In my research, I've found that the federal government consumes about 30% of the nation's resources and only contributes about 10% to my local schools' operating budgets. My state has NO income tax and yet it affords to pay 45% of the school budget and the state shares tax dollars with the city, who pays the other 45%. This means 90% of education in my city is paid for out of a 3% property tax and a 7% sales tax.
If the federal government is taking 30% from just about everyone, why isn't it paying 80% of the education costs? Why is it that if you want to go to a good cheap college you go to one paid for by the state? Wouldn't it be better if healthcare, education, and other social programs were funded and operated closer to home?
Why does anyone think Washington D.C. is better off controlling the schools than your own city hall?
2007-06-20 03:25:49 · 5 answers · asked by freedom first 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
So you just think that every state should be forced from the top down to be exactly the same? Do you want it to look like Texas or California, and should anyone have the right to force that on the entire nation? What happens when someone you don't like gets control and forces every state to be like that?
2007-06-20 03:32:48 · update #1
There are already a ton of national standards. How is No Child Left Behind working out for you? Bush practically doubled the education budget and set strict national standards. Is that making our kids smarter?
2007-06-20 03:39:09 · update #2
It's called reform. Part of the major problem is that education funding relies on property taxes. We can fund it other ways.
Every school should receiving the same baseline funding and there should be national standards.
I shouldn't move a state and get better or worse education.
Edit: As an educator, absolutely. You might want to try teaching before you go around reforming education. You'd be shocked and appalled.
Edit: No and my state and local reforms have been none better. Leave the education reform to the teachers. They actually know what they are doing. And this is a better discussion to have over email.
2007-06-20 03:30:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who said it was? DC is the murder capital of the US! I'd find it hard to believe that's effective social reform.
As for the school issue, that's a contentious issue that I'd find it hard to believe would have any simple solution. The problem with funding close to home is not all homes are equal. Where I grew up, my district was in a extremely high tax area (they has a major airport in their district) so they were very well off. Many of the rural areas or urban slum areas were not as well off and the school districts reflected it.
2007-06-20 03:35:33 · answer #2 · answered by Tragicfame 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I live in DC and no one here thinks we're the answer. The issue with education is that the schools are demanding Federal money so Congress has an obligation to ensure some level of accountability in exchange for that money. That's not congress trying to solve social problems. That's fiscal obligation.
2007-06-20 06:22:07 · answer #3 · answered by David S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People with good common sense don't, it's just the liberal element that thinks that way, (you can't think for your self, let me help you and there by control just about every aspect of your life) The Liberal Creed.
2007-06-20 03:33:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they are lazy fools who want to take from those who are successful and give to those who are not.
2007-06-20 03:28:44 · answer #5 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