system. But, in fact, the U.S. has many private school systems. All of them better than our public school system. The only place you will find they compete is in high education.

But, in reality, there are very few private colleges, unbeholding to the federal government, due to grants and subsidies. Those that are truly private provide an excellent alternative to public universities.

Of course, if the US's best private universities, world-class, cost $30K - $50K per student, with well-paid professors, highly selective of only the best students, then you expect to get results, and we do.
Best students usually produce best results, duh! Are you really surprised?


( Compare with expenses for prisoners who cost $20K - $30K /year. )
Why?


When "citizens" refuse to pay sufficient taxes for public schools and pay pubic K-12 teachers peanuts, you get monkeys. garbage in, garbage out. We spend more for a prisoner-year than for a public-student-year.
Property taxes continue to rise and public school outputs continue to decline. Private school tuition, on the other hand, is fairly stable and exponentially lower than the per student cost of a public school; and, the outputs are impressive...certainly more impressive than public schools.

I only wish I could refuse to pay property taxes. I'd take that money and invest in a good education for my children -- at a private school -- and still have money left over.


I suppose the right-wing idealogues who deny health care safety nets to the poor because "health care" isn't a "right" would also like to destroy public schools on the idealogy that education isn't a "right". You would get education and health care only if you're rich enough to buy them.
One of my children attended a private university and I'm, by no means, wealthy. Scholarships and low income subsidies are available to those who are willing to work for them. Even the best Ivy League schools have funds set aside to subsidize the education of the poor. This shouldn't be the job of government.

And, you're right; neither health care nor education are rights. Why? Because people invest in developing careers, capitalizing infrastructure, researching improvements in both of those fields and deserve to be compensated; and, I should be constitutionally protected against the transfer of wealth from my pocket to another's.

[RandomGuy]

Why compare spending on education with spending on prisoners?

It shows a decided lapse in spending priorities, that's why.

We don't bat an eye at spending on new prisons, but ask for a tax raise to fund teacher pay raises, and people howl.

I am not about blindly throwing money at any problem, but there are some really good and simple ways to increase per pupil spending that produce better results, and I don't mind paying more taxes for that, do you?

[RandomGuy]

... and another thing.

Education should be a "right". I think it is the least we can do for what is quite literally the future of the country.

[101A]

The education system is dysfunctional because Judges have taken control of the classrooms away from teachers, Principals and local school boards, where it belongs, and have given it to Parents, Administrative desk-jockies, and standardized tests. Teachers must watch their step carefully when dealing with disciplinary problems and are less-free to 'ad-lib' situational learning. If a parent wants more for their kids than a public education can afford to offer, there are alternative schools for those kids to attend, or they can home-school - so the public school system is far from a monopoly.


Do you have children in public school, Dan?

I have 3. Before this year they were in Texas, now they are in PA - there is no appreciable difference in the education they are receiving (I actually preferred the curriculum in Texas, as bad as it was).

Per capita spending, adjusted for inflation, in the district I am in, has TRIPLED since 1970! They are proposing an income tax increase for the district (yes I pay income taxes now to the fed, state, school district, and township).

What is the money going to? As far as I can tell, computers, text-books, teachers salaries, and an unbelievable number of counselors and "education specialists". None of whom seem to be able to educate. There is a faculty student ration of 11 to 1 in the district I am in, and it IS NOT an affluent one. Median family income here is 28K.

Despite all of this spending, my kids are getting almost NO education. They give the kids calculators in 2nd grade, they teach useless, non-sequitor history, there seems to be some project with an environmental or diversity theme almost weekly. The education is superficial, ridiculously easy, and weak. When I talk to my children's teachers about it, they don't understand what could possibly wrong, they think the material is plenty challenging - and there's the rub. Teachers ain't cut from the same cloth they were years ago. Any of you go to college, and now any REALLY smart eduction majors? Me either. My wife teaches at the local university here (biochemistry), and the education department, and its students, are pretty much the "underwater basketweavers" of yesteryear - when one is unfortunate enough to sign up for even her freshman chemistry course, they drop with a couple of lessons - but these are the future teachers of our society. Soon to be coming to a school near you, and brought under the protective bossom of the NEA, where they can be patted on the back for a job, well,....done.

These people aren't smart enough, nor can be trusted to do "ad lib" learning - so you end up with bureacratic classrooms, with specific learning objectives, and silly "rubrics" which are producing probably the most ignorant generation of kids this country has ever seen.

Unfortunately the town I live in doesn't have any viable private schools, otherwise my children would be enrolled there. Last year they were in a strenuous private school in SA, and those students would simply smoke the publicly educated crowd. The person who mentioned the education gap is absolutely true. There is one coming, and the kids of privilige are going to have a bigger edge than EVER before

Money is the problem in public school - there's TOO much of it. It allows the schools to buy new computers, books, hire lots of administrators, counselors, psychologists, publicists, strategists, PR firms - to give the appearance of education without providing any.

[101A]

John Stossel did an enlightening piece on public education it dispelled many myths:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

Jan. 13, 2006 — "Stupid in America" is a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America's public schools and it's about time we face up to it.

Kids at New York's Abraham Lincoln High School told me their teachers are so dull students fall asleep in class. One student said, "You see kids all the time walking in the school smoking weed, you know. It's a normal thing here."

We tried to bring "20/20" cameras into New York City schools to see for ourselves and show you what's going on in the schools, but officials wouldn't allow it.

Washington, D.C., officials steered us to the best classrooms in their district.

We wanted to tape typical classrooms but were turned down in state after state.

Finally, school officials in Washington, D.C., allowed "20/20" to give cameras to a few students who were handpicked at two schools they'd handpicked. One was Woodrow Wilson High. Newsweek says it's one of the best schools in America. Yet what the students taped didn't inspire confidence.

One teacher didn't have control over the kids. Another "20/20" student cameraman videotaped a boy dancing wildly with his shirt off, in front of his teacher.

If you're like most American parents, you might think "These things don't happen at my kid's school." A Gallup Poll survey showed 76 percent of Americans were completely or somewhat satisfied with their kids' public school.

Education reformers like Kevin Chavous have a message for these parents: If you only knew.

Even though people in the suburbs might think their schools are great, Chavous says, "They're not. That's the thing and the test scores show that."

Chavous and many other education professionals say Americans don't know that their public schools, on the whole, just aren't that good. Because without competition, parents don't know what their kids might have had.

And while many people say, "We need to spend more money on our schools," there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.

Jay Greene, author of "Education Myths," points out that "If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved … We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better."

He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.

Ben Chavis is a former public school principal who now runs an alternative charter school in Oakland, Calif., that spends thousands of dollars less per student than the surrounding public schools. He laughs at the public schools' complaints about money.

"That is the biggest lie in America. They waste money," he said.

To save money, Chavis asks the students to do things like keep the grounds picked up and set up for their own lunch. For gym class, his students often just run laps around the block. All of this means there's more money left over for teaching.

Even though he spends less money per student than the public schools do, Chavis pays his teachers more than what public school teachers earn. His school also thrives because the principal gets involved. Chavis shows up at every classroom and uses gimmicks like small cash payments for perfect attendance.

Since he took over four years ago, his school has gone from being among the worst in Oakland to being the best. His middle school has the highest test scores in the city.

"It's not about the money," he said.

He's confident that even kids who come from broken families and poor families will do well in his school. "Give me the poor kids, and I will outperform the wealthy kids who live in the hills. And we do it," he said.

Monopoly Kills Innovation and Cheats Kids

Chavis's charter school is an example of how a little innovation can create a school that can change kids' lives. You don't get innovation without competition.

To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey.

Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them "stupid."

We didn't pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey's kids have test scores that are above average for America.

Lov Patel, the boy who got the highest score among the American students, told me, "I'm shocked, because it just shows how advanced they are compared to us."

The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

American schools don't teach as well as schools in other countries because they are government monopolies, and monopolies don't have much incentive to compete. In Belgium, by contrast, the money is attached to the kids — it's a kind of voucher system. Government funds education — at many different kinds of schools — but if a school can't attract students, it goes out of business.

Belgian school principal Kaat Vandensavel told us she works hard to impress parents.

She told us, "If we don't offer them what they want for their child, they won't come to our school." She constantly improves the teaching, saying, "You can't afford 10 teachers out of 160 that don't do their work, because the clients will know, and won't come to you again."

"That's normal in Western Europe," Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby told me. "If schools don't perform well, a parent would never be trapped in that school in the same way you could be trapped in the U.S."

Last week Florida's Supreme Court shut down "opportunity scholarships," Florida's small attempt at competition. Public money can't be spent on private schools, said the court, because the state constitution commands the funding only of "uniform . . . high-quality" schools. Government schools are neither uniform nor high-quality, and without competition, no new teaching plan or No Child Left Behind law will get the monopoly to serve its customers well.

The longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from poorer countries that spend much less money on education, ranking behind not only Belgium but also Poland, the Czech Republic and South Korea.

This should come as no surprise if you remember that public education in the United States is a government monopoly. Don't like your public school? Tough. The school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it's good or bad. That's why government monopolies routinely fail their customers. Union-dominated monopolies are even worse.

In New York City, it's "just about impossible" to fire a bad teacher, says Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. The new union contract offers some relief, but it's still about 200 pages of bureaucracy. "We tolerate mediocrity," said Klein, because "people get paid the same, whether they're outstanding, average or way below average."

Here's just one example from New York City: It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student. Klein said, "He hasn't taught, but we have had to pay him, because that's what's required under the contract."

Only after six years of litigation were they able to fire him. In the meantime, they paid the teacher more than $300,000. Klein said he employs dozens of teachers who he's afraid to let near the kids, so he has them sit in what are called rubber rooms. This year he will spend $20 million dollars to warehouse teachers in five rubber rooms. It's an alternative to firing them. In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence. Klein's office says the new contract will make it easier to get rid of sex offenders, but it will still be difficult to fire incompetent teachers.

When I confronted Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, she said, "They [the NYC school board] just don't want to do the work that's entailed." But the "work that's entailed" is so onerous that most principals just have just given up, or gotten bad teachers to transfer to another school. They even have a name for it: "the dance of the lemons."

Zoned Out of a Good Education

I talked with 18-year-old Dorian Cain in South Carolina, who was still struggling to read a single sentence in a first-grade level book when I met him. Although his public schools had spent nearly $100,000 on him over 12 years, he still couldn't read.

So "20/20" sent Dorian to a private learning center, Sylvan, to see if teachers there could teach Dorian to read when the South Carolina public schools failed to.

Using computers and workbooks, Dorian's reading went up two grade levels — after just 72 hours of instruction.

His mother, Gena Cain, is thrilled with Dorian's progress but disappointed with his public schools. "With Sylvan, it's a huge improvement. And they're doing what they're supposed to do. They're on point. But I can't say the same for the public schools," she said.

Lying to Beat the System

Gena Cain, like most parents, doesn't have a choice which public school her kids attend. She followed the rules, and her son paid the price.

In San Jose, Calif., some parents break the rules to get their kids into Fremont Union schools. They're so much better than neighboring schools that parents sometimes cheat to get their kids in by pretending to live in the school district.

"We have maybe hundreds of kids who are here illegally, under false pretenses," said District Superintendent Steve Rowley.

Inspector John Lozano works for the district going door-to-door to check if kids really live where they say they live. And even seeing that a child is present at a particular address isn't enough. Lozano says he needs to look inside the house to make sure the student really lives there.

Think about what he's doing. The school district police send him into your daughter's bedroom. He even goes through drawers and closets if he has to.

At one house he found a computer and some teen magazines and pictures of a student with her friends. He decided that student passed the residency test.

But a grandmother who listed an address in his district is caught. The people who answered the door when Lozano visited told him she didn't live there.

Two days later, I talked with the grandmother who tried to get her grandson into the Fremont schools.

"I was actually crying. I was crying in front of this 14-year-old. Why can't they just let parents to get in the school of their choice?" she asked.

Why can't she make a choice? It's sad that school officials force her to go to the black market to get her grandson a better education. After we started calling the school, the school did decide to let him stay in the district.

