Now to revert to my post as set forth above, Ernest Hauser
of the Bronx, NY called my attention to an error. I stated that the Budget
Control Act of 2011 was passed in the Senate by a vote of 74 to 26 with 55
Republicans voting for it. Hauser pointed out that this was impossible since
there are only 47 Republicans in the Senate. I should have said “with 28
Republicans voting for it.” Sorry for the error.
I also made a misstatement when I said it has not been
reviewed by the CBO. This assertion was made after a long and fruitless search
for a CBO analysis caused me to conclude that it did not exist. However, in a
NewYorker article by James Surowiecki there is a reference to a CBO
analysis. Therefore I stand corrected. Mea culpa!
On the other hand Albert Nekimken PhD of Vienna, Virginia
and the author of four books complimented me with this:
Well done, as usual. I haven't had time to follow up all of your links included here, but thanks for doing such meticulous work in documenting the ongoing, attempted Republican takeover of our governmental institutions. It's a sad read.
What prompted me to address the subject of education was an
insightful article that was posted on the blog of one of my subscribers, Roger
Berkley of Woodcliff Lake, NJ, President and CEO of Weave Corporation
and past President of the National Textile association. His article is a must
read and can be found here.
It was that article that prompted me to respond to it as
follows:
You are right that Santorum as an individual is no longer
relevant, but as a philosophy, and as one who undoubtedly speaks for millions, he
is very relevant.
It is interesting to note that Santorum knocks education for
others, while he himself has a BA an MBA and a JD. How hypocritical for a man
who has spent so much time, money and effort gaining an education. Talk about
elitism. It’s good for him, but not for those adoring followers of his, who in
his view, don't need, and shouldn't want the benefits that an education has
bestowed on him. Why can't they see what contempt that shows?
Whether it is Santorum or Romney or Ryan - none of them are
interested in making education available to the broad population. They want it
to be for an elite group like themselves, who will rule over us and tell us
that it isn't about achieving equality, that it is about opportunity. But here
they are up to their usual tricks. They resort to the old reliable straw man.
As though anyone of any consequence wants to impose equality. Opportunity is
precisely what it is all about. And that is precisely what they want to deny
the bulk of our citizenry.
Many years ago I read Hitler's Mein Kamf. What struck me,
and what I will always remember is that Hitler considered the USA a formidable and
dangerous foe because he said the educational system of the US comprises all,
regardless of class, while Europe was stuck in a class warp.
To quote from Wikipedia:
"By 1900 educators argued that the post-literacy schooling of the masses at the secondary and higher levels, would improve citizenship, develop higher-order traits, and produce the managerial and professional leadership needed for rapid economic modernization. The commitment to expanded education past age 14 set the U.S. apart from Europe for much of the 20th century. From 1910 to 1940, high schools grew in number and size, reaching out to a broader clientele. In 1910, for example, 9% of Americans had a high school diploma; in 1935, the rate was 40%. By 1940, the number had increased to 50%. This phenomenon was uniquely American; no other nation attempted such widespread coverage. The fastest growth came in states with greater wealth, more homogeneity of wealth, and less manufacturing activity than others. The high schools provided necessary skill sets for youth planning to teach school, and essential skills for those planning careers in white collar work and some high-paying blue collar jobs. Economist Claudia Goldin argues this rapid growth was facilitated by public funding, openness, gender neutrality, local (and also state) control, separation of church and state, and an academic curriculum. The wealthiest European nations such as Germany and Britain had far more exclusivity to their education system and few youth attended past age 14. Apart from technical training schools, European secondary schooling was dominated by children of the wealthy and the social elites. The United States chose a type of post-elementary schooling consistent with its particular features — stressing flexible, general and widely applicable skills that were not tied to particular occupations and geographic places had great value in giving students options in their lives. Skills had to survive transport across firms, industries, occupations, and geography in the dynamic American economy."
I am a refugee from Hitler's Holocaust in Vienna, Austria.
Even in Vienna my father was a struggling haberdasher. When we came to the US,
he took a job as a bottle washer. Eventually, with the help of relatives he
advanced to being a technician in quality control, but he never made much
money. My brother never overcame these handicaps, became a high-school dropout
and eventually a post office mail handler. I was more ambitious. I wanted to go
to college. I could not have done so, (and eventually go to law school) if
there had not been a free college available close to home. CCNY of CUNY allowed
me to live at home, commute by subway for a nickel, and attend college tuition
free. This allowed me to save the money I earned working summers, which I could
set aside for graduate school. That is over with. There are no free colleges.
How far we have regressed! And they want us to regress still
further!
If we are to remain a great nation it will not be by the
strength of our military, though we need that too, but by the strength of our
educational system. It is time for every state and every city and county, to
have a free college system and that will only happen if it is financed at the
federal level. Just as between 1910 and 1040 we moved to make high school
within the reach of everyone, so we now need to make college within the reach
of all. Only in this way will we make this a land of opportunity again, close
the income gap, and assure the greatness of our nation in the 21st century.
Those who say we cannot afford this are giving up on the future of America, and
dooming, not only an underclass to remain an underclass, but are pushing
millions who had achieved middle class status in another age, out of the middle
class.
Not only will the middle and lower classes benefit from such
an approach, but in the long run, so will those at the top.
It is true that what we want is a larger pie for all, but
that will not be achieved, by lower and lower taxes, particularly on the rich,
but by evaluating the needs of our nation and then raising the right amount of
money to meet those needs.
We must realize that we cannot go on deciding how little we
will tax, and then focus on what we can afford. We need to decide on what this
nation's needs are, what it will cost to meet those needs, and then focus on
what level of taxation is required, to meet those needs. In 1986, during
Reagan's second term, our marginal tax rate was 50%. By the time he left office
the rate was 28%. At the end of the prosperous Clinton era it was 39.6%. The
Ryan plan would reduce that to 20% and raise additional revenues by unspecified
(the rabbit in the hat - now you see it now you don't) elimination of tax
expenditures. This is a formula that makes nothing possible. It is a formula
for an ever-greater divide between the super rich and the rest, and the decline
of our nation.
On another note I must call the readers attention to the
stepped up War on Women, at least in Wisconsin. See here.
Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome
and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer
requests that he/she not be identified.
No comments:
Post a Comment