Priceless; Edukshun not strong point of McCain
Lisa Graham Keegan, a McCain adviser and former Arizona education commissioner.
“Education is obviously not the issue Senator McCain spends the most time on,” Ms. Keegan said, adding that his plan’s limited scope should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment to education and school reform. “He’s been a quiet and consistent supporter of parents and educators who he thinks are making a difference.”
Just goes with his campaign promise to avoid all issues all the time but make sure to hammer his opponent on his lack of experience on the issues that he won’t discuss. See education doesn’t involve war or sexism so obviously it has no place in political discussion because if you are better educated then you might want to know where candidates stand on the issues. It goes against the republithug platform to have educated voters.
Maybe he just doesn’t believe in all of the federal funding and innumerable new programs that Obama is touting? Throwing money at a problem is the easy, feel-good, politically advantageous approach but that doesn’t mean it acutally works.
Actually, if you are a Republican, cutting funding for a problem is the easy, feel-good approach that doesn’t work.
Good!! I dont think we need a Presient or administration dictating education policy to our school districts. Bush should not have but the D’s just cant help themselves on this issue. Big brother Uncle Sam knows best to the Dems.
I dont think we need a Presient or administration dictating education policy to our school districts.
They don’t. School districts can opt out of federal control if they want.
Mike,
It is time to face a stark reality: No administration, democrat or republican, has ever decreased the size of the government. All the post pointed out was that McCain has no ideas on how to improve education and doesn’t plan to focus on improving education. Based on that interpretation it must mean that McCain doesn’t think there is a problem with our educational system or thinks it is so small as not worth his time.
“They don’t. School districts can opt out of federal control if they want.”
Yeah, and states are “free” to opt out of Federal mandates as well, but they’ll lose all federal funding if they do so.
In effect, federal funding is the means by which the Feds can strongarm them into compliance.
Phantom – Time to face reality. Obama’s policies would create the greatest expansion of the Federal government since FDR. The Republican’s are no longer the party of small government, but McCain’s certainly the lesser of two evils compared to Obama.
Most education funding already comes from the local and state levels. The feds kick in only about 7 percent. A couple of states already have threated to opt out of NCLB and more will do so as the deadline approaches for its impossible goals (100 percent of American children must meet grade standards by 2014).
Federal funding is still a choice and if it is so malevolent then the district should reject it and raise thier own money. Then we would see who cares about education. It is not strongarming as it is supervision. You take the money and agree to supervision or you don’t and we don’t supervise you.
Nice distortion – Obama’s plans are make government more efficient rather than larger. It might involve some expansion depending on how things are implemented but it will also mean cuts in other inefficient areas as an offset.
federal funding is the means by which the Feds can strongarm them into compliance.
I thought throwing money at problems doesn’t work, so what’s the problem with skipping federal funding?
“Nice distortion – Obama’s plans are make government more efficient rather than larger. It might involve some expansion depending on how things are implemented but it will also mean cuts in other inefficient areas as an offset.”
Really? What federal programs / agencies is Obama getting rid of and / or cutting? You guys are delusional if you think Obama is going to be making any serious cuts in the size and scope of the federal government or government spending.
How exactly is he going to make government more efficient? More government does NOT equal more efficiency. It never has, and government is inherently inefficient.
“federal funding is the means by which the Feds can strongarm them into compliance.
I thought throwing money at problems doesn’t work, so what’s the problem with skipping federal funding?”
When’s the last time you saw governments turning down free money, even if it has strings attached?
“You take the money and agree to supervision or you don’t and we don’t supervise you.”
Which is why the growth in education spending goes to administration instead of education. Abolishing the federal Dept. of Education was Reagan’s only good idea, and he didn’t follow through on it.
“Abolishing the federal Dept. of Education was Reagan’s only good idea, and he didn’t follow through on it.”
We can only hope someone else will come along who’s smart enought to think of it again and crafty enought to actually pull it off.
Abolishing the federal Dept. of Education was Reagan’s only good idea, and he didn’t follow through on it.
Well, that and balancing the budget.
Mike w.
The first cut back will be in military spending.
Then cut back in weapons development and procurement.
When the ‘illegal’ drug laws are relaxed, there will be enough additional ‘accidents’ that the population will see a decrease.
When prisoners are released from prison for ‘drug violations’, and they resume the violence associated with the drug trade, there will be again a reduction in population. In Wilmington expect more than 20 deaths a year, just through weapons violence. Weapons crimes that are usually plea bargained away, and do not get reflected in the real reason for incarceration.
BUT?
When we start sending a Percent of the USA GNP to Africa, will that count as expanding the Government?
“When we start sending a Percent of the USA GNP to Africa, will that count as expanding the Government?”
Yeah, Obama’s whole “global poverty act” is bullshit. He talks about how we need to do so much here, while simultaneously working to send 0.7% of our GDP to an insanely corrupt UN and even more corrupt African government, as if that will help Africa come out of poverty.