School-Choice Proponents Meet Resistance

When the Sanford family moved from Charleston to Columbia, S.C., the family had a big concern: Where would the kids go to school? In most places, you must attend the public school in the zone where you live, but the middle school near the Sanford's new home was rated below average.

It turned out, however, that this didn't pose a problem for this family, because the reason the Sanfords moved to Columbia was that Mark Sanford had been elected governor. He and his wife were invited to send their kids to schools in better districts.

Sanford realized how unfair the system was. "If you can buy a $250,000 or $300,000 house, you're gonna get some great public education," Gov. Sanford said. Or if you have political connections.

The Sanfords decided it was unfair to take advantage of their position as "first family" and ended up sending their kids to private school. "It's too important to me to sacrifice their education. I get one shot at it. If I don't pay very close attention to how my boys get educated then I've lost an opportunity to make them the best they can be in this world," Jenny Sanford said.

The governor then proposed giving every parent in South Carolina that kind of choice, regardless of where they lived or whether they made a lot of money. He said state tax credits should help parents pay for private schools. Then they would have a choice.

"The public has to know that there's an alternative there. It's just like, do you get a Sprint phone or an AT&T phone," Chavous said.

He's right. When monopolies rule, there is little choice, and little gets done. In America the phone company was once a government-supported monopoly. All the phones were black, and all the calls expensive. With competition, things have changed — for the better. We pay less for phone calls. If we're unhappy with our phone service, we switch companies.

Why can't kids benefit from similar competition in education?

"People expect and demand choice in every other area of their life," Sanford said.

The governor announced his plan last year and many parents cheered the idea, but school boards, teachers unions and politicians objected. PTAs even sent kids home with a letter saying, "Contact your legislator. How can we spend state money on something that hasn't been proven?"

A lot of people say education tax credits and vouchers are a terrible idea, that they'll drain money from public schools and give it to private ones.

Last week's Florida court ruling against vouchers came after teacher Ruth Holmes Cameron and advocacy groups brought a suit to block the program.

"To say that competition is going to improve education? It's just not gonna work. You know competition is not for children. It's not for human beings. It's not for public education. It never has been, it never will be," Holmes said.

Why not? Would you keep going back to a restaurant that served you a bad meal? Or a barber that gave you a bad haircut? What if the government assigned you to "your" grocery store. The store wouldn't have to compete for your business, and it would soon sell spoiled milk or stock only high profit items. Real estate agencies would sell houses advertising "neighborhood with a good grocery store." That's insane, and yet that's what America does with public schools.

Chavous, who has worked to get more school choice in Washington, D.C., said, "Choice to me is the only way. I believe that we can force the system from an external vantage point to change itself. It will never change itself from within. … Unless there is some competition infused in the equation, unless that occurs, then they know they have a captive monopoly that they can continue to dominate."

Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom.

[Peter]

Yeah, just cut out the Iraq funding and the department of homeland security....


Federal spending consists of much more than that. But I guess whatever serves your ideological bent.

[Peter]

Do you have children in public school, Dan?

I have 3. Before this year they were in Texas, now they are in PA - there is no appreciable difference in the education they are receiving (I actually preferred the curriculum in Texas, as bad as it was).

Per capita spending, adjusted for inflation, in the district I am in, has TRIPLED since 1970! They are proposing an income tax increase for the district (yes I pay income taxes now to the fed, state, school district, and township).

What is the money going to? As far as I can tell, computers, text-books, teachers salaries, and an unbelievable number of counselors and "education specialists". None of whom seem to be able to educate. There is a faculty student ration of 11 to 1 in the district I am in, and it IS NOT an affluent one. Median family income here is 28K.

Despite all of this spending, my kids are getting almost NO education. They give the kids calculators in 2nd grade, they teach useless, non-sequitor history, there seems to be some project with an environmental or diversity theme almost weekly. The education is superficial, ridiculously easy, and weak. When I talk to my children's teachers about it, they don't understand what could possibly wrong, they think the material is plenty challenging - and there's the rub. Teachers ain't cut from the same cloth they were years ago. Any of you go to college, and now any REALLY smart eduction majors? Me either. My wife teaches at the local university here (biochemistry), and the education department, and its students, are pretty much the "underwater basketweavers" of yesteryear - when one is unfortunate enough to sign up for even her freshman chemistry course, they drop with a couple of lessons - but these are the future teachers of our society. Soon to be coming to a school near you, and brought under the protective bossom of the NEA, where they can be patted on the back for a job, well,....done.

