Tim,
I have no comment on this, but I do have a comment on local control. The Ventura County School Board voted on Monday May 23rd, to strip Simi Valley, Santa Paula, Fillmore and Oxnard of the right to decide if they want "Vista Real Charter High School" in their cities. This is a question of local control. If the voters of a city want a charter school, it should come from that city, not the county. Currently Dean Kunicki represents Simi, he was not elected, he was appointed by four people who do not live in Simi, but last night he voted to usurp the local control of Simi residents. I happened to bump into our City Councilman Glen Becerra, no one from the county had bothered to mention the issue to the Council. He agreed that if local children are affected that this should be a local decision. At the meeting their staff recommended a no vote because they found granting this charter was a violation of ed code and opened the county to possible litigation. Ron Matthews said his biggest concerns were not about the educational quality of the school, his concerns were that anyone at the school could pray whenever they wanted and that everyone could carry a bible. So much for seperation of church and state, and so much for local control. Arleigh Kidd

Arleigh: (I submitted this yesterday morning, but it hasn't come through)

From a personal standpoint, I am paying more in taxes now than I did five years ago. This is because I am making more than I was five years ago. How is that wrong? The chief responsibility of the American people, as you see it, is to pay more and more taxes to an ever-growing list of government entitlements that create strange and at times immoral societal norms. For instance, this morning it was reported that the government through Medicaid is giving sex offenders Viagra. Pretty scary, but is yet another example of government regulations that lead to strange outcomes.

Arleigh, if you took away workers comp insurance profits, what would motivate more players to enter the marketplace, compete and reduce prices? It was government regulation and less stringency on what constituted a claim that led to the workers comp crisis in the first place. Like I said, the profit caps you just discussed would lead to the largest companies controlling the prices because profit caps would weed out small competitors who need to sustain working capital to grow. Having the state allow for the profit motive to attract competitors to a marketplace that got out of hand in the previous administration is not regulation as it is nudging the marketplace back into balanced competition to ensure prices drop.

Second, you confuse prescriptive arguments with whether they can change the rules. I am arguing they shouldn't regulate profits, but encourage competition. I am not disputing that the government can or cannot regulate profits. I just think it’s against the interest of consumers seeking low worker's comp insurance not to encourage competition as an engine to reduce prices for the consumer.

By the way, just because you cap profits doesn't mean you reduce prices for the consumer. Actually, when government manipulates markets in such a way, it usually leads to higher prices because in order to maintain profitability in a declining investor-based market, companies will increase prices, avoid updating equipment, layoff employees, or move to a much more business friendly market.

It's funny you speak so negatively about healthcare. I just sat in a room of experts for a whole day and not one said the medical system will collapse in the next five years. Sure, there are tough challenges that need much more effort and thought, but I don't speak so cynically about the high quality of care so many Americans have received and will continue to receive. Ask yourself, why do Canadians come across the border to America for different surgeries and opinions, if the Canadian single-payer health plan is so effective.

Like I said, we should focus on incentivizing the catastrophic coverage market to ensure everyone has at least catastrophic coverage, which has been one cause of the increases in premiums. When someone without insurance gets into a major accident, it is paid for by higher premiums in our PPO or HMO.

Second, we should look closer at Health Savings Accounts (HSA's). This works very close to a 401(k) plan where you can invest tax free dollars into a plan and use them for whatever health purpose you need when you need it. This would reduce the whole problem with people not going to the doctor because either a new deductible kicked in or people don't go to the doctor because they are between insurances and jobs. It also would encourage people to get more involved in preventive care because they know any Dr. trips would come out of their HSA.

Currently, to enroll in an HSA you need to have a deductible with 1000 or more. I think they should reduce that to a 250 deductible, so everyone can participate in a health savings account along with regular insurance that they can use from job to job along with normal insurance.

