Redstate

I'm new here, and I'll have to tread carefully as per the posting rules.

It's hard to pinpoint one main ideological reason for my being a Democrat.  I can see the value both in free enterprise and most social programs, for example.

A main deciding point for me were the 1992 convention speeches by Clinton and Bush Sr.  I found Clinton's a little sappy, but everything he said made sense to me, especially the part about getting needed revenue from those making over 200K.  I see a lot of income disparity and believe our capitalist system needs more equalizing measures than we have now, not fewer.

Bush's speech, on the other hand, I found vapid and slightly insulting.  Something about "My opponent says that America is falling behind in [something or other].  Well, don't let anyone tell you America isn't the greatest country in the world.  Especially one who's running for President of the United States!" [Roaring applause].  That really got to me.  Was GHWB's saying we should simply ignore problems and wave the flag?  I don't believe constantly tooting your own horn is good domestic or foreign policy.

So the two big ones would be tax policy and a national sense of humility, I guess.  There are other reasons, but I'll let you have at those two first.

Tax Policy

The top 1% of income earners pay 29% of all taxes paid in the US

The top 5% pay 50%

The top 10% pay 63%

You would never require someone in the US to give up a portion of their home to someone who lives in a smaller home, but yet we require that money be taken disproportionably.  How is that fair?

As for income disparity.   There is some injustice, but a vast majority of the time people make what they earn.  Look at it this way.  People make more when there are fewer people that can do the job.  Not very many people can throw a 90 MPH fast ball so those who can make millions.  Anyone can flip a burger, therefore they don't make much.  Everyone, including the burger flipper, can improve their situation through hard work and dedication.  The burger flipper can go to a trade school (on the government's dime) and then get into a skilled trade.  They can work 2 jobs.  They can relocate to another region that pays more for what they do.  I firmly believe there is a disparity of hard work which directly correlates to the disparity in incomes.

on this topic, being that I grew up a democrat but I'm kinda unsure. I'll be back to comment on this--I'll try to squeeze it in between meeting breaks and the Most Uneventful Day for NCAA Tourney Upsets. (I call Utah State in the first round).

Your earlier diary along the lines of all Democrats are stupid liars, I'll go for it.  

The number one reason I'm a Democrat, education and education spending.  And to make a long story short, I don't agree with vouchers.  Quick reasons why, privatization makes profit/budget a more important goal than education.  On average, private school teachers make much less, discouraging good teachers from applying.  They only help if the parents pay close attention and reallly care.  So once again, the kids who would need it most (don't have the benefit of caring parents) would likely be left behind.

I firmly believe that America will not be able to compete with labor and determination alone.  We are going to always need a more educated workforce.  And military for that matter.  As we see the Future Fighting Forces actually coming on to the battlefield, we see alot of very sophisticated equipment.  Stuff that will take a solid education to be able to fully utilize.  I think having an educated workforce and population is important enough to our market, and even national security, that it should be one of our top priorities.  With tax dollars backing it up.

I think a public education system makes sure the funds are available to schools, and allows us to more closely manage and determine what the end result of an education in this country will be.  Rather that just a guessing game between thousands of different schools which all may use a different model.

Quick reasons why, privatization makes profit/budget a more important goal than education.

Most private schools are non-profit. I would say there is not much of a profit motive in a non-profit business.

On average, private school teachers make much less, discouraging good teachers from applying.

They can only do this when teachers are 1) willing to make less at a private school, for a better teaching environment or 2) there is an oversupply of teachers. If the teachers were really worse at private schools, why would anyone pay a bunch of money to send their kids there? Public school is already paid for.

They only help if the parents pay close attention and reallly care.  So once again, the kids who would need it most (don't have the benefit of caring parents) would likely be left behind.

Not any different than public school. There are star pupils that the teachers like, there are pupils the teachers dislike, and there are the ones they could care less about. This is going to be the same in any system.

We are going to always need a more educated workforce.

It's just too bad the public school system does a horrible job of preparing an educated workforce... and it seems to be getting worse all the time.

I think having an educated workforce and population is important enough to our market, and even national security, that it should be one of our top priorities.  With tax dollars backing it up.

There would still be as many tax dollars backing it up as there is today. The difference is that there would be choice in where to spend it. The same way post secondary is now. You can take your grants and subsudized loans to either a private or a public school.

allows us to more closely manage and determine what the end result of an education in this country will be

This has not worked out very well.

Rather that just a guessing game between thousands of different schools which all may use a different model.

Much better than the alternative of forcing kids to go through a failing system (unless their parents are wealthy Democrat politicians who can afford private school).

While I can not comment too forcibly on the education comment (please see the grammar and spelling errors in the previous post you cited) I can begin with the idea that the government run everything inefficiently.  I believe that is due to a lack of keeping profits in mind.  The US government shells out over $10,000 per student per year.  Let's take an arbitrary number of students per classroom of 20 which is the number in my step sons 1 grade class.  That means the government is paying $200,000 per year for, overhead (buildings, electricity, AC etc.) materials (books desks etc) and teacher for just 1 class.  That seems like an awful lot of waste when you think the teacher maybe makes 50K, which I believe is more than enough for someone who works 183 days a year, from 7:30am to 3:30pm.

I agree to your point of the same standards, but history has proven that people operate most efficiently when you tell them what they need to do not how they need to do it.  The department of education needs to establish strict guidelines for where students need to be to pass each grade and then let individual schools figure out how to get there.

By the way, to all, I really appreciate you guys taking the time to converse about your points of view.

I'm a Republican, but probably liberal enough to be considered here. (Forgive my not understanding how to use blockquote. Care to assist?)

I come from a family of teachers, both public and private. I think vouchers are not the right way to head in. One of your arguments (correct me if I'm wrong) is that public school teachers are failing students, but then you turn around and say:

"There are star pupils that the teachers like, there are pupils the teachers dislike, and there are the ones they could care less about. This is going to be the same in any system."

So let me get this straight in my head: We should go to vouchers because the public school teachers are failing students, but those same students will fail in private schools? That's an atrocious argument. For the record, from the perspective of both student and teacher, students choose to fail themselves. It's very true that it's difficult to succeed without a strong base at home. But, as you admit, this won't address that.

"There would still be as many tax dollars backing it up as there is today. The difference is that there would be choice in where to spend it. The same way post secondary is now. You can take your grants and subsudized loans to either a private or a public school."

Even if the vouchers worked out as proper funding for each school (which they wouldn't), soon enough some schools wouldn't get enough students to stay in business. Great, you say. Eliminate the schools that underperform. Set aside for the moment the amount of teachers you're putting out of a job. You're overcrowding the schools that are left, which then brings their quality down, and you're no better off than before. Except maybe everyone is in a Catholic school now.

"Much better than the alternative of forcing kids to go through a failing system (unless their parents are wealthy Democrat politicians who can afford private school). "

I just take offense to that because my dad is a poor public school teacher, and I went to private school for high school on a full scholarship. Don't pretend it's not accessible now to the lower class.

And if I may throw this in to the end: White Flight. Personal experience, giving options brings segregation. The White families get together and send their students to one school, and fight to stay there. In turn, the Black/Hispanic families (It's usually not both, and Asians aren't involved) congregate at the other schol, for the same sense of community. Maybe you're for racial "freedom of association". Fine, and I'm not going to go against that. I just want to tell you, that with parents still alive before/during the civil rights era, that is what will happen.

So sorry. That's a hot issue for me. My greatest hate of John Kerry came from the "Stay Open Till Six" policy that would have forced my father out of his coaching job.

And I appreciate the appreciation, and reciprocate. It's nice to be able to debate this (though I doubt I'd get a Blam for anything I said--maybe White Flight.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 50K is with quite a bit of tenure. It may be different now, but in CT which pays its teachers the best, it used to be under 20K for your first few years, and increasingly slowly.

I'm sure you're right about your stepson's first grade class, but most public classsrooms are closer to about 30 or more. In a town that spends little on education, you have a case of many kids coming from 4 public elementary schools crowded in a single public high school.

And I believe that money goes to more than overhead. I've heard the statistic, can you direct me to where you found it? It must include a lot of out-of-school stuff, vouchers in the areas that use them, and don't forgetfree lunch. When I was in public school, I'd say about half the kids were on free or reduced lunch. Every single day. That can add up really fast.

Amen on guidelines, not directives. But don't set the bar too much higher from where you know it is now--you can't get someone who has already gone through 10 grades of lower-level math to be able to score over a 600 on the SAT in Math, or something of the like.

I am a Democrat because I believe that Government should play a role in improving the lives of the citizens of our Country.

Quick reasons why, privatization makes profit/budget a more important goal than education.  

 Agreed that we would want to avoid a kind of "McSchool System". McDonald's doesn't particularly care about your health as long as the burger count keeps rising, but hey, no one's forcing you to go there, and no one would be forcing your kids (or anyone else's) to choose a school that is known to prioritize $$$ to the detriment of their customers.

On average, private school teachers make much less, discouraging good teachers from applying.

 There may be more reasons than salary that they opt for private schools as opposed to public schools. Don't underestimate the value of being able to teach in an environment that allows them to exercise a great degree of freedom in setting admission, behaviour and parental involvement standards. In other words, I wager that every other public school teacher out there would take a 5% cut in pay in exchange for eliminating counterproductive parents and undisciplined children. They'd likely give further to get mainlined mentally handicapped and disturbed kids out of their classes too (and into appropriate classes of their own, of course - but separate).

 A different form of education system has at least as many potential advantages for teachers as for parents/children. I think most teachers fail to see this because they feel constantly attacked and disrespected - a siege mentality.

So once again, the kids who would need it most (don't have the benefit of caring parents) would likely be left behind.

 It's a shame so many parents are so ineffective when it comes to discipline and being involved in their child's education. To the extent that this clearly isn't the child's fault I empathize with this point of view. But parents ultimately have the right to decide how to raise their own offspring (short of criminal negligence and abuse), and the best thing government can do is enable the parent to make the best choices possible. The best public school teachers and public schools we can imagine wont stop a child being disadvantaged by lousy parents, but change the system so it's competitive in regards to gaining entry into and service from the "better" schools and I believe over time the predominant hands-off attitude will change, and parents will take a more active role.

 Again, as good as this would be for parents (and indirectly, society), it's equally promising for teachers. A "different system" could allow teachers to free themselves of much of the government-instigated beaurocracy that tends to waste their time. And a trend toward privatization would ultimately create a trend toward renewed respect for teachers, in my opinion, because the lower 15-20% of poor performing teachers would be marginalized out of such a system over time. This positive effect on respect would also carry over from the fact that parents are put in a competitive position, and view getting a good teacher as an actual accomplishment rather than pot luck.

Probably the biggest reason I'm a Democrat (although more conservative than my parents) is because I'm a scientist and not very religous - the Republican party hasn't seemed very friendly to me or science, well ever. Some of my co-workers are Republicans, but they are definitely in the minority.

The top 1% income earners (above $295,495 as of Ocotber 2005) after their 24.31% average tax rate, still come home with more money ($224,576 or more) than 95% of income earners before taxes - kind of hard to feel as sorry for them. One of the reasons this works is for social stability - the larger the disparity in incomes, the more likely the disenfranchised will take from the franchised. Just ask Marie Antoinette.

As far as upward mobility - I think this is a fundamental difference between philosophies. Conservatives see it as an easy process - just work two jobs and you'll pull yourself up. If you can't, you must be lazy. Recent studies (sorry don't have them at my fingertips) show that it's not that easy and the vast majority people tend to stay in the same economic class they start in. Working two minumum wage jobs isn't going to get you very far, and pray you don't get sick.

Would you say that the perceived unfriendliness of Republicans to science is more philosophical or fiscal?

To me the Republican attitude toward science is unimportant, so I'm interested in your point of view.

Well, I'm from a long line of students, both private and public, and I have to counter your anecdotes with mine.

There were a couple of years when I lived in a truly horrendous urban ghetto environment.  I went to an elementary school where I was the only Asian kid in it; everyone else was black or Hispanic.  In 5th grade, there were kids in my homeroom who were 14 years old because they had been left back so many times.

Guess what the favorite playground activity at this school was?  If you guessed, "Beat the Chink" you are correct!

The teachers were all uniformly horrible; one guy came pretty darn close to physically abusing his students.  Another guy would come to class every day smelling like vodka.  Not one of them that I saw gave two flying &#(@ about their students; they just wanted to hang on to that sweet teaching job with full government benefits.

Are these representative of public school teachers?  Probably not.  Are they even representative of inner-city public school teachers?  Probably not.

But as far as that school went, were they representative?  Absolutely.

My parents pulled me out of there after they found crude weapons in my school bag (I made a crude sort of a switchblade), asked me what that was about, and I told them that I needed it to defend myself during recess.

As immigrants, working two jobs while going to school fulltime, they somehow found money to put me into a kind Catholic school nearby -- and I wasn't even Catholic.  Pretty sure that the school gave them a break, and also sure that my parents went without new anything -- no new shoes, no new clothes, no going out to eat, nothing -- for two years to pay for the reduced tuition.

Now... why are vouchers so bad again?

Vouchers are meant for people like my parents -- people who do care about their children's education, but can't afford to send their kids to private school.  They are not meant for the people who could care less about their kids or their education.  Why anyone could oppose this is simply beyond me.

The only rational basis for opposing vouchers I can think of is that one is the member of a teacher's union, concerned more about protecting the jobs, salaries, and perks of the union members than about teaching kids.

So I have a compromise.  Fine, let's not do vouchers if that's such a bad idea, and would ruin public schools as we know it.  In exchange, I would like to outlaw teacher's unions.  That alone might improve public schools enough such that vouchers won't be necessary.

The "White Flight" thing is such a non-issue in this arena.  If you're seriously telling me that black parents who care about their kid's education would fight to send him to a crappy school because of 'a sense of community' because the good school has too many white people in it... I'm sorry, but I'd have to see some evidence.

-TS

Republicans have a lot of respect for science, they just have respect for religion as well, unlike many  Democrats (at least politicians and celebrities) who make it a point to denigrate and oppose religion at every turn. Even those who don't openly deride religion and its' adherents still do their best to want religion pushed into some dark corner where it won't see the light of day.

To put it simply, we'd just like to see Democrats accord religion the respect and freedom they do pornography.

...on the area of science - if it has to do with military technology (which I used to be involved in) then funding is less of an issue and philosophy as well, I suppose - you'll also find a lot more Republican scientists in that arena. In most other areas of science that I can think of at the moment, the unfriendliness can be both philosophical and fiscal. Which is more important probably depends on the field. For example, my field is currently renewable energy, philosophically more consevatives are realizing that this might be a good place to spend money for a host of reasons. However, because the have been fighting against it for so long, the fiscal part of it hasn't quite caught up and remains subpar - although this may be changing as well.

Just to clarify you are a democrat because you are a scientist and non-religious?  

What entitles you to my money?

You said:

"The top 1% income earners (above $295,495 as of Ocotber 2005) after their 24.31% average tax rate, still come home with more money ($224,576 or more) than 95% of income earners before taxes - kind of hard to feel as sorry for them."

The rich are taxed between 22 an 27 times more than the rest of the population yet they don't get 22 more votes and the fire department doesn't get to their house 22 times faster! What happened to that great liberal philosophy of fairness and equality?

Also disenfranchised means: deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote!

and one I've been wondering about. One of the main rallying cries behind the American revolution was "taxation without representation". If the rich are taxed at such higher rates then the rest of us, doesn't it fall under that category to some extent?

...is still there, a matter of degrees maybe? I suppose a case could be made that the rich with their money have greater access to politicians. But we all have equal representation with our one vote.

I didn't realize conservatives were ever against renewable energy.  I'm sure there are politicians from TX or OK who are in the oil lobby's pocket, but  even Big Oil wants alternative fuels.  Oil is a commodity, after all, and the real money comes from new products. They have enough money and foresight to buy up whatever hot companies start to make money in fuel cell, solar, wind, or other technology.

Then again, they're doing pretty well under the status quo.  

I'm really surprised that Green Conservatism isn't a more powerful movement.  Crunchy Cons are part of that, I guess.  I think people see themselves too much as numbers with a "left" or "right" sign, rather than as individuals with opinions and a franchise.

From Slate(yeah, I know) today...pretty much sums up what's been bothering me lately:

"In the 1980s and again in the 1990s, party strategists discovered a serious design flaw in conservatism: The country wouldn't let Republicans cut government spending anywhere near as much as Republicans wanted to cut taxes. Compassionate conservatism was concocted to correct that glitch by just cutting taxes and letting government spending soar. The new design flaw: Voters don't like that, either."

Having dumped that on your nice clean floor, I should say that until recently I thought McCain would be the best qualified POTUS to straighten out this mess.

After his shennanigans in the Memphis straw-poll, I'm not so sure now.

In any case, while not really a Democrat in the sense that I periodicaly crawl out of a pigeon-shaped hole to scream "Tax and spend! Tax and spend!", I remain as confused and depressed as ever.

Democrats want pornography to have more freedom than religion? Like daily pornography at the beginning of class, or pornography before a football game? What about putting pornography on the front steps of the courthouse?

Oh wait, nobody wants that. Democrats just don't want people to have religion forced on them. They also don't want pornography forced on anybody. So I guess you're right, they do want equal respect and freedom for both religion and porn.

although, it could be a chicken and egg thing. Democrats seem to support my values more than those of Republicans, although I'm pro-globaliztion and think Iraq may turn out OK in the long run (knock on wood).

it was Reagan, who soon after he zeroed the budget of the lab where I work (see if you can guess which one), said "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

But, that is not the case anymore - I think conservatives, minus a few stragglers are jumping on the band wagon. Another prominent conservative just visited us and had nothing but good things to say.

should be paying 67% of the taxes instead of 63%.  Maybe it should only be 59%.  It's hard to say.

What I find conservtives tend to ignore is the flip side of taxation:  No one earns money in a vacuum.  A typcial CEO's income is dependent (in theory, anyway):

• laws, regulations and enforcement that prevent internal and external corruption and fraud;
  
• on the health and education of his employees;
  
• on the protections of the armed forces that make his country a good place to invest;
  
• on the transportation infrastructure that allows his distribution network to function.

All of these things are funded mostly by tax revenue.  The rich ultimately derive a much greater financial benefit from public expenditures; it is only fair that they contribute a higher share.

Also, I believe that our CEO is not actually worth 60 million a year.  In a true meritocracy it would not be difficult to find someone to do as good a job for a couple hundred grand.  The crony network that allows corporate boards and officers to reward each other lavishly (even when they fail) is not deserving of sympathy.  High brackets for the rich at least partly allieviate the worst effects of human greed.

I don't claim to know what the best tax policy is.  I actually like the idea of Fair Tax plan that many have touted here: it seems it can be made both progressive and efficient.  What I object to is Republican rhetoric about "confiscatory" tax rates, policies that tax investment revenue at a lower rate than employement revenue and the overconfident belief in market forces.

I'm in one of those upper income backets, so I'm not taking your money.

I think my point is that it's in the upper income brackets best interest to help out the less-privileged. If they don't to some extent, the lower brackets will take it for themselves - either way you're going to pay, with taxes you're just going to pay with money.

Also, how much money does a person need anyway? Do you really need the $6000 shower curtain? I'm not saying that justifies others "taking" your money, but you don't really need it - studies show that once a person reaches certain income level, their happiness doesn't increase with any more cash. Shouldn't life be about happiness? Here's one (maybe only?) point I agree with social conservatives - it's not about the money.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

plus, no one ever said "taxation without equal representation."

was made possible by publicly-funded social infrastructure.  Besides, liberals (rich ones at least) apply the same principle to themselves: everyone with means should pay.  It's not like they're robbing you.

Think of it this way: if you're rich but want to help the poor, you can either do it by paying high taxes or by funding your favorite charities.  Most would prefer to do the latter.  But why should wealthy altruists carry all the burden of helping the poor?  It's only fair that the selfish should have to pay too.  Hence, high marginal tax brackets for everyone.  A necessary byproduct of human nature in a functioning modern society.

Science is supposed to be politically neutral, but it is frequently agenda-driven. If somebody is out to "get" a pharmaceutical company, they will play up the rare cases in a study where a drug seems to cause horrible side effects, and Democrats will highlight this (because the trial lawyers are on their side). If the drug in question causes chemical abortions, suddenly the Democrats are mum, and the Republicans are playing up the women who bled to death in clinical trials.

The same goes for environmental pollution. Democrats play up the effects of pollutants on vegetation and obscure species of animals, and tell us we must shut down industries--Republicans look at ways to reduce pollution within the industries, without putting them out of business. Democrats look to science to show the problems, Republicans look to science for solutions.

Then when it comes to stem-cells, Democrats accuse us of being "unscientific" or "heartless" because we don't want to kill human embryos to try to heal diseases in other people, while we try to protect ALL life, and use only stem cells obtainable without killing the donor.

There are lots of things that are technically or scientifically possible, but it's morally debatable whether it SHOULD be done. For example, we have enough nuclear bombs to wipe Iran off the map, but SHOULD we do it?

Science SHOULD be politically neutral and based on facts, but since scientists sometimes depend on government grants, which depends on politicians, politics and philosophy do get entangled in scientific thought.

The rich ultimately derive a much greater financial benefit from public expenditures; it is only fair that they contribute a higher share.

 Do they derive a much greater benefit simply because they are rich? Wouldn't you say those who have earned their way into wealth have by and large done so because they have availed themselves to a greater extent than most other people of the opportunities before them? I don't believe it is an arbitrary lottery that determines who becomes a CEO or a holder of any other sort of high paid position. And so, because these people have worked their way into a good position which enables them to derive a higher salary, greater power, etc, they should automatically be made to pay a greater share of their income?

 Granted that not everyone has the identical set of opportunities in life. Some people start out severely disadvantaged through no fault of their own. But some of those formerly disadvantaged persons are the very success stories whom you'd prefer to be taxed to a greater degree than the person who began life in a comfortable middle class home, yet never had the initiative to stretch himself out beyond those beginnings...

 These dicsussions are part of why I like this whole fair tax concept. Tax consumption, not income - and tax it equally across the board. The wealthy CEO who buys the 95k car and theoretically  derives a greater benefit for having paid a greater expense also pays a proportionately higher dollar amount in taxes, which I think you would support.

not sure where Deomcrats have opposed religion (although maybe you'll give some examples)...heck even the ACLU (gasp!) has reltively good recent history of defending religious freedoms. I think Democrats would like to keep religion as a personal quality and make sure that Christianity is not the only one represented.

I also think that when science and religion clash and the science is widely respected, we should side with science - but hey I'm probably biased.

Nowhere do I say the failing public schools are a result of bad teachers. I pin most of the blame on the education beaurocracy and the union, not on the teachers. Sure, there are bad teachers in the public system... and they can stay there as long as they want, thanks to the union. So there will be more bad teachers in public schools than in private.

As far as the star pupils getting most of the attention, I was responding to COs argument that this is the case with private schools. It is not. It is the case with all schools. Teachers are human and they are going to like some of their students, dislike others, and pay minimal attention to others. This shouldn't be a shock to anybody who has ever gone to school. This by itself isn't reason enough to fail or succeed.

Overcrowding. The same money is being spread around, so when bad schools lose their students and hemmorage money, that money goes to the good schools to expand and hire more teachers. These good schools may be public or private. Good teachers can get work at the new expanding schools. Bad teachers will be out of work. They need a career change anyway.

You can take offense all you want, but private school is not an option for many kids. Why should any kid be forced to go to a failing school? Why should any kid be forced to go to a dangerous school? For purely ideological reasons? I don't think so.

I don't see how "white flight" (did we just travel back in time to the 70s?) is an different in a voucher system than a non-voucher system. There is already a lot of segregation in where people live. We already have public schools that are 90% black and those that are 0% black.

I totally agree with you that money /= happiness.

But the reality is- why do individuals take risk to develop new products and start new businesses? Primarily to become rich. Our system definately has its faults, but I'm very leery about racheting up the tax burden on "the rich" and decreasing the incentives to take risks and invest.

Can't have it both ways in life, and I'd rather err on keeping incentives high for people to take entreprenuerial risk (which creates jobs and grows the economy) rather than err on the side of govt taking more money from those it deems can afford it (see Europe for the economic effect of erring to hard on this side).

It's only fair that the selfish should have to pay too.

 This is only "fair" if by fair you mean that everyone is equally forced, whether they like it or not, to be altruistic.

 An opposing viewpoint says that it is never "fair" to force anyone to give up their assets for someone else's benefit, true though it may be that selfish people could be counted among the less noble citizens...

You can use:

<blockquote>stuff I want to quote</blockquote>

You can also do this for italics:
/stuff I want to quote/

If the rationale for taxing the rich to help the poor is to make sure that some of the rich don't welch on their obligations, then give everyone a 100% tax credit for up to 1/2 of their federal tax, as long as they are giving it to charities that help the poor.  And then reduce government spending on the failed anti-poverty programs by the same amount.  In other words, the same amount of total money going to help the poor, but most of it coming from private charity.  My guess is that churches and private charities would actually begin to solve the problems of poverty, instead of perpetuating them, as government programs often do.

Your whole concept that people become rich because of the government if false. People become rich because of their own risk taking, smarts, and creativity. This isn't the USSR where you need to have permission from the government (and Communist Party connections) to make a new and improved widget.

Becoming rich is not just being lucky and winning some lottery. I am not a rich guy. I don't really care to be rich. Maybe I could be if I was willing to risk everything I had over and over again... but I'm not a gambler. I also don't want to work 80 or 100 hours a week. As long as I have enough money to pay my bills and buy some of the stuff I want, I am happy.

As far as liberals applying the same principle to themselves, that is not true in practice. Liberals make just as much use of tax shelters and cheat on their taxes every bit as much as Conservatives. For example, Arrianna Huffington doesn't pay taxes. She lives in a $7 million house and flies around the country on private jets, but somehow had no income at all for a couple years in a row and paid less in taxes than a guy running the fry machine at McDonalds.

I see no contradiction between being fair and forcing everyone to do what is perceived as the right thing.  It may be high-handed and authoritarian, but it's not unfair.

I guess the left-right divide on this boilds down to collective responsibilty vs. personal liberty.  My distrust of human nature pushes me to the left.

...taking my money and wasting it on a broken down welfare state and failed social programs.

Redistribution of wealth is part of a failed philosophy the sooner you libs realize that the better off we'll all be!

Self responsibility is the key!

Speaking to the other part of your post about " how much money does a person need anyway" and "you don't really need it" is absurd. You're Marxist, Star Trekian, utopia will only be achieved when this world invents a replicator able to create anything you want or need out of nothing. Don't hold your breath!

those charities, on becoming publicly funded, would turn into the same ineffective anti-poverty programs they're supposed to replace.  Not to mention the paperwork involved in tracking the income and charities.

I like your basic idea: governement would spend money much more wisely if taxpayers had a direct say into where it went.  Let people draw their own pie chart on their IRS returns.

But don't get me started on religious charities. I have serious issues with them getting public funds, no matter how efficient they are.  It's a First Amendment thing.

You mean the whole separation between church and state thing that isn't in the 1st Amendment? The actual standard is free exercise and no establishment of a state religion.

If the government allowed you to give money to the Salvation Army in exchange for a portion of your tax money, where would that fall afoul of the 1st Amendment? Is that establishment of a state religion? For that matter is it establishment of a state religion that you can now deduct contributions to the Salvation Army? Why should giving money to Peta or Greenpeace (which as every bit as religious in their own way) be allowed while giving to the Salvation Army be forbidden?

I personally don't care for the idea anyway... since the money would be spent on the state side anyway. They would just raise taxes to provide a buffer to maintain state spending at the current level.

as I said in my post.  "Much of what you earn..." and all.  I'm not advocating communism.  Are you advocating we all go back to cut-throat capitalism or subsistence farming?  Part of what we earn is due to personal effort, risk-taking and creativity, as you said.  Part IS due to luck and our position in society.  That's why we pay part of our income in taxes.  Our system didn't end up this way by accident.

I won't defend Arianna Huffington or any liberal who doesn't practice what they preach.  Or tax code loopholes, for that matter.  I trust you won't defend big-governement conservatives.

is not hostile to religion. It simply doesn't want any religion estabilshed as an "official" religion or certain religions favored or discriminated against

It should not prohibit the government from working with different religious groups that can effectively provide social services. The fact is that religiously run orphanages and hospitals have been receiving government funds for a long time and we are all better off because of it. The constitutional issue would be if the government decided to only give funds to say Baptist run social services organizations and no other religion.

But to suggest that the First Amendment prohibits any/all religious groups from receiving governement funds distorts the Constitutional issue and is simply wrong.

I mean a law respecting the establishment of religion, which is in there.  Nice try.

Public figures can talk about religion all they want and Senators can have opening prayer sessions, but no tax dollars for churches.  No taxing Churches, either.  And yes, if the Salvation Army is registered as a religious organization and has tax-exempt status, I believe tax-deductible donations SHOULD run afoul of the First Amendment.

I am no fan of PETA or Greenpeace, but they have specific secular areas of operation.  Even so, I wouldn't want them to receive federal funds because they don't provide a basic public service.  But it wouldn't violate the First Amendment.

...trying to become rich does drive the system much of the time. But it will always be a balance between supporting risk taking and supporting society. Maybe a flat tax works - honestly I don't know enough to tell you the pros and cons - I'd be willing to try it. But even with a flat tax, the rich will be paying the vast majority of taxes, and our country has thrived under progressive taxation for quite a while. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

...and read about the Fair Tax H.R.25 & S.25 The most impressive tax reform to come along in decades.

Payroll Tax is Regressive; Fair Tax is Progressive

Fair Tax Benefits All Americans

Tax dollars already go to churches and religious charities in the form of tax deductible contributions. All this proposal would do is turn the deduction to a credit. And that makes it unconstitutional? How are we establishing a state religion by giving someone a tax credit to give to the charity (religious or not) of his choice?

Where do you draw the line between secular and religious charities? Do you just depend on their IRS status? If I started a church and it wasn't recognized by the IRS is it non-religious? Was Scientology non-religious before the 90s? I find it extremely disturbing that the IRS is in the position to determine what is a religion at all, but that's where we are.

This is stretching the constitution beyond recognition, every bit as much as the pro-abortion forces stretch it. I prefer to read what is there than what I want to see there.

must be time to refill the meds...and by the way Star Trek is cool - don't knock it.

Self responsibility is the key!

So, I guess then we can eliminate the second largest target for your money - Defense...everyone should just responsibly buy their own guns, I'm sure that would work well.

Redistribution of wealth is part of a failed philosophy

Uh-huh...which is why most modern economies have thrived over the past 50 years or so...

I hear there aren't any taxes in Somolia, perhaps you should start looking for property there.

It with "Much" doesn't make your premise any more true. The argument that the rich do not pay for the services they use is ridiculous on its face. The fact that almost half the people pay no income taxes at all should provide a clue as to who is paying the bills.

The purpose of taxes is (or should be) to fund the government, not to redistribute wealth. So I would say, no, taxes aren't there to provide a counterbalance to "luck and our position in society."

I'm not an advocate of a flat tax... I have no problem with some kind of progressivity in taxation, but there is great danger in letting it become to progressive... and we are already at this point. When more than half of the population pays no taxes, those who are paying the bills are at the mercy of the majority who does not. This is not a good situation.

I don't like the income tax at all... it is a very poor proxy for wealth... as the Huffington example shows.

... at first glance - what are the drawbacks?

And what about...

10. Fair Tax package is revenue neutral and Progressive...

Isn't that what you're arguing against, progressive taxes? I'm confused...

