Ron Paul...

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:00:58 GMT, George Grapman
wrote:

Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.
The state can refuse the money but they still can't refuse the
mandates
Which mandates are you talking about?

Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically
correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
community it serves.

None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding.

wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:41 -0700, George Grapman
wrote:

Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically
correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
community it serves.
None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding.


That is just wrong. The state of Utah is currently in court over "no
child left behind" lets see how that goes.

They are suing over a provision that requires students under
performing schools to be bused to better schools.
The law allows a state to opt out if it refuses federal funding.


http://www.nhpr.org/node/5820


Two of the Legislature's top Democrats are launching a new effort to get
New Hampshire to withdraw from the national No Child Left Behind program.

They say Washington is making demands that it doesn't pay for. They
complain about losing local control.

But this year New Hampshire is not alone.

New Hampshire Public Radio's political correspondent, John Milne, reports:




Some academics suggest it will be a significant issue in this fall’s
election.

But that debate begins sooner in New Hampshire.

Towns throughout the state are debating school budgets now and for the
next few weeks.

And Democrats are telling voters to blame President Bush and the
Republicans if No Child regulations demand more school spending and
higher taxes.

Senate Democratic Leader Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester connects the
political and fiscal dots:
(nochild1)
It’s time to revisit this issue. We need to tell Washington that our
property taxpayers are not going to pay the bills. The bill without
money is not acceptable. Show me the money!

School administrators say tests mandated by the law are far more costly
than the funds Washington provides. That’s 66 million dollars for all
schools in the state.

Steve Spratt is on the Mascenic Regional school board in New Ipswich. He
complains that the federal money comes with too many restrictions:
(nochild 2)
NCLB is punitive. It’s all stick. There are very few carrots in the
bill. If you don’t make the grade, you’re forced to lower the standards.
There are 40 measurements in the bill, and if you miss any one of them,
you’re classified as need improving.

The New Hampshire House passed a bill last year to refuse No Child
money. The state Senate tabled the bill. There’s been no action this year.

Mike Sentance is the regional representative of the U-S Department of
Education. He says the No Child program is fully funded. It would have
no effect on local spending, and therefore no increase in property taxes.

(nochild4)
In fact, I would be arguing that you’re getting more bang for your buck
out of your property tax. I mean, if you know that now the people have
the appropriate level of qualifications to be in the classroom, your
school should be more effective. I mean, one of the things that always
confuses me about the conversation in New Hampshire is why people defend
having thoroughly unqualified people in classrooms as being a good
investment of local tax dollars.

Sentance blames politics for why 14 states other than New Hampshire are
protesting the No Child law.

In Utah, for example, the Republican-led House voted 64 to 8 to scrap
the No Child mandates. Utah’s Senate hasn’t acted.

In Virginia, the House of Delegates passed a resolution criticizing the
law. Patricia Wright is superintendent for instruction of the Virginia
Board of Education:

There are some technicalities in the No Child Left Behind law that would
be counterproductive to our own reform. And it expressed some concern
with the federal intrusion into state’s rights.

So far no state has rejected the program.

One reason is that a state that rejects the federal law would also have
to turn down millions of dollars in federal aid.
From a political perspective, the debate reverses traditional partisan
positions in the state.

The Democrats say No Child Left Behind will increase taxes and destroy
local control.

The Republicans say the federal program calls for improvements in
reading, math and science that all parents would want.

But the “little democracies” of New Hampshire towns are famous for their
independence. Their votes may offer a nonpartisan analysis of No Child
Left Behind

Hey, is anyone here paying attention to this thread?

On 2007-10-10, Cynicor j wrote:
Hey, is anyone here paying attention to this thread?

I wasn't, because it fell way down at the bottom of my scorefile. And
for bringing it to my attention, you do too now. kthxby.


--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:38:04 GMT, George Grapman
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:41 -0700, George Grapman
wrote:

Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically
correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
community it serves.
None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding.

