37 Comments

• 1. js  |  February 15th, 2008 at 6:56 am

  Maybe if we passed an amendment to the constitution that restricted big business from making huge contributions, and forced those with ambition to actually get out there and work to gain support from the people that they are supposed to represent, we would find higher quality people to fill the jobs we elect them for.

  Face is, Congressmen, Senators and the President are supposed to represent the people, not the corporations, of these United States. In all honesty, the system is broken.

• 2. js  |  February 15th, 2008 at 7:00 am

  for some reason, it only makes sense that since corportations are treated as a distinct, independent entity, just like a person, that they should be held to the same limitations that real people are held too instead of wielding such massive influence through the money they overcharge us for thier goods

• 3. Rana Quijotesca  |  February 15th, 2008 at 7:44 am

  wow… a 51/49 split is “fully bought”?

• 4. Ricorun  |  February 15th, 2008 at 7:44 am

  js, the numbers Mark quotes in his totals are composed of money from individuals and PACs affiliated with the different industries, not corporations themselves. I don’t think corporations can contribute directly to candidates, and I don’ t know what the story is with PACs. Perhaps someone could clarify.

  Anyway, when I went up and looked at the numbers, one thing that struck me is that the proportion of contributions to Republicans this cycle relative to the historical averages (since 1990) is down in every sector of the economy — except one: labor. And that one is only up a little bit. It’s still early, so maybe things will change. But right now the numbers suggest that contributors are betting on the Dems.

• 5. plainjane  |  February 15th, 2008 at 8:01 am

  Get rid of it all. Public finance campaigns is the only answer. Greed will dictate it will never happen but we can dream.

• 6. Some Assembly Required  |  February 15th, 2008 at 8:43 am

  Mark,

  Since when is being ‘bought’ by Big Education a bad thing?

  It seems both parties are ‘bought’ by self interest groups. Again yet another argument of look at them, their worse than we are…

• 7. Phil  |  February 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am

  Deleted - off topic; don’t feed the trolls!

• 8. TiredofLibBullSh**  |  February 15th, 2008 at 9:11 am

  SAR,

  “Since when is being ‘bought’ by Big Education a bad thing?”

  Sounds like you were schooled by Big Education.

  The teachers’ unions is one of the largest unions in the country that want to have no part in evaluations of teachers to see if they can even do the job. Just recently I say an article that a teacher of 15+ years was funciotnally illiterate. Amazing! When I was in middle school, my class had an average of 35-40 students. Today, that is unheard of!

  It is because of Big Education that we have the education failures, low test scores, high illiteracy,a union who keeps demanding more for less and no school choice program. The program that a majority in America want.

  But to libs, increasing funds is the only way to improve schools regardless of the amount spent per child (in some cities that amount can send a child to college). Increasing funds to incompetant teachers will to nothing, but there is no mechanish to remove them short of them killing someone.

• 9. neocon  |  February 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am

  Hi Phillip,

  In your absence the debate was much more intellectual and enjoyable, but welcome back anyway.

  In re: to your myopic, follow-the-sheep question about the administration I will only say that we have not been attacked, AQ lost in Iraq, Taliban lost in Afghanistan, Saddam is dead, Iraq has a new government and a 300,000+ ISF force, yesterday the new Iraqi government reached many new accords, Libya abandoned their wmd program, NK abandoned theirs, test scores are up across the nation, our GDP is the highest it’s ever been, we have new allies in India and Pakistan, and stronger allies in many Arab countries including Jordan, UAE and Kuwait, and Pelosi and Reid are proving to be the most ineffective leaders of their respective houses in history.

  So welcome back, I see you’ve learned nothing in your absence.

• 10. coulterfan  |  February 15th, 2008 at 9:26 am

  Then you should agree with the Dems, Mark- We need public financing of elections, pure and simple!

