-=> Quoting Robert Craft to Walter Luffman <=-
 RC> Poverty level is easily ascertained without goverment
 RC> intervention. Assuming four components of expenditures:
 RC> food, clothing, shelter and transportation; realistic
 RC> minimums can be established. 
Accepted.  But having been there, I still don't care for the
term itself, so I flinched when you mentioned it.  And I
don't trust government when it comes to numbers (or much
else), so I flinched again because the federal gummint
collects and processes such data.  (Better IMHO to handle it
at the state or county level, so that regional variations in
prices and wages aren't over-averaged.)
 
 RC> I agree. It's even in the state's *financial* interest to
 RC> foster education. After all, one collects more in taxes
 RC> from an engineer with a master's degree than a counter
 RC> waiter at Hardee's.
Yep.  I would think the Seattle area is certainly better off
because of all the Microsoft Millionaires who live and
work there.  And don't forget the trickle-down effect:  Bill
Gates hired a lot of people at considerable expense to build
that pleasure-dome he calls a house.  Eventually some of
that money translates into salaries/taxes for the people at
Hardee's; but by that point, it's already changed hands (and
been taxed) several times.
(Say what you will about Microsoft's business practices..and
I've said a lot myself; but Bill Gates' mere existence boosts
the economy around him, and that can't possibly be all bad.)
 
 WL> should be limited to funding public schools with state and
 WL> local taxes,
 RC> How 'bout education vouchers instead?
I like the concept of vouchers; lets the government set
minimum funding for an essential service, the lets the
individual taxpayer decide which of the competitors gets his
share of that minimum.  I worry that, as the voucher concept
gains popularity, liberals will attempt to poison it by
making vouchers the only legal source of funding private
schools can accept.  (They've already done something similar
to doctors who accept Medicare patients.)
 
 WL> schools should be encouraged to exceed those minimum
 WL> standards,
 RC> And it would be good advertizing in a competitive
 RC> environment to be able to claim: "Our graduating class
 RC> averaged 1200 on the SAT."
Also good for the community, since the local Chamber of
Commerce can use the same bragging-point when recruiting
industry to locate there.  It's being done near here, in fact,
using a school that has won the state's _academic_ decathlon
three years in a row.  The surprise is, the school being
touted is the largest *public* high school in that county.
Sadly, the school also has its share of "social promotions"
and probably teachers of OBE as well.
 RC> Parents would gladly pay an excise tax on the education
 RC> voucher in order to get their kids enrolled.
Good, but not good enough.  I want to slowly starve out the
inferior educators and administrators by reducing the amount
of funding that goes to them.  If the tenure system and the
teachers' unions are so entrenched that we can't simply fire
the incompetent and/or lazy educators on the payroll, let's
try to drive them out of teaching through economic means.
Parents will quickly get the message and move their kids
(and vouchers) out of those schools and into the better (and
better-funded) ones; their actions will increase the funding
available for good schhols even more.
Before too many years, the incompetent and lazy will have
empty or nearly-empty classrooms.  They may still have their
tenure-protected jobs, but that won't last more than a
generation -- and with teacher's bonuses and schools'
increased funding based on measure performance, the only
teachers and principals in that category will be an
ever-decreasing percentage of the total.  Their salaries,
even with the usual longevity raises but _without_ any
bonuses, should quickly be offset by the stronger economy
resulting from student getting decent educations before
they enter the workplace.
This ought to end the stranglehold teachers' unions have on
school systems as well, since good teachers (and _all_ new
teachers) will be able to work their way into better
pay (with bonuses) and working conditions (in better-funded
schools) than the unions can negotiate for them.  We just
have to stand firm and block any attempts by the unions to
get guaranteed job-transfers between schools and other
attempts at "equality for all teachers".
 RC> The Federal government's only notable success in education
 RC> was the GI Bill. I suspect that detailed analysis would
 RC> show that the GI Bill made a profit, in that the government
 RC> got more income tax from GI Bill graduates than the program
 RC> cost. But, then again, when one considers the selection
 RC> criteria for the initial Gi Bill... 
The original GI Bill was government at its best -- minimal
involvement in something that benefits the people.  The
current incarnation isn't too bad either.  Neither, of
course, should ever be confused with the outright giveaway
programs congresscritters and presidents like to call "a GI
Bill for (fill in name of group)."
Walter, Forked Deer River Ilks
wluffman@usit.net
... I already know I'm paranoid. The question is, am I paranoid enough?
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------