Pence is hell bent on destroying Indiana

[Mad Macs]

for the second time: how will it make it worse?


All government schools are a problem by virtue of their existence. Entitlement welfare is still entitlement welfare regardless of the purpose or recipient.

But you are correct in that government schools will be here tuition-free unless and until the state's constitution is changed. Which is highly unlikely given that it is the one sacred cow even the most ardent of our anti-tax members refuse to forsake.


none of those will fix education. And just how would a school know what's best for the student?

I'm sorry, I forgot you know everything. For one, without the businesses paying taxes our schools then have to cut teacher's salaries, up class sizes, blah blah blah. My wife's a teacher who's had a pay cut 3 years running now with her class size growing 50%. She's not a regular ed teacher, she's special ed so the amount of work associated with each student is a LOT.

And a school knows a LOT about educating your children. There are people there that have these things called "degrees" that means they've studied a lot about child psychology and learning and they actually know how to get knowledge into a child's head.

Sheesh.

Oh, and a good school system increases the value of your house should you choose to sell it, that's easy.

 

[John Galt]

If this gains traction, I believe it to be a very good thing, as it will at least force people to consider the ACTUAL role of government. The bigger the government, the bigger the cost (expense) of government. We will be forced to discuss:
1) What IS the role of government?
2) Who should pay for it?

It's that simple ...

 

[Captain Bligh]

Governor Pence has only one goal: a nice office on Pennsylvania Avenue in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. What happens to Indiana in the process is a minor detail of a larger plan.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's because evidence isn't usually required for things that are so patently obvious. The same argument could be made for roads, why should I have to pay for YOUR use of the public roadways? I would be perfectly content living with small dirt paths I have to clear myself and derive absolutely zero benefit from the ability to get goods and services around the nation in an easy and rapid fashion, seriously it's absurd that I have to pay for them.

The argument for any public infrastructure devolves into a shared cost burden for things used by everyone without resorting to a per use fee like charging a toll on a road or bridge in the expectation that it will largely average out. I dare say that none of us could honest claim that they do not and never have used roads. By contrast, I am 40 years old, have no children, and at this point in life have doubts that I ever will, yet I am expected to participate in paying for something I do not and never have used, but am expected to share in the burden of paying as demanded by some of the worst spendthrifts on the face of the planet. I will go further in saying that most school corporations are run by administrators and boards who appear more interested in bragging rights than education as evidenced by the money they spend on facilities (case in point, Evansville could have had a nice building for the money spent on one athletic field complex recently) rather than on actual education. This is before we even consider federal kibitzing and indoctrination in place of instruction. No, not only do I not benefit from the continued operation of public schools (Indiana constitution notwithstanding), I have the negative benefit of the mismanagement of public education surrounding me with stupid sh*ts who have no concept of the proper operation of a republic, have a horrible entitlement mentality, and may well not even be able to read or count change.

I will also point out that the present scheme of documentation and testing per federal mandate does nothing but cause time that could be spent on education to be reallocated to record keeping and cause a pattern of teaching to the test rather than teaching what a given student needs or has the aptitude to learn. The feds seem to think that you can make a Rhodes scholar out of everyone and there is no need for vocational education, which is also the first place hit for remedial academic subjects the affected students do not have the aptitude for in the first place. The bottom line is that the government is truly expert in its ability to screw up a two car funeral procession and demand fantastic sums of money for doing so with the ongoing cry of 'MORE!'

 

[sadclownwp]

I'm sorry, I forgot you know everything. For one, without the businesses paying taxes our schools then have to cut teacher's salaries, up class sizes, blah blah blah. My wife's a teacher who's had a pay cut 3 years running now with her class size growing 50%. She's not a regular ed teacher, she's special ed so the amount of work associated with each student is a LOT.

And a school knows a LOT about educating your children. There are people there that have these things called "degrees" that means they've studied a lot about child psychology and learning and they actually know how to get knowledge into a child's head.

Sheesh.

Oh, and a good school system increases the value of your house should you choose to sell it, that's easy.