  This business of elected officials immediately beginning fundraising for their next election upon being sworn in is BS! It not only negatively impacts the integrity of their voting (and buys Congressional favors for industry), but it also takes away from their TIME and ENERGY to legislate and to do the work of the AMERICAN PEOPLE!

  So, press the GOP to also support public financing of elections and that we don’t contract out election equiptment to Diebold and the like! If a democracy is not able to run itself, but turns it over to corporations. . . well, that doesn’t sound like a democracy at all!

  BTW, Mark. . . The Democrats are out-fundraising the Republicans by a factor of more than 2-to-1, so your figures are NOT SURPRISING! If my daughter sells more than twice as many Girl Scout cookies as yours, for instance, it wouldn’t be surprising if she sold to more lawyers, more doctors, more teachers, etc, etc!

  But, at least we agree! Public financing is the ONLY WAY TO GO!

• 11. Some Assembly Required  |  February 15th, 2008 at 9:26 am

  BS,

  Can you please provide me with a link to that article as well tell me what school is was where this teacher taught.

  Personally I view the education system as flawed yes, but the major problem is motivation. Kids just simply are not motivated and often times not challenged enough throughout middle school.

  Also, as far as I know to become a teacher now a days in cities or urban areas you need to possess a degree from a university. If a university seems fit to grant a person a degree how can they possibly be incompetent?

  Please BS in your infinite wisdom can you tell me how education reform can take place without increasing funds to buy more books, computers and yes teachers salaries, etc..

• 12. Phil  |  February 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am

  (Ed. Note: off topic part of comment deleted) public financing is obviously the way to go

• 13. Retired Spook  |  February 15th, 2008 at 9:46 am

  how education reform can take place without increasing funds to buy more books, computers and yes teachers salaries, etc..

  SAR, I can’t speak for other areas of the country, but the budget of the largest school system in northeastern Indiana where I received my education back in the 50’s and early 60’s has increased substantially in the last 15 or 20 years, and a disproportionate amount of the increase has gone to create several new levels of administration and bureaucracy that has not contributed one iota to the education of children, a fact that test scores during that time frame reflects. I think that’s where most Conservatives’ gripe is with public education. It represents all that is bad about government-run programs, including, first and foremost, almost total lack of accountability for results.

• 14. Kahn  |  February 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am

  Lets see, the liberal arguments are 1. It’s not THAT much more than you. 2. But OUR donors are good. 3. And financing should just be public.

  OK, thanks. The third argument is valid. I just disagree with it. I disagree with it because I don’t believe it’s possible. The attempts at campaign finance reform have failed so far because they have all attempted to fix specific abuses evident at the time of their writing. Unions were exempted but not public interest groups like the NRA. Before you knee jerk react that that is good- remember that’s my point. That you think its good to allow one group to contribute and run ads and bad for another group based on YOUR beliefs.

  Then there’s the question of free speech. Currently, some groups are forbidden from running ads that name candidates in the weeks leading up to an election. Then we have the question of advocacy groups like Move-On and others. How do we handle them? Stifle them and make the candidates be the ONLY source of information?

  How about the consideration that except for radio talk shows and FOX news, the vast majority of the press has a liberal bias? Should conservatives just be expected to cede the flow of “information” to people by allowing controls over political speech while this enormously biased disinformation machine (at least in our eyes - point?) is allowed to twist our positions and shape the news to fit agenda?

  Total finance is NOT total finance because it doesn’t really control the total flow of political speech. And I think that even you liberals are not arguing for total government control of political speech? Are you? Careful now…

• 15. Retired Spook  |  February 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am

  Phil, still the glass-mostly-empty, bitter little man, I see. I can’t imagine why someone like you stays in this armpit hell-hole called America when you could just move to one of the Scandinavian countries where everything is peaches and cream. Surely a smart guy like you could live and work pretty much anywhere you choose. You must be somewhat of a masochist, or, perhaps, you just can’t afford to move out of your mom’s basement.

  by the way, in some ways i’d prefer the republicans stay in power. they have set our Country up for true disaster. in a way it would be a shame if they were out of power when the disaster comes.

