Originally Posted by James50

We attract a certain person based on a variety of factors including but not limited to pay. Once on the job, they have to make a good impression for (usually) 3 years. After that they are untouchable. After that, you can no longer say you get what you pay for. You get what you have to put up with.

James50

I agree we probably need to look at modifying the tenure system and ideally instituting some sort of accountability measure, but absent other reforms such measures aren't the panacea that many portray it to be. I also have to say that it isn't quite as hard to fire tenured teachers as portrayed in the media, and that teacher tenure, or teacher unions, do not exist everywhere.

Educating children correctly is a complex, demanding task, so it requires a skilled, highly motivated workforce to accomplish.

We've undertaken a fair bit of experimentation in different types of school settings during the past decade and what seems to work, union or no union, are settings where the workforce of the school is highly motivated, talented by a number of measures such as academic or other achievement, spends a lot of time with the students measured in school hours and school days (at least in settings where the student populations are behind the national average academically, which is where the majority of the discussion over school reform is focused), and engages in a program meant to socialize students towards positive interactions with others in a variety of settings.

The problem with such schools is "scaling them up", so that the reforms that make them successful can be applied to schools elsewhere, and the scaling problem always comes down to money. Those schools depend on a workforce comprised of young people recruited out of college through programs like Teach For America where the recruits agree to spend two years teaching before moving on, usually to another career. The turnover at such places is usually high, not because the teachers wish to leave education, but because they want to move on to other careers where they are paid more.

In the end teacher pay isn't the only factor, but it is a huge one.

At some point we have to ask ourselves why we keep attracting a certain type of person to a position.

Teachers, almost alone among the white collar occupations, felt it necessary to unionize in large numbers. Nurses didn't, at least to the extent that teachers did. Neither did engineers. Neither did doctors, lawyers, or accountants.

Teachers unionized in part because the pay often was very low (there was a time when someone just out of high school could obtain a manufacturing job in some areas that paid the same salary as a teaching job that required a four year college degree), and in part because the working conditions were often very bad (as was mentioned by others). There were reasons for those, and the reasons lay mostly in the way teaching profession was viewed historically, as unimportant to an economy that relied mainly on manual labor, and the fact that for a long time teaching profession could count on a labor force that was shut out of most other occupations.

Those conditions existed when teacher unions were formed, but they do not exist now. Both teacher unions, and the society that employs them, need to recognize that fact.

Originally Posted by The Rani

How Sarah Palin Got it Right About Paul Revere 'Warning the British'

Sarah Palin today issues a correction to her mis-statement regarding Paul Revere's ride.

It wasn't ding if by land and dong if by sea, after all! That was just the liberal press confusing her again with their lies.

She's got it this time, ya betcha! And she issued some vintage videos found hidden away in a bear locker in Wasalia (who'd of thought old Paul got up there?)!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=642PoD0pEA4

Latest ABCnews/WaPo poll shows Obama with a 47% approval among All Adults and he is statistically tied with Mitt Romney. With Registered voters Romney is ahead, I would bet among LIKELY voters Romney has an even larger lead......

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sarah Palin today issues a correction to her mis-statement regarding Paul Revere's ride.

It wasn't ding if by land and dong if by sea, after all! That was just the liberal press confusing her again with their lies.

She's got it this time, ya betcha! And she issued some vintage videos found hidden away in a bear locker in Wasalia (who'd of thought old Paul got up there?)!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=642PoD0pEA4

...her version makes Paul Revere sound like a traitor. Which is easier to believe -- that Paul Revere was a traitor or that Sarah Palin is a fool?

I rest my case.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...her version makes Paul Revere sound like a traitor. Which is easier to believe -- that Paul Revere was a traitor or that Sarah Palin is a fool?

I rest my case.

Sometimes I wonder whether she's a fool or if she's a shrewd businesswoman being quietly paid by Jon Stewart to look like a fool. I mean, this material writes itself...

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Sometimes I wonder whether she's a fool or if she's a shrewd businesswoman being quietly paid by Jon Stewart to look like a fool. I mean, this material writes itself...

I think she is a Narcissist who thinks she's smarter than she actually is.