They only have to cut teacher salaries and increase class size if things stay as they are. That is why you levy the tax onto the backs of the parents to pay for there own children to go to school. Say something like 1 child =10% of your salary, 2 children = 20% of your salary, 3 children = 30% of your salary. Give those percentages to the school corps and then you don't have to increase class size and decrease teacher salaries.

 

[phylodog]

Governor Pence has only one goal: a nice office on Pennsylvania Avenue in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. What happens to Indiana in the process is a minor detail of a larger plan.

Many said the same thing about Daniels. Strange how the state ended up in better shape when he left than when he took over.

Change is bound to have a cost to some. My employer's budget will take a hit if this passes but I still think it's a good idea.

 

[John Galt]

And a school knows a LOT about educating your children. There are people there that have these things called "degrees" that means they've studied a lot about child psychology and learning and they actually know how to get knowledge into a child's head.

First, please thank your wife for me for being a teacher. I applaud her profession. With that being said, "degrees" are not a guarantee of competence. Washington is full of people with LOTS of "degrees" and ........ well, my point should be made there.
I believe a PROPER education is crucial to success. However, our current educational "system" is broken and dysfunctional. Our education "system", K-12 & higher ed., consumes 2/3 of our annual app. $15 billion state budget (funded by taxPAYERS). This does not count the billions in local property taxes collected for facilities/utilities, the billions more in direct federal funding and God-only-knows how many billions more in indirect taxpayer re-distribution; i.e.- free/reduced meals, counseling, resource officers, consulting, etc.
What are we getting with all of this "investment" of the taxPAYERS? The federal government has quadrupled its expenditure of wealth distribution in the last 40 years and ACT scores have remained flat, and even gone backwards in some areas. Foreign countries are achieving better results with dramatically less "investment" than the US. We're graduating kids from high school with "diplomas" that can't balance a check book or make proper change without looking at a cash register. Companies are now getting involved in local education systems, with workforce and financial assistance, because too many kids with "diplomas" struggle to work in a modern factory. App. 2/3 of high school kids with "diplomas" apply for college. Less than 30% will get their "degree" in 4 years and less than half will get it in 6 years. Plus, many of those that graduate with "degrees" have a ton of debt on top of what education the taxPAYER has already funded.
Back on topic now. With this much of our budget going towards a system that is this inefficient, imagine the money that would NOT BE NEEDED (hence, less taxes) if we were getting our money's worth in education!

 

[jblomenberg16]

I do know what I am talking about, thanks. Your condescending tone is yet another reason I don't listen to people like you. So they cut out this tax, where does the makeup money come from? Indiana has long trumpeted RTW and other means of attracting "great" jobs yet all we see or hear about are low paying factory jobs that require little to no education nor offer advancement.

How is this law going to make our state better? I think it will make it worse.

You just proved once again that your are uninformed and don't, in fact, know what you are talking about. I can cite 3 specific examples in my home town in 2013 of these policies resulting in new good paying blue and white collar jobs, and there were many smaller expansions that were the same. As stated in my other post, the lost tax revenue that would have been from the equipment is recovered through income and sales taxes. Typically this revenue is more than what would have come from the original taxes.

Condescending may be how you read my post, but it was not the actual intent of my post or others. Our intention was to very firmly point out the inaccuracies in your argument before other less informed folks read it for truth on the internet.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Here's how you fix education:

1) allow for expulsion if the student doesn't behave.
2) Allow education to tell parents to STFU at times and don't cater to the parents and do what's right for the kids.
3) Hold parents accountable for their kids and not teachers.

While I don't agree with your argument on taxes, we are on the same page about holding parents accountable for their children.

 

[CTS]

I can't believe how many of you seem to think that because you don't have kids, you don't benefit from public schools because "you don't use them." Do you work at a company? Does that company employ people who contribute to its success who went to public schools? Do you take advantage of goods and services that are only available to you because the individuals employed there learned basic math and other skills at a public school? Did you at one point in your life attend one?

