November 25, 2005

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT + REPUBLICAN CONGRESS = FULL COFFERS:

States' Coffers Swelling Again After Struggles (JOHN M. BRODER, 11/25/05, NY Times)

After four years of tight budgets and deepening debt, most states from California to Maine are experiencing a marked turnaround in their fiscal fortunes, with billions of dollars more in tax receipts than had been projected pouring into coffers around the country.

The windfall is a result of both a general upturn in the economy and conservative budgeting by state officials in recent years, and it is leading to the restoration of school funding, investments in long-neglected roads and bridges, debt reduction, and the return of money borrowed from cities and counties.


The boom rolls on....

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 25, 2005 10:15 AM
Comments

Unfortunately here in Kentucky our governor is facing a "hiring scandal". He is accused of hiring Republicans over Democrats to fill government posts. Yeah, like the Dems didn't do that at all in the past 60 years they controlled things in Frankfort!

Posted by: Bartman at November 25, 2005 10:25 AM

Every dime of money that goes into "school funding" is adding to the destruction fo Western Civilization.

OJ is optimistic, I'm am far less so.

You can't be a conservative and fund today's public education system. It exists to destroy everything we stand for.

Posted by: Bruno at November 25, 2005 12:02 PM

Bill Owens (CO) and Mike Easley (NC) haven't heard the message. Neither has anyone in CA except for Arnold himself. Watch Phil Angelides run on a platform of raising taxes to cover Arnold's bonds.

BTW, I guess Bill Richardson is now finished with respect to higher office, no?

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 25, 2005 12:19 PM

Bruno:

That's completely false., The public school is a quintessential comnservative institutioon and most of them do a decent job educating kids in both the trivial areas--the three Rs--and the important one, citizenship. Give every American parent vouchers today and only a small, though significant, percentage would transfer their kids. If parents wanted vouchers we'd have them.

Posted by: oj at November 25, 2005 12:23 PM

OJ:

Perhaps in NH the hive hasn't totally infected the public school system, but down in NC it has. The Charlotte school district is reeling because voters finally rejected a bond vote (after passing several in the past 10 or 12 years), and the left is beside itself with sneers and jeers. The schools here are terrible because they have been political footballs since 1969 (over busing).

Safety is a real issue, even in the newer and nicer high schools. The board simply throws its hands up and calls the local police when trouble gets above the threshold.

So, the parents and people who could help the most are of course involved in PRIVATE education to a great degree, setting up quality schools and programs. Most of them are religious or church-connected, but not all. I'm sure they would support vouchers, but they really don't need them (not like the inner-city children, for whom they could mean life or death).

The greatest stain on the Democratic party today is its rancid hatred of poor, primarily black and Hispanic school children. Mary Landrieu should be flogged in every playground of every elementary school in D.C. for her racist comments on this issue.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 25, 2005 1:20 PM

jim:

Yes, we're already paying enough for them so budgets routinely fail.

Posted by: oj at November 25, 2005 1:24 PM

Today's parents are victims of public schools themselves. They know no better that's why they believe the propaganda the kids bring home from school and that's why they aren't clamoring for vouchers.

oj. You may not realize that the public schools in Hanover are quite different than those in non-college towns. Dartmouth liberal elites demand that their public schools perform at a high level and not even the teachers unions are stupid enough to rile up their natural allies.

Also, I imagine it's true in Hanover, as it is in many other college towns, faculty who don't get tenure, but want to stay in the area, take teaching jobs at local public schools, so the kids luck out with teachers who aren't products of teacher education programs.

Bruno obviously has had recent experience with the average public school and that's why he knows they are a disgrace in every possible way.

When we geezers pass on, there will be only a small group of elites who even know what to be educated means.

Posted by: erp at November 25, 2005 1:54 PM

erp:

Polls consistently show that white middle-class and upper-middle class Americans are overwhelmingly satisfied with their schools. If we weren't we'd reform them.

Posted by: oj at November 25, 2005 2:04 PM

Polls show a lot of things, including repeal of the Bill of Rights, a 60% Democratic majority, and that some people actually eat fruitcake.

The only poll that counts in my neighborhood is the one where the parents drop their kids off at private school each morning.

In the suburbs, the majority of 'involved' public school parents are friendly towards public education, mostly liberal and Democrat, and support whatever the schools want ($$$, curriculum, programs, etc.). The conservatives who can afford to have already withdrawn. The conservatives who fight are ignored.

