This was sent to Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) today. If history proves to me anything, it is that I will not receive a reply from my senator, but alas, I'll hope.
Sir:
I am quite disappointed by today's news that the Senate will not allow a public option in the upcoming health reform bill. There are many millions of Americans, like me, who work hard for no benefits and soon they will be unduly burdened by Sen. Baucus' bill.
Sen. Baucus' plan is little more than the status quo. Only now, people who cannot pay for healthcare, will be required by law to pay, lest they incur fines for not doing so. This logic baffles me. People who cannot pay must pay or be fined? Once they're fined, they will be lighter in the wallet and still required to buy health insurance.
The plan to offer tax breaks and vouchers is laughable too. As is, at my income level, I will not qualify for vouchers. A large majority of the uninsured will not qualify for vouchers. And while tax breaks sound nice, they will not pay dividends until after tax season. Were I to be required to buy insurance, the promise of a tax break will do little to keep my bank from charging an overdraft fee.
I feel like our Congress is out of touch with America. Our citizens, who are working hard, full-time, trying to build a family, and have no chance to get ahead. Public polls support a public option. But I suppose that means little. Like Kierkegaard wrote, "...one can speak to a whole nation in the name of the public and still the public will be less than a single real man however unimportant." In this case though the public is less than sixty individual Senators.
I am quite disillusioned with the Democratic Party since its wresting control of the Senate and House in 2006. It would be much more advisable to vote Republican. At least then I'd know they would promise to do nothing for me and keep that promise. As is, every bit of hope I believed in, especially in 2008, has been squandered.
Please, give me some solace to believe that this country is still great. In the last nine years the only messages I have received loud and clear are: We don't count votes (2000 election), we start illegal and unfounded wars, tax breaks go to people with enough money as is, and a large portion of our citizenry are not worthy of a healthy life (instead we play the odds from day to day).
Perhaps I should convert to the Church of Christ, Scientist. Prayer seems to be my only healthcare plan.
Please feel free to send this to your senator.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Constitution Day
By Nick Star
In honor of Constitution day having been this past Thursday, it seems appropriate to have a brief discussion about the great document. Now, typically I like to look forward and not complain too much about the things that are already done, but the right wing talking point spouted out so often lately is that President Obama is shredding the constitution, mostly because he wants to make sure all Americans have access to health care, regardless of financial stature (so un-American!). My question is, "Where were these people when Bush was in office?"
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Presumably, "promoting the general welfare" would imply access to at least basic health care, as without it you will almost certainly die at a much younger age than you would had you had it, but hey, the pre-amble isn't even an legal document.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Free speech zones, protesters arrested simply for wearing T-shirts that say "Bush Lied," and reporters called and threatened by the White house, the first amendment was clearly not one of W's favorite. This is in sharp contrast with today's protest zones just outside of events - armed teabagers displaying signs with thinly veiled threats of assassination, un-accosted. I don't want to hear any crap about Obama trying to repeal the first amendment (or for that matter, the second)
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To keep this post under 30 pages, we'll just ignore the whole "A well regulated militia" part. The NRA does, and the amendment really is quite lengthy. Although Bush campaigned on not allowing the assault rifle ban to expire, when the day came, the NRA convinced him with great ease that the founding fathers dreamed of a country full of felons and mentally unstable half-wits armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as having said that the most important reason for the second amendment is to protect oneself against the government, but the folks at the Jefferson Library address this on their website, and no such quote is known to be made by him. I, also, hardly think he intended a democratically elected president to provide the blood with which to water the tree of liberty. And frankly, anyone who does should scare the crap out of you.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No complaints here, as one of the few amendments Bush left alone, I never was forced to house soldiers in either my dorm or apartment. Thank you Mr. President.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In all fairness, this amendment didn't apply. After all, it was written over 200 years ago! It was even older than FISA! Isn't there a statute of limitations on constitutional amendments? Sunset provision? Anything?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendments V-VIII are the sole reasons that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was not on US soil. The cases of waterboarding, the use of dogs, force feeding foods banned by the detainees religion (and so on), are only allowed in the cases of people we are really, really afraid of. Didn't the framers add that caveat? No? They probably just forgot.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
No matter how much it wigs you out, the reason you hate gays is your religion. Banning gay marriage changes nothing in your life, but DOES disparage the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others, not to mention the fact that it revokes their freedom of religion. In fact, banning gay marriage would be implicit "establishment of religion." Any such amendment would be in breach of the first, and like it or not, not all religions condemn gay marriage.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If this is the amendment you think makes health care reform unconstitutional you should try reading it instead of listening to the Fox "News'" very own abridged version. If you cannot make it through the entire sentence of amendment X, then to be perfectly honest, you don't get to have an opinion. Seriously, I'm not even kidding about that.