I'm not arguing that they aren't mismanaged and in need of DRASTIC reform, that's certainly a contributing factor in our decision to home school, but this mentality that you don't benefit from their existence because you don't have children who attend them is a great example of how we've failed to encourage critical thinking.

 

[88GT]

Well you're OK with "stealing" from the pocket book of others for roads we all benefit from. The bottom line is that the vast majority of us support some socialism, it's simply a matter of degree.

I accept that there are legitimate roles for government, and therefore legitimate purposes for the collection of taxes. And there is a simple litmus test to determine whether or not something is a legitimate role. Paying for the personal responsibilities of your family is not one of them. Taxation for government function is NOT socialism. Taxation to take from me to give to you to fund your personal responsibilities is wealth redistribution. Again, the difference between an economic public good and a personal responsibility.

It's obvious that we can accomplish more when we pool our land, labor, capital, and knowledge into common goals. Government is one means of cooperative we can use to do that, the problem is when those in government lose sight of the real task at hand and become self serving, and the populace doesn't bring that under control.

government does not exist to be the administrative hand of a social cooperative. And I'll be damned if I'm going to pool my resources for an endeavor I find wasteful, inefficient, and in some ways harmful. If you want to support a cause, get out your checkbook and write the damn check.

If you can't see that providing a base level of education through tax dollars to anyone willing to take advantage of it is a net benefit to society, then that's fine go ahead and lobby your cause, but I doubt your opinion is shared by many.

Whether or not my opinion I shared by others is irrelevant to me. I do not make my life choices or form my world view based off the polls.

I thought the benefit of government schools accrued directly to me. Now you're copping out and saying its a general social benefit? Okay, fine. Let's switch gears. Can you name one, just one, benefit to society that wouldn't exist in the absence of government schools?

I'm sorry, I forgot you know everything. For one, without the businesses paying taxes our schools then have to cut teacher's salaries, up class sizes, blah blah blah. My wife's a teacher who's had a pay cut 3 years running now with her class size growing 50%. She's not a regular ed teacher, she's special ed so the amount of work associated with each student is a LOT.

Calm down. I wasn't being snarky. I simply wanted to hear what your take was on it.

I see your POV, but I disagree that such a consequence is bad for Indiana. It's potentially bad for teachers, and that means it's potentially bad for you. But that doesn't mean it's bad for Indiana. Government schools aren't the only avenues for education. Aside from your personal stake, do you think there will be other consequences?

Why do you think people let their elected officials hold their essential services hostage in this manner when there are clearly other areas where cuts can be made to stay within a new budget? Shouldn't we be pursuing that solution instead of pushing for taxes to keep our personal interests protected?

And a school knows a LOT about educating your children. There are people there that have these things called "degrees" that means they've studied a lot about child psychology and learning and they actually know how to get knowledge into a child's head.

I have degrees, yes, plural, too, and despite none of them being in education or child psychology, I am doing quite well at getting knowledge in my children's heads. It's the biggest fraud perpetrated on the public that a particular course of formal education is required to teach successfully. The second biggest one is that having one of those degrees automatically confers those abilities.

But I didn't say that teachers in government schools didn't know how to teach. I asked how a school could have a better idea of what is best for the child than the parent?

Oh, and a good school system increases the value of your house should you choose to sell it, that's easy.

LOL. Not nearly as much as you think. But if that is the best example you can provide for justifying government schools, you have failed.

 

[CTS]

Here's how you fix education:

2) Allow education to tell parents to STFU at times and don't cater to the parents and do what's right for the kids.

Darn straight. Those ignorant parents don't know what's best for their kids, professional educators and bureaucrats do, they need to shut up and let the schools do their jobs.

 

[-Jake-]

Since they will be taking in less tax dollars then why doesn't the government just spend less? Heavens forbid the government shrinking!

 

[88GT]

I can't believe how many of you seem to think that because you don't have kids, you don't benefit from public schools because "you don't use them." Do you work at a company? Does that company employ people who contribute to its success who went to public schools? Do you take advantage of goods and services that are only available to you because the individuals employed there learned basic math and other skills at a public school? Did you at one point in your life attend one?