The meds comment was funny and I wasn't knocking Star Trek I happen to be a fan just pointing out certain realities that exist in the world and until technology catches up... no utopia!

"So, I guess then we can eliminate the second largest target for your money - Defense...everyone should just responsibly buy their own guns, I'm sure that would work well."

This is a silly argument and you know it! Self responsibility is the key when discussing social programs and Defense isn't one of them.

"Uh-huh...which is why most modern economies have thrived over the past 50 years or so"

Trade was the driving factor in those economies not taking wealth from a certain group of people and dispersing it to another!

"I hear there aren't any taxes in Somolia, perhaps you should start looking for property there."

This is a bit snippy don't you think? I'm not attacking you personally just the liberal philosophy you seem to subscribe to.

It is a lot less "progressive" than our marginal rates are right now. Of course in practice it might be more progressive because it is easy for the wealthy to hide income (both legally and illegally)... and much harder to hide consumption. I think a consumption tax is fairer than a tax on income.

I didn't say anything about progressive taxes either way!

My argument is what entitles you (as in democrats) to my tax money for social programs and the like.

where to start? I love the talking points - trial lawyers, Democrats wanting to shut down industries and using science only to show problems - good ones.

I agree that science can become politicized, which is why I say below...

...and the science is widely respected...

which could also be political as who gets to decide...

OK, shall we stir the teapot, since you brought up stem cells? Let's say you're in a fertility clinic with your two year old to visit your petri dish of five embryos. Suddenly a fire breaks out, but there's only time to save either the 2 year old or the petri dish - who do you save?

Trade was the driving factor in those economies not taking wealth from a certain group of people and dispersing it to another!

so, trade is not going to stop, why should we stop the current system, if it's working? If you can show me an example of where some social programs are not in place and taxes are not used to support these and it's a place where I'd want to live, I'll believe your utopian vision...if you can gather enough support to change the system, more power to you, until then I'm happy with the staus quo, sorry.

conservatives were running the government - maybe you should ask them to cut the social programs.

wrong, Republicans are running the government, not conservatives (conservative != republican).

The Senate might have majority Republicans, but they do not have 60 conservative votes (not even 50 out of the 55 R's, and 60 is probably what it would take to pass any kind of sweeping reform).

Bush is a "compassionate conservative" meaning a big government conservative, only since about 2004 has he talked about spending restraint.

The House is where just about the majority is conservative.

I haven't posted on RedState in months, and had about given up on meaningful debate here.

It's also worth noting that you already have 6 times as many comments on this diary as on yesterday's, 'I am so tired of Democrats'.

I have a lot of reasons for being a Democrat: right now I would put first, that with Republicans in control of all 3 branches of govt., we desperately need more balance.

When Schwarzenegger became my governor, I thought that was an improvement on California's practically one-party system. I also liked that he wasn't a politician.

But what America needs more than Democrats in power is a clean and efficient government, where lobbyists and horse-races (both in campaigns

 and the media) do not determine our political priorities, where representatives stand up for their ideals and not just for re-election.

I haven't posted on RedState in months, and had about given up on meaningful debate here.

Just for curiosity's sake, where else would you find meaningful debate?

But what America needs more than Democrats in power is a clean and efficient government, where lobbyists and horse-races (both in campaigns and the media) do not determine our political priorities, where representatives stand up for their ideals and not just for re-election.

What makes you think you'll get that by voting the Democrats in? If history is any judge, you won't.

seeing if anyone's still paying attention :)

where else would you find meaningful debate?

You don't get out much, do you? But aside from the rest of the internet, I found more meaningful debate here at RedState a year ago. Then too many people started troll-rating people for honest disagreements. I remember an 'OK' which got a 0.

'But what America needs more than Democrats in power is a clean and efficient government...'

What makes you think you'll get that by voting the Democrats in? If history is any judge, you won't.

That's exactly what I meant by the first seven words of my sentence. Though, frankly, we haven't had a less clean and efficient government than DC today since Harding, or maybe the Reconstruction.

Since I don't want to turn blue ;) I won't hold my breath waiting for reform. I'll settle in the meantime for a more even balance of power.

You don't get out much, do you?

I do, and I haven't found a site that even gets close to RS. That's why I'm curious to know if you have. (I'm referring to a site that allows comments from the public)

...the beginnings of a clue.

~Tillman cover-up

~Schiavo

~How many people affected in Hurricane Katrina

~Lack of the use of swift boats in the Katrina Rescue effort

~No air drops to Superdome

~Orders to shoot people over a loaf of bread that was taken from a store

~Explosion heard 2 days after the storm passed and THEN the levees gave way

~GOP holding votes open

~Last throes comment

~Stuff happens comment

~Mission accomplished (100 dead at the time)

~Medicare reform Bill

~Class-Action Reform Bill

~Medicare not allowed to broker prices for prescription drugs

~Drownie

~Condi shoe shopping

~We don't torture, we send detainees to other countries to not be tortured

~Democrats are muzzled on all legislation

~Lobbying is well out of control

~Abramoff

~DeLay

~Diebold

~Ohio elections

~Katherine Harris

~Journalists targeted in Iraq

~Oil not paying for the war

~Not being treated as liberators

~Patrick McHenry claiming we hate America (Schiavo case)

~Ethics committee gutted

~FDA will approve anything (except emergency birth control)

~Attack on Social Security

~President flipping off the camera

~No child left behind is not paid for

~Refusing aid after Katrina

~Red Cross not allowed to assist after Katrina

~Fema is way too bloated and does nothing that the DHS can't do

~Cutting aid to NYPD and FDNY that are affected form the cleanup effort when they were told that the air was safe to breathe

~Tax cuts to those that don't trickle it down

~3 Trillion Dollars more in debt

~No help in NOLA until Bush arrived (then it stopped again when he left)

~Abu Ghraib

~Gitmo

~Italian reporter shot up

~Bolton recess appointment

~No legislation passed that big money hasn't backed

~Documented reports of Bush's Grandfather (Prescott Bush) bankrolling Adolf Hitler

~Buying the Iraqi press

~Wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera

~No water or electricity in Iraq

~Cindy Sheehan shunted

~Harriet Miers

~Jessica Lynch

~Soldiers serving well after their agreed enlistment time

~President won't hold press conferences

~President only speaks to cherry-picked audiences

~Plame Outing

~Scooter Libby

~Spy in Cheney's office

~Jean Schmidt

~Wage stagnation

~Halliburton in New Orleans and Iraq

~Outsourcing of jobs

~Money printed in Iraq

~NO WMD

~Yellow Cake

~Rove

~No victory gauge

~No armor for soldiers either Iraqi or American

~Outsourcing the building of Marine 1 Helicopters

~Fighter jets sold to Pakistan by W...on a Saturday

~No accuracy in unemployment rate reporting

~SEC has become a joke

~Hedge funds aren't regulated

~No war strategy

~Downing Street Memos

~Borrowing from the communists

~$330,000 a month to Chalabi

~Bush housing Saudis

~Where's UBL

~Flew UBL's family out of the country after he bombed us

~No border security

~Gas prices

~Home heating prices higher than ever in history

~IRS auditing churches

~Price of war way underestimated

~Bayoil

~Closed session of Senate accomplished nothing the GOP said it would

~Pre-war intel was/is fixed

~Alabama voted for Jeff Sessions (how can that be?)

~Environmental laws absolutely gutted

~Middle class forgotten all-together

~Redistricting to rig elections

~Patriot Act

~Civil rights eroded/gutted

~Treatment of Michael Schiavo

~GOP votes against EVERY inquiry of wrong-doing

~9/11 commission ignored completely

~Programs for the neediest gutted

~Education budged harshly slashed

~Terror alerts subsided after Keith Olbermann finally exposes the coincidences

~Every document is classified

~Most secretive president ever

~Curveball

~Interstates inadequate for mass evacuations

~What was the Noble cause

~Everyone in NOLA have life insurance(?)

~Blaming Tenet for the "slam dunk" comment and then awarding Medal of Freedom

~Elderly deaths went way up during the Social Security Savagery

~Dems can't add amendments to legislation

~Over 60% of elections won by less than 4%

~Sensenbrenner walked off with the gavel during Patriot Act hearing

~Tax cuts to ship jobs away

~Soldiers getting Purple Heart collections

~Fox News isn't biased

~Veterans benefits cut

~No exception for soldiers in the Bankruptcy Reform Bill

~Internet threatened with regulation

~Every shopping bag at Wal-Mart is made in Singapore

~Bianca

~Still ignoring NOLA

~Creating immigration laws that take affect in 5 years

~Pat Robertson and James Dobson tell their congregation how they should vote

~Jerry Falwell too

~Corruption is the norm

~No timetable for when the debt will be paid

~DOW was at 11,770 when Bush took office 5 years ago

~Dollar is losing value

~Haven't defined what is/isn't torture for all to hear

~Trade agreements are not even close to fair

~Ports left unprotected

~Definition of a terrorist is ever so vague

~GOP claims to have different degrees of Neo-Cons (but they all vote exactly the same)

~Swift-Boating John Kerry

~What is the Skull and Bones Society?

~Drownie was kept on the payroll

~Drownie was never fired

~Newt touring with Hillary

~How many soldiers in an Iraqi Batallion?

~Max Cleland was treated like a piece of shit

~Why were helicopters used to find the people, trying to escape the rising waters, pounding on their roofs from inside their attics?

~5 deferments

~Nuclear option

~Ethics committee couldn't get Cunningham 2 years after it was known that his house was sold to a defense contractor for $700,000 over it's value as he lived on that contractor's yacht

~20% tax on land phone lines

~12% on cell towers

~Diesel fuel is 50 cents higher than gasoline

~Home by Christmas

~Establishing a democracy and not a Republic?

~Jeb doesn't have FEMA woes

~War profiteering

~Health care

~Armstrong Williams

~Sure quote Lieberman a lot

~Caspian Sea pipeline

~If it's a Reform Bill or Deregulation Bill the result is never better quality or more affordability

~Cheney said he was glued to the TV all week like everyone else

~Christian values never reflected in legislation

~Jeff Gannon

~Nobody accountable for anything

~Smoking in the rotunda

~Loaded SCOTUS

~MZM

~Chuck Hagel was CEO of ES&S

~Offshore accounts of members

~No mistakes come to mind

~Niger

~Haley Barbour told us FEMA was there on Tuesday

~No scandals given credence

~Math is spun (math don't lie)

~Government is largest in over 200 years

~Looking under a desk for WMD's

~Non-combative protestors arrested

~Soviet Gulags

~Superdome

~Opium export in Afghanistan up 2000%

~Hannity is a Pussy

~Ready for a Category 6?

~Global warming ignored

~Hans Blix

~Pakistan earthquake money

~Private prison stockholders

~George H W Bush runs Pharma

~Ambassador to the Vatican?

~Rush never busted on possession charges

~Bill Bennett

~Joe Wilson

~Indian Casino lobbying for how much?

~We aren't safer

~Wire-taps BEFORE 9/11

~SCOTUS chose our President

~Carnival cruise line contract after Katrina

~Able Danger

~Ken Lay

~Harken Energy

~Rupert Murdoch

~Blatant over-charges in Iraq and NOLA

~Bird Flu vaccine for only 20 million

~10% of needed flu vaccine 2002-2003

~CHENEY'S GOTTA GUN

...Still readin'?  There is lots lots more.

...Can you even imagine the outrage over this governments acts if George W. Bush's name was followed by a little (D) instead of a little (R)?

I foresee a quick exit!

I disagree that private charities would come anywhere close to the inefficiency of government programs.  If they did, people would stop giving to them.  They would have to justify themselves to the donors.  And if you really wanted to make sure the charities were accountable to the donors, you could require donors to volunteer a certain number of hours with the organization in order to qualify for the tax credit.  That would have the advantage of increasing the effectiveness of the charities (the personal involvement of churches and charities is what often makes them more effective than faceless bureacracies) as well as giving the donors first-hand knowledge of the effectiveness of the organization.

And I agree with the person down-thread who said that simply converting a tax deduction to a tax credit has no First Amendment problems.  It also wouldn't create nearly as many accounting/paperwork problems as it takes now to manage the existing government bureacracies.

A system like this is much preferable to the government chosing which private charities get money, which is my main concern about Bush's faith based initiatives.

I trawl for news and ideas in various places, papers (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, BBC, Guardian) and blogs (mostly left of center) and then I think for myself.

I have found interesting debates and boring echo-fests on RedState, as I have on DailyKos. But DailyKos is closer to my own inclinations and there is just so much there. Actually, I devour politics, but half my diaries there have been about rock music.

But there is a real dearth of blogs where people of different opinions want to challenge and cooperate and learn from each other.