The Republican National Senatorial Committee has started a count-up for the days since the Democrats have passed a budget. Today is day 769. Keep in mind that budgets cannot be filibustered so 53 votes is enough if you can keep your caucus together. They would not even pass Obama's budget. Politico reports that some prominent Democrats are chafing under this cynical and do-nothing approach.

A growing number of Senate Democrats are anxious about the lack of a Democratic budget and the unusually slow legislative agenda, creating another headache for Majority Leader Harry Reid as he tries to protect his majority ahead of a daunting election year.

“On the budget front, I’m not a happy camper around here,” California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told POLITICO. “I think we need to have a budget that we stand by.”

“In the states, you can’t do this in the states — you’ve got to move,” said West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a former governor up for reelection next year. “We’re hoping we will.”

Not having a budget, Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor said, “makes it harder to do things that we just need to do — there are people talking about an education bill, a highway bill — a lot of other things you just don’t know how much you have to spend.”

Now Brian Rush and probably others think that the progressive democrats will sweep to victory in 2012. You would think the senate democrats would have the courage of their convictions. An inability to pass a budget shows a timid, ineffective, and possibly feckless party. They control 2 of 3 branches of government and are willing to do nothing. Can you beat something with nothing? The democrats talk about irresponsible behavior but model something even worse.

(BTW - While I usually disagree with her, I have always thought Diane Feinstein was a straight-shooter. I try to listen when she has something to say.)

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Now Brian Rush and probably others think that the progressive democrats will sweep to victory in 2012.

James, please don't twist and misrepresent my words. I have said repeatedly that I do NOT believe we can expect a progressive victory next year. I expect a conservative (real conservative) victory and comprehensive defeat for the reactionary nut jobs that have taken over the Republican Party. That is hardly the same thing.

You are also being disingenuous, or repeating the Republican official misinformation, regarding the budget process. You know very well that the Constitution requires a budget to start in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate. That the Senate has not passed a budget means nothing at all except that the House hasn't submitted one they could accept.

I'm disappointed in you. You're better than this.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

James, please don't twist and misrepresent my words. I have said repeatedly that I do NOT believe we can expect a progressive victory next year. I expect a conservative (real conservative) victory and comprehensive defeat for the reactionary nut jobs that have taken over the Republican Party. That is hardly the same thing.

You are also being disingenuous, or repeating the Republican official misinformation, regarding the budget process. You know very well that the Constitution requires a budget to start in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate. That the Senate has not passed a budget means nothing at all except that the House hasn't submitted one they could accept.

You're better than this.

Really I did not think I was twisting your words. I apologize for misreading your intentions. So you think that the (true) conservatives will win in 2012. OK. Maybe I was going by some of your previous words about the left wing insurgency. What is your sense about the LI these days?

At any rate, can I assume you agree that the senate needs to produce a budget? Keep in mind that the 769 days goes back to the previous democratic congress. As I understand it, budget resolutions are passed separately in each house. Diane Feinstein certainly seems to believe they should pass a budget.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Really I did not think I was twisting your words. I apologize for misreading your intentions. So you think that the (true) conservatives will win in 2012. OK. Maybe I was going by some of your previous words about the left wing insurgency. What is your sense about the LI these days?

It's there, and stronger than ever, but I don't see a progressive victory at the polls next year. The problem isn't that there's no good support for it but that not enough progressive candidates are running. The Democrats have failed to live up to their campaign promises of 2008. In many cases, progressive voters last year were left with no one to vote for. I don't really expect that to change next year, but they have been given powerful reason to vote against, and the same is true of moderates (or conservatives, as they should be called). This is defense. I expect the Democrats to reclaim the House and for Obama to be reelected next year. But that will result only in timid, tepid reform, or none, until a combination of external events and internal protest pushes them to do what needs to be done. The baseline, the default assumption, is always conservative. Change is being pressed from the right, not the left. That effort needs to be defeated soundly. After that, we can discuss what reforms are really needed in a dialog between liberals and conservatives, in which reactionaries have no part.

At any rate, can I assume you agree that the senate needs to produce a budget?

No, because the Senate cannot produce a budget. It lacks the Constitutional authority. It can approve, with or without amendments, or reject, budgets from the House, but it cannot initiate such a bill. What needs to happen is that the House needs to produce a budget that is serious and not a grandstanding play to the Tea Party base. Once that happens, then it will be up to the Senate to do its job. But the Senate can't do its job until the House first does its job.

Originally Posted by James50

The Republican National Senatorial Committee has started a count-up for the days since the Democrats have passed a budget. Today is day 769. Keep in mind that budgets cannot be filibustered so 53 votes is enough if you can keep your caucus together. They would not even pass Obama's budget. Politico reports that some prominent Democrats are chafing under this cynical and do-nothing approach.

Now Brian Rush and probably others think that the progressive democrats will sweep to victory in 2012. You would think the senate democrats would have the courage of their convictions. An inability to pass a budget shows a timid, ineffective, and possibly feckless party. They control 2 of 3 branches of government and are willing to do nothing. Can you beat something with nothing? The democrats talk about irresponsible behavior but model something even worse.

(BTW - While I usually disagree with her, I have always thought Diane Feinstein was a straight-shooter. I try to listen when she has something to say.)

James50

I would have to add to Brian's response and provide to you the information that the 2011 Budget is a done deal. The 2011 budget was enacted on April 15, 2011, as Public Law 112-10. You do remember the whole business of a possible government shut-down?

The issue now (other than the debt ceiling extension) is the 2012 Budget. Traditionally, the budget bill for any given Federal Fiscal Year (Oct to Sept) is past and enacted by April 15 of the previous fiscal year - for the 2012 budget that would have been this past April 15, 2011. However, it has become a rarity for a budget to be enacted by the time its fiscal year actually starts; instead, the government runs on a series of time-limited resolutions. While the 2011 budget was a stretch (not unusual in an election year), there currently is absolutely nothing unusual for the 2012 budget to not have yet been enacted by now.

I will need to move you down a little on the gradient of low-information voters and up on the scale of easily-manipulated voters - i.e., get a clue.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's there, and stronger than ever, but I don't see a progressive victory at the polls next year. The problem isn't that there's no good support for it but that not enough progressive candidates are running. The Democrats have failed to live up to their campaign promises of 2008. In many cases, progressive voters last year were left with no one to vote for. I don't really expect that to change next year, but they have been given powerful reason to vote against, and the same is true of moderates (or conservatives, as they should be called). This is defense. I expect the Democrats to reclaim the House and for Obama to be reelected next year. But that will result only in timid, tepid reform, or none, until a combination of external events and internal protest pushes them to do what needs to be done. The baseline, the default assumption, is always conservative. Change is being pressed from the right, not the left. That effort needs to be defeated soundly. After that, we can discuss what reforms are really needed in a dialog between liberals and conservatives, in which reactionaries have no part.



No, because the Senate cannot produce a budget. It lacks the Constitutional authority. It can approve, with or without amendments, or reject, budgets from the House, but it cannot initiate such a bill. What needs to happen is that the House needs to produce a budget that is serious and not a grandstanding play to the Tea Party base. Once that happens, then it will be up to the Senate to do its job. But the Senate can't do its job until the House first does its job.

I agree completely with James on the Democrats and the budget. And Brian, you are wrong about what the Senate could do. The House has already sent budgets to the Senate. The Senate is given the power by the Constitution to amend them, which amounts to proposing their own. This the Democrats have failed to do.

If there is indeed a vast army of progressives who stayed home last November out of disappointment and allowed the Republicans to take over the House, then they don't deserve ever to have their views reflected in public policy. In 1968 I heard lots of my friends--the kind of people you idolize, Brian--explain they weren't voting because there was no difference between Nixon and Humphrey. They were wrong, and they helped usher in the Reupblican era. For the record, I am quite sure there is no such army, but if there is they should have had the brains to see the difference between the old Democratic majority and the new Republican one.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I will need to move you down a little on the gradient of low-information voters and up on the scale of easily-manipulated voters - i.e., get a clue.

Ah, PW, you always have to finish up with the put-down. Keeps the forum lively, you know.