I'm not arguing that they aren't mismanaged and in need of DRASTIC reform, that's certainly a contributing factor in our decision to home school, but this mentality that you don't benefit from their existence because you don't have children who attend them is a great example of how we've failed to encourage critical thinking.

Dammit, man, if you feel that strongly about it, then surely to God you can come up with one tangible example.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Governor Pence has only one goal: a nice office on Pennsylvania Avenue in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. What happens to Indiana in the process is a minor detail of a larger plan.

They said the same thing about Gov. Daniels. Last time I checked the President's office at Purdue University isn't on Pennsylvania Ave. I am truly baffled by people that can't look at the RESULTS of recent administration's and see that it is not in fact just a political stepping stone. There have been controversies, bad decisions, good decisions, and typical political mudslinging, but by in large, Indiana is in a very good position relative to other states.

There are definitely politicians out there in it only for their own good. There are others that realize that with results, comes recognition, and the opportunity to take on more responsibility. I know, we rarely see that anymore in today's political landscape, with our current POTUS being a prime example of a politician that has zero, zip, zilch results in his prior career to provide him any basic level of credibility, and he's continued that in his time in the white house thus far.

I happen to know the Govenor and his brother, and know that both have achieved their position by hard work and demonstrated results...not by fluff and B.S.


Ask yourself one simple question...would you be happy if the United States had a balanced budget, a healthy surplus fund, and had industry excited about locating here?

 

[CTS]

Dammit, man, if you feel that strongly about it, then surely to God you can come up with one tangible example.

Your grasp of the English language and ability to type proves you're of sufficient intellect to understand the concept. You take advantage of goods and services every day of your existence that exist because people obtained an education somewhere. The overwhelmingly vast majority of them obtained that education through the public schools. So think of any place you go that isn't barren nature and boom...there's your example.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Since they will be taking in less tax dollars then why doesn't the government just spend less? Heavens forbid the government shrinking!

See some of the posts by John Galt..I think that is the point a lot of us would like to see happen. Just remember that shrinking government means it is tougher for a typical politician to keep his job!

 

[sadclownwp]

I can't believe how many of you seem to think that because you don't have kids, you don't benefit from public schools because "you don't use them." Do you work at a company? Does that company employ people who contribute to its success who went to public schools? Do you take advantage of goods and services that are only available to you because the individuals employed there learned basic math and other skills at a public school? Did you at one point in your life attend one?

I'm not arguing that they aren't mismanaged and in need of DRASTIC reform, that's certainly a contributing factor in our decision to home school, but this mentality that you don't benefit from their existence because you don't have children who attend them is a great example of how we've failed to encourage critical thinking.

And we would still have all those things if only the parents of the students had to pay for there children to attend. See you still make it mandatory for those under 16 to get an education, you just make the people who chose to bring the children into the world pay for it.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Should he be proposing new taxes instead? I thought there was a constitutional cap on personal property taxes of 1% now? Is this going to circumvent that?

One percent - up to three percent for certain types of property - of assessed value. So one simply informs the assessors to assess higher. Problem solved: more revenue, the law is still intact, and people will barely realize how badly they're getting shafted. Win win win lose, but the only people losing are taxpayers, so who cares? Pence is officially getting on my nerves, and I've been fed up with Bosma for ages. His daughter Blair is also really elitist. Must run in the family.

 

[phylodog]

And we would still have all those things if only the parents of the students had to pay for there children to attend. See you still make it mandatory for those under 16 to get an education, you just make the people who chose to bring the children into the world pay for it.

And when they can't (as the majority couldn't in generations past) then you end up with a nation of uneducated people suited for nothing other than manual Labor. There are plenty of third world countries just like this around world, I'm glad I don't live in one. I'll be the first to admit that our public education system is in need of a makeover but tossing it entirely would result in Mexico having to create tougher immigration laws within a couple generations as our uneducated masses attempt to flee there for their well established manual labor/factory jobs.