  Oh, I don’t know; I think it would be poetic justice for the Dems to inherit an economy that’s about to go in the crapper, just as Reagan did from Carter and Bush 43 did from Clinton. It would be interesting to see the effect that massive increases in taxes and entitlements would have on a tanking economy.

• 16. Some Assembly Required  |  February 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am

  RS,

  Though I agree with you that bureaucracy has no place in the education process, I do not believe education should be privatized. Government run education is the most affordable education. It’s the corruption in politics thats the problem. But to say there is a lack of accountably for government but there is for a corporation which is by law a person is naive. Both contain corruption as well, so what it boils down to is which can provide the best objective education with minimal cost to the populous? Universities which are privatized place students heavily in debt upon graduation. This can be offset by the well paying jobs you can obtain afterwards but it begs the question, Would you have the same thing for middle school? How about graduating from middle school and having to pay off loans of 20K.. I some how don’t think McDonalds and Wal-mart pay enough to do that in 5 or 6 years.

  Also, everything cost much less in the 50’s and 60’s then it does now so to say spending has increased is a given. Did you mean spending as a percentage of total budget? Just wanted to clarify.

• 17. Retired Spook  |  February 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am

  Did you mean spending as a percentage of total budget? Just wanted to clarify.

  SAR, the word “spending” did not even appear in my comment. I said the budget had increased and a disproportionate amount of the increase had gone to administration.

  BTW, I’m not an advocate of doing away with public education, but I think more choices would result in more accountability. And one would certainly hope that an increase in accountability for results would improve said results. At least, (as someone who has run two businesses, including one that I started from scratch), that’s the way it works in business. Anytime you have a monopoly, no matter what the venue, the first two things you lose are quality and accountability, both of which are compounded by having the monopoly dominated by a union whose primary interest is to protect mediocrity among the educators at the expense of the educated (or, in many cases, the UN-educated).

• 18. Retired Spook  |  February 15th, 2008 at 10:26 am

  Oops, sorry, forgot to turn off italics

• 19. Some Assembly Required  |  February 15th, 2008 at 10:46 am

  RS,

  My mistake, but that clarifies non the less so thanks.

  I agree with you on the monopoly front though I also believe some exception can be applied to government in this regard whereas government services are not designed to turn a profit. This still does not speak to accountability, but then accountability for government falls solely on the sholders of the people and opposition. Something which the dem. party is lacking at the moment. Agree with Bush or not, he must be held accountable for the lack of WMD’s in Iraq. (Sorry. couldn’t resist) Also, government does not hold a strict monopoly on education where kids can attend private schools. Which are very pricey but offer top notch education. Public schools in affect have to compete with these ivy league farm schools. But then it can be argued that because it is pricey there is motivation for kids to work harder than in a public school. This is in my opinion besides the point where education is the key to future success. In order to compete with countries such as Japan in the future Education for everyone is the key.

• 20. SEW  |  February 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am

  But personal injury lawyers are out to help the poor guy. In fact they won a $4 billion award from Halliburton, the evil Halliburton evil Cheney company, and awarded the injured $30 million.

• 21. Retired Spook  |  February 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am

  Also, government does not hold a strict monopoly on education where kids can attend private schools.

  SAR, what’s really telling is the number of public school teachers who send THEIR children to private schools compared to the public at large.

  Public school teachers in urban areas are far more likely than city residents in general to send their children to private schools, according to a new analysis of 2000 Census data by researchers led by Denis P. Doyle, who previously analyzed 1980 and 1990 Census data.

  While just 12.2 percent of U.S. families send their children to private schools, that figure rises to 17.5 percent among urban families in general and to 21.5 percent among urban public school teachers, almost twice the national average.

  The difference in the choices made by public school teachers and the general public were especially striking in America’s largest cities, where public schools are often the most troubled. For example, in the New York City area, 32.5 percent of public school teachers send their children to private schools, compared to 22.7 percent of the general public. In Chicago, 38.7 percent of public school teachers, versus 22.6 percent of the general public, send their children to private schools. In Los Angeles, private schools are chosen by 24.5 percent of public school teachers and 15.7 percent of the public.

  And how does school choice affect those percentages?

  Also noteworthy are the differences in cities where school choice programs have seen their greatest successes. In Milwaukee, for instance, home of the nation’s oldest publicly funded voucher program, 29.4 percent of public school teachers send their children to private schools, versus 23.4 percent of the general public.

• 22. Sunny  |  February 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am

  This lawsuit deals with asbestos injuries to workers of The Dresser Company. Halliburton prchased the Dresser company, which ultimaley included the liabilities of Dresser.

  The Dresser acquisition was overseen by Cheney before he left in 2000 to become President Bush’s running mate. Harbison-Walker was spun off by Dresser in 1992.

  Halliburton has claimed that Harbison-Walker promised to bear the liability for any asbestos claims filed against it after 1992 and did so for several years - until 2001, when it said it would no longer do so. Halliburton is suing Harbison-Walker over the liability issue.

  Debt ratings under review
  Harbison-Walker made construction products containing asbestos for many years and was part of a Baltimore case in which a jury awarded five people who claimed asbestos exposure $40 million.

  It is hard to feel sorry for Halliburton if they now have to pay for injuries to those harmed by asbestos. They are big boys with a truck load of lawyers and had the performed the acquisition with due dilligence, they should have known that this risk existed. But SEW, go ahead and defend this company - it has made billions in no bid contracts in the past five years.

• 23. Retired Spook  |  February 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  Sunny, I didn’t get the impression that SEW was defending Haliburton. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the point he was trying to make was that out of the $4 billion settlement, the lawyers got $3 billion, 7 hundred million and the plaintiffs got $30 million. I’m not as familiar as you seem to be about the case, so I could be wrong. That does seem like an incredibly lop-sided attorney to plaintiff split.

• 24. Joe  |  February 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

  Mark,
  In one thread you say this
  we GOPers are bought and paid for by Big Tobacco, Telecommunications, Accountant and Oil

  In the next thread regarding the FISA telecomm immunity issue, you bark that the Dems are only against immunity because they are paid for by trial lawyers.
  According to your statement above, don’t you mean to say that Repubs are FOR immunity because they are paid for by Telecommunications?

  You can’t have it both ways.

• 25. Some Assembly Required  |  February 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  RS,

  that is interesting to say the least, though in this study I’d like to see a comparison of percentage of crime, specfically with regards to youth vs the percentage of teachers who are sending their kids to private school. I think that may explain a couple percentage points. But whats astounding is the message these teachers are sending. In order to get into a good college they need to send their kids to a private school.

  The biggest problem I have in trying to understand the education system is when looking at places such as Europe, and even Cuba (free education). Their systems are working (with regards to education) yet the US and Canada to some extent are still struggling.

• 26. Magnum Serpentine  |  February 15th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  Big Oil gave millions and now our gas is 3 bucks a gallon. Not because of supply but because of donations to oil men george and dick.

• 27. Retired Spook  |  February 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  yet the US and Canada to some extent are still struggling.

  I realize anecdotal evidence is worth about as much as a bucket of warm spit, but I recently had a lengthy conversation with a neighbor who is on the local school board about No Child Left Behind. She says it’s been a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it’s increasing accountability, but, on the other hand it’s forcing severely handicapped special needs children into the public school arena, costing local school districts tens of thousands of additional dollars to accommodate special needs kids in wheel chairs who have no comprehension of what’s going on. These are kids who, prior to NCLB, would have been institutionalized or kept at home with a private nurse. My heart aches for parents of such children, and I’m not sure what the solution is, but mainstreaming them into public schools not only detracts from the learning of non-handicapped children, it also sucks up lots of federal education dollars.

• 28. Some Assembly Required  |  February 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

  I completely agree. But like you said double edged sword whereas even the handicap have rights which should not be violated no matter how difficult it makes things. It’s what defines America. Ironicly enough private institutions should be set up to deal with these special cases with possible government subsides to help minimize the cost on the parents of special needs students. I think this may help matters at the least it would free up some extra resources for public schools. Just a thought.

  Forcing some handicap students into mainstream classes often leads to torment from other students also. It’s sad but it does happen.

  My heart goes out to those who were killed yesterday in Illinois, I can’t image witnessing something like that nor can I understand what can push someone to take such extreme measures. It really shows what really matters in life and what is just trivial.

• 29. TiredofLibBullSh**  |  February 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

  SAR,

  link to 17 year illiterate teacher:
  http://www.10news.com/news/15274005/detail.html

  The levels of bureaucracy grow more than the capacity for teaching.

  As illustrated in the article, just because someone gets a degree doesn’t mean they can automatically do the job. I know several engineers (electrical, mechanical, chemical) that received a engineering degree and can’t do the design and engineering. They became salesman for OEM companies. So from an engineering perspective, they were incompetant.

  Government schooling cheaper?

  Oh, please. Again, I read an article (I’ll have to find it) where the amount of money spent per student averaged more than 20,000 per year in New York state!!! I wonder how much of that went to the bureaucracy part of the budget? 20,000/year would buy a year at college, in some cases it could buy 4 years.

  Known failed school systems (New Orleans public schools, for one) are not reformed. It’s the same year after year. Parents are stuck with the same conditions, same teachers and same administrator, who are only looking out for themselves. One year, one of the many superintendents suggested hiring retired professionals (engineers, physicians etc.) or working professionals who may be interested in teaching. Of course, the teachers (mainly the incompetant ones) screamed to high heavens. An person with a Master’s Degree in Engineering inquired about teaching high school math. According to the N.O. School Board HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED because he did not have a teaching certificate - not a degree - A CERTIFICATE! Here is a person who had 6 years of intensive math courses was not qualified according to some bureaucrat.

  The teaching special interests squashed that idea fast. And you wonder why people are reluctant to pump even more money to them? More money is not the answer but reform and that includes teacher testing, evaluation as well as that of the administrators.

  But it will never happen as long as liberals have anything to say about their special interest group.

• 30. Some Assembly Required  |  February 15th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

  BS,

  I read that article, I found this particularly interesting…

  “in 1961, Corcoran graduated with a bachelor’s degree in education, while still illiterate he contends. He then went on to become a teacher during a teacher shortage”

  This to me sounds like a problem with the university he went to more than anything. I mean for a university to hand out a degree to someone who is illiterate is just embarrassing is it not?

  Anyway, as for you saying just because someone gets a degree doesn’t mean they are automaticly automaticly qualified for the job… are you kidding?!?! (with exception to the case from the article) If not then what in hell is the purpose of getting a degree and racking up all that debt? Just because these people you know are not working in there studied profession does not mean they are not qualified to do the job, it just means they chose a different route. I mean I graduated from Architectural Engineering but now I’m working for a Civil Engineering firm.

• 31. TiredofLibBullSh**  |  February 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

  “This to me sounds like a problem with the university he went to more than anything.”

  Oh, so there is no problem with the high school, junior high, middle school and elementary school he attended also? More serious than simply “just embarassing”.

  “Anyway, as for you saying just because someone gets a degree doesn’t mean they are automaticly automaticly qualified for the job… are you kidding?!?!”

  No, I am not and it does not. Corprorations are taking a chance and in most cases these are entry level positions to acquire the necessary experience to do the rest of tasks.

  The individuals I cited could not do the job as design engineers. That is not simply choosing a different route. Their jobs were in sales of OEM products not engineering. Their engineering degree did not automatically qualify them for design engineers. They could do the math and theory, but in actual application they could not do the necessary tasks of the job.

  Government schools in most cases are a joke and like the 17 year illiterate teacher there are thousands of illiterates that are graduating from high school. Most for the sole purpose of failing them would be bad for their self-esteem. It also shows that people aren’t doing their jobs and they simply don’t care….you really want to give these irresponsible government worker types more money without evaluation?

  It would not happen with funding for the military.

• 32. Some Assembly Required  |  February 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

  BS,

  Granted there is a major problem that he was pushed up through middle school and even able to get into university. But the big shocker to me is he was able to obtain a degree. despite being illiterate you have to give the man credit, he took a handicap and worked around it to become fairly successful.

  In some cases thats all thats required of Engineers is math and PR work. The rest can be placed on the sholders of the technologists and project managers so I’m not buying what your selling about these engineers that you know. After you receive a degree like anything you start out as a junior and work your way up. But your degree is what qualifies you to get the job in the first place. I will agree with you on one thing though, Universities tend to focus to much on theory as opposed to application. This is the biggest thing you learn upon graduating, though the work terms throughout help with that a little. Just out of curiosity, what type of engineers are these people?

  Government schools are a problem partly because classrooms are over crowded, this easily allows some people to slip through the cracks and not get the help they need. This does not mean the government should cut it out all together and have the military school everyone.

• 33. LOLguy23  |  February 15th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 34. LOLguy23  |  February 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  Whoops. That’s classically.

• 35. phnx  |  February 15th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  “Government schools are a problem partly because classrooms are over crowded.”

  Horse hockey. That’s a teacher’s union meme to further their agenda of more money and less work.

  You leftists oppose vouchers but are willing to loose generations of kids wth the existing failed system.

  How about trying an innovative system of single sex classrooms. Where this has been implemented test scores of girls have been shown to increase 20% and boys test scores increase 50%.

  Teacher’s unions still oppose this becasue it doesn’t meet the objective of smaller class size and less work.

  (Now I’ve really ticked off Casper)

• 36. Some Assembly Required  |  February 16th, 2008 at 12:54 am

  phnx,

  First and foremost I’m no ‘leftist’ I’m pretty sure if you were reading any of my posts you would have gathered that…

  Also, This horse hockey you speak about over crowded classrooms… can you please explain to me how one teacher and possibly answer to 30+ students. If one student is struggling in a course how does this teacher help that one without neglecting the others. Not to mention extra curricular activities. It’s not talking points or propaganda, its undeniable truth. If one teacher is given a class of say 10 students and then the scores are piss poor I will agree with you 110% but that is not that case. Please use your brain before you bash something which has been posted.

  “How about trying an innovative system of single sex classrooms.”

  Where have you been living… same sex classrooms have been in use since I don’t know say the time of Christ. Do you remember once women weren’t allowed to go to school… hmmmm funny how men didn’t become geniuses. Men and women need to co-exist, if you separate them it will only force them to be smarter about how to break the rules, after all being heterosexual is human nature is it not? Heres another example, prohibition for instance, how long did that last?

  Why are you so angry at teachers, I’m sure you went through the very institution you are now bashing, so does that make you a moron because the people who taught you are incompetent. Please clarify

  One more thing before I forget, yes the system is flawed but please enlighten me as to how it is failed. While doing so I’m sure you’ll tell me the economy is doing just fine. Again referring to your ‘horse hockey’, did you see the Detroit, Columbus game tonight, Detroit’s stands were virtually empty… a top seed team which cannot fill a stadium… no the economy isn’t in rough shape!

  Sorry if I got so heated, work functions are the devil. haha

• 37. phil  |  February 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

  Deleted - complains about comment policy.

Matt Margolis on Twitter