NYC's schools are not the easiest to administer, and with the multiplicity of ethnic and language backgrounds, not the easiest to achieve uniform performance.
So, some time ago in an effort to reduce drop out rates, Mayor Bloomberg promoted the establishment of smaller high schools. My cousin's daughter attended one of these and did fine and the overall program has had success. So now the Mayor wants to do this with Middle Schools. This is a great idea because if you lose a kid in middle school, it is almost impossible to get them back in high school. You also need good elementary schools if a kid is to perform well in middle school. And you need parents who care. The last one is probably the most important one in forming a good base for a kid's effort. (Thank you RSL for teaching me that over the last 29 years.)
Last week the Economist focused on what type of school organization produces the best results around the world. Beyond parental involvement, and teacher preparedness, one key takeaway was availability of schools in proximation to youth. Smaller, multiple schools. and they pointed out that a such a structure stills supports the employment of teachers, it is just that they have to held accountable for their success or failure.
There is no greater problem in these times than our mass of undereducated young workers, who are only qualified to do construction and we don't have much need for more of that. So, I applaud Mayor Bloomberg for this focus and want to say that I think school vouchers with family choice of schools is a good idea. It will take a while for that to have improvement and the states will have to come up with a way of making sure the schools actually are doing there job or else we will have a bunch of Rick Perry's out there who think evolution is a theory and the million year old skeleton of Lucy an oddity that has no relevance to understanding science.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Inconsistency in the Republican Philosophy
The one thing I ask of anyone is consistency in belief, unless the facts change to support a new view.
But when it comes to philosophy, there should be only consistency. You believe what you believe.
So the Republicans believe in State's Rights for Health Care and any other number of issues, including historically, gun control.
Now, the House Republicans are trying to pass a law that will allow concealed weapons with permits from Florida to be legal in any state, even if concealed weapons are illegal in that state. Do state's have the right to control their own guns or not?
Gun Control, particularly hand guns, has had me perplexed for a number of years because there is no greater risk to Police Officers than automatic weapons and hand guns. Yet, the NRA has fought efficient permit processes and any regulation of these weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. Meanwhile, the Republicans who support law & order and protecting the police, endorse the NRA positions.
It is bad enough that this allows haphazard regulations across states, but at least I know as a resident of NY, that there is some effort to protect me from some random person starting to shoot a concealed handgun when I am in proximity to them. Now, the House Republicans want to end that comfort for me and allow Florida's laws to override NY's.
Are they for State's Rights or NOT! and if they are not, where does that put the philosophical back drop to fight the Affordable Health Care Act
But when it comes to philosophy, there should be only consistency. You believe what you believe.
So the Republicans believe in State's Rights for Health Care and any other number of issues, including historically, gun control.
Now, the House Republicans are trying to pass a law that will allow concealed weapons with permits from Florida to be legal in any state, even if concealed weapons are illegal in that state. Do state's have the right to control their own guns or not?
Gun Control, particularly hand guns, has had me perplexed for a number of years because there is no greater risk to Police Officers than automatic weapons and hand guns. Yet, the NRA has fought efficient permit processes and any regulation of these weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. Meanwhile, the Republicans who support law & order and protecting the police, endorse the NRA positions.
It is bad enough that this allows haphazard regulations across states, but at least I know as a resident of NY, that there is some effort to protect me from some random person starting to shoot a concealed handgun when I am in proximity to them. Now, the House Republicans want to end that comfort for me and allow Florida's laws to override NY's.
Are they for State's Rights or NOT! and if they are not, where does that put the philosophical back drop to fight the Affordable Health Care Act
Saturday, September 17, 2011
How Republicans Can Get the Mandate They Desire
This morning there is an AP article that all the Republican Presidential candidates are coming up with proposals to privatize social security in one manner or another for younger people.
Never mind that most people (including me) are frightened by the volatility in the stock market and wondering how that fits with our retirement needs. Putting one's retirement money in the stock market is basically a gamble on where the economy is when you retire. Economy good, stock market good, you win and have a nice retirement. Economy bad, stock market low, you lose and have whatever you can afford. Oh, and good luck selling your home so you can downsize and free up money from that to live on. (Sorry, that one is hitting me personally right now and I am a bit bitter about it.)