Throughout history, it has been the liberals, by definition, who have provided rights to peoples. The slaves were freed by a liberal republican while the conservatives fought to maintain their right to own other human beings. The liberals gave women the right to vote while the conservatives fought for the right of men to be the sole "deciders." The liberals fought to allow blacks to go the same places as whites, while the conservatives fought for their right to never have to be near anyone who was a different color. Perhaps most importantly, when the liberals were fighting to break away from the United Kingdom, the conservatives fought for the right to continue to pay taxes to the King to make up for the tax cuts given to the East India Tea Company. Now the liberals are fighting for homosexuals to have the right to marry, while conservatives are fighting for the right to tell everyone else how to live and what they can do in their own bedrooms. The liberals are fighting for the right to have health care, even if you were born into a family that can't afford an extra $1000 per month, while the conservatives are fighting for their right to take advantage of the entire American public, and decide that poor or old people should die. After all, the God in which America trusts, only likes wealthy, straight (or at least closeted) white men, and the women they say are OK.
In honor of Constitution day having been this past Thursday, it seems appropriate to have a brief discussion about the great document. Now, typically I like to look forward and not complain too much about the things that are already done, but the right wing talking point spouted out so often lately is that President Obama is shredding the constitution, mostly because he wants to make sure all Americans have access to health care, regardless of financial stature (so un-American!). My question is, "Where were these people when Bush was in office?"
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Presumably, "promoting the general welfare" would imply access to at least basic health care, as without it you will almost certainly die at a much younger age than you would had you had it, but hey, the pre-amble isn't even an legal document.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Free speech zones, protesters arrested simply for wearing T-shirts that say "Bush Lied," and reporters called and threatened by the White house, the first amendment was clearly not one of W's favorite. This is in sharp contrast with today's protest zones just outside of events - armed teabagers displaying signs with thinly veiled threats of assassination, un-accosted. I don't want to hear any crap about Obama trying to repeal the first amendment (or for that matter, the second)
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To keep this post under 30 pages, we'll just ignore the whole "A well regulated militia" part. The NRA does, and the amendment really is quite lengthy. Although Bush campaigned on not allowing the assault rifle ban to expire, when the day came, the NRA convinced him with great ease that the founding fathers dreamed of a country full of felons and mentally unstable half-wits armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as having said that the most important reason for the second amendment is to protect oneself against the government, but the folks at the Jefferson Library address this on their website, and no such quote is known to be made by him. I, also, hardly think he intended a democratically elected president to provide the blood with which to water the tree of liberty. And frankly, anyone who does should scare the crap out of you.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No complaints here, as one of the few amendments Bush left alone, I never was forced to house soldiers in either my dorm or apartment. Thank you Mr. President.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In all fairness, this amendment didn't apply. After all, it was written over 200 years ago! It was even older than FISA! Isn't there a statute of limitations on constitutional amendments? Sunset provision? Anything?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendments V-VIII are the sole reasons that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was not on US soil. The cases of waterboarding, the use of dogs, force feeding foods banned by the detainees religion (and so on), are only allowed in the cases of people we are really, really afraid of. Didn't the framers add that caveat? No? They probably just forgot.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
No matter how much it wigs you out, the reason you hate gays is your religion. Banning gay marriage changes nothing in your life, but DOES disparage the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others, not to mention the fact that it revokes their freedom of religion. In fact, banning gay marriage would be implicit "establishment of religion." Any such amendment would be in breach of the first, and like it or not, not all religions condemn gay marriage.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If this is the amendment you think makes health care reform unconstitutional you should try reading it instead of listening to the Fox "News'" very own abridged version. If you cannot make it through the entire sentence of amendment X, then to be perfectly honest, you don't get to have an opinion. Seriously, I'm not even kidding about that.
Throughout history, it has been the liberals, by definition, who have provided rights to peoples. The slaves were freed by a liberal republican while the conservatives fought to maintain their right to own other human beings. The liberals gave women the right to vote while the conservatives fought for the right of men to be the sole "deciders." The liberals fought to allow blacks to go the same places as whites, while the conservatives fought for their right to never have to be near anyone who was a different color. Perhaps most importantly, when the liberals were fighting to break away from the United Kingdom, the conservatives fought for the right to continue to pay taxes to the King to make up for the tax cuts given to the East India Tea Company. Now the liberals are fighting for homosexuals to have the right to marry, while conservatives are fighting for the right to tell everyone else how to live and what they can do in their own bedrooms. The liberals are fighting for the right to have health care, even if you were born into a family that can't afford an extra $1000 per month, while the conservatives are fighting for their right to take advantage of the entire American public, and decide that poor or old people should die. After all, the God in which America trusts, only likes wealthy, straight (or at least closeted) white men, and the women they say are OK.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
My New Job: Congressional Bouncer by Luke Krueger
Yesterday was a sad day in American politics. Joe Wilson and his GOP brethren turned a nation with a strong history of civilized debate into one of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) politics.
I find it thrilling to watch a presidential address. There is a majesty, associated with it. And whether it was George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, it is hard not to feel a rush of pride at the gravitas of the office. Even when George W. Bush stood before us and lied, saying Iraq had WMD's, there was still a respect and decorum afforded the chronic liar. The only slight was when the Democrats refused to stand and applaud his money-shot, one liners, but that is an acceptable political slight.
Instead, last night, America saw its number one coward duck and cover while throwing a rancid tomato. Joe Wilson, GOP congressman from South Carolina, tried to anonymously yell, "You lie!"while the President addressed a rare joint session of Congress regarding healthcare.
An aside: Joe Wilson let his state down. Preston Brooks, a So. Carolina congressman, beat (with a cane) Charles Summner on the steps of the capitol because Summner was an abolisionist. So. Carolina is saddened, Joe, that you couldn't throw down a smack down.
There are some ugly moments, but last night reminded me of the WWE. So if you are a political science major, toss your books aside. Read Jim McMahon's biography. Study the Rock's greatest interviews. Do an internship with John Cena. Watch the years of Wrestlemania, and break down how Hulk beat Big John Stud in the cage match. Or study his smack talk when Hulk promised to bodyslam Andre the Giant.
Thus I see a new opening on the government payroll. Congressional Bouncer.
Where was the Sergeant-at-Arms? It's a ceremonial position, and he doesn't do much, save for calling to everyone that the President has arrived.
So I think that if this WWE politics is to continue, the Congress needs bouncers in order to preserve decorum. Cowards like Joe Wilson can't engage in a civil discourse. When he yells out, "You lie," the bouncer grabs him by his suit's lapel and drags him out of the chamber. Outside, we'll say, "Thank you for dropping by. We appreciate your business and we hope to see you back tomorrow, but it's probably time you go home and sleep it off..." or some such thing.
We will also be informed. So when Eric Cantor says there will be "government rationing" a Congressional bouncer will say, "I'm sorry Congressman but that is false and cannot be supported by anything in any of the bills circulating. Please sit down and shut up." This is not limiting their right to free speech. It's simply a reminder to think before they speak. And to pick the appropriate method of expression for the appropriate venue.
Congressional bouncers will be thoroughly professional, pleasant, and focused on respecting the Congressmen. But if they get a little liquid courage in them, we'll bounce the dopes. This applies to Congresswomen as well, but the GOP really doesn't have to worry about that distinction of diversity.
The job will be incredibly dangerous though because it will require that I be given the same healthcare as all members of Congress. This is risky because to hear John Boehner talk, government run healthcare is the devil. And since he has it, I can't imagine how bad it is. It gives him doctors who sign off on his ridiculous fake and bake tan that afford him a preternatural orange hue. This is a scary prospect of what government healthcare offers: You'll be orange like John Boehner.
Nevertheless, I am willing to accept this risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer in order to preserve the civil nature of our political debate. I really think Jefferson would be down with this position. At some point, he advised Chief Justice William Cushing, "I'm not affraid to toss Burr's drunk ass from the hizzy if he doesn't check himself. Otherwise he's gonna wreck-i-dee, wreck himself." Something like that.
I realize congressional healthcare is pretty bad, again, so bad that the members of Congress can't get rid of the insurance despite the cacophany of yelps to rid themselves of such pestilential...
Oh, wait...they're not? Well I'm sure they hate their healthcare. Still, I'll take on that risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer. The healthcare is the most dangerous part of the job. Cowards like Joe Wilson will wilt when confronted.
So wish me luck. I'm not sure I'll be better off, healthwise. Maybe the vomiting and fever I suffered a week ago will be abetted, but I can only imagine that taking this job will offer me only hardship and detriments to my health.
At least I'll get to bounce Harry Reid because the dress code will require a spine.
I find it thrilling to watch a presidential address. There is a majesty, associated with it. And whether it was George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, it is hard not to feel a rush of pride at the gravitas of the office. Even when George W. Bush stood before us and lied, saying Iraq had WMD's, there was still a respect and decorum afforded the chronic liar. The only slight was when the Democrats refused to stand and applaud his money-shot, one liners, but that is an acceptable political slight.
Instead, last night, America saw its number one coward duck and cover while throwing a rancid tomato. Joe Wilson, GOP congressman from South Carolina, tried to anonymously yell, "You lie!"while the President addressed a rare joint session of Congress regarding healthcare.
An aside: Joe Wilson let his state down. Preston Brooks, a So. Carolina congressman, beat (with a cane) Charles Summner on the steps of the capitol because Summner was an abolisionist. So. Carolina is saddened, Joe, that you couldn't throw down a smack down.
There are some ugly moments, but last night reminded me of the WWE. So if you are a political science major, toss your books aside. Read Jim McMahon's biography. Study the Rock's greatest interviews. Do an internship with John Cena. Watch the years of Wrestlemania, and break down how Hulk beat Big John Stud in the cage match. Or study his smack talk when Hulk promised to bodyslam Andre the Giant.
Thus I see a new opening on the government payroll. Congressional Bouncer.
Where was the Sergeant-at-Arms? It's a ceremonial position, and he doesn't do much, save for calling to everyone that the President has arrived.
So I think that if this WWE politics is to continue, the Congress needs bouncers in order to preserve decorum. Cowards like Joe Wilson can't engage in a civil discourse. When he yells out, "You lie," the bouncer grabs him by his suit's lapel and drags him out of the chamber. Outside, we'll say, "Thank you for dropping by. We appreciate your business and we hope to see you back tomorrow, but it's probably time you go home and sleep it off..." or some such thing.
We will also be informed. So when Eric Cantor says there will be "government rationing" a Congressional bouncer will say, "I'm sorry Congressman but that is false and cannot be supported by anything in any of the bills circulating. Please sit down and shut up." This is not limiting their right to free speech. It's simply a reminder to think before they speak. And to pick the appropriate method of expression for the appropriate venue.
Congressional bouncers will be thoroughly professional, pleasant, and focused on respecting the Congressmen. But if they get a little liquid courage in them, we'll bounce the dopes. This applies to Congresswomen as well, but the GOP really doesn't have to worry about that distinction of diversity.
The job will be incredibly dangerous though because it will require that I be given the same healthcare as all members of Congress. This is risky because to hear John Boehner talk, government run healthcare is the devil. And since he has it, I can't imagine how bad it is. It gives him doctors who sign off on his ridiculous fake and bake tan that afford him a preternatural orange hue. This is a scary prospect of what government healthcare offers: You'll be orange like John Boehner.
Nevertheless, I am willing to accept this risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer in order to preserve the civil nature of our political debate. I really think Jefferson would be down with this position. At some point, he advised Chief Justice William Cushing, "I'm not affraid to toss Burr's drunk ass from the hizzy if he doesn't check himself. Otherwise he's gonna wreck-i-dee, wreck himself." Something like that.
I realize congressional healthcare is pretty bad, again, so bad that the members of Congress can't get rid of the insurance despite the cacophany of yelps to rid themselves of such pestilential...
Oh, wait...they're not? Well I'm sure they hate their healthcare. Still, I'll take on that risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer. The healthcare is the most dangerous part of the job. Cowards like Joe Wilson will wilt when confronted.
So wish me luck. I'm not sure I'll be better off, healthwise. Maybe the vomiting and fever I suffered a week ago will be abetted, but I can only imagine that taking this job will offer me only hardship and detriments to my health.
At least I'll get to bounce Harry Reid because the dress code will require a spine.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Georgia’s Great Money Laundering Scheme
by Nick Star
Today, for the third time in a month, I was forced to sit through the sales pitch for the money laundering racket known as Georgia Annotated Section 48-7-29.16. State law permits Georgia residents to receive, in the form of a tax rebate, 100% of a donation up to $2,500 (for a married couple, or $1,000 for single residents) to qualified scholarship funds to send students to private schools rather than public ones. In addition, the donor receives a federal tax deduction for the donation. Why is this immoral, unethical, and perhaps even unconstitutional? As the principal of the private school where I teach iterated, and reiterated, "this is not a donation, it is a redirection of tax monies to our school instead of Uncle Sonny," presumably referring to Governor Sonny Purdue (as if the governor is even the one taking the money). For a "donation" of $2,500, a family in the 20% federal tax bracket would receive a $3,000 refund, $2,500 of which is paid by hard working Georgia citizens, and the other $500 paid by the tax payers of the United States. Anyone who has watched many mafia shows or movies like "The Sopranos" or "The Godfather," understands that money laundering works by channeling funds through businesses under the guise of "services" or "products." This is no different than paying citizens with public money to "donate" money to private interests.
The argument that is always made is that this is "to help kids transition from public to private schools." Not the least of the offenses with this argument is that it implies that public schools are inherently less beneficial to students (and arguably, society) than private ones, but that is a whole other discussion. The real problem is who is paying for the tax refunds. When I was a child, my family struggled financially. My father worked a full time job, usually with overtime, as well as a "part-time" job that typically totaled around 40 hours per week. My mother, while a graduate of MIT, stayed home to take care of the kids due to health problems as well as the fact that child care was more expensive than her salary when she worked as an architect in the early- to mid-80's. We lived in a small house without the luxury of cable TV or air conditioning. We ate out only when my grandparents took us. The birthday money from my grandparents paid for the dues so I could play soccer in the town league, as it would have otherwise been too expensive, even at the meager price of a shirt and shoes. Occasionally I would show up to cub scout meetings with an "IOU" for the den leader because we weren't able to find a dollar to send with me. We received WIC benefits for most of my childhood, and occasionally even from a local food bank. While we likely qualified for welfare, we only applied and received it twice in my life. I never considered myself poor because I always knew people financially worse off than I was. I never went to bed hungry one time, but I knew kids who did. I tell you about this, not because I want any shred of sympathy for my family - these struggles are what made me who I am today, but instead, empathy for those like my family. Those families, like mine, pay their taxes dutifully, but could never, even with a 100% tuition scholarship, begin to afford to pay for just the books and uniforms. Yet these families' tax dollars are going to subsidize the private school tuition of the upper middle class who can't afford the entire cost of a private school education, only part of it.
