Secretary of Education

[mirjo]

Thor:
Perhaps I am over generalizing, as you say (and you're welcome to use 'Christmas,' as I think excluding any type of holiday is nuts); however, I haven't seen any different behaviors among conservatives, here and and elsewhere that would lead me to a different conclusion. For the sake of  fairness, I'll  say this:

It appears to be a prevailing attitude among conservatives I hear voicing their opinions, on this forum and elsewhere. There is a great deal said about the "Nanny State" and not wanting to "pay" for those who don't work etc. I don't have exact quotes at my disposal at the moment, but surely you know what I'm saying? I have recently had discussions regarding Bernie Sanders' statements about there being a dental crisis in the US (which I believe there is) and have dealt with the very attitude of which I speak and when I pointed it out, I was told the same "That's not true!"

Well, my question is this:

If that's not the basic feeling conservatives in general have, then why is that the overall impression that's given? I ask, because I'm trying to understand what I'm missing. When someone makes comments about their taxes paying for this or that for others and they don't want to do that, because they work for a living and so should everyone else--it's hard not to conclude the implication, which is those who need state/federal aid of any sort are lazy and want hand outs.

If there is another way to look at it, please explain, because I'm not seeing it at the moment.

Happy Easter--I'll forgo the Chocolate bunny, you might think it's poisoned.

[Thor]

Mirjo,

     It is not the system I disagree with, it is the inability to administer it properly in order to avoid letting people exploit it. (speaking only for myself and not all conservatives) I have absolutely no problem helping people out, but I want to help the folks who are TRYING to help themselves. I do not like to assist those that are taking advantage of the system. As you and I have discussed previously, the system is seriously broken. I would rather keep my money (taxes) and dole it out as I see fit, where I think it will do the most good. Plus, I have the ability to vette who I want to help. And one thing I don't take a shine to, is people who think they deserve to be taken care of, without putting any effort into helping themselves. And there are a lot of them, who think it is the gov't's role to take care of them lock, stock and barrel. For those folks, I have a boot, that I would like to put in their ass.

     And we are fast becoming (if not already are) a "Nanny State". And it is unsustainable. This train is headed for the precipice. And we cannot stop it. But would it be better to continue down the tracks at the speed we are going or make an attempt to slow it down somewhat and attempt to minimize the damage. If folks want to receive benefits from the state and feds, great, but when everyone else is working their asses off to make ends meet, those that are on the dole better be willing to put a little skin in the game as well. Such as taking reduced benefits or having to take some part time job. Something. Or perhaps, we just say, okay.... you don't have any skin in the game, so your vote doesn't count. Because all Obama has to do is continue to promise to give more and more, to buy those votes. That is the system of purchasing the "Welfare Vote".

     Anyway. From the conservative perspective, everyone needs to have some skin in the game. That is how it is played fair. Fix the system, identify the deficiencies of vetting who actually is exploiting the system and implement measures to stop the exploitation. Time will tell how this all works out. But it is going to be pretty ironic, when the system fails completely and the uncaring, heartless, conservatives are prepared and the lefties continue to stand there with their hands out wondering how this all happened.
     

[rod anode]

thor our utopia will never come to be.....just sayin

[Thor]

Ed,

     Gotta keep the faith Brother!!

[mirjo]

If folks want to receive benefits from the state and feds, great, but when everyone else is working their asses off to make ends meet, those that are on the dole better be willing to put a little skin in the game as well. Such as taking reduced benefits or having to take some part time job.

This is where the language gets turned to something you may not intend. I totally agree with you as far as the broken system/fraud/et-al but the assumption that most people aren't  working  to earn anything they're getting isn't correct. I also think the distinction between different types of services isn't being made clear either.

The problem I see as far as welfare goes and other such things is that by and large they aren't designed to help people who are struggling to make ends meet, get a leg up until they are able to do it themselves, they're designed for those who are destitute. I think the fraud comes from the perverse desperation people find themselves in: work & struggle, have nothing, go nowhere or don't work and achieve the same thing.

For years I've felt the WIC program was poorly managed. I have seen so much waste in that program--which in itself is a great idea, but not individually well thought out. Perhaps it's changed, but in the past I have seen families get so much more cereal, cheese, and peanut butter than they could possibly eat and I remember thinking that so many more families could be assisted with what's being wasted.

