<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, January 30, 2003

So I walk into the sauna at the Y this morning and stumble into a heated (pun intended) debate about Measure 28. Two angry white guys are verbally jousting with a teacher friend of mine, one claiming that the private sector "drove the economy". Of course I immediately jump into the fray, saying that it's "erroneous" to draw such a sharp distinction between public employees and those working in the private sector. "We have a service and information economy," I said, and reminded him that my friend, as a teacher, was paid to care for, and provide information to, our children. And he's a taxpayer, too.

Forgive my impertinence, but I have yet to be convinced that those who provide a service in the private sector (lawyers, doctors, financial consultants, real estate agents, stock brokers, private school teachers) stimulate the economy any more than those service providers employed by the government (teachers, lawyers, doctors, policemen, nurses.) According to the paper, our economy is driven by "consumer spending". Well,
public employees spend their after tax income on houses, cars, food, clothes, entertainment just like everyone else. They're not a drag on the economy, as some insinuate. They drive it!

The 2000 census is a treasure house of demographic information about where people in Oregon work and how much they make. The people who work in agriculture, natural resource extraction, construction, and manufacturing- those, in other words, who actually create wealth by producing food, shelter, clothing, cars, and the infrastructure to use them -comprise about 32% of the state's workforce. Everybody else is either in sales or service, either as a clerk, an administrator, or a professional. Some are paid by the government (about 14%). The rest are paid by the private sector. Regardless, they are all consumers and, as such, are vital to the health of the economy.

The census also provides some perspective on the impact of Measure 28, had it passed. As I said in my last post, for the vast majority of Oregonians, the tax increase would have been minimal. According to the census figures on gross household incomes, nearly 80% (incomes of up to $75,000) would have paid $148 or less. About 60%, with incomes of $50,000 or less, would have paid at most $107. The median household income in Oregon in 1999 was $41,000, which would have been dinged about $80.

Interesting enough, the level of opposition to Measure 28 in some counties seemed almost inversely proportional to median household income.
Here are some examples:

NO YES MEDIAN INCOME

Washington County - 55% 45% $52,000

Columbia County - 63% 37% $45,000

Deschutes County - 68% 32% $42,000

Douglas County - 70% 30% $33,000

Rather perverse, don't you think?

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

Maybe there's 20% of the voting population who truly believe in privatizing the public sector. Maybe even 30%. But 55%? No way!

That's the percentage who voted no on Measure 28, a paltry temporary tax increase of $100 or so for the vast majority of Oregon taxpayers. Even for the richest of us, the return in terms of public services is, like the commercial says, "priceless". For me, it means that my daughter will be coming home from school a couple of weeks early. For those of you with younger school age kids, that means extra money for child care. For those of you without kids, watch out! There'll be a lot of young unsupervised hooligans wandering through your neighborhood. I think I'd rather pay the taxes. Check out the report from the OCPP that I mentioned in an earlier post.

The news of the defeat of Measure 28 followed the equally depressing propagandizing and equivocating by George W. in his state of the union talk.
After praising Medicare as a "binding commitment of a caring society", he follows immediately with a veiled proposal for its privatization. How?
Well, if you want prescription drug coverage, you gotta find a private insurer. Pretty hypocritical, but not surprising from the son of a man who called Medicare at its inception "socialized medicine".

He didn't lie last night, but he sure used a lot of misleading language. A nationalized health care system would "dictate coverage", he said, (it doesn't really mean anything, but it sounds ominous), and he implied that only those with "good" (private) insurance policies would be able to "choose their own doctors". Like Kaiser, or any of the many preferred provider organizations out there? He blamed the high cost of health care
on the "threat of "unfair lawsuits, "frivolous lawsuits", as he later called them, which his proposed "medical liability" legislation will take care of, thank you. The trial lawyers are to blame, in other words, not the insurance companies.

Once you cut through all the verbiage (or the crap, as some might say) of the speech, the true message, the actual state of the union, emerges:
it's payback time for all the special interests who support Bush and his agenda.


Sunday, January 26, 2003

I'm all for freedom of the press and the publication of opposing points of view on issues like war and taxes, but maybe the Oregonian (and the Tribune) could attempt to find more objective and persuasive voices than the libertarians from the Cascade Policy Institute who continually find space on the op-ed pages to oppose school funding and Measure 28. Libertarians are committed ideologues who believe unquestionably in limited government, lower taxes, and capitalism.

