No Child left behind, Hopefully

Obama recently attended a town hall meeting in front of a largely latino crowd in a multicultural high school in washington D.C. His main message was that too much testing makes education boring and ultimately hurts education. The president has been pushing his education agenda all month, and is asking congress to rewrite the current no child left behind act that President Bush championed. I agree with his intent, but disagree with his implementation.

I do believe that excessive testing hurts education if the teachers are spending too much time preparing for the tests. Too much emphasis has been placed on test scores and schools have been spending too much instructional time. I disagree with the president and believe that students should be tested every year to check their progress, but the tests should not require advanced preparation. The tests, like the president states, should be used to diagnose their strengths, weaknesses, and to help identify students that are struggling.

The President has asked congress to submit a rewrite of the 2001 law by the start of the 2011-2012 school year. This is very strange considering the many issues that they are currently debating including the budget, healthcare, the economy, and the recent surge of middle eastern violence. It is unclear of wether the president truly wants to reform education or is trying to set up a smoke screen to divert attention from difficult issues.

I believe that the presidents proposal is contrary to the democratic agenda. What he is asking from congress is for less stringent standards. I usually picture the Democratic party as those who want more stringent regulation and higher standards. When I first read this, the first thought that came to mind is that his main goal is to undo what President Bush and the Republicans worked so hard for. My question is how the Democrats intend on improving education by lowering standards and testing only every few years.

What I also found interesting is that in his speech, he made a plug for Apple by stating that he too has an iPad while emphasizing the use of technology in classrooms. I found this to be very ironic considering he recently had a meeting with top executives from technology companies. How lucrative would a government program be to fund the purchase of iPad's and other high tech gadgets for schools across the country. I wonder if these executives are planning on being campaign contributors?

Dear taxpayer, Thank you, The IRS

    In her March 9th entry in the Red State blog entitled, "Scotts Brown's Common Sense: A Tax Receipt," Melissa Clouthier comments on the proposed Taxpayer receipt act of 2011. The proposed bill that is being cosponsored by Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Bill Nelson, is designed to increase Government transparency and show taxpayers how our money is being spent.

   Having posted on a conservative news blog, her intended audience is mostly conservatives and those leaning right. I agree with the idea of increasing transparency, but it will take more than mailing out hundreds of millions of statements with a lot of numbers every year. The key is to provide the right information in an easy to read manner that every American can easily understand and gain something from. Unfortunately, the Government is not exactly know for its way of making things easy to understand. Clouthier also writes that each American owes $45,000 to the Government. This is correct if you divide the national debt by the U.S. Population, but I think it is safe to say that some would owe more than others.

  Clouthier also writes that the bill could be transformational because those who pay very little taxes but receive huge benefits would see how their personal path affects the government's path. I disagree with this aspect of her argument because I feel that it puts more blame on those that earn less than average. She also makes the assumption that those in that path are there by choice and by being given a receipt, they would change course and be in the position to pay more taxes and contribute more to society.

  Overall I agree with Clouthier about the tax receipt, and I would personally enjoy seeing where the tax dollars I paid went.  
  

To sign a petition to encourage Congress, visit TheTaxReceipt.com

Another option to get out of debt?

   In his article titled, "The sale of the century," Niall Ferguson supports the proposition of selling U.S. assets for the purpose of reducing the huge national debt. Ferguson's intended audience are primarily citizens concerned about our country's debt crisis and are open to options other than tax and cut. I would have to say that I am one of those citizens, and agree that the government needs to start acting like a business and sell off assets to balance its books. Unfortunately, I am afraid of what our politicians would do with the money from such sales. Ferguson explains that, "The root of the problem is, of course, a lack of political will,"  and politicians would still be reluctant to cut programs that would make their constituents unhappy. If we are not careful, that money will be spent and not used to reduce the national debt.
  
   Ferguson also comments on the proposed privatization of large and small firms, and even the nations highways Letting other countries lease or buy them to handle revenue and maintenance. My only concern with this idea is double taxation. We must make sure that if this is to be done, that tax dollars are not spent to build new roads that are then turned into toll money that flows out of the country. The idea is to relieve the our government of the maintenance costs associated with the highway system. In this financial crisis that is the hardest since the great depression, we need to open up to options not as desirable as those during times of plenty.
  
   To get out of debt you have to increase income, cut costs, or both and one way to increase income is to sell assets. If our Government acts wisely, we can make great strides by selling assets that we can afford to sell. As long as this money is used wisely, and not diverted to pet programs, we can begin on the long hard road of financial independence.




  

Those are fighting words!

 The quest for the Republican presidential ticket has begun, and some hopefuls are taking shots at President Obama. As stated in this NPR article, on the second day of the Conservative Political Action Conference, Mitt Romney called Obama a "weak President". In his speech, Romney criticized Obama's Economic and National security policies, and his dangerous lack of direction. What he conveniently neglected to mention was the Health care reform that any Republican would love to use as momentum.  Unfortunately for Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts, he signed a Health care law which was used as the prototype for "Obamacare".  This article is worth reading because it provides an example of how politicians of both sides can be wrong and promote bad legislation.