Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Atticus Grinch]

Arnold's special smoking huesli on the Capitol lawn may have contributed to the basement of the Capitol building being flooded.

Also among the Gov's accomplishments this week was vetoing a bill that would have phased out use of "Redskins" as a school mascot, because the law was "another nonacademic state administrative requirement for schools to comply with takes more focus away from getting kids to learn at the highest level." No word yet on how school boards are supposed to focus on getting kids to learn at the highest level when the Governor has just slipped them this political football. Money quotation, from GOP legislator for affected school: "People can make anything ignoble if they want to. What's next - bullfrogs, because they are green and slimy?" Nice.

The Governor's love of local control does not extend, however, to business regulation, as he vetoed a measure that would have permitted local governments to certify businesses that operated in environmentally friendly ways, because the bill would not allow local governments to "respond to the needs of businesses in their community." Very nice.

Meanwhile, the Governor also vetoed a bill that would have required hotels to install certain handicapped accessiblity and safety measures in bathrooms, on the ground that --- get this, now --- the legislation was "unneccessary" because the same result could be accomplished through regulations.

This guy is an empty, albeit rather large, suit that spouts a series of soundbites that aren't even a coherent version of GOP talking points. What a yutz.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

OK (or O.K., YMMV), so the headline on the NY Times today is that tax cut extensions have been passed without an offsetting revenue source.

I always though of RR's greatest achievement as Gramm-Rudman. It was, despite the best efforts of a sizable number of Democrats as well as some Republicans, a bi-partisan and radical approach to governing: setting some ground rules where we needed to pay as we went, and it has dominated the economic policy debate ever since.

It strikes me that during this election season Bush is putting the final nails on the Reagan coffin (granted, with the help of many D's, but that shouldn't surprise anyone - we're not the heir to the mantle).

Do any R's object to this?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Let me guess, a suburban Democrat who couldn't point to the nearest public housing if she was getting mugged in its lobby. You still probably deserve a blowjob too.

What do I win?

Conf. to Vietmom, posting the episode guide is the easy part. Its when you catch this kind of thing that you earn the right to use them. You need to hit back with furious anger.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Do any R's object to this?

As a principle, absolutely. But the devil is in the details. I'd say a wartime exception should apply, but the deficit is going oh-so-much-higher than the increases in defense and security spending. Which. Is. Abhorrent.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Every time I see $14000 monthly get turned into $9600, I get pissed thinking about how many dozens of children I could feed for Sally Struthers if I just had the choice with that missing money. Or I could probably buy breakfast for a celebrity like Sally Struthers. I'm trapped into this poverty. Trapped I tell you. And it pisses me off.

And yet, I don't hear you crying for the kids starving here in America, or living on the streets. I don't hear you talking about how we need to trim the defense budget of all outdated or ineffective missle systems so that we can afford to pay for more troops to mop up Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if you truly believe that poverty is a bad thing, you could take two months net salary and put some homeless family of four over the poverty line.

Don't cry for you, Argentina.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And yet, I don't hear you crying for the kids starving here in America, or living on the streets. I don't hear you talking about how we need to trim the defense budget of all outdated or ineffective missle systems so that we can afford to pay for more troops to mop up Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if you truly believe that poverty is a bad thing, you could take two months net salary and put some homeless family of four over the poverty line.

Don't cry for you, Argentina.

I served my time. I shed my tears.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Arnold's special smoking huesli on the Capitol lawn may have contributed to the basement of the Capitol building being flooded.

Also among the Gov's accomplishments this week was vetoing a bill that would have phased out use of "Redskins" as a school mascot, because the law was "another nonacademic state administrative requirement for schools to comply with takes more focus away from getting kids to learn at the highest level." No word yet on how school boards are supposed to focus on getting kids to learn at the highest level when the Governor has just slipped them this political football. Money quotation, from GOP legislator for affected school: "People can make anything ignoble if they want to. What's next - bullfrogs, because they are green and slimy?" Nice.

The Governor's love of local control does not extend, however, to business regulation, as he vetoed a measure that would have permitted local governments to certify businesses that operated in environmentally friendly ways, because the bill would not allow local governments to "respond to the needs of businesses in their community." Very nice.

Meanwhile, the Governor also vetoed a bill that would have required hotels to install certain handicapped accessiblity and safety measures in bathrooms, on the ground that --- get this, now --- the legislation was "unneccessary" because the same result could be accomplished through regulations.