These people aren't smart enough, nor can be trusted to do "ad lib" learning - so you end up with bureacratic classrooms, with specific learning objectives, and silly "rubrics" which are producing probably the most ignorant generation of kids this country has ever seen.

Unfortunately the town I live in doesn't have any viable private schools, otherwise my children would be enrolled there. Last year they were in a strenuous private school in SA, and those students would simply smoke the publicly educated crowd. The person who mentioned the education gap is absolutely true. There is one coming, and the kids of privilige are going to have a bigger edge than EVER before

Money is the problem in public school - there's TOO much of it. It allows the schools to buy new computers, books, hire lots of administrators, counselors, psychologists, publicists, strategists, PR firms - to give the appearance of education without providing any.

So you have an organization with out of control spending, deteoriating quality of the service provided, and no way to change it per the law. There's no reason why the government must dominate the provision of educational services as it does, save for tradition.

I'm not sure why some continue to cling to the notion that competition is bad when it comes to education. It's especially odd given how Americans otherwise love and demand all that a competitive marketplace has to offer for other services.

[Yonivore]

Federal spending consists of much more than that. But I guess whatever serves your ideological bent.
In fact, the real monsters are entitlement programs.

[Peter]

In fact, the real monsters are entitlement programs.


Yes. Thanks to the alleged extreme conservative administration and legislature those have only grown in size and scope.

[Peter]

... and another thing.

Education should be a "right".

It does not follow that the government must actually provide the service. That's rather 19th century.



I think it is the least we can do for what is quite literally the future of the country.

The least we can do is mandate that they will receive a mediocre education?

[Yonivore]

Yes. Thanks to the alleged extreme conservative administration and legislature those have only grown in size and scope.
I agree...aside from the "extreme conservative" label. An extreme conservative would have weilded the Veto pen a lot sooner.

I don't know if the post is still on the servers but way back in the President's first term I made an Nbadan prediction that the VETO pen would be a large part of his second term. Okay, we're a year into it and so far I've been disappointed.

Some are saying his SOTUA tonight will allude to his taking the cap off. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Peter]

Fiscal policy doesn't drive politics today. It's lifestyle politics.

[2centsworth]

Actually there has been some pretty credible number crunching that has debunked the "tax cuts raise enough revenues to pay for them" myth.

Simply put:
Increaseing borrowing to pay for tax cuts does not make financial sense. The amount that the economy grows is not large enough to pay for the increased debt payments through greater revenues. From a fiscal standpoint, it is a large net loss.
Borrowing from the private sector is much better than taking from the private sector because the private sector is more productive and effecient than the government. Just ask the former USSR.

[2centsworth]

Why compare spending on education with spending on prisoners?

It shows a decided lapse in spending priorities, that's why.

We don't bat an eye at spending on new prisons, but ask for a tax raise to fund teacher pay raises, and people howl.

I am not about blindly throwing money at any problem, but there are some really good and simple ways to increase per pupil spending that produce better results, and I don't mind paying more taxes for that, do you?
stop acting like you pay taxes.

[2centsworth]

Well those silly poor people shouldn't be poor anyways. I mean, what were they thinking being born in the wrong place... Anybody with any sense would be born to rich families. :rolleyesyou can't be this dumb. 80% of millionaires are first generation and not born into anything.

I'm starting to think you have nothing to support any arguments and you just make stuff up as you go based on how you feel.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Foreign lobbyist and Multinational Corporations have funneled big bucks into the American political system for the right to take your high-paying job, white-collar and blue-collar, to India, China, and Indonesia.


However, when a company can pay a person in India or bring them here to work for $5 per hour to answer a phone and work those "IP" jobs, versus the $8-$20 it takes to pay a comparable American, guess which employee the company is going to hire?


Level 1 customer support receptionists = America's high paid jobs? :lol Dan.

Pass the bong you dumbass.