On the other hand, they are social liberals. And they seem opposed to the war on Iraq.

Speaking of which, the Oregonian continues to publish pundits who dismiss and disparage the anti-war movement, the latest from some nutcase affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute. He's a master of Orwellian doublespeak. Peaceniks are responsible for the proliferation of Islamic terrorism, according to this guy. A world in which both Iran and Iraq possess nuclear weapons "is the goal of the antiwar movement." We should condemn "peaceniks for what they really are:warmongers... ."

Whether or not you agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism, which glorifies self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism, it is crystal clear about when man has the right to use force: "Men have the right to use force only in self defense and only against those who initiate its use."

Sounds like a good argument against the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Friday, January 24, 2003

A recent article in the New York Times corroborates my contention that not only are property taxes and sales taxes forms of double taxation, but so are import and payroll taxes, which fall disproportionately on the poor. The article suggests that they may even constitute triple or quadruple taxation. Check out the article on cursor.org, an indispensable website for quickly accessing varying points of view on all the currently hot political stories. Scroll down until you find the NYT article.

Thursday, January 23, 2003

One enlightened letter writer to the Oregonian yesterday decried the obvious increase in the state budget for the next biennium. Well, yes, it is larger, by a whopping $800 million over the last biennium's $10.6 billion.

That works out to a yearly increase of 3.75%, which probably doesn't even match the rate of inflation.

And the population of Oregon keeps growing, which means we have more people to provide services for, which costs more money, inflation notwithstanding.

Wednesday, January 22, 2003

For a report on a more sophistcated analysis of the regressive nature of Oregon's tax system check out this news release from the Oregon Center on Public Policy.
I said in one of my recent posts that Oregon's income tax is basically flat, and therefore regressive (more about that later). Well, I've been thinking about that, so I decided to crunch some numbers to see if I was correct in my assertion. I compared this year's Oregon tax guide (the one you get in the mail) with one I found from 1996. Here's what I found:

1. We pay less, just slightly, now than we paid in 1996. For example, a single taxpayer with a taxable income of $20,000 had a tax liability of $1645 in 1996, but this year it's somewhere between $1621 and $1630 (I can't be exact because the income increments in the tax tables
have changed since '96.) If you file jointly, you owe approximately $45 less this year than you did then.

2. The tax rate remains 9% for anything over $50,000. Here are the tax rates for various taxable incomes:

a. $20,000 - single- 8.1%
married - 7.2%

b. $30,000 - single - 8.4%
married - 8%

c. $50,000 - single - 8.6%
married - 8.3%

d. $100,000 - single - 8.8%
married - 8.65%

e. $1,000,000 - single - 8.9%
married - 8.9%

So, it's definitely a flat rate. But regressive? Sure. A person with $20,000, after paying the state income tax, has about $18,000 left to live on (ignoring of course all the other local taxes and fees one has to pay. Let's keep it simple). A person with a million dollars, on the other hand, has over $900,000 left to play with.



Monday, January 20, 2003

Did you know that of the $11.4 billion Oregon has budgeted for the 2003-2005 biennium, $9.9 billion comes from individual income taxes, while only
$376 million comes from corporations? That's what letter writer Chris Holden discovered after examining budget figures published Jan. 11 in the Oregonian. So Ralph Nader, and my former colleague Margie Sandoz of Radical Women, are right when they claim that corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes. Yeah, yeah, we know, corporations merely pass their taxes along to the consumer, and that it's totally unfair to tax coprorate dividends because it's "double taxation". But if you think about it, isn't paying a sales tax after paying an income tax a form of double taxation? And what about property taxes? People in Oregon pay those with income that's already been taxed. How unfair!

Washington, it turns out, has one of the highest business taxes in the nation, while Oregon has one of the lowest. Yet an analysis indicates that economic growth over the past decade has been pretty much the same in both states. So maybe we can conclude that taxes really don't stymie business growth.

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts claims that the white house is "extending the middle finger to the civil rights community" on Martin Luther King day. He also wrote another column remembering the life and death of Emmett Till. Very graphic, and very moving.

Carl Hiaason, perhaps best known for his funny and outrageous mystery novels, which paint a bleak portrait of Florida's environmental despoilation, is another Miami Herald columnist worth reading.