The bottom line here is that  you can't lump those who are abusing the system into the same category as those who are simply using it for the intended purpose--and that's the majority of recipients. There are a great number of people (women) who have "been on welfare" when their children were young and have successfully transitioned to a career, because of being able  to attend college or a training program.

[Thor]

Mirjo,

     That was my nice way of saying it. But I understand your point.

                                            Thor

PS: I don't own or wear kid's gloves.

[Chris Santee]

back to the thread, this was sent to me as another opinion:

H 440
This past Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed H.440 on a vote of 114-17. This bill would make several changes in state-level governance of the education system. It would significantly weaken the role of the state board of education, essentially making it an advisory board, and it would provide for the governor to appoint a secretary of education who would be responsible for establishing and driving the education agenda for the State of Vermont.
In the aftermath of that vote, most stakeholders have stated support for the governor’s position. VSBA has been the sole, unequivocally opposing voice. The Burlington Free Press published an editorial on Friday, March 23, strongly supporting H 440. The Times Argus and Rutland Herald published an editorial on March 24 which strongly opposes H 440. This editorial, entitled “Unnecessary Fix for Schools”.
There continue to be divergent viewpoints on this bill, although with strong majorities in both chambers, the governor is likely to get his way short of the emergence of a strong public outcry.
We believe that as a matter of public policy (regardless of the current governor or commissioner), the education of our children is better served over the long-run if the commissioner is buffered from the daily short-term political considerations of a particular governor. We are also concerned that granting the governor this kind of power, over time, would lead to significant erosion of local ownership of our schools. Instead, we believe that the state board make-up should be strengthened and that the state board should continue to appoint the commissioner (or “secretary”, if preferred) with the approval of the governor.
The bill will now move on to the senate where it will receive additional consideration. We will continue to work with the senate and others to find a path that keeps the system in balance and protects the role of local school boards. If an acceptable option emerges, we will let you know immediately.
In the mean time, now is the time to begin the discussion with your senators. No vote will be taken for at least a couple of weeks, but it is very important that they hear from you. Let us know if you feel passionate about the subject and would be interest in testifying. We also recommend that all school boards consider contacting your senators. We will provide some suggested language over the next two days. Without significant local advocacy around this issue, we believe that the strength of the Governor's push on this will prevail. He has stated a very strong interest in having this new authority.
Should you decide to weigh in along the lines of the VSBA position and should you get into more in-depth conversations, we recommend the following talking points:

1. We oppose H440 as passed by the house.
2. Vermont's system of public education is excellent, compared to the rest of the country. Let's not weaken it through a precipitous change. No one has made a child-focused case for why this would be a better system.
3. Vermont’s education system has two centers of accountability. The State establishes general direction and policy and provides system oversight. Local elected school boards are responsible for assuring the effective delivery of education to our students. If Vermont is to maintain local community ownership, this balance must be maintained. H440 tilts the system too heavily toward greater state influence and control, weakening community investment.
4. We desire a commissioner, guided by a strong board, who is committed to public education and to the best interests of children. We do not want someone beholden to the short-term political considerations of a governor—regardless of who that governor may be. Where there is a disagreement between the commissioner and the governor, the commissioner needs to be able to speak strongly for what is best for children.
Plain and simple, there is no compelling reason to undertake this change. Without substantial changes to the House version, the bill should be defeated.
Here is the contact information:

Lyons, Virginia "Ginny", 241 White Birch Lane, Williston, VT 05495
863-6129 vlyons@leg.state.vt.us

Baruth, Philip, 87 Curtis Ave., Burlington, VT 05408
503-5266 pbaruth@leg.state.vt.us

[Chris Santee]

In closing, Rep. Gilbert assures us we will maintain control,
but I remember this post by Carolyn:
http://www.vtgrandpa.com/forum/index.php?topic=13574.0

I wonder how much control we actually have now !

[mirjo]

I'm not clearly understanding this push to get the commissioner under the thumb of the governor and am always leary about the government when it wants to stick its nose in to things for no well defined good reason. It's understood by all something needs to be done regarding the cost of education and how to fund it; however, I don't see how this has much to do with that. It seems with a two year term and politics the unsettling game it is--it's best to leave the status quo alone.