That is just wrong. The state of Utah is currently in court over "no
child left behind" lets see how that goes.
They are suing over a provision that requires students under
performing schools to be bused to better schools.
The law allows a state to opt out if it refuses federal funding.


http://www.nhpr.org/node/5820


Two of the Legislature's top Democrats are launching a new effort to get
New Hampshire to withdraw from the national No Child Left Behind program.

They say Washington is making demands that it doesn't pay for. They
complain about losing local control.

But this year New Hampshire is not alone.

New Hampshire Public Radio's political correspondent, John Milne, reports:




Some academics suggest it will be a significant issue in this fall’s
election.

But that debate begins sooner in New Hampshire.

Towns throughout the state are debating school budgets now and for the
next few weeks.

And Democrats are telling voters to blame President Bush and the
Republicans if No Child regulations demand more school spending and
higher taxes.

Senate Democratic Leader Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester connects the
political and fiscal dots:
(nochild1)
It’s time to revisit this issue. We need to tell Washington that our
property taxpayers are not going to pay the bills. The bill without
money is not acceptable. Show me the money!

School administrators say tests mandated by the law are far more costly
than the funds Washington provides. That’s 66 million dollars for all
schools in the state.

Steve Spratt is on the Mascenic Regional school board in New Ipswich. He
complains that the federal money comes with too many restrictions:
(nochild 2)
NCLB is punitive. It’s all stick. There are very few carrots in the
bill. If you don’t make the grade, you’re forced to lower the standards.
There are 40 measurements in the bill, and if you miss any one of them,
you’re classified as need improving.

The New Hampshire House passed a bill last year to refuse No Child
money. The state Senate tabled the bill. There’s been no action this year.

Mike Sentance is the regional representative of the U-S Department of
Education. He says the No Child program is fully funded. It would have
no effect on local spending, and therefore no increase in property taxes.

(nochild4)
In fact, I would be arguing that you’re getting more bang for your buck
out of your property tax. I mean, if you know that now the people have
the appropriate level of qualifications to be in the classroom, your
school should be more effective. I mean, one of the things that always
confuses me about the conversation in New Hampshire is why people defend
having thoroughly unqualified people in classrooms as being a good
investment of local tax dollars.

Sentance blames politics for why 14 states other than New Hampshire are
protesting the No Child law.

In Utah, for example, the Republican-led House voted 64 to 8 to scrap
the No Child mandates. Utah’s Senate hasn’t acted.

In Virginia, the House of Delegates passed a resolution criticizing the
law. Patricia Wright is superintendent for instruction of the Virginia
Board of Education:

There are some technicalities in the No Child Left Behind law that would
be counterproductive to our own reform. And it expressed some concern
with the federal intrusion into state’s rights.

So far no state has rejected the program.

One reason is that a state that rejects the federal law would also have
to turn down millions of dollars in federal aid.
From a political perspective, the debate reverses traditional partisan
positions in the state.

The Democrats say No Child Left Behind will increase taxes and destroy
local control.

The Republicans say the federal program calls for improvements in
reading, math and science that all parents would want.

But the “little democracies” of New Hampshire towns are famous for their
independence. Their votes may offer a nonpartisan analysis of No Child
Left Behind


I suppose you are too young to remember Brown V BOE


Actually I remember it very well. Like the Voting Rights Act it
simply implemented the 14th Amendment.

Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Hey, is anyone here paying attention to this thread?

I am not. I've been watching it unfold but have stayed out because
I don't want to feed blatantly OT things myself. I am only entering
now to offer an observation: in this NG and others, notably
alt.binaries.pictures.military, posts run the gamut from 100.000%
ON-topic to 100.000% OFF-topic. Either end of the continuuum is
clear enough to understand. e.g., there simply NO place in a
digital photography NG for political discussions of ANY kind UNLESS
they have some direct impact on the digital photography business.
Even then, we must we wary of debating the politics of cameras,
e.g., monetary policies or imports or what have you.

The political OT posts in a.b.p.military have brought great discord
to an otherwise very good NG and made enemies out of people who
were formerly at least interested in the same thing or even
friends. I would prefer NOT to see the same thing happen here.

Thank for you for allowing my to voice my opinion, and have a great
day!

--
HP, aka Jerry

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:54:12 -0700, George Grapman
wrote:

Actually I remember it very well. Like the Voting Rights Act it
simply implemented the 14th Amendment.


Unfortunately the feds use "the 14th amendment" to justify most of
their mandates, like the "right" to be arrested for medical marijauna
even when the state says it is legal.
Actually that is much better through the Interstate Commerce clause.
It has always been well settled that medication decisions rest with the
FDA and the federal government. Especially since the current state of
the literature in medical marijuana makes the research behind Vioxx,
etc., look pristine in comparison.
Most of the people in favor of medical mj would be howling at the
moon if Big Pharm tried to push through a "regular medication" with such
iffy backing.


They would use the same logic to enforce any other unfunded or
underfunded mandate, even if the starte did refuse federal funding.
The fact still remains that there is really no such thing as federal
funding. It is OUR money. This is particularly true in the case of
gasoline taxes

Especially since that brings out transportation bills that are ALWAYS
pork laden. I have been saying since the end of the original interstates
in the early 80s, that the Fed gas taxes should be rolled back to enough
to fund safety and materials research. Let the states, if they decide
they want, increase their own taxes and decide where THEY want to spend
the money.

Actually I remember it very well. Like the Voting Rights Act
it simply implemented the 14th Amendment.

Unfortunately the feds use "the 14th amendment" to justify
most of their mandates, like the "right" to be arrested for
medical marijauna even when the state says it is legal.
They would use the same logic to enforce any other unfunded or
underfunded mandate, even if the starte did refuse federal
funding. The fact still remains that there is really no such
thing as federal funding. It is OUR money. This is
particularly true in the case of gasoline taxes

I need to be wary of feeding OT threads here, but you are
basically correct. The 14th is primarily concerned with rights
afforded to ex-slaves extended to all citizens. A so-called "due
process" clause got slipped in somehow either to bolster the
original purpose or perhaps to avoid the need for a separate
amendment.

Unfortunately, what is supposed to be a PROTECTION is turning out
these days to be more of a TAKEAWAY of our freedoms and rights.
Let's keep the Rebublican vs. Democrat debate clear of this, but
what you're really referring to seems to be known as "activist
judges legislating from the bench". It has been going on for
decades but has decidely accelerated during the current
Administration. Since you mention a medicine issue, I'll give a
scary way the 14th is being used: more and more hospitals are
using it as a way to FORCE their patients to accept ANY and ALL
treatment no matter what they patient wishes. No, I'm not talking
about patients with Alzheimer's, I'm talking about fully
competent patients. The 14th is being used to suggest that
refusing medical treatment constitutes defacto proof that the
patient is trying to commit medical suicide, which is a crime.

As to budgets, you are spot-on, as the Brits say! ALL
governmental levels from towns/cities to counties to states to
the Federal government have zero.zero dollars except that which
is willingly given to them by their citizens or extorted somehow.
Worse, since ANY budget, whether it be you and your wife, a
business, or any level of government, is by definition what I
call a "zero sum game". Meaning that at any given time, there is
only so much money available, no matter how it got there. So,
absent an increase of revenue from either growing the economy or
increasing taxes, the BEST that can be hoped for is to cut
spending in one area in order to increase it in another and/or
increase the deficit by putting the burden on our children and
grandchildren.

Perhaps the most powerful amendment, even more than the 1st, 4th,
or 5th, is the 10th, which essentially says that ANY power not
speecifically granted to the Federal government is reserved to
the states or the people. Seems simple enought to understand,
right? And, while thinking people can easily comprehend that the
REAL intent of the ENTIRE Constitution is really to LIMIT the
power of the Federal government while PROTECTING the freedoms and
rights of the people, it has sadly turned into shysters - most
lawmakers are attorneys - and judges into looking for loopholes
that allow them to alter something as simple as medicinal use of
a joint. If the 10th really applied, Roe v Wade would not be an
issue nor would medical joints.

Lastly, yes, unfunded mandates are exeedingly dangerous, but what
is FAR worse is off-budget items and what are commonly called
"entitlements", such as Social Security and Medicare. If one
examines the Federal budget in summary fashion, a positively
frightenly large perentage are entitlements, which by their very
definition are sacrosinct and not open to discussion. No matter
how you may feel about the war in Iraq, the ENTIRE military
budget for this country is only about 4% of the discretionary
spending, actually a reasonable number. Military spending is also
at relatively low levels even compared to Viet Nam and certainly
lower than at the height of the Cold War. Problem is, though,
that the size of the discretionary spending part of the budget is
so small that 4% of it actually looms as an alarmingly HUGE
number, and the root cause of a trillion dollars of spending, all
financed by borrowing. As bad as borrowing money is concerned,
another truly frightening factoid is that we're getting it from
what is almost certain to become our enemy quite soon - China.

All of that said, I don't want to engage in anything at all to do
with Ron Paul. I will say only this: the Democrats have/had
Dennis Kuchinich as their nutbag, Paul is the Republican nutbag.
It isn't that being a strict constructionist is so wrong, I
actually like the idea, but Ron Paul comes across as a crazy man
when he advocates such absurd notions as abolishing the entire
IRS without any compensating revenue source and abolishing the
FBI, to name just a few. Fix them, yes, get rid of them in the
first 100 days of your administration is so wildly foolhardy that
nobody can possibly take him seriously.

But, to get an feeling for why he has out-raised campaign funds
in the entire race, rent the old Richard Pryor movie "Brewster's
Millions" where he needs to spend $1,000,000.00 in 30 days and
decides to mount a political campaign he dubbed "vote for none of
the above" to simply waste some of the million. So, by
analogy/metaphor, people contributing to Ron Paul don't really
believe he can win, they want to send a message to ALL the
Republicans that "business as usual" in WashLincoln DC isn't
nearly good enough. This "message" also extends to the Democrats.
Gross disatisfaction with Congress fulfilling its role to
initiate and approve appropriations in the House and exercise
separation of power responsibilities through Congressional
oversight is working no better since the Democrats regained a
majority in both houses than prior to 2006 mid-terms. So, while
President Bush is actually enjoying a bump in his rather dismal
approval ratings as the surge appears to be succeeding at least a
little, Congress as a whole - both parties - are at the historic
LOW of only 11%. Can you believe it? Only 11% of voters think
they are doing a good job

And that, sir or madame, is all I have to say about "vote for
none of the above". I have stayed clear of this thread because I
don't want to encourage this NG becoming bogged down in political
infighting, but your comments resonated with some strong feelings
I have in general. So, let me apologize for breaking my own rule,
but perhaps it would be wise for us to let this thread die and
try to stick to the burning issues of the day in digital
photography, and there are plenty of them.

Good luck in what you think you need to do in Decision 2008 and
try to have a good week!

--
HP, aka Jerry

(Kurt Ullman) wrote in
:

It has always been well settled that medication decisions rest with
the FDA and the federal government. Especially since the current
state of the literature in medical marijuana makes the research
behind Vioxx, etc., look pristine in comparison.

Which of course explains why the sale of thoroughly bogus
"homeopathic medicines" is legal in the US.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Bert Hyman wrote:
(Kurt Ullman) wrote in
:

It has always been well settled that medication decisions rest with
the FDA and the federal government. Especially since the current
state of the literature in medical marijuana makes the research
behind Vioxx, etc., look pristine in comparison.

Which of course explains why the sale of thoroughly bogus
"homeopathic medicines" is legal in the US.

I heard that Iran doesn't have any homeopaths.