Sunday, January 19, 2003

Does any word in the language carry more negative freight than politician? Or the phrase professional politician? Their use in certain contexts insinuates sliminess and corruption, venality and even stupidity. For example, I read in the paper this morning this explanation by a Columbia County woman about why she opposes Measure 28: "I'm against any new taxes. No matter how much more we pay in taxes, it's just going to the politicians to pay for them." Whoa! The politicians in Oregon certainly aren't getting rich off our tax money. After all, we have a citizen legislature, a part time job which pays hardly anything. Now special interest money from lobbyists is another issue altogether. I don't have anything against politicians. Sure, some are corrupt, but probably not as many, percentage-wise, as those working in the private sector.
The only good news from the last election is that there are now clearly more Republican politicians than Democratic ones.

In the same article, a union plumber whose wife is a public employee, announced his intention to vote no. "We all have to live on a budget, and you don't spend more than you have, and I think the state has to do that." Well, by law, the state has to operate a balanced budget. It can't spend more than it takes in. But that argument ignores the fact that Oregon ranks 46th in per capita taxation. Thanks to Measure 5, the property tax burden has shifted dramatically from the business to the residential property owner. (It was about 60% business to 40% residential. Now it's the opposite.) Quite a windfall for businesses, especially out of state corporations who own property here. And our income tax is basically flat
(9% is the top rate) and is therefore regressive.

I decided when I started this weblog that I would make an effort to refrain from name calling. It's been hard. In private conversations and e-mails I've referred to George W. as a "trained chimpanzee", which I think is kind of funny, but it really doesn't advance the case against Bush and his policies. I can't prove that Bush is actually a chimpanzee, even though he looks like one, or that he has been trained to say the things he says, although I suspect that's probably true. On the other hand, I do have a real problem with misleading language that connotes something that is patently untrue. It's one thing to call Rush Limbaugh "a big fat idiot", as Al Franken did in his book. No thinking person will interpret that as anything other than over-the- top humor. The book itself skewers Limbaugh by contesting his facts. But the pejorative use of terms like politician, trial lawyer, class warrior, and government bureaucrat affect even normally clear thinking people in subtle and insidious ways. They fog the political debate.

That's why I like the website Spinsanity, even though it is utterly without humor. It uses reason like a scalpel to excise propaganda and outright falsehood from political dialogue, both left and right.

Speaking of name callers and propagandists, Ann Coulter has got to be one of the most egregious. I once heard her on C-SPAN talking to a group of young Republicans at Oregon State. In response to a question regarding the white man's treatment of Native Americans, she said, "Well, they're savages." Fortunately, Scoobie Davis is, or was, on the case. (Coulter's book, Slander, was on the New York Times bestseller list.)

Saturday, January 18, 2003

Just returned from the peace rally in downtown Portland which drew about 30,000 protesters. I was responsible for four of those, including my sixteen year old daughter (or four and a half, if you count the infant daughter of one of my friends from the Y.)

The father of the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, Sr., called the repeal of the estate tax "ridiculous" last night on NOW with Bill Moyers.
In the interview, which also included Chuck Collins, founder of Responsible Wealth, and co-author with Gates of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes, Gates also called the estate tax the "fairest" of our taxes. Bush calls it the "death tax".

Friday, January 17, 2003

My apologies to the Quakers and the United Church of Christ for omitting them from the list of mainstream and liberal churches sponsoring tomorrow's massive peace march in Portland beginning at12:30 in the South Park Blocks. Jews
(Jews for Global Justice) and Buddhists (Portland Buddhist Peace Fellowship) are also listed in the Portland Tribune as co-sponsors.

Speaking of the Tribune, while others are beating the drums for peace, Dwight Jaynes continues his obsessive campaign to bring major league baseball (and/or hockey) to Portland. Dwight must not quite understand that "major league" and its antithesis, "bush league", are metaphors when used to describe cities, and shouldn't be used in any serious discussion of why major league baseball should find a home in Portland. Others, like Drew Mahalic of something called the Oregon Sports Authority seem equally confused. I read the other day that he called Portland a "great city"
and should therefore be considered seriously for a major league franchise. If Portland is already a "great city", why do we need a MLB team?