This guy is an empty, albeit rather large, suit that spouts a series of soundbites that aren't even a coherent version of GOP talking points. What a yutz.

Are you fucking nuts? Are you really arguing AGAINST a politician shutting down unnecessary bills of dubious worth in a state climbing out of a fiscal hole which also happens to have a history of enacting piles and piles of the most worthless, inane and costly legislation/regulation in the country? Maybe Arnold's decision to blow out new regs/laws isn't well thought out on the micro level, but one certainly cannot argue with sending a message to California's legislature to stop writing a bill to cover every goddamn thing some flake decides should be subject to a law.

Now, shred me with some stats and explain how I'm painting with a broad brush, JFK.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are towns -- lawyers live in them -- where public school teachers cannot afford to buy a house, and have no choice but to send their kids to (presumably inferior) public schools in other districts, or to (gasp) private schools. When club gets agitated about that, and insists that the wealthy suburbs pay their teachers (and policemen, etc.) enough to live in them (oh, the hypocrisy!), sign me up for the crusade.

My mom called me all pissed about how her taxes just got upped because teachers in her district demanded a new contract with $12,500 in benefits per year. Yeh, I ain't making that up. Oh, and they demanded a fat pension.

Here is wisdom... This country will fall on its fucking ass if someone doesn't remind people that everything is a bargain and you get what you pay for. If you want to have three months off every summer and low stress (don't even attempt to tell me how "stressed" teachers are - I have no desire to wipe vomit from my keyboard), you'll get paid accordingly. If you want to work 9-5, you'll get paid accordingly. Teachers are not dumb - they understand the bargain they've made. Their demands for pay similar to what some newly minted professionals get paid are disingenuine at best and an unvarnished greedy shakedown at worst.

These teachers and govt workers and union folk with their pension demands amaze me. I have family who get pensions which allow them to live lifestyles comparable to those lived by other family who worked, saved and retired. Working for Uncle Sam for 25 years is like saving a pile of dough sizable enough to turn off $50-60k in returns when you factor in the pensions and health benefit packages these "retirees" (nobody really retires from the govt because none of them have ever really worked) get. Hell, I should quit now and get a cushy govt job, or perhaps teach. Why the fuck bust one's ass when you can shake the school district or the govt down and do just as well?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Every time I see $14000 monthly get turned into $9600, I get pissed thinking about how many dozens of children I could feed for Sally Struthers if I just had the choice with that missing money. Or I could probably buy breakfast for a celebrity like Sally Struthers. I'm trapped into this poverty. Trapped I tell you. And it pisses me off.

Salary is tacked to taxes. I'm always puzzled when I hear the argument "But I'd make so much more if not for these fucking taxes!!!" No, no you wouldn't. They'd pay you less.

Need an example? Ask your buddy who works in the satellite office outside the City how much he gets paid.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Working for Uncle Sam for 25 years is like saving a pile of dough sizable enough to turn off $50-60k in returns when you factor in the pensions and health benefit packages these "retirees" (nobody really retires from the govt because none of them have ever really worked) get. Hell, I should quit now and get a cushy govt job, or perhaps teach. Why the fuck bust one's ass when you can shake the school district or the govt down and do just as well?

Before you quit, you might want to look into how the federal government pensions work. Right now it offers a 401(k) plan and a traditional pension that you pay for up front in the form of additional payroll taxes. I think it's about 1% of your salary, which gets you 1% of your salary back upon retirement for each year of service. With your hard living, you probably wouldn't make out like a bandit.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My mom called me all pissed about how her taxes just got upped because teachers in her district demanded a new contract with $12,500 in benefits per year. Yeh, I ain't making that up. Oh, and they demanded a fat pension.

Here is wisdom... This country will fall on its fucking ass if someone doesn't remind people that everything is a bargain and you get what you pay for. If you want to have three months off every summer and low stress (don't even attempt to tell me how "stressed" teachers are - I have no desire to wipe vomit from my keyboard), you'll get paid accordingly. If you want to work 9-5, you'll get paid accordingly. Teachers are not dumb - they understand the bargain they've made. Their demands for pay similar to what some newly minted professionals get paid are disingenuine at best and an unvarnished greedy shakedown at worst.

Yeah. God knows we certainly don't want to waste money on the people who teach our children and shape our future. Especially since so many of us are now two earner couples and even more dependent on teachers and child care workers to help our kids learn and become good people.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We now have the Philly Inquirer, which - unlike our own Mr. Duke - demands that Dan must go!!!

Oh, and do we have any GAs in Hartford?

I sneer at people who read that piece of emergency toilet paper on the train. Crap. Indicative of just what a rat's asshole this place really is.

50 pages of ads for used Toyotas and C-grade lingerie models preening for Lord & Taylor.

And they have the nerve to still put out a local business section, as though there is some substance to fill those five pages.

Oh, but how bout them Birds? Like clockwork - they'll pull a Tyson v. Douglass embarrassment in the playoffs.

Eh, what can you expect from a joint who's mascot is semi-retarded punch drunk Vinnie? Philly - the land of concrete jaws... without much behind them.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why the fuck bust one's ass when you can shake the school district or the govt down and do just as well?

You're still pissed that Mrs. Hooper gave you a "C" on your essay on the wit and wisdom of The Fountainhead in 11th grade, aren't you?

$12,500 in benefits? Do you have any idea what your benefits cost your firm? What do they want, good health insurance and some sort of contribution to a retirement account? How dare they!

I have no doubt that there are lazy teachers who are paid too much. I also believe that teachers have made substantial advances in pay over the last decade, at least in the geographic areas where I have acquantences who teach. But it's still not the sweet life you make it out to be. And when you come to a point where you have kids, perhaps you will ask yourself "Am I really comfortable leaving my kid all day with someone who's best option in life was taking a job paying $30k a year?" You better hope that the reason s/he's there is because s/he's independantly wealthy and really likes kids.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yeah. God knows we certainly don't want to waste money on the people who teach our children and shape our future. Especially since so many of us are now two earner couples and even more dependent on teachers and child care workers to help our kids learn and become good people.

No risk, no reward. I don't give a fuck what you do - if you don't put something on the line, you don't deserve to get paid. That, my self-righteous pal, is whats called capitalism.

If you don't want to put the minimum wager down, don't cry for a seat at the table. That's not an unfair proposition in the least.

Jesus Christ, when did Americans develop this notion that there was a way other than actually paying for the ticket to get into the show?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I find this a very confusing issue. While I certainly agree that people should have the freedom to send their kids to private schools, I still think the statistics club cites are a shame. It shows a lack of belief in the product one is producing. But it also compounds the problems in the public schools. Teachers kids tend to be smarter and more stable. Taking these kids out of the public school environment destablizes the schools even more.

I don't think this requires some sort of mandate against teachers sending their kids to private school, but do think it's a regretable phenomena.

Your comment is flawed for a few reasons. Most importantly, the public school education is not simply a product of the teachers efforts but operates in a broader context.

An example: just yesterday, I spoke with a woman (really hot -- but that's not relevant here) who used to teach at a public school in SF, and expects to return to public school teaching after getting a degree. The school where she taught regularly conducted "drive-by" drills -- what to do if someone started shooting on campus. Four kids at the school had been killed in such incidents the prior year. This sort of thing happens at public schools all over SF, and I would suggest has nothing to do with the skills of the teachers or the product they produce. Under those circumstances, I think we should admire her dedication for actually continuing to teach in public schools -- not criticize her decision not to force her own willingness to work in danger onto her kids by having them attend the same school.

Another part of the context, of course, is money. Public schools are starving, with classes growing and extra-curric activities being slashed. Would you criticize someone for sending her kid to private school so he could be someplace with a music program? Why is it wrong for a public school teacher -- who plays no role in the funding decisions that limit the resources available to public school students -- to make that decision? Again, this is not the product she produced.

Another part is textbook choice. Again, not something that individual teachers decide. Public school texts are getting worse and worse, in large part because of the influence of the religious right. Having seen the books that some public schools force kids to read, based on state-wide purchasing decisions (or, worse, based on decisions by the publishers about what they have to print in order to sell their books to the Texas school system), I personally would not send my kid to public school. His private school makes its own purchasing decisions, and isn't bound by district-wide, state-wide, or regional decisionmaking bodies.

Expressing "regret" or shock over (a minority of) public school teachers sending their kids to private school is kind of like criticizing people who volunteer at soup kitchens for eating at restaurants.