Education Reform, And The Lying Liars That Tell Them!

Representative John Boehner declared recently that he “is in” for the new wave of educational reform in this country, which is being spearheaded by the “National School Choice Week” campaign. In a promotional spot for the campaign last month, Mr. Boehner boldly declared, “Hello, I’m John Boehner.”

I sat down with Boehner at his Ohio home to discuss this radical declaration and his sponsorship of “National School Choice Week.”

“We’re not dumb,” Mr. Boehner stated with strict eloquence while we sat for tea and conversation. “It’s the schools that are dumb. We need to put kids in schools that are not dumb.”

Mr. Boehner stood by his notion of increased parental involvement in our brief encounter, pointing out the long, ubiquitous tradition of parental involvement in the kinds of neighborhoods in which parents arrive home from low-wage jobs at 7:30 p.m. after a 16-hour shift and clearly can’t wait to wash up and make it out to the PTA meeting. You know… The bad neighborhoods.

“We simply need to get rid of the schools that are failing and put our kids in schools that aren’t failing. It’s like when you have a bunch of kids smoking pot in your basement. You can’t just take away the pot. You need to privatize the market and push for government to subsidize the small business owners, (ie. your local dealer), while cutting taxes and limiting government as an incentive to stimulate job creation!”

During my visit with Representative Boehner, it became clear that schools in the U.S. are running rampant with good teachers, excellent administrators, and decent budgets. The problem is clearly, and exclusively, the bad schools. The “National School Choice Week” campaign is advocating the idea that the choice of which school a student should attend in the hands of the parents, a prospect which has been thought possible by giving government subsidies. As such, if we take our students out of bad schools, we’ll do away with the only problem in the educational system, right? Still, I couldn’t understand why schools are so tirelessly nefarious, working day after day on ruining our otherwise excellent system.

I sat down with Governor Rick Scott (R- Fl) to discuss the issue of bad schools. Gov. Scott made headlines with his recent proposal of giving students of low socioeconomic standing “school vouchers” to pay for the different options that would allow parents to make a choice as to what school their child can go to.

“The problem, Ronald, is this notion that we should allow our children to be trapped in bad schools. Those schools are evil and they should be banished for all time to an existence best described as an empty shell of their former selves,” the governor told me during our brief interview.

Gov. Scott’s “educational savings account” idea proposes a fiscal product that would allow eligible parents to obtain “up to 85 percent of the state’s per-pupil funding figure.” When asked about whether federal and state representatives who advocate this plan – (largely conservatives and tea baggers, no affiliation) – planned to enact this change before or after they went through with their promise of cutting all the budgets, education included, Gov. Scott excused himself and proceeded to lock himself in the bathroom for several hours — refusing to come out until I left the premises.

So, logically speaking, what is wrong with the idea of reforming our educational system by keeping the actual system in place and just herding our students off to better schools? Is there nothing to lose with shepherding students through the thoroughfares of a fundamentally flawed system until they’re eventually deposited in the slightly more productive tentacles of a larger, low scoring educational beast which consumes academic integrity like a mystical dark mist shrouding a once small, benevolent, defenseless village?

Admittedly, taking children out of bad schools and putting them in good schools is somewhat productive. Giving parents options in choosing their child’s school is honestly a great idea, as proven by the scholarship program instituted in Washington, D.C. Still, by far the best idea I feel anyone has had is simply the thought that education reform strictly involves getting rid of bad schools, as opposed to fixing a fundamentally flawed system at its core: the bad schools we’re trying to get rid of. So while giving options to parents to choose their own child’s education is honestly a great way to further the cause, the biggest step forward in this move to reform the American educational system has been simply identifying the nemesis.

Now we may enact change because we know that evil schools are the only crumbling part of our money hemorrhaging, low scoring, overcrowded, ill-effective, teacher disdaining, savagely under budgeted, horrifically-administrated and often severely corrupted public education; and that change that will allow us to gracefully herd our kids to the better sites of that same system which has clearly worked for so many in the past.

