It's cold...
In New York...
In January...
Blue skies though...
Dry roads... (a couple of patches of snow on the grass and of course the mounds in parking lots from the last snowstorm's plowing... but that's it...)
So of course...
(*DRUM ROLL*)
Our schools are on a two-hour delay.
Therefore...
(*ANOTHER DRUM ROLL*)
My gym has cancelled this morning's group classes - including BodyPump.
I'm... Not... Happy...
6 comments:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-report-los-angeles-budget-20140107,0,2124833.story#axzz2poopQwpQ
Los Angeles is a city in decline, strangled by traffic, weighed down by poverty and suffering from "a crisis of leadership and direction," according to a report released Wednesday by a 13-member citizen panel.
* WELL WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT? I MEAN... THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM!
The panel, chaired by former U.S. Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor...
* NOT... A... REPUBLICAN...
(*SMIRK*)
... said Los Angeles lacks a coherent approach to economic development and trails other major cities in job growth.
City government spending is growing faster than revenue...
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
...and the pension benefits of city employees are at risk, said the report, titled "A Time For Truth."
* PENSION BENEFITS...?!?! OH, YEAH... THESE FOLKS SURE KNOW HOW TO PRIORITIZE! (AS L.A. BANKRUPTS ITSELF TO PAY PEOPLE NOT TO WORK... WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM TO PAY THOSE SUPPOSEDLY STILL WORKING...?!?!)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/
Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.
* ...AND THE POOR HAVE LOST GROUND UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
* A RECORD 47 MILLION AMERICANS RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS, ABOUT 13 MILLION MORE (MORE... MORE... MORE... MORE...) THAN WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/08/tell_us_the_truth_about_social_security_790.html
Senator Elizabeth Warren...
* AN ABSOLUTE PIECE OF HUMAN GARBAGE...
...and the Democratic Left are calling for an expansion of Social Security benefits.
(*HEADACHE*)
The Social Security Act of 1935 was the first federal entitlement program.
The term "entitlement" has a variety of definitions in political theory, but in everyday politics it means simply that Congress does not have to vote for annual spending increases for the program.)
If an individual meets certain criteria, he or she is "entitled" to receive the benefits. With Social Security, you are entitled to certain benefits if you reach a certain age and have (with your employer) "contributed" payroll taxes into the system.
The fundamental problem with Social Security is that it is a "defined benefit" pension system masquerading as a "defined contribution" program.
* AND IF THE TWO TERMS ARE UNFAMILIAR TO YOU... THEN YOU SHOULD DEMAND YOUR COLLEGE REIMBURSE YOU ANY AND ALL TUITION PAID AND THAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS YOU ATTENDED REIMBURSE YOUR PARENTS... OR THEIR ESTATE.
Senator Warren says, correctly, that seniors have contributed to the system.
But what have they contributed, and what relationship does their contribution have to their benefits?
Politicians have understandably been more reluctant to raise taxes (euphemistically called "contributions") than to raise benefits. The inevitable result has been promises that far exceed resources.
The very first recipient of Social Security benefits demonstrated the problems to come. Ida Mae Fuller retired in 1940 after having paid about $22.50 into the fund. She collected over $22,000 over the next 35 years.
(While Fuller's is an extreme case, there is no doubt that, until now, the vast majority of Social Security recipients have received far more in benefits than they have paid into the system.)
It is true that part of the problem is demographic - that life expectancy was 62 in 1935 and has since risen to 78, and that Americans are having far fewer children today than they had during the Baby Boom. But another part is demagogic: Politicians use benefits to bid for votes.
* AND VIOLENCE ISN'T THE ANSWER...??? (ARE YOU SURE...?!?!)
Even before the system began paying out, Congress extended pensions to spouses and surviving dependent children in 1939. In 1950, benefits were extended to millions of previously exempted workers - who received benefits almost immediately while having contributed almost nothing.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
The first cost-of-living adjustment was also made that year. A disability program was added in 1956, which today has become a long-term unemployment or welfare program.
(*NOD*) (*SHRUG*)
In the early 1960s, Congress lowered the retirement age.
(*HEADACHE*)
Ten years later, cost-of-living adjustments were made automatic, and minimum benefits were raised.
(*SIGH*)
The first serious effort to have contributions catch up to this runaway benefit train came in the 1980s, and it was not nearly adequate.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Congress should pass a "Truth in Social Security Act," which would tell the public the story of the payoffs over the years.
* FOLKS... IN ALL SERIOUSNESS... THE IGNORANCE OF THE SITUATION IS DELIBERATE. THE REASON YOU AND OUR CHILDREN WEREN'T TAUGHT THE DETAILS OF THE SCAM IS THAT KEEPING YOU AND OUR CHILDREN IGNORANT WAS A PRIMARY TACTIC IN ALLOWING THE ONGOING INTERGENERATIONAL THEFT.
Every year, the Social Security Administration sends me a statement detailing how much I have paid into the system, and projecting how much I (or my wife and dependents) will collect if I continue to contribute at the current rate. But the administration does not include such details as the fact that there will be no funds left for anyone by 2033 unless the government goes above and beyond the "contributions" to the program and makes payouts from general revenues - and that it is almost certain that future retirees will get less back than they paid in.
* ACTUALLY... SOCIAL SECURITY WENT UPSIDE DOWN SEVERAL YEARS BACK. (I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S STILL UPSIDE DOWN... BUT IT WAS FOR AT LEAST SEVERAL YEARS.)
Over the last year, the "payroll-tax holiday" reduced employee taxes from 6% to 4%.
(Notably, the act did not reduce employer "contributions," and thus could stimulate only consumer spending, rather than payrolls.)