I have nothing against private schools, I obviously teach in one. The students are very respectful, and if the families have the means to pay for it, they have every right to pay to send their children to private schools where their academic education is augmented with religion. I want to make a difference in children's lives, and this is the best way I know how at the moment. I do however take offense with forcing those with nothing to pay to subsidize the tuition of students who drive cars more expensive than their teachers' salaries. This program has been marketed as "a great way to help needy students," but nobody here has any idea what needy is.
Today, for the third time in a month, I was forced to sit through the sales pitch for the money laundering racket known as Georgia Annotated Section 48-7-29.16. State law permits Georgia residents to receive, in the form of a tax rebate, 100% of a donation up to $2,500 (for a married couple, or $1,000 for single residents) to qualified scholarship funds to send students to private schools rather than public ones. In addition, the donor receives a federal tax deduction for the donation. Why is this immoral, unethical, and perhaps even unconstitutional? As the principal of the private school where I teach iterated, and reiterated, "this is not a donation, it is a redirection of tax monies to our school instead of Uncle Sonny," presumably referring to Governor Sonny Purdue (as if the governor is even the one taking the money). For a "donation" of $2,500, a family in the 20% federal tax bracket would receive a $3,000 refund, $2,500 of which is paid by hard working Georgia citizens, and the other $500 paid by the tax payers of the United States. Anyone who has watched many mafia shows or movies like "The Sopranos" or "The Godfather," understands that money laundering works by channeling funds through businesses under the guise of "services" or "products." This is no different than paying citizens with public money to "donate" money to private interests.
The argument that is always made is that this is "to help kids transition from public to private schools." Not the least of the offenses with this argument is that it implies that public schools are inherently less beneficial to students (and arguably, society) than private ones, but that is a whole other discussion. The real problem is who is paying for the tax refunds. When I was a child, my family struggled financially. My father worked a full time job, usually with overtime, as well as a "part-time" job that typically totaled around 40 hours per week. My mother, while a graduate of MIT, stayed home to take care of the kids due to health problems as well as the fact that child care was more expensive than her salary when she worked as an architect in the early- to mid-80's. We lived in a small house without the luxury of cable TV or air conditioning. We ate out only when my grandparents took us. The birthday money from my grandparents paid for the dues so I could play soccer in the town league, as it would have otherwise been too expensive, even at the meager price of a shirt and shoes. Occasionally I would show up to cub scout meetings with an "IOU" for the den leader because we weren't able to find a dollar to send with me. We received WIC benefits for most of my childhood, and occasionally even from a local food bank. While we likely qualified for welfare, we only applied and received it twice in my life. I never considered myself poor because I always knew people financially worse off than I was. I never went to bed hungry one time, but I knew kids who did. I tell you about this, not because I want any shred of sympathy for my family - these struggles are what made me who I am today, but instead, empathy for those like my family. Those families, like mine, pay their taxes dutifully, but could never, even with a 100% tuition scholarship, begin to afford to pay for just the books and uniforms. Yet these families' tax dollars are going to subsidize the private school tuition of the upper middle class who can't afford the entire cost of a private school education, only part of it.
I have nothing against private schools, I obviously teach in one. The students are very respectful, and if the families have the means to pay for it, they have every right to pay to send their children to private schools where their academic education is augmented with religion. I want to make a difference in children's lives, and this is the best way I know how at the moment. I do however take offense with forcing those with nothing to pay to subsidize the tuition of students who drive cars more expensive than their teachers' salaries. This program has been marketed as "a great way to help needy students," but nobody here has any idea what needy is.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Obama’s Address to Students
Obama’s Address to Students
I can understand why people are frustrated with President Obama’s administration. They have a legitimate concern that the White House is taking on an agenda that will result in an increased national debt that Americans will end up paying off in more tax hikes. I can understand why parents are afraid that the lesson plan originally attached to the President’s speech, could exploit our nation’s youth as a means to a political end. After reading the text of the President’s address, however, what I cannot understand is why this speech is so controversial that it cannot be shown in our classrooms this Tuesday.
In 1988 and 1991, former Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr. delivered similar speeches that focused on the value of a good education and the importance of staying in school. Obama’s prepared remarks echo those sentiments. In a climate where the struggles of left vs. right and conservative vs. liberal have overshadowed the needs of the American people, it is refreshing that our President is taking time to speak about something that transcends political affiliations. Have we become such a polarized society that we cannot take time out of our day in a public school to listen to what the President has to say?
While I respect the difficult decision that the Spartanburg County School Districts have made, I feel that it is a decision which will ultimately teach our student’s the wrong lesson: that if you disagree with someone or don’t like his politics, you don’t have to listen to what he has to say. At a time when listening to each other may be the only hope of solving our biggest problems, we will instead be teaching our students the exact opposite. I hope this is a lesson that can be untaught.
I can understand why people are frustrated with President Obama’s administration. They have a legitimate concern that the White House is taking on an agenda that will result in an increased national debt that Americans will end up paying off in more tax hikes. I can understand why parents are afraid that the lesson plan originally attached to the President’s speech, could exploit our nation’s youth as a means to a political end. After reading the text of the President’s address, however, what I cannot understand is why this speech is so controversial that it cannot be shown in our classrooms this Tuesday.
In 1988 and 1991, former Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr. delivered similar speeches that focused on the value of a good education and the importance of staying in school. Obama’s prepared remarks echo those sentiments. In a climate where the struggles of left vs. right and conservative vs. liberal have overshadowed the needs of the American people, it is refreshing that our President is taking time to speak about something that transcends political affiliations. Have we become such a polarized society that we cannot take time out of our day in a public school to listen to what the President has to say?
While I respect the difficult decision that the Spartanburg County School Districts have made, I feel that it is a decision which will ultimately teach our student’s the wrong lesson: that if you disagree with someone or don’t like his politics, you don’t have to listen to what he has to say. At a time when listening to each other may be the only hope of solving our biggest problems, we will instead be teaching our students the exact opposite. I hope this is a lesson that can be untaught.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Obama’s Speech to Children AHHHH!
Hide the children, board up the houses because evil is coming to our school system on Tuesday at noon. The President of the United States, the democratically elected leader of the greatest republic ever seen on this earth, wants to speak to our school children. He wants to speak about communist principles of personal goal setting because all Communist states are well known for individualism. The President also is going to push the idea of staying in school so you can be a productive member of society. We most definitely do not want this to happen; we do not want an educated society. We want a nation full of individuals who cannot think for themselves, but can dumbly and blindly follow a fearless leader. I mean seriously what good has education ever done for humankind?
Once again I come out supporting the ignorant people who want to block their young children from the traumatic experience of listening to a successful leader of the greatest nation on earth try to convince children to stay in school (it’s not like the United States has the highest dropout rate of any post-industrialized nation) and to set personal goals. Personal goals should never be pushed in a capitalistic society because people might come up with new ideas and allow the United States to stay ahead of the curve in the world.
So please, keep your kids’ ears away from hearing the President speak, he might actually try to help the nation out. Heck, if I do not like people I tune them out; I never want to hear their side of the argument because that could only lead to compromise that actually might mutually benefit both of us. I say keep making America more ignorant, keep teaching our kids not to listen to those who have different viewpoints because an uneducated, uncompromising nation will always outpace anyone!
Once again I come out supporting the ignorant people who want to block their young children from the traumatic experience of listening to a successful leader of the greatest nation on earth try to convince children to stay in school (it’s not like the United States has the highest dropout rate of any post-industrialized nation) and to set personal goals. Personal goals should never be pushed in a capitalistic society because people might come up with new ideas and allow the United States to stay ahead of the curve in the world.
So please, keep your kids’ ears away from hearing the President speak, he might actually try to help the nation out. Heck, if I do not like people I tune them out; I never want to hear their side of the argument because that could only lead to compromise that actually might mutually benefit both of us. I say keep making America more ignorant, keep teaching our kids not to listen to those who have different viewpoints because an uneducated, uncompromising nation will always outpace anyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)