I think you both need to read the Wiki on the budget process. The idea of the Senate as this passive go-no go voting machine on the House budget is just not how it works. The budget process begins with each house developing a concurrent resolution This budget is not subject to filibuster and does not require a presidential signature. After the overall budget is approved, then the appropriations committees have the numbers they need to mark up particular legislation with specific spending amounts within the overall budget numbers. Finally, the differences between the House and Senate appropriations are worked out in conference committees. That is the way it is supposed to work. But don't take my word for it. Read the Wiki.

The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.

Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government.

In recent years, Congress has not passed all of the appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. Congress has then enacted continuing resolutions, that provide for the temporary funding of government operations.

Read the whole thing. Its one thing to get hung up on the appropriations bills. Now the Senate will not even pass a budget resolution which provides the framework for the appropriations process. They will not even put something on the table. This is what has Feinstein and others upset.

The next step is the drafting of a budget resolution. The United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget are responsible for drafting budget resolutions. Following the traditional calendar, by early April both committees finalize their drafts and submit it to their respective floors for consideration and adoption.

A budget resolution, which is one form of a concurrent resolution, binds Congress, but is not a law, and so does not require the President's signature. The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. No new spending authority, however, is provided until appropriation bills are enacted.

Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

The Senate democrats have become so scared they will not even say how they want one of the most important and watched functions of government - how money is to be spent - to be performed. They can say what they are against, but not what they are for. It is a complete breakdown in how budgeting is to be done and it has been this way for over two years.

I think it speaks poorly for the Democrats and their ability to govern, but if its just fine and dandy with you, well OK.

And as for what only the House can do, I think you are confused. Only the House can propose new taxes under the Constitution, but this is has nothing to do with budget resolutions.

James50

Poll: Voters Wary of a Mormon President
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...mon-president/

Only 24% Say They Share Obama's Political Views
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...olitical_views

Nothing really surprising in either article but only two more confirmations of how widely spread out US voters are on the issues. As for the federal budget and the economic issues, I can easily imagine continuing high unemployment and another big drop in the stock markets, and if this does indeed occur, then the Republicans will win big in 2012. I'm actually hoping that the economy improves and the troops start returning home, which would lead to another term for President Obama (something I don't want).

Originally Posted by jpatrick

I'm actually hoping that the economy improves and the troops start returning home, which would lead to another term for President Obama.

If both those things happen, he will deserve it.

James50

Reuters Poll: Obama ahead of all Republicans by double-digits.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75749V20110608

We really are all over the place. Very contradictory results from the WaPo poll.

The Associated Press has just moved an alert reporting that GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s staff has resigned en masse.

One by one the most extreme Republican candidates are flaming out. I don't know if you can say that the reactionaries are losing, but its not looking good for them at the presidential level.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

The Associated Press has just moved an alert reporting that GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s staff has resigned en masse.

One by one the most extreme Republican candidates are flaming out. I don't know if you can say that the reactionaries are losing, but its not looking good for them at the presidential level.

James50

Good heavens, it's true. I find this far more interesting than Anthony Weiner, by the way.

The question, James, is whether your party can nominate a sane candidate. I'm not sure if it can.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Good heavens, it's true. I find this far more interesting than Anthony Weiner, by the way.

The question, James, is whether your party can nominate a sane candidate. I'm not sure if it can.

Its not my party. If your definition of sane is that they should agree with the current policies, then no conceivable Republican is sane.

But look at the list of announced candidates. Care to tell me which ones you think are sane? I am sure you realize how condescending you sound. I assume you do not mean insane as in psychotic. What someone from your background and beliefs usually means is that they think the person plays loose with the facts, ignores important facts, or focuses too much on divisive social issues. But don't take my definition - give me yours.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

The Associated Press has just moved an alert reporting that GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s staff has resigned en masse.

One by one the most extreme Republican candidates are flaming out. I don't know if you can say that the reactionaries are losing, but its not looking good for them at the presidential level.

James50

I'm not surprised that Gingrich is out of contention and is the last to know. This fellow has never run a statewide campaign, and probably has no clue that he was doing badly. A PPP poll recently showed him likely to lose to President Obama in Georgia. President Obama barely lost Georgia.