Even if Portland would support a baseball team and could really figure out a way to build a stadium without diverting badly needed tax money from
edcation, health care, public safety, etc., here are some reasons not to do it:

1) Most studies show that there is little, if any, economic benefit to cities from sports franchises.
2) It costs way too much to attend major league sporting events nowadays, if you want a seat which actually allows you a decent view of the field.
3) Even if a stadium could be built without taxpayer money, the stress on infrastructure (roads, water, sewage) has eventually got to cost money.
4) Speaking of stress, what about the environment? How can the influx of 25,000 to 40,000 fans into the city 81 times a year (many in low mpg SUV type vehicles) be anything but detrimental to air quality?

My advice to Dwight is to get a life and go for a bike ride. Or spend five bucks and go to a high school basketball game (they're usually pretty entertaining), or to a high school baseball game, for free.

Speaking of sports writers, Frank DeFord, of Sports Illustrated and NPR, wrote an excellent book that I stumbled across at the library a couple of weeks ago. (I was looking for something to read to pass the time while waiting for a movie to start.) It's called American Summer. It's a coming-of-age story about a 14 year-old boy who befriends a young lady in an iron lung. Remember those? Remember the polio scare of the early 1950's just as Salk and Sabin were developing a vaccine to eradicate the disease? Shots and sugar cubes? I remember it all quite vividly because when I was four my older brother (the liberal one) contracted a mild form of polio. I can still see him standing in the living room of our house trying to move his neck. I even knew an adult in an iron lung. DeFord's story is very well written, and is funny and tragic at the same time.
I didn't even know that DeFord wrote fiction, let alone non-sports fiction. He reminds me a lot of former NY times sports writer Robert Lipsyte
(One Fat Sumer, The Contender) who, to my mind, is one of the great writers for young adults in the last 30 years.

Back to Measure 28, the temporary tax increase to help Oregon through its budget crisis. A report from the Oregon Center for Public Policy , claims that failure of the measure would cost Oregon jobs.

Thursday, January 16, 2003

There are Christians,and then there are real Christians. Renowned (and local) evangelist Luis Palau thinks real Christians are the ones "who take the Bible seriously", which means, I'm guessing, that they take the Bible literally. Which means that Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Catholics, and many Lutherans are not real Christians.

I bring this up because the very active peace coalition in Oregon is sponsored in part by the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, made up of the mainstream, and often liberal, churches mentioned above whose members, according to Dr. Palau, don't take the Bible seriously. Conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist Christians don't support the peace movement.

This belies the notion that liberals don't believe in anything (I actually heard a TV pundit say that). They believe in peace and probably, by virtue of their church affiliations, in God. The other ones, the real Christians, believe in war.

I recommend John Spong's book "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism", published in 1991. He's a Bishop in the Episcopal Church, but, since he rejects Biblical literalism, is obviously not a real Christian.

Speaking of morality and liberalism, read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created by the United Nations over 50 years ago. It's a remarkable document that most people have never heard of, except for maybe the Geneva Conventions part of it dealing with war crimes. But it also outlines civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all the people of the world.
So how come Democrats are in full retreat and the Republicans now control all three branches of government? Maybe, just maybe, it's because the word "liberal" has become a pejorative descriptor, to such a extent that you rarely hear prominent Democrats willing to use the term to describe their policies or their politics. I'm not big on conspiracies, but I swear that conservative (how come that's not a pejorative?) pundits and talk show hosts must have access to a master list of catchphrases they use repeatedly to pummel and bully their opponents, and to sway public opinion.

For example, "liberals" don't believe in anything except "liberalism", which means "big government" and raisng "taxes". "Big government" is run by "government bureaucrats" who are obviously incompetent and can't be entrusted with our money. "Tax and spend liberals" propose new programs or support existing ones that require taxes to run them. But once labeled a "tax and spend liberal", you're on the defensive and you have to explain yourself. It's like being called an atheist or a communist, which, come to think of it, is what liberal has come to mean, or at least imply.
(Tax and spend is an interesting phrase - it has a sort of poetic rhythm to it -but it verges on redundancy. I mean, what else do you do with tax money if you don't spend it?)