So if the Republican want to balance the budget by privatizing social security and medicare (I am still wondering how they plan to privatize Medicaid, even with Pat Robertson urging Alzheimer care givers to divorce and put their spouse in a home on Medicaid?), they should run on the following platform.
Voters here is your choice for budget balance: Republicans: Let us privatize social security and medicare and we will cut your taxes while maintaining tax subsidies for multinational companies. Democrats: We must raise revenues to pay for the War on Terror and keep social security and medicare viable (albeit with some changes). If you want #1 vote Republican, If you believe in #2 vote for the Democrat.
That way, at least every winning candidate will know where their voters stand and there can be a reasoned discussion in Washington
Never mind that most people (including me) are frightened by the volatility in the stock market and wondering how that fits with our retirement needs. Putting one's retirement money in the stock market is basically a gamble on where the economy is when you retire. Economy good, stock market good, you win and have a nice retirement. Economy bad, stock market low, you lose and have whatever you can afford. Oh, and good luck selling your home so you can downsize and free up money from that to live on. (Sorry, that one is hitting me personally right now and I am a bit bitter about it.)
So if the Republican want to balance the budget by privatizing social security and medicare (I am still wondering how they plan to privatize Medicaid, even with Pat Robertson urging Alzheimer care givers to divorce and put their spouse in a home on Medicaid?), they should run on the following platform.
Voters here is your choice for budget balance: Republicans: Let us privatize social security and medicare and we will cut your taxes while maintaining tax subsidies for multinational companies. Democrats: We must raise revenues to pay for the War on Terror and keep social security and medicare viable (albeit with some changes). If you want #1 vote Republican, If you believe in #2 vote for the Democrat.
That way, at least every winning candidate will know where their voters stand and there can be a reasoned discussion in Washington
Saturday Musings
Well, it has certainly been a tough week for those of us who would like to see rational discussion of serious complex issues and the only thing I can say about the special election results is "Hang on, it is going to be a wild ride through the 2012 election and I personally doubt that the 2012 election will give us a definitive direction." If Obama wins reelection, the Republicans will still do everything to keep him a failure (and the country will suffer as it has for the last 10 years). If the Romney wins, the Democrats will still have 40 senators and will adopt the Republican scorched earth policy of protecting whatever they can through obscure Senate procedural rules that the Republicans use so well to maintain their agenda.
On some other points briefly:
1. I see the Republicans do not want to fund the Food Safety administration because it would be an "increase in taxes", even though the Food Industry, which would pay the fees, supports the changes and funding. Is there no regulatory role that the Republicans will support? It was a failure of banking regulation that put us in this dire economic situation and the fact that 99.9% of our food is safe is the result of good oversight of food production and distribution.
2. The President's Israeli policies are blamed for the loss of the Congressional Seat in NY. Yet, the U.S. is suffering deteriorating relationships with every Middle Eastern country other than Israel because we are seen as Israel's protector. Now, I know that the Palestinians do not present the ideal negotiating partner, but no one short of someone willing to commit genocide can fail to see that the Palestine must come into existence as nation if peace is ever to be found. Israel's government and its supporting majority (there is a minority that see this as I do in Israel) cannot fathom giving up the West Bank settlements for a successful peace process. The President has simply tried to get Israel to step up to the plate and negotiate in a sincere manner. For that he is blamed for insufficient support for Israel. Well, somebody has to tell the Israeli's to start dealing with reality. The Arab world is not willing to suffer intolerant autocratic governing. That is the message of the Arab Spring. Military control of a nation is seen as intolerant autocratic governing and that is how Israel's control of the West Bank is seen in the Arab world. This is not a sustainable position and Israel has to be willing to allow change. Otherwise, it will find itself (and the U.S. will as well) more isolated on this point and the risk of someone terrible happening to Israel will increase. Israel has benefited from peace with Egypt and Jordan. That could end if they do not find a way to allow a Palestinian state. This is where President Obama has been cajoling Israel to go and for that he is blamed as being an insufficient supporter of Israel. Well, the U.S. has a right to develop its own Middle East policy and not be a prisoner of Israel's policies. We can support and protect Israel while urging them to find a path to the negotiating table. We can urge them to give up the West Bank settlements to attain a peace treaty. Mutual religious fervor, which is what you have between the most conservative wings of Islam and Judaism, will inevitably lead to conflict and that must be defused by both Israel and a responsible Palestinian government. Only a government that is in charge of a Palestinian nation will have the necessary respect to make that happen.
3. RedStateVT renewed his high deductible health care policy recently and was upset that the cost went up from $220/month to $300/month (for those who do not recognize those $ costs be aware RedState has a $25,000 deductible) despite his son getting a job and dropping off the policy. The HealthCare company blamed the Affordable Health Care Act, so RedState did also. Now I know my healthcare provider is losing money on our high deductible so it is entirely possible that RedState's was too and the person on the phone didn't know that or didn't care to share it.
But that is just background for the point I want to make here. RedState paid almost his entire deductible over the last year with a series of medical needs. Because he had access to the insured price for those services they fit within his deductible and what he could afford. If he had not had access to the insured prices, I bet they would have been closer to $75,000 and RedState would have been complaining about that. There is no justice in the uninsured paying one much higher price and the insured another lower price. One of the primary goals of the Affordable Health Care Act is getting the uninsured access to insurance so everyone's cost is on the same playing field. The Insurance Exchanges are supposed to be the market based vehicle for that to occur, but Republicans everywhere are fighting the establishment of these exchanges. Why do the Republicans want to prevent the establishment of a market based solution to providing heath insurance for the nearly 50% of the population that no longer gets health insurance from an employer? Nothing frustrates me more about the current state of political interaction between Republicans and Democrats than the unwillingness to allow a market based solution to develop on this point.
4. And that readers, is why I am very pessimistic about where this country is going. Unlike many, I do not blame the President. The Republicans set up to make his Presidency a failure and they have been successful in domestic policy. I note that the President has had a very successful Presidency in Foreign Policy (absent Israel, but that is not his fault). Republicans have worked themselves into a state where they believe that the government can do nothing to help anyone in any area other than National Defense. For those of us who have seen the government do things to help people over the last 80 years and seen the nation accomplish great things, this belief defies my logical base and is an exhibit of self interest at the expense of societal progress or even maintaining what society has accomplished since 1930.
On some other points briefly:
1. I see the Republicans do not want to fund the Food Safety administration because it would be an "increase in taxes", even though the Food Industry, which would pay the fees, supports the changes and funding. Is there no regulatory role that the Republicans will support? It was a failure of banking regulation that put us in this dire economic situation and the fact that 99.9% of our food is safe is the result of good oversight of food production and distribution.
2. The President's Israeli policies are blamed for the loss of the Congressional Seat in NY. Yet, the U.S. is suffering deteriorating relationships with every Middle Eastern country other than Israel because we are seen as Israel's protector. Now, I know that the Palestinians do not present the ideal negotiating partner, but no one short of someone willing to commit genocide can fail to see that the Palestine must come into existence as nation if peace is ever to be found. Israel's government and its supporting majority (there is a minority that see this as I do in Israel) cannot fathom giving up the West Bank settlements for a successful peace process. The President has simply tried to get Israel to step up to the plate and negotiate in a sincere manner. For that he is blamed for insufficient support for Israel. Well, somebody has to tell the Israeli's to start dealing with reality. The Arab world is not willing to suffer intolerant autocratic governing. That is the message of the Arab Spring. Military control of a nation is seen as intolerant autocratic governing and that is how Israel's control of the West Bank is seen in the Arab world. This is not a sustainable position and Israel has to be willing to allow change. Otherwise, it will find itself (and the U.S. will as well) more isolated on this point and the risk of someone terrible happening to Israel will increase. Israel has benefited from peace with Egypt and Jordan. That could end if they do not find a way to allow a Palestinian state. This is where President Obama has been cajoling Israel to go and for that he is blamed as being an insufficient supporter of Israel. Well, the U.S. has a right to develop its own Middle East policy and not be a prisoner of Israel's policies. We can support and protect Israel while urging them to find a path to the negotiating table. We can urge them to give up the West Bank settlements to attain a peace treaty. Mutual religious fervor, which is what you have between the most conservative wings of Islam and Judaism, will inevitably lead to conflict and that must be defused by both Israel and a responsible Palestinian government. Only a government that is in charge of a Palestinian nation will have the necessary respect to make that happen.
3. RedStateVT renewed his high deductible health care policy recently and was upset that the cost went up from $220/month to $300/month (for those who do not recognize those $ costs be aware RedState has a $25,000 deductible) despite his son getting a job and dropping off the policy. The HealthCare company blamed the Affordable Health Care Act, so RedState did also. Now I know my healthcare provider is losing money on our high deductible so it is entirely possible that RedState's was too and the person on the phone didn't know that or didn't care to share it.
But that is just background for the point I want to make here. RedState paid almost his entire deductible over the last year with a series of medical needs. Because he had access to the insured price for those services they fit within his deductible and what he could afford. If he had not had access to the insured prices, I bet they would have been closer to $75,000 and RedState would have been complaining about that. There is no justice in the uninsured paying one much higher price and the insured another lower price. One of the primary goals of the Affordable Health Care Act is getting the uninsured access to insurance so everyone's cost is on the same playing field. The Insurance Exchanges are supposed to be the market based vehicle for that to occur, but Republicans everywhere are fighting the establishment of these exchanges. Why do the Republicans want to prevent the establishment of a market based solution to providing heath insurance for the nearly 50% of the population that no longer gets health insurance from an employer? Nothing frustrates me more about the current state of political interaction between Republicans and Democrats than the unwillingness to allow a market based solution to develop on this point.
4. And that readers, is why I am very pessimistic about where this country is going. Unlike many, I do not blame the President. The Republicans set up to make his Presidency a failure and they have been successful in domestic policy. I note that the President has had a very successful Presidency in Foreign Policy (absent Israel, but that is not his fault). Republicans have worked themselves into a state where they believe that the government can do nothing to help anyone in any area other than National Defense. For those of us who have seen the government do things to help people over the last 80 years and seen the nation accomplish great things, this belief defies my logical base and is an exhibit of self interest at the expense of societal progress or even maintaining what society has accomplished since 1930.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Bizarre Republican Attitudes Towards Life
At the debate the other night, the Tea Party audience approved of the concept that adults who do not buy health insurance should be allowed to die because they cannot pay their hospital bills. Yet, these same people will not vote for someone who is in favor of allowing women the right to choose whether or not they should have a child.
No one can accuse these people of consistency.
No one can accuse these people of consistency.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Rick Perry Proves Obama's Affordable Heath Care Bill Necessary
"Texas just hasn't proven it can run a health system," said Dr. C. Bruce Malone III, an orthopedic surgeon and president of the historically conservative Texas Medical Assn.
More than a quarter of Texans lack health insurance, the highest rate in the nation, placing a crushing burden on hospitals and doctors who treat patients unable to pay.
Those costs are passed to the insured. Insurance premiums have risen more quickly in Texas than they have nationally over the last seven years. And when compared with incomes, insurance in Texas is less affordable than in every state but Mississippi, according to the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.
Thank you to the Los Angeles Times for this article.
More than a quarter of Texans lack health insurance, the highest rate in the nation, placing a crushing burden on hospitals and doctors who treat patients unable to pay.
Those costs are passed to the insured. Insurance premiums have risen more quickly in Texas than they have nationally over the last seven years. And when compared with incomes, insurance in Texas is less affordable than in every state but Mississippi, according to the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.
Thank you to the Los Angeles Times for this article.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Individual Governors do not create jobs
Job creation is any one state is primarily a function of (i) the national economy, (ii) historical economic development in the state and its natural resource base, and (iii) many years of state legislative/administrative construction of taxation and labor rules. So for any one governor to claim success at job creation during their administration for their actions alone is a failure to be honest with the voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)