How Punching Massachusettes Children Can Save You Hundreds Of Dollars At Cash Registers Statewide!

On November 2nd, all registered Mass voters have a civil responsibility to hit the ballot boxes and vote not only for the men and women who have invested several weeks and millions of dollars in America's most reliable and glorified name calling contest, but also for state statutes that will line the public policies of our state. One statute specifically has pressed plenty of reasonable dissent in the usual 'monkeys-throwing-shit-at-each-other' traditions that make up our election seasons. You may have heard of it. It may have showered itself into conversations on the T, or in the university halls much like pinata candy green cards at an anchor babies' birthday party. But if you're like millions of voters across the country, odds are you don't give a damn, and you still can't believe House is playing grab ass with Cuddy, that lucky pimp-limping bastard! Regardless, the fajita hot statute this Mass autumn is the highly contested Question 3 AKA the 3% Sales Tax Relief Act AKA the Initiative to Roll Back Sales Tax AKA the Take A Child's Lunch Money Right Now Act. The proposed law, supported by almost Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Christy Mihos and sponsored by The Alliance To Roll Back Taxes, offers an amendment to the state sales tax currently at 6.25% down to 3% in the event that Mass voters rally in it's favor.

It's difficult to deny an effort to pay less cash registers statewide. So why would anyone offer anything but appraisal to such a proposition? Why would anyone, in their own Right mind, offer anything but support for a state statute that would clearly put money back in the pockets of millions of Mass residents and visitors alike? Why would anyone, anyone at all, maybe even... I don't know.. a small child.. maybe even specifically a small child.. Maybe some kind of genetic issues... Maybe his dad was kinda small too, and he doesn't get much in terms of first pick in the after school dodgeball game.. Maybe people call him short and poke him in his little tiny-person face, and he's decided he's going to study his physiologically underprivileged ass off, (be damned that flawed educational system that will make him pay tens of thousands dollars to do so!!), to get back at all of those tall good looking kids all the popular girls in the fifth grade have crushes on.. Yeah.. Why would the wimp kid slump into Napoleonic fetal position under his nuclear winter fearing desk at the idea of such a law?! Could it be, as the Gates Foundation warns on their article: 'Top Ten Fast Facts About Post-Secondary Education', conveniently located on their website, (www.gatesfoundation.org), because "The average cost of tuition and fees at a public four-year college in 2009-10 was $7,020 – a 235-percent increase since 1980-81.", (numbers which many studies strongly suggest are not in line with inflation)?Or could it be that the current cost of post-secondary schooling in conjunction with the fiscal effects officials say the ratification of the 'Question 3' law would impose on elementary and secondary school budgets would mean that tiny Johnny boy better get real used to rejection? I wouldn't know personally, because I'm attractive. Still, for some hardly intelligible reason, plenty of people across the state, especially teachers and public education officials, are standing up against the proposition in an effort to stop a supposed $2.5 billion reduction in local aid for the state.

Critics of the proposed law argue that the kind of loss observed by a "yes" vote would deplete all public services enough to give us nightmares of FEMA showing up fashionably late to our "Oh Lord Please Help Us We're In Dire Need!" Mardi Gras party . The indiscernible verbal ass kickings on the subject appear to come down to a fundamental disagreement in the country, radiating in every election this fall. Taxes. In Massachusetts, a historical reference is never lost during these debates, as proved by the vice president of the Massachusetts Package Store Association Ron Maloney when claiming that the recent tax on alcohol in the state has already contributed to a large drop in his store's sales, suggesting that without implementing the law Question 3 proposes, the situation may become dire. "Forty to nearly fifty percent of what you pay for a bottle of alcohol is tax. I remember some guys throwing some tea into the harbor over just such an issue", said the gentleman in an interview with Metro West Daily News Correspondent Brittany Danielson. And he's damned right! I too remember some guys who threw some tea into the harbor over not being able to get shit-faced at tax free prices! Who wants to think about paying taxes to big government when they're out getting plastered and trolling for BU undergrads who may be confused and intrigued by the thought of experimentation?!