I think it is a little strange that you are basically arguing for higher taxes and more government interference, and then you quote a billionaire as the only source on the subject in favor of prop 13 reform. Arleigh, it's simple, when you increase liabilities on companies like property taxes, they have to make their numbers somehow. They either balance their books by laying off, neglecting capital improvements, or moving to another state or country. The arguments for more regulation and higher taxes defy basic economics. Ask yourself why the biggest growth areas in the west are in Vegas and Phoenix? It’s because it’s too expensive in California to do business. All those jobs are moving to other states. California is losing tax dollars from employer and employee that could be used to pay for education.

Arleigh:

Why aren’t the unions arguing for tax increases when talking about prop 98 funding?

Would the teacher unions support signing a tax increase pledge in an open letter to the Governor?

Scott

Scott,
Why is it the economy and stock market always do better under democrats than republicans? Give one example of an economic indicator that has been better under Bush than Clinton. George Bush was hired by the elite to do one job, ensure the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes. Arleigh

Arleigh:

I don't agree with your premise. The strength of the economy is seen in the hard work and ingenuity of the American people, not a single man. If this was the case the stock market and bond market would shift drastically with the President's comments, but this only seems to happen when Alan Greenspan speaks. To give all credit to any President is an overgeneralization of the challenges that this nation faced during their term or terms.

You are talking to someone that reveres the Office of the President. I think it's one of the best three institutions ever created. The other two are congress and the Supreme Court.

Here is an example...

Would it be fair to say that because Grover Cleveland had a better economy than Abraham Lincoln that Grover Cleveland was a superior President? I don' think so.

Each President has different challenges and I don't agree with the historical rankings that came out a few years back from historians. I mean just because Clinton was President while more jobs were created than when FDR was in office, doesn't mean he is a better President than FDR.

Anyway, if our economy was so simple as to say that it depends on whose President of the United States and what party they are from, then why do business schools, schools of economics, economic theorists, and Nobel winners in economics even exist? It's because capital markets in an ever changing global integration and free trade environment create different and new pressures on our society that no President could even begin to fathom. We are on the brink of some very challenging times ahead whether it is a democrat or a republican. I root, even if I disagree, for all our Presidents as we continue to meet these new challenges head on.

Scott

Latest California poll results show that 76% of all Californians want k-12 education funding increased. Should Arnold follow the will of the people or the will of his corporate overlords? Arleigh

May 31, 2005. In today's opinion section of the Star, Cecil Rhodes (Mr. Ms.?) writes about the evil teachers union. First I would like to offer Cecil a tissue to wipe the froth off his/her mouth. Like one of Pavlov's dogs Rhodes has been programmed to foam at the mouth whenever the teachers union is mentioned. Rhodes does not believe teachers should have input into educational decisions. Does Rhodes also believe cops should not talk about crime prevention and firefighters about fire prevention? Rhodes missed the point of my earlier opinion in the Star. I said that Vista Real Charter usurps local control. I have had many politicians like the Stricklands for example, tell me they want local school control. By the county making this decision it took local control away from Simi Valley voters. I said if the people of Simi want a charter let it come from the people of Simi Valley. Rhodes also foams at the mouth about the teachers union putting their members on the school board. This is incorrect. We have no members serving on school boards in districts they teach in, they can't by law. People like Rhodes should really do their homework, think for themselves etc before foaming at the mouth on the opinion pages. Arleigh Kidd

Arliegh:

Are you arguing the county board doesn't have the jurisdictional right to place charter schools in the communities or shouldn't have the right?

How do you reconcile the fact that you are arguing for more state funding, which leads to greater state control and more federal funding of NCLB, but are arguing for local control here? Isn't allowing for the county board to decide on this charter funding issue more local control than the state funding issues with the state government you are fighting for?

If you are really for local control, then why do the you support prop 98 at all, which delegates more authority to create more ed code regulations to the state?

Arleigh:

This evening I ran across a June 6 & 13 2005 article in "The New Republic" entitled "What Democrats need to say about education" by Robert Gordon a key education advisor for John Kerry and John Edwards.

In this article he states, "To get the politics right, progressives need to act on a policy principle that Americans can understand: Money ain't everything." It appears Democrats are even starting to admit money isn't everything.

He goes on to point out that the US has tripled education funding per student since the 1960's, and we now outspend all but a few countries. "But our student's reading and math scores have edged up modestly, and our achievement remains in the middle of the developed world."

He admits that "The first task" for democrats "is to stop unprincipled attacks on NCLB. At its heart this is the sort of law liberals used to dream about. In the 1970's liberal litigation fell one vote short of a Supreme Court decision requiring even handed funding."

The past two weeks you have argued for local control on education policy while also arguing for greater spending on prop 98 and NCLB, which inevitably leads to more paternalistic controls. From the desegregation of southern schools in 1954's landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which served as the precursor to No Child Left Behind, Democrats have always advocated for the federalization of school policy. Are you for local control or are you for federal control as most democrats have always been?

Ted Kennedy, no enemy to teacher unions, was even a co-signor of No Child Left Behind while John Kerry and John Edwards voted for it in 2001. Did you support it then?

I guess my question is what sorts of local control are you for and what sorts are you not for? Had Bill Clinton, who favored school accountability and charter schools, signed No Child Left Behind into law would you have supported it?

Scott

Scott,
NCLB is a pile of garbage, I would say this no matter who passed it. With NCLB the feds are saying carry out these mandates or else we will give you no funding, at the same time the mandates they place are not fully funded. Prop 98 is how schools are funded in California. Scott it sounds as if you would like to repeal Prop 13 and have schools funded by local property taxes like in Texas. Please call the Ventura County Superintendent and ask for a copy of the staff report on Vista Real Charter. You will see that the charter clearly violates state ed code. The county board chose to okay it anyway. As of now we have no one elected by the people of Simi Valley sitting on the county school board. Dean Kunicki represents Simi and he was appointed by 4 people who do not live in Simi. The local school board was elected by the voters of Simi Valley. If people in Simi want a charter then let it come from the people of Simi Valley and make it meet state ed code since it will be receiving state dollars. Of course they have already promised their un-named investors 10% returns in the first year meaning only 90% of those dollars will go towards education costs. They also are paying five administators to oversee every 300 students. Public schools have administrator ratios of about 1 per every 1,000 students. But if you think local decisions should be made by the county then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Arleigh

Arleigh,

If NCLB is "a piece of garbage" then where are the alternative pieces of legislation, that would either overturn it, or fund it?

As an education leader, why aren't you:

1. Asking Boxer or Feinstein, California's two elected senators to introduce reforming legislation?

2. Asking the Democratic State Legislature and Superintendant O'Connel to opt-out of NCLB.

3. Suggest modifications of the law in writing, on your own to the President, Congressand the State Legislature.

If it's that bad, why aren't you TAKING ACTION against it?

Here is an article from the center-left progressive policy institute today on NCLB.

Arleigh, if pressuring states to close the achievement gap between minority students and whites is according to your assertion regarding NCLB a "pile of garbage," I humbly disagree

"1.) NCLB

The last few weeks have brought some good press for the No Child Left Behind Act. The New York Times' Sam Dillon takes an interesting
look at how NCLB is driving state policies and school practices across the country to focus on closing achievement gaps for minority
students, and offers examples where they are succeeding. And a cover story by former Kerry education advisor Robert Gordon in The New
Republic argues that Democratic politicians do themselves no favors by attacking NCLB, but should instead support the law's goals to
close achievement gaps and raise performance. These ideas should sound familiar to frequent Bulletin readers."

Scott

Tim,
I have written letters to all of the above and called. NEA has been working to add some common sense to NCLB as has CTA. The California state board of education just asked the feds, that children who cannot read english should be exempt from the test until they can read English. Tim do you speak Russian? If you lived in Russia for a year should you be forced to take a test in Russian and if you fail should you be judged as not being smart? Of course would that test show if you are smart, or show that you cannot read Russian? Of course the Republicans who are in charge of Washington D.C. are more concerned right now with trying to justify the war in Iraq and the four billion a week we waste over there. Despite the fact all the reasons to go turned out to be lies. They are also concerned with getting involved in peoples personal lives like the Schiavo case. They don't have time to worry about public education since most of them hate the thought of the masses thinking for themselves. Arleigh

Nice work! -online gambling special