Two cycles ago, our district elected a gadfly (to the School Board) who went to the State Legislature to try to split up the county-wide school district. He receives tremendous support from parents whose kids are not in the public system. His latest opponent was a female psychologist who told voters she knew how to reform the system with 'reconciliation'. She didn't attack the guy directly, because she knew it would doom her chances. The Board and the media hate this guy, but he won anyway, and pulled in another conservative to an at-large seat.

If the state tried to close all private schools and force every student into the public education system, the NEA, AFT, and the Democratic party would cease to exist in about 10 minutes. Passivity does not equal support, because many people are not invested in the public school system at all - they left the day their kids started at private school.

Posted by: ratbert at November 25, 2005 3:45 PM

the majority of 'involved' public school parents are friendly towards public education,/i>

Yes, and the rest don't care enough to transfer their kids or they'd be involved already. Vouchers have to overcome resistance from the white suburban majority.

Posted by: oj at November 25, 2005 3:50 PM

oj. You make my case for me. Most parents today are themselves victims of a public school education, so are incapable of making an informed judgment.

Posted by: erp at November 25, 2005 6:00 PM

erp:

Okay, if you buy into the Left's victimology.

Posted by: oj at November 25, 2005 8:17 PM

Sooo, to get back to the article; if the economy is so good, why do recent polls show that only 34%+/- rate GWB's handling of the economy favorably. Answer: It illustrates the MSM's disproportionate power too influence the polls, e.g. GWB's low ratings on any subject questioned.

The MSM has become a danger to democracy in its influence over our, evenly divided +/-, polarized Republic. Joseph Goebel's dreams of the power of propaganda come true.

Posted by: Genecis at November 25, 2005 9:40 PM

Because gas went to $3 a gallon. High bread prices used to cause revolution.

Posted by: oj at November 25, 2005 9:48 PM

Case in point:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/rally-in-stock-market-its-bushs-fault.html

Tiger hawk

Thursday, November 24, 2005
"The rally in the stock market: It's Bush's fault
By TigerHawk at 11/24/2005 07:18:00 AM

The stock market hit a 4 1/2 year high on Friday (Pajamas Media round-up here). The fall rally reflects the muscular American economy, which managed to produce economic growth in the third quarter at almost triple the rate of the Euro zone. The comparative American strength was particularly impressive in light of the hurricanes: As I wrote a few weeks ago, not a single European city was destroyed this year (although I suppose Paris had a close call).

Today's news also forces me to remember -- against my will, to be sure -- the tradition at the New York Times of linking short term swings in the financial markets -- at least when they are negative -- to the policies of the Bush administration. On April 16, 2005, for example, the Times ran a front page story with the headline "Stocks plunge to lowest point since election," suggesting that it was the election that had something to do with the "plunge."

We eagerly await the front page story with this headline: "Stocks soar to highest point since before September 11, 2001". We're fairly sure, however, that we won't see it in the Times."
````````````````````````````````````````````````


Posted by: Genecis at November 25, 2005 9:58 PM

Genecis:

One of the commentors to that TigerHawk piece said it best, mocking the Times:

"Stock Market Hits 4-1/2 Year High: Women, Children, Minorities Hit Hardest"

Back in 1983/84, there was a lot of fun and criticism directed at the media because they didn't really report on the Reagan recovery. Things were so good from the 3rd Quarter of '83 on that the Democrats couldn't even run against Hoover in 1984. This time, the media is monolithic in its parroting of the Democratic talking points, and yet the economy since mid-2003 has been stronger than at any time since early 1999, and that strength is structural, not temporary.

One reason the media is so negative must be that their fortune is not improving, with the rise of the Internet. Their bias is exacerbated first by the challenge of conservative blogs and the like, and also by their loss of privilege. If the financials were good, Howell Raines and James Carroll (and even Dan Rather) might still be employed. But no.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 25, 2005 11:54 PM

Sorry, that should be John Carroll.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 25, 2005 11:56 PM

oj. I buy into nothing. I'm merely relating facts as I know them to be. As the decades roll by, fewer and fewer people will remember what it was like to be educated, not propagandized.

Only hope is that the people who have opted out of the public school system get so tired of paying the exorbitant costs to keep the teachers unions happy, they will rebel and expose the public schools for what they are. Will it happen and when? ¿Quién sabe?

Back on topic, my favorite headline is, "Gas Prices Plummet."

Posted by: erp at November 26, 2005 8:52 AM
« COMES PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO JUSTIFYING A TIME-ZONE VIOLATION: | Main | ONE OF THEM: »