Still the opposition stands stronger than the hold Rush Limbaugh's ass has on Michael Steele's pursing lips. While the concern is entirely composed of the depletion of all state funded public services, the greatest concern on the side of the naysayers seems to be the proposition's effect on the public school systems of Mass. It is specifically this argument that I find as difficult to keep down as a drunken late night menu order after a trip to the Allston bar scene and a night with a Craigslist "masseuse".

Strong and true patriotic Americans, such as the Boston Herald Editorial Staff in their October 7th Editorial 'Yes on Question 3', are standing up in defense of this proposition saying: "Sometimes a proposition is known by the enemies it makes - and lining up against the tax rollback are all the usual suspects." God bless them for standing up against the radical left wing elementary, middle, and high school students who want to kick-start their American dream with a valid and adequately funded public education system! These parasitic little mini-persons hardly understand the real America composed of what patriots like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have so rightly named 'The Folks'! Seriously.. They actually hardly understand 'The Folks'... In their ill deserved defense, a lot of them just got over their object permanence dilemma. And in all fairness.. 'The Folks' hardly understand 'The Folks'... 'The Folks' seem harder to recognize and locate than diversity in the history of US presidents... Though there is that one guy... But he's a socialist.... Regardless, the Boston Herald Editorial Staff is making a strong patriotic point! As such, you know the radical left wing media is going to claim their 'disconnect' from the American voter. So let's go straight to the source and access the thoughts of voting supporters for some feedback!

Reporter and editor Nancy Reardon, in an article made available on Wickedlocal.com entitled 'Sales Tax Cut Ballot Question Is Causing A Stir', spoke to Sandra Plasical, 18, a student at Quincy College and a supporter of the law Question 3 proposes. She was quoted on the policy as saying, "It benefits people who aren't financially stable and people who are financially stable probably don't care." And she's right. The most financially stable people in this country are elementary and secondary school pupils! For the most part they don't even pay taxes! They can't even reach the counter where the registers are! Why would they care about a tax decrease, (other thanall the points previously outlined)? Even further in the same article, Reardon questioned Quincy resident Dan Cotter, 30. The sir had this to say on the matter: ""It's a tough economy, and I think that Massachusetts already has a pretty high sales tax". And that's a damned good point Mr. Cotter! Massachusetts, with a 6.25% sales tax, as Reardon adequately points out, "Falls in the middle nationwide". It is in this regard that we as Bay State citizens need to heed the wise words of Lil Jon & The Eastside Boyz and "Get Low", (feel free to disregard their slightly less relevant policies on "Windows","Walls", and the target route of "sweat").

Yes the consensus seems to be that we should "Get Low"-er, as Question 3 proposes, than the state of Alabama which currently employs a 4% sales tax, (though the state also employs additional local taxes which can "Get Low" to the tune of a combined total sales tax of 12%, (as provided by the Alabama Department of Revenue)). Or maybe we should try and compete with the lowest state taxes in the country, states like Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and O'Donnell's seemingly 'wicked' Delaware, all of which employ a 0% state sales tax! Further research revealed small discrepancies to the argument unfortunately as Alaska, Oregon, and New Hampshire municipalities often levy up to 7.5%, 8%, and 9% sales taxes respectively. But don't let the facts stand in your way! Fox News doesn't, and they make a killing!

The most important fact is that the passing of Question 3 will put on average $688 a year back into the pocket of every Massachusetts resident, according to www.Bollotpedia.org. So what's the big deal? Who cares if we have to cut school programs and maybe even close a couple dozen schools to get our thousands of tiny increments that, though worthless in and of themselves, will amount to about $700 dollars at the end of the year? It's these tough decisions that are testing the values of our country's ill informed and yet highly entertained voters. And it's this argument on the effects of the proposition on public school funds that brings us to todays Less Than Modest Proposal.