My favorite blogs are Fafblog, Carpetbagger, and Glenn Greenwald (though you may find the latter two too left for your taste). Maybe I should be looking at RedState more. Can you recommend any other center/right blogs, your second and third favorite perhaps?

We received many quality applications, and we regret to inform you that we are unable to offer you a position at this time. We wish you well in your future endeavors.

Regards,

RedState Management

:)

there's this illness going around, something everyone is paying attention to these days.

~Every shopping bag at Wal-Mart is made in Singapore

That's like, deep man.

Democrats want pornography to have more freedom than religion? Like daily pornography at the beginning of class, or pornography before a football game? What about putting pornography on the front steps of the courthouse?

Oh wait, nobody wants that.

Which is why they're is not pushing for pornography "at the beginning of class". They realize what a backlash that would cause. But as a matter of law, yes, they do believe that pornography is a more protected form of speech than religion. In their eyes, many forms of religous speech violate the so-called "wall of separation between church and state", while pornography is a form of speech like any other, and deserves the full protection of the First Amendment.

Democrats just don't want people to have religion forced on them.

That's a smokescreen. How is remaining silent while others recite prayers or displaying a religous symbol "forcing religion on people""? Answer: it's not. The only ones who think so are those who for some reason are uncomfortable with religion and want to see its influence diminshed.

They also don't want pornography forced on anybody.

Really? Then what were these cases all about? Oh, I forgot, freedom of speech. But freedom of religous speech? That's a no-no.

So I guess you're right, they do want equal respect and freedom for both religion and porn.

I wish. Their actions, as a whole, leave many people with the feeling that this is not the case. (Remember I'm talking about the liberal establishment, not your rank-and-file Democrats)

GOP is the show. They have raised the debt ceiling to cover rampant spending. $3 trillion more in debt. Guess what, someday we will pay for it. So far the President has not interfered in the earmarks,the giveaways or the sweethart deal!

The GOP are addicted to goverment just like the Dems were.

Bill said era of big governmentwere over !! What happened!!

Sounds good but reality is a far cry.

and Congress lost its way! Yep, Congress is spending money like drunken Democrats, no doubt about it!  Hopefully we can get some REAL fiscal conservatives elected to turn that around!

We all pay them. Some of us more than others. But that is part of modern world. Taxes are for the common good. Try to raise money to build your own interstate, your own police, your own army. (A army of one no doubt). Please no talk of waste,fraud. That dog won't hunt if you are in charge. GOP can't use that since when have they cut spending?

not sure where Deomcrats have opposed religion (although maybe you'll give some examples)...heck even the ACLU (gasp!) has reltively good recent history of defending religious freedoms.

Doing whatever you can to banish any hint of religion from anything remotely public, is not defending religous freedoms but restricting them.

I think Democrats would like to keep religion as a personal quality and make sure that Christianity is not the only one represented.

That's bogus. Show me one instance where Christian religous expressions were allowed and others weren't (in modern history, of course, say the last 30 years).

I also think that when science and religion clash and the science is widely respected, we should side with science - but hey I'm probably biased.

There are many Republicans who agree with you on that, we've got a "big tent" here. On the Democratic side however, you'd be hard-pressed to find any establishment figure express the opposite sentiment, namely that we should side with religion. So I would say (using your terms) that there are many in the Republican party who are "friendly to science" while there are few in the Democratic party who are "friendly to religion".

I was Republican for 35 years. Before the 2004 election I changed registration to Democrat.

Why. The GOP has lost its way, big spending,corporate welfare,mean hearted social policy. As moderate as I am where was I to go!!

big spending,corporate welfare

Yes, because the Democrats have a stellar record on those issues.

mean hearted social policy

It is rather mean-hearted to stick up for the unborn, isn't it? I guess you've got a point.

On the other hand, it's been a central plank in the party platform for each of those 35 years, so I don't know why you're alarmed by it now.

With comments, I can't think of any with real substance (in the comments, that is). Without comments there are tons. Start with Powerline and NRO and take it from there.

Although RS takes the cake because its' got everything, thought I'd better say that or they'd charge for the free advertising. (just kidding, it's really the best.)

BTW, I understand that you're a liberal so DKos appeals to you, but they really don't make any attempt to convince any undecideds over there. Every once in a while, (to challenge myself) I scour that site for a hint of an idea that would make sense, and I really can't find one. I wasn't always a conservative, so I'm open to other ideas, but there really ain't nothin' there.

P.S. Check out this diary, I think you'll like it.

I have noticed that private school don't take the Learning disabled, special needs or BD kids. Why is that? It it because they cost more to deal with? However public schools can't pick and choose. Wonder why small parochial schools do so well in sports? They don't have to take all comers just the ones they want.

If you sent your kid to a private school with BD and LD students would you stay?

 20 million people need help, what charity can handle that ? Big problems require organizations of the same scale. Food banks can't get donations enough to handl small communities let alone a nation of 380 million.Sorry but providing for the common welfare is part of the basic ideas of this country.

It is rather mean-hearted to stick up for the unborn, isn't it? I guess you've got a point.

Where did that come from ?  I did not mention abortion. Thats not what I was talking about?

HMO, lack of health care etc.

 I oppose abortion but thats another story.

Well, I fail to see how failing to support socialized medicine is "social policy" at all, but even if we grant that it is, I reiterate that this is not exactly a policy that has changed over the last 35 years for the GOP.

I also find it interesting that you would stick this in a laundry list with "big spending."

Now be serious, how long have you been a fan of Moby?

I know a womam with advanced degrees and 30 years teaching experience teaching high school math and science.  Clearly she has taken the responsibility to make sure she has employable skills.  Yet when she had to move from her old district and ended up in my community (and my church home), she has been unemployable for almost a year.  She has had a number of interviews but they always choose someone straight out of college with little to no experience.  Sometimes the interviewer feels bad and apologizes, telling her they have to save money.  So she has been working at intermittent temp jobs.  These jobs pay anywhere from $7.50 to 10.00 per hour.  She does not qualify for welfare because she has a life insurance policy to take care of her kids in case something happens to her.  She played by the rules, but the American Dream has failed her.  When did being the best candidate for the job become a liability?

Apparently her story is not unique.  I once saw a poll on dkos asking how many teachers had difficulty getting a job in other districts.  Hiring the cheapest teacher rather than the best teacher seems to be the prevalent policy.  She doesn't even bother responding to teaching openings now because it is such a big waste of time.  I'm sorry for her and I'm sorry for all the students who are missing out on her teaching.