Return

Interesting articles over the weekend. They came from opposite ends of the political spectrum, both authors, I'm sure, have differing views, and each has something important to consider.

First, Walter Williams had this to say: There aren't enough "rich" to tax to pay for the deficit, of this year alone, not to mention the national debt! Even if corporate profits are taxed, there isn't enough money. Consider that--if 100% of the incomes of all the billionaires in the US and 100% of all corporate profits were taxed, that is, taken by the federal government, the revenue would only fund federal spending until mid-summer! If we can't put our fingers on gigantic figures like trillions, that example should be worth some thought.

Then, Leonard Pitts had more insightful words. It's been said before, but facts are inconvenient things. They get in the way of opinions. How often today people just ignore facts that don't measure with their views or, I suppose, make up "facts" that do. Only after reading and thinking about both articles did I encounter a guy who fit Pitts' article to a tee. After I pointed out Williams' findings, citing IRS figures that I checked last week after another discussion, the guy's retort was, "Yes, but..." and he proceeded to ignore the facts to pontificate on the right views about "the rich."

Hey, after a few weeks, I finally got a second retired teacher to admit he'd be willing to have his pension taxed! Hooray! Now, remember, I qualify this. I would only consent if the money went to fix matters, not to add to current spending. I don't want my money stolen by politicians to pay for/waste on more boondoggle programs.

I see school districts are thinking about cutting sports. Hmmm.... I think that would be a terrible thing to do. Before doing so, there needs to be a lot of thought about that. First, sports are an important part of education. OK, not all students participate in sports. But those who do benefit greatly, far beyond their school days. I maintain that my times playing sports, high school, college, all of them, were as formative as my academics. I don't say that lightly, humbly remembering my Amherst education and the influence of my professors, studies, etc. That, no doubt, extends far beyond just me, but to many other athletes, too. Those who don't participate, well, that's their choice. They can. Not everyone takes AP classes or physics or band or art classes--should we eliminate those (esp the AP classes!)? And, second, I would maintain that sports teams, at least the major sports, but all of them to some degree, have a positive impact on schools--spirit, attendance, pride, etc. Certainly, that's quantifiable, but it is apparent and can be felt. Pay to play, I think, is detrimental to all this. Why don't AP kids have to pay extra to take those classes? The classes are smaller, meaning more teachers have to be hired. Books and materials are different from regular classes--more costs. Can anyone demonstrate that AP classes have more of an impact on students than athletics (I won't yet touch the quality of the AP teachers--of course, such an argument can be made against some coaches, too). Of course, knowing who runs our schools tells us a lot about what decisions will be made.

BTW, talking about "the greedy rich," why don't some of these millionaire athletes take some of their millions and fund high school sports? Or hippy rock stars music programs? Or the Hollywood-types drama programs? The list goes on.... Yet, it's big oil, CEOs, Wall Street, bankers, etc. who are "greedy." Those retired teachers, union workers, etc. who might pay an extra $1000 in taxes, but are up in arms about the possibility, no--they aren't greedy.

I'm in no way suggesting that the government steal more and more money from the wealthiest of the wealthy, but, seriously, how much money does one need? OK, I'm very comfortable and have no financial worries. I am able to get anything and everything I really want. (Now, granted, I might not want much, but that's not the point.) But, I'm hardly independently wealthy. Teaching, I think my highest earning year was about $64K, I think. And, that's with a BA and three graduate degrees. I'm fine. But, how does one spend $12 million dollars a year? What, really, is the difference between $12 and $16 million? Can one not get along on $12 million a year? How much money does one need? No, the gov't shouldn't take the money, but there's nothing that says a person shouldn't voluntarily, without coercion, want to give money to help others.

Out until later....