I will try and answer to the best of my ability.

With recent standardized test scores showing that students in urban areas are out performed by their peers and the opinion that US students are falling behind in science, what do you think the role of federal government should be in support of strengthening our country's (obvious) floundering in teaching science? Do you support increasing funding to national organizations (Like the National Science Foundation and the National Instutute of Health) or do you believe this is a state's issue? If it is a state's issue, how would you recommend they address this issue?

With recent standardized test scores showing that students in urban areas are out performed by their peers and the opinion that US students are falling behind in science, what do you think the role of federal government should be in support of strengthening our country's (obvious) floundering in teaching science? Do you support increasing funding to national organizations (Like the National Science Foundation and the National Instutute of Health) or do you believe this is a state's issue? If it is a state's issue, how would you recommend they address this issue?

 

 

I think this is a state issue.

 

I would like to see the states set up a committee (for all area's of study for that matter) that ensure public school curriculum, textbooks and statewide tests represent the state of the art in science education. It is something like we have here in Arizona.

I would like the independent commission to Inform and empower students, parents, educators and other concerned citizens to participate effectively in administrative, legislative and regulatory processes to improve science education in the state.

In your platform you mentioned increased spending for social security, are you proposing adding benefits or increasing the existings ones, and how will those be funded?

I think this is a state issue.

 

I would like to see the states set up a committee (for all area's of study for that matter) that ensure public school curriculum, textbooks and statewide tests represent the state of the art in science education. It is something like we have here in Arizona.

I would like the independent commission to Inform and empower students, parents, educators and other concerned citizens to participate effectively in administrative, legislative and regulatory processes to improve science education in the state.

So, history has shown us that when education is left to the states, the funding for education and most of the control over education has fallen to local districts. This has had the fortunate/unfortunate side effect, however you choose to view it, of concentrating the good schools and good teachers into the districts with the highest amounts of income, as they can afford to pay better salaries and afford better equipment, while the schools for the lowest-income areas tend to be much worse funded and much more poorly maintained. Do you consider this to be an adequate situation, and if not, what would you do to address it?

In your platform you mentioned increased spending for social security, are you proposing adding benefits or increasing the existings ones, and how will those be funded?

 

 

I would like to increase our current benefits for family and early retirement. The money would come from the cuts made in excessive pork barrel legislation.

I will try and answer to the best of my ability.

 

With all of the political discussion, I'd like to know if you have any ideas for making soxtalk.com a more exciting and engaging place?

 

thanks in advance.

I would like to increase our current benefits for family and early retirement. The money would come from the cuts made in excessive pork barrel legislation.

This simply doesn't work. The total amount spent in all earmarks in 2005 was $47 billion dollars, and that includes all of them, including I believe many projects that are actually worthy of funding. While this money would be useful if it were saved in the lockbox where it should be, it is no where near enough to significantly increase funding for Social Security. It's not even close to enough money just to pay for the White House's proposed Social Security private accounts plan.

 

So the question deserves to be asked again...more specifically than just saying "cutting pork", give us examples of where you're going to cut spending, and how those spending cuts are enough to offset the price tag, which would certainly be in the $100's of billions per year, of lowering the retirement age or increasing benefits.

So, history has shown us that when education is left to the states, the funding for education and most of the control over education has fallen to local districts. This has had the fortunate/unfortunate side effect, however you choose to view it, of concentrating the good schools and good teachers into the districts with the highest amounts of income, as they can afford to pay better salaries and afford better equipment, while the schools for the lowest-income areas tend to be much worse funded and much more poorly maintained. Do you consider this to be an adequate situation, and if not, what would you do to address it?

 

 

No, everyone deserves a proper education.

 

I would use the independent commission to overview all of the schools strengths and weakness. The commission should set up a list of recommendations for each public school and a time table for these recommendations to be completed. I would also like to see a program which was passed here in Arizona which was a tax on tobacco products that will be placed in special a education fund. The fund can be accessed by the commission.

Why does that response make me think of Mayor Quimby's response to an issue where his method of placating a mob is to appoint a "blue ribbon" committee? (Blue ribbon? Why that's the best you can get!)

This simply doesn't work. The total amount spent in all earmarks in 2005 was $47 billion dollars, and that includes all of them, including I believe many projects that are actually worthy of funding. While this money would be useful if it were saved in the lockbox where it should be, it is no where near enough to significantly increase funding for Social Security. It's not even close to enough money just to pay for the White House's proposed Social Security private accounts plan.

 

So the question deserves to be asked again...more specifically than just saying "cutting pork", give us examples of where you're going to cut spending, and how those spending cuts are enough to offset the price tag, which would certainly be in the $100's of billions per year, of lowering the retirement age or increasing benefits.

 

 

Good points,

 

What I should have added was cuts in wasteful spending overall not just pork.

 

Looking at figures if we allow non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending to grow with inflation. In one year we can save 26.7B the amount increases to 436.5B over 5 years.

 

2. Freeze non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. One year savings would be 36.2B and 607B over 5 years.

 

3. Freeze discretionary spending. One year savings would be 47.9B and a 5 year savings of 817.3B

 

 

These are just a few of the wasteful lavish spending programs in Washington just these 3 programs alone will save 110 Billion in the first year.

With all of the political discussion, I'd like to know if you have any ideas for making soxtalk.com a more exciting and engaging place?

 

thanks in advance.

 

Sorry post was buried,

 

I think Soxtalk already is the best Sox's board bar none. It is all about keeping our great posters, they make the board great. Our moderating team also does a great job keeping the board civil. These contests like we are doing now are great and maybe we could do more of these types of contests during the year that is my suggestion. It is hard to improve on a site that is already world class.