"Trial lawyer", or "rich trial lawyer", is used to explain the crisis in health care. Lawyer is a pejorative by itself, but when combined with "trial" and "rich" it becomes positively toxic. Poor John Edwards. The coming campaign will really test his character. In this time of "limited resources",
government is supposed to learn to "live within its means". Can anybody tell me why this is a time of "limited resources"? America is the richest country in the world, but we don't have the political will to "tax" the enormous wealth we have created that will give us the "means" to adequately fund the programs to educate our kids, to clean up the environment, and to do the innumerable things necessary to make this country safer, fairer, and more democratic.

My favorite pejorative, lastly, is the one used most frequently to describe Nancy Pelosi, the new House Minoriy leader - "San Francisco Democrat". To Christian conservatives, San Francisco is the Sodom and Gemorrah of American cities. Ground zero for homosexuality and every other imaginable perversion. How can anyone take seriously the representative of this moral cesspool?

Thank heavens for Scoobie Davis, a fellow blogger and the scourge of right wing talk radio (is there any other kind?) His latest target is Michael Savage and his recent book.

I'd also like to thank Dave Mazza, the editor of the Portland Alliance, who said being progressive "means engaging in a struggle for a just, democratic society in which everyone can lead meaningful and rich lives free of fear or basic wants... ." If you can't be liberal anymore, you can always call yourself a progressive.

Tuesday, January 14, 2003

Here's the link to David Sarasohn's column (I can't get the link to work right, so once you get to the Oregonian's home page, click on columnists, and then on David Sarasohn) about former governor Barbara Roberts as prophet.

Barbara Roberts is an intriguing personality, perhaps the last true "leader" we've had in the statehouse. I've run into her a couple times at the local grocery store (she lives in my neighborhood), and once while canvassing for the city parks levy. She's friendly, down to earth, honest, and outspoken on issues that really matter. She wrote a book a couple years ago about the death of her husband, former state senator Frank Roberts.
I haven't read it yet, but I heard her read excerpts from it on public radio, and it sounds really good.

Which brings me to Measure 28, the temporary income tax increase (three years) referred to the voters by our legislature after three (or was it five?)
special sessions. It's supposed to help with the state's massive budget shortfall. Although it's a stopgap measure, and it's slightly regressive in its formulation (just like our state income tax), and, if it passes, will probably stop the momentum toward meaningful tax reform in Oregon (if there is any), I'm all for it. I don't want to see anyone else needlessly die. Vote yes. And vote! Remember, we have the ridiculous double majority rule thanks to Bill Sizemore.

Monday, January 13, 2003

The Oregonian article mentioned in this morning's post uses an inflation rate of 38% from 1991 to 2002 based on the Salem-Portland consumer price index. I'm no economist, but I'm adept enough with numbers to figure that the value of the house we bought in 1984 has inflated by at least
500% since. And new car prices have inflated by at least 300- 400% since 1980. Teacher salaries? In Oregon, between 1990 and 1999, they increased slightly more than 28%. I'm not sure what those numbers signify other than that housing and transportation cost a hell of a lot more than they used to, and that teachers aren't responsible for the crisis in school funding.

Not to name names, but Don McIntire, described as unapologetic in the other Oregonian article, is the prominent anti-tax activist who made the "socialistic mishmash" crack about public education.
The second in the series on Oregon's budget problems is in today's Oregonian ("Rural Schools Reap Urban Cash"). It talks directly about the effect of Measure 5 on school funding. It's a real eye opener. An accompying article suggests that a meeting between Measure 5 supporters and educators in Gresham ("Measure 5 Sold As Clamp on Taxes, Not on Schools") was the difference between victory and defeat. Five earlier attempts to pass property tax limitations had been defeated.

It's ironic to note that "direct democracy", the initiative, referendum, and recall, originated in Oregon as a check on legislative excess. It's now being abused by anti-government zealots to destroy the most democratic, and democratizing, (and arguably the most successful) institution in American political history.

Sunday, January 12, 2003

Since all politics is local and I live in Portland, Oregon, let me spend a little time trying to explain how the shit has really hit the fan here, primarily as a result of the property tax limitation, Ballot Measure 5, passed into law in 1990. By the voters, who were misled by the empty assurances that the schools would be held harmless. And by the endorsement of our supposedly progressive, alternative news weekly, Willamette Week, which still galls me to this day (it really,really pisses me off!) Now we have high school students collecting cans to save a favorite teacher's job. Now the Portland school district, in order to balance its budget, has the shortest school year in the nation. And they cut the spring sports season. Entirely.

I don't think any of this was entirely unforeseen. One local and prominent anti-tax activist once characterized our public education system as a
"socialistic mishmash." He knew, don't you think?

The Oregonian columnist David Sarasohn wrote an incisive piece (today's paper, which I can't link you to because the column isn't online yet, but I will later) calling former governor Barbara Roberts a "prophet" for predicting in 1991 that people would die because of the funding cuts that would inevitably result from Measure 5. He makes a compelling case that she was right.

For an overview of what's happening here (and in most other states as well) read the Oregonian article "Oregon Dream Vanishes", also in today's edition.

Saturday, January 11, 2003

One more thing. When I let my siblings know that I had started a weblog, one brother (the conservative one), having apparently read my blog, defended vouchers and school choice as simply a means for poor kids to escape drug infested inner city schools. The other (liberal) one asked,"What's a weblog?" He then went on, using his older daughter as an example, to defend public schools. However, he failed to say (maybe he'd forgotten) that he had chosen a public alternative high school for her, one for brighter kids. At least that's what I remember happening. Maybe I'm wrong, but in either case, I still disagree with the whole notion of choice. Someone- like the kid with unmotivated, uninvolved, apathetic parents, or no parents at all- gets left behind. Eventually a two tiered system evolves- some schools with the "good" kids and the rest with the not so "good".
School choice creates an insidious inequality between schools within a single district. It isn't right, it isn't fair, it isn't democratic.
Gerald Bracey, by the way, has written 10 annual reports on the condition of public education, all of which have been published in the Kappan magazine.
So where does this zeal for school privatization come from? What fans its fires? Sure, there's the weird amalgam of conservative/libertarian ideology that is essentially anti-tax and anti-government in its orientation, and fervent in its belief in the free market as the ultimate solution to all our problems. But most Americans are pragmatists, not ideologues, and almost all of them are the products of public schools. Yet more and more of them seem to believe that, despite all the money we lavish on them, public schools aren't doing a very good job. They're "failing" our kids.
They're producing dummies and illiterates unfit for the work place.

Let me introduce you to Gerald W. Bracey. He's a graduate of William and Mary College in Virginia, the Director of Reseach, Evaluation, and Testing for a school district in Colorado, and writes articles (reports) for the educational
journal Phi Delta Kappan. If you read the Bracey link above, you'll discover that the media is complicit in the trashing of public education. They publish the bad news and ignore the good news, much of the time anyway. And, as Mr. Bracey points out, the bad news isn't really all that bad.

Friday, January 10, 2003

I've always suspected that the real agenda of conservative politicians and their supporters is the outright privatization of all schools, even though they won't come right out and say so. They just hint at it, sort of nibble around the edges, advocating "vouchers" and "school choice" as surefire methods for shoring up our "failing" public schools while simultaneously slashing the taxes that support those schools. "Throwing money at the problem", as we've been told ad nauseam, won't do any good. (We do "throw" money at the Pentagon, however, even when they don't ask for it.)

Well it turns out some groups aren't so shy. The Alliance for the Separation of School and State wants to get the government completely out of education. They call it school liberation. They recently published an essay (actually a list) called "Ten Benefits of School LIberation." The list includes smaller schools (which one would assume would mean smaller classes), individualization (which definitely implies smaller instructional groups), happier teachers and principals who would hire their own "assistants and business managers", all of which would cost $1500 to $2000 per student. You can do the math, but the way I figure it, with classes of twenty students at $2000 a pop, that comes out to $40,000, which would be an OK salary if it all went to the teacher, and the principal and the assistants and the business managers were all volunteers. And the instructional space were rent free, and there were no insurance costs, and no sick leave or health benefits, and no text books or other instructional supplies. Maybe the assumption is that the teacher handles several instructional groups of twenty each day, while the other groups of twenty are left unsupervised, or they go home. That would bring the teacher's salary up to maybe $200,000, in which case he wouldn't need any benefits. But..... what would the parents think?
Welcome to Joe's school. Hopefully, I'll have the energy and the intelligence, the wit and the resolve, to make this new weblog educational and entertaining. We'll see. I plan to advocate for public education and the progressive tax system that will adequately support it. And other stuff, as well.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?