Pawlenty would lose Minnesota -- but that isn't a big loss for a Republican nominee. The state was the only state that Mondale won in 1984, and the second-best state for McGovern in 1972 (McGovern still lost Minnesota and 47 other states). Santorum would lose Pennsylvania...big... but Democrats haven't lost Pennsylvania in a Presidential election after 1988. Romney would lose Massachusetts. Massachusetts was the only state to go for McGovern in 1972 and was the second-best state for Mondale in 1984.

Campaign staff know when a candidate has lost, often before the candidate himself. Go figure. Wishful thinking?

I saw the headline and thought "ah, some political courage at last".

House Dems to call for expiration of Bush tax rates in debt-limit deal

A group of House Democrats is calling for any deal to raise the debt ceiling to bring about the end of the Bush tax rates for the wealthy.

The lawmakers, led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), also say that, following last week’s weak job report, they are concerned that certain decreases in federal spending could hurt the economy’s recovery.

“At this point, both government and private-sector economists agree that sharp immediate cuts in government spending risk plunging our economy into a double-dip recession that will cost further jobs and ultimately worsen our fiscal situation,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter obtained by The Hill.

They added that allowing the Bush tax rates for the wealthiest to expire at the end of next year would by itself “stop the growth of the deficit over the next decade.”

Then I read a little further:

Blumenauer has so far found a handful of Democratic colleagues to sign on to the letter and will accept further signatures until Friday morning.

Wonder how many signatures he will get?

James50

There has been a lot of buzz the past few days about Rick Perry (Gov TX) running for President.

For all of you loyal Democrats who think most of the Republican candidates are "insane", does Perry fall in the "insane" grouping? If so, why?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I saw the headline and thought "ah, some political courage at last".

House Dems to call for expiration of Bush tax rates in debt-limit deal


Then I read a little further:

Wonder how many signatures he will get?

James50

Sadly, I have to share your skeptism. I suspect that he will get very few.

Originally Posted by James50

There has been a lot of buzz the past few days about Rick Perry (Gov TX) running for President.

For all of you loyal Democrats who think most of the Republican candidates are "insane", does Perry fall in the "insane" grouping? If so, why?

James50

Well, there was that succession thing back during his attempt to out Palin Sarah herself.

Originally Posted by James50

There has been a lot of buzz the past few days about Rick Perry (Gov TX) running for President.

For all of you loyal Democrats who think most of the Republican candidates are "insane", does Perry fall in the "insane" grouping? If so, why?

James50

Yes! It's called secession.

Brain Rush has often made a good point about change coming from below. I think there is a good bit of merit in that point of view. Brian talks of the Leftist Insurgency as being vast and growing. I cannot dispute what Brian is saying except that from what I read the real insurgency is on the right and is identified as the "Tea Party".

Tea Party continues to grow June 10, 2011

FreedomWorks is adding 500 to 2,000 members a day to its network of like-minded Tea Party activists. Those activists will provide an army of volunteers for a presidential candidate who supports their small-government goals, say FreedomWorks’ staffers.

Despite its expanding network, the D.C.-based libertarian group isn’t claiming to be a leader of the Tea party movement. The movement has no national leadership, but “I think we have credibility with a majority of Tea Partiers,” said FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe.

These days, Tea Party activists are focused on state and local issues, such as school choice legislation in Pennsylvania, Kibbe said. They’re not looking to mount another massive D.C. march, such as the 9/12 protest in 2009, in part because the movement has already proved its influence during the 2010 election, he said.

Instead of a being protest movement of outsiders, he said, the Tea Party is evolving to become a get-out–the-vote movement that can greatly help like-minded House, Senate and presidential candidates in 2012, he said. Established politicians have little choice but to recognize the movement’s influence, he said, noting that Utah’s Sen. Orrin Hatch recently visited a Tea Party event in D.C.

more here.

We will see how this all plays out next year. Brian will correct me if I am wrong I am sure, but I think what he has been saying recently is that the right wing "crazies" will go down to defeat next year. It will be a year for the true conservatives not necessarily for the progressives. If so, we would expect the Tea Party as the prime manifestation of the "crazies" to be much weaker by the end of 2012 than they are today.

Things can change fast, but right now, I would say that the "crazies" are growing in influence.

James50