Nobody in the administration explained why this would not also reduce the ultimate Social Security benefits of the payroll-tax vacationers.
Some critics have called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. But that’s not fair - not fair to Charles Ponzi, that is. He could keep his scheme going only as long as he could enlist new participants. We have no choice. Social Security is better called "a Ponzi scheme with a gun."
The guys with the guns ought to tell the truth. But Social Security was conceived in dishonesty. FDR understood that the payroll-tax system of funding Social Security was untenable. "I suppose you’re right on the economics," he told Luther Gulick. But payroll taxes "are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program."
* ACTUALLY FDR WAS WRONG ON THE LAW. CONGRESS CAN SIMPLY END SOCIAL SECURITY PAYOUTS ANY TIME IT WANTS. NONE OF US "OWNS" OUR SOCIAL SECURITY "ACCOUNT." THE ACCOUNTS ARE AN ACCOUNTING FICTION.
True, no damn politician since has wanted to grasp the "third rail of American politics." But telling the truth can be the first step toward reform.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367821/common-core-and-edutech-abyss-michelle-malkin
The Common Core gold rush is on.
* FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLKS... FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Apple, Pearson, Google, Microsoft, and Amplify are all cashing in on the federal standards/testing/textbook racket. But the EduTech boondoggle is no boon for students. It’s more squandered tax dollars down the public-school drain.
According to the Silicon Valley Business Journal, the ed-tech sector “is expected to more than double in size to $13.4 billion by 2017.” That explosive growth is fueled by Common Core’s top-down digital learning and testing mandates. So: Cui bono?
In North Carolina, the Guilford County public school district withdrew 15,000 Amplify tablets last fall. Pre-loaded with Common Core apps and part of a federal $30 million Race to the Top grant program, the devices peddled by News Corp. and Wireless Generation were rendered useless because of defective cases, broken screens, and malfunctioning power supplies.
Last year, the Los Angeles Unified School District dumped $1 billion of scarce resources into a disastrous iPad program. Educrats paid $678 per glorified Apple e-textbook, pre-loaded with Common Core–branded apps created by Pearson. Students breached the LAUSD’s iPad firewalls and made a mockery of their hapless adult guardians. Despite hefty investments in training and development, many teachers couldn’t figure out how to sync up the tablets in the classroom. Taxpayers now realize they were sold a grossly inflated bill of goods, but the district wants to buy even more iPads for computerized test-taking. School officials recklessly plan to use school construction debt-financing to pay for the new purchases.
Los Angeles taxpayer Planaria Price summed up swelling outrage perfectly in a letter to the Los Angeles Times this week: “Cash-strapped LAUSD — which in 2012 cut libraries, nurses, thousands of teachers, administrators and support staff . . . is spending more than $1 billion on one of the nation’s most expensive technology programs. . . . I would say that ‘something is rotten in the state of Denmark,’ but few would understand because the teaching of Shakespeare has also been cut.”
By its own account, Apple dominates 94% of the education-tablet market in the U.S.
Microsoft is pushing its own Common Core–aligned Surface RT tablet and app suite, along with “Bing for Schools.”
Rival Google wants in on the game on the taxpayers’ dime, too. The company’s “Chromebooks,” which use a cloud-based operating system mimicking the Google Chrome browser, are gaining market share rapidly. While they are cheaper than iPads, they depend on reliable WiFi. Google offers a suite of Google Apps for Education (GAFE) for “free.” But is this really about improving students’ academic bottom line — or Google’s bottom line?
In one school district, the Google devices are used as glorified whiteboards. A recent news article touting Chromebook adoption in Nebraska’s Council Bluffs school district described how kindergarteners drew “dots on the rubber-cased tablets clutched in their hands. Then they wrote what they’d done as a math equation: 3 + 3 = 6.” No one explained why pencil and paper were insufficient to do the elementary math, other than a teacher who gushed that she likes to “mix it up” and provide a “variety of experiences.” The district is one of 50 across the country piloting Google Play for Education.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Google is building brand loyalty through a questionable certification program that essentially turns teachers into tax-subsidized lobbyists for the company. The GAFE enrollees are “trained” on Google products. They take classes, attend conferences, and hold workshops (some, but not all, funded by Google). After passing GAFE tests, they earn certification. Next, the newly minted GAFE educators open up consultancy businesses and bill their school districts (i.e., the public) to hawk Google’s suite of products to other colleagues. And they tell two friends, who tell two friends, and so on and so on and so on.
Google can collect student/family data to target ads through related services outside the GAFE suite, such as YouTube for Schools, Blogger, and Google Plus. These are not covered under the already watered-down federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Under the Obama administration, Grand Canyon–sized loopholes in FERPA have already opened data mining to third-party private entities.
One parent shared her kids’ experience with the Chromebooks online: “The biggest problems to date are that kids figured out quickly how to bypass security so they could look at non-approved web material and that kids have problems drawing figures when taking classes such as Chemistry or Physics. . . . Many preferred traditional textbooks; others resented the teachers being able to spy on them with the software embedded in the Chromebook.”
Another savvy mom noted: “If you think Google won’t be handing over any and all data it gets from your kids using their Chromebooks, you’re nuts.”
Let’s be clear: I am not opposed to introducing kids to 21st-century tools. My 13-year-old daughter taught herself Java, HTML, and Photoshop. My ten-year-old son mixes music on Logic Pro. I support competent, focused, and practical instruction exposing schoolkids to coding, 3D design, and robotics. What I’m against are bungled billion-dollar public investments in overpriced, ineffective technology.
Fed Ed’s shiny education toy syndrome incentivizes wasteful spending binges no school district can afford.
Post a Comment