Charles Koch Speaks Out

[ShockBand]

I don't, but I question whether it is the government's first job to look out for corporate interests over that of individual citizens. My opinion is that government is supposed to be of, by and for the people, not the corporation.

But here's the thing. From what I've been able to observe from my lowly perch is that when the government does anything (ie. regulation or any other action designed to help/protect the consumer or individual) it ends up doing exactly what Koch says: stifle competition and innovation, which ultimately harms everyone except the few (big) businesses that benefit from it.

Usually (not all the time) government getting out of the way and untying the hands of business and industry result in good things for both the business and by extention, the individuals. More jobs, lower costs, more competition, lower prices, higher wages.

I know that is what I want to believe. I just don't know that I trust the business world any more than I do the government world. My thoughts are kind of rambling and disjointed today on all of this, I know. The fact that I am a public employee (teacher), but one who would prefer to see a government that is leaner and more focused, BUT a government that has what it takes to its job right and well, and how much of a role should government play in the needs of those less forturnate, etc, etc, etc, all leaves me very conflicted. Not sure why I am so jaded today.

You didn’t answer my question. It was overly broad for your taste, perhaps…..hard to know where to begin. I understand.

You don’t trust government to do the right thing -- act in the public interest; you don’t trust corporations anymore than government to do the same thing. I don’t either. But do you trust your neighbor, the family you see at Sunday, or the person who you pass on the street on the way to your school? Given a true choice what would they choose? Should they be allowed to choose?

Decision are made, thousands of them over the course of a single day, they are made by you and me and the multitudes. Those decisions have an impact – they have an impact on otherwise disinterested corporations and even government action (or at least they should in the latter case).

If you allow an environment in which people and corporations can take advantage for their (or its) self interest – then you reap what you sow. That you are conflicted in current situation is a testament to your own integrity.

Thanks, Maggie, I'm chalking up yesterday to being one of those p-poor mood days and not being sure who or what to be mad at.

That said, in my specific situation as a public school teacher, I see merit in both sides of the argument of level of government intervention. In education, I personally would like to see the federal government out of it completely, and leave the highest level of decision making and budgetary authority at the state level. However, I don't think that would save as much money as people think IF we were to keep similar levels of assistance to low income families and especially with the cost of special education. But I'd sure be interested in how the numbers would crunch.

The rub there comes with the fact that we do provide a LOT of assistance to many families of low incomes, who are typically identified by whether or not they receive free or reduced meals. My district, a suburb of Wichita, has increased from the mid 30s to mid 40s in percentage who are eligible for free/reduced. In the Wichita schools, that overall systemwide percentage is about 65%, and the school where my wife works is over 90% free/reduced eligible. Do those kids need and deserve that help? As someone with "boots on the ground" I would say yes, in most cases. Now do some, maybe many of these families that receive this help, have stuff that makes me scratch my head? Things like iPods, Nike shoes, high end cell phones, and so on? Yes, they do, and it does irritate me to a degree, but I also know how some of this derives from the culture of poverty.

Well, I'm getting ready to participate in a conference session on educational technology, so I'll have to continue later.

[wu_shizzle]

The rub there comes with the fact that we do provide a LOT of assistance to many families of low incomes, who are typically identified by whether or not they receive free or reduced meals. My district, a suburb of Wichita, has increased from the mid 30s to mid 40s in percentage who are eligible for free/reduced. In the Wichita schools, that overall systemwide percentage is about 65%, and the school where my wife works is over 90% free/reduced eligible. Do those kids need and deserve that help? As someone with "boots on the ground" I would say yes, in most cases. Now do some, maybe many of these families that receive this help, have stuff that makes me scratch my head? Things like iPods, Nike shoes, high end cell phones, and so on? Yes, they do, and it does irritate me to a degree, but I also know how some of this derives from the culture of poverty.

Would you say these higher percentages of need are the result of more actual students needing aid, or the growth of suburban schools like Andover, Derby, Goddard and Maize taking children of middle class families out of Wichita schools?

[ShockBand]

The rub there comes with the fact that we do provide a LOT of assistance to many families of low incomes, who are typically identified by whether or not they receive free or reduced meals. My district, a suburb of Wichita, has increased from the mid 30s to mid 40s in percentage who are eligible for free/reduced. In the Wichita schools, that overall systemwide percentage is about 65%, and the school where my wife works is over 90% free/reduced eligible. Do those kids need and deserve that help? As someone with "boots on the ground" I would say yes, in most cases. Now do some, maybe many of these families that receive this help, have stuff that makes me scratch my head? Things like iPods, Nike shoes, high end cell phones, and so on? Yes, they do, and it does irritate me to a degree, but I also know how some of this derives from the culture of poverty.

Would you say these higher percentages of need are the result of more actual students needing aid, or the growth of suburban schools like Andover, Derby, Goddard and Maize taking children of middle class families out of Wichita schools?

A mix of both. I teach in one of those suburban districts you mention, and our percentage qualifying for aid has increased since the unemployment spike in the area. With certain suburban districts the number of free/reduced is lower simply because those districts don't have lots of lower cost housing, either as rental or to own. Those on lower incomes will tend to stay where housing is the cheapest, and for most in this metro area, that means in Wichita. Not exclusively of course, but predominantly so.

[Maggie]

To begin with I don’t think that school lunch programs are responsible for state budget woes. It may be that the eligibility requirements have become too lax – but I have no empirical evidence to support that assertion.

But the education system is an anchor dragging down the economic aspirations of the next generation and the United States as a whole. But more government “investment”, to use our Presidents new favorite word, is not the answer. Education reform is not a dollar issue. Spending per student has roughly doubled over the past 20 years, but achievement has gone down – which tells me the problem is one of accountability. Frankly, Unions get in the way of accountability and they need to be dealt with (personally I don't think public unions should exist at all).

First, reform must be built upon a foundation of increased opportunity for school choice. If failure for students means failure for the teaching bureaucracy, that’s accountability. Second, state-level efforts which grade schools and energize parents to demand improvements in subpar performers is also a good start. Finally, there should be serious oversight of federal programs, if the federal government is to be involved at all (I tend to side with ShockBand on this one – education should be left to states or lowest possible governmental entity – the closer it is to the people it serves the better it will serve the people), to ensure that the taxpayers’ dollars are used effectively. The top priority must be to keep students, parents, teachers, and communities first, as they are the ones on the front lines and most able to improve student achievement. This requires serious outreach, not the kind of Washington-centric, ram-it-through-before-they-catch-us mentality that has prevailed in the past two years. This also means that different methods will work better and more effectively in different locations – a top down approach will fail.

Getting the right balance between local control vs. state vs. federal – will take time.

[1979Shocker]

As Union Membership Has Declined, Income Inequality Has Skyrocketed in The United States

See the graph in the link above.

[wu_shizzle]

As Union Membership Has Declined, Income Inequality Has Skyrocketed in The United States

See the graph in the link above.

This is not to say that declining union membership is the only factor that led to the growth of income inequality over the past 35 years.

I'm sure glad Think Progress put that little caveat in, because their 1 paragraph argument, completely devoid of any research or case studies linking causation had me completely convinced.

Here's a graph with about as much usefulness.

[rZ]

As Union Membership Has Declined, Income Inequality Has Skyrocketed in The United States

See the graph in the link above.

This is not to say that declining union membership is the only factor that led to the growth of income inequality over the past 35 years.

I'm sure glad Think Progress put that little caveat in, because their 1 paragraph argument, completely devoid of any research or case studies linking causation had me completely convinced.

Here's a graph with about as much usefulness.

That graph should be a wake-up call to America. We are destroying out planet. Now more than ever, the Government needs to step in and create a program training new pirates before global temperatures get even more out of control!

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

As Union Membership Has Declined, Income Inequality Has Skyrocketed in The United States

See the graph in the link above.

This is not to say that declining union membership is the only factor that led to the growth of income inequality over the past 35 years.

I'm sure glad Think Progress put that little caveat in, because their 1 paragraph argument, completely devoid of any research or case studies linking causation had me completely convinced.

Here's a graph with about as much usefulness.

That graph should be a wake-up call to America. We are destroying out planet. Now more than ever, the Government needs to step in and create a program training new pirates before global temperatures get even more out of control!

Little did we know the only thing saving us from catastrophe were those few remaining Somali pirates.... funny how things come full circle.

[Maggie]

As Union Membership Has Declined, Income Inequality Has Skyrocketed in The United States

See the graph in the link above.

This is not to say that declining union membership is the only factor that led to the growth of income inequality over the past 35 years.

I'm sure glad Think Progress put that little caveat in, because their 1 paragraph argument, completely devoid of any research or case studies linking causation had me completely convinced.

Here's a graph with about as much usefulness.

That graph should be a wake-up call to America. We are destroying out planet. Now more than ever, the Government needs to step in and create a program training new pirates before global temperatures get even more out of control!

Little did we know the only thing saving us from catastrophe were those few remaining Somali pirates.... funny how things come full circle.

:o