From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I loved Bush ...
Date: 21 Jul 1992 20:09:42 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Jul21.180653.315@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
|> In article <l6ec1hINNpgv@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> >Patrick J. McGuinness writes:
|> >|> >Michael Polen writes:
|> >|> >>What?  He [Bush] has done everything he promised.  He has continued the Reagan plan to
|> >|> >>move our resources to the wealthy, he has scuttled the Supreme Court, he has
|> >|> >>ignored the environment, he has abondoned our public education system, and he
|> >|> >>has significantly reduced support for social program.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Elements of the poverty of politics:
|> >|> 1. The use of rhetoric and propoganda to displace rational analysis.
|> >|> e.g.  When supposedly intelligent politically-active people engage in false,
|> >|> charged rhetoric in order to score 'debating' points or cause an emotional reaction.
|> >
|> >I am apparently a novice.  As a response to my rhetoric and propoganda, Patrick
|> >has chosen to use false and misleading statistics to accomplish the same task.
|> 
|> My statistics are 'misleading' because they contradict your claims.
|> That doesn't make them false.  Can you present, in budgetary numbers, any
|> evidence to support the claim that social spending was sigificantly
|> cut under Bush? That education spending, directly or indirectly, was reduced? 
|> 
|> >|> "He has abandoned our education system"
|> >|> He has proposed innovative programs to create schools for the next century,
|> >|> in his America 2000 pilot projects. He supports educational choice in the form
|> >|> of vouchers for schoolchildren. Under his tenure, funding for education at
|> >|> the federal level has increased.
|> >
|> >Absolutely false.  By cutting the revenue sharing to the cities, the federal 
|> >support for education has been drastically, although indirectly, reduced.
|> 
|> Absolutely false. (see, anyone can say it. But which part of my contention is
|> "Absolutely false."? Bush's support for educational choice? hmm, true.
|> He announced a proposal at the white house just last month.
|> The 'new schools' pilot projects? hmmm, Lamar Alexander, his Education Secretary,
|> is going around to schools that have already set up programs. Well, then
|> "absolutely false" must refer to the " federal funding for education".
|> I suggest you compare the current education budget with the budget from
|> years past.
|> The numbers do not support your case; if you had such numbers, please present them.
|> 
What is false is that your statement has anything to do with his support
of our education system.

School choice is support for the wealthy, unless a federal voucher is accepted
as full, not partial, payment at the bearers choice of school.  Eliminating the
first $2000 at a private school, does not help those without the economic or
geographical access to the best private schools.  In addition, the great majority
of private schools push specific religious agendas, which eliminate them
as a "choice" for most people.

Revenue sharing was a subsidy of local programs.  If the government had reduced
the tax burden on individuals that it had withdrawn from state and local
governments, then they could have replaced that money with local taxation.  As
it was however, the federal money was removed and individual taxation stayed
substantially the same.  This cause a reduction of revenue in local government
and a significant reduction in school revenue.  Unless, and I will grant you
this, the locality decided in favor of schools over libraries, fire/police
protection, etc.

Frankly, I have a serious problem with the adminstrative waste in our public
schools, but that is a problem that needs to be solved.  Moving the wealthy
students to private schools, will exacerbate the problem, not help solve it.