Patrick J. Sullivan: “The people who control our schools … don’t send their own kids to these schools. They have one idea of education for our kids and an entirely different one for their own. The core principle of the Bloomberg administration … is condescension: … one idea for their children and a different idea … for everybody else.”
Nelson Rockefeller, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon. What would it take for the Republicans to send Obama home in 2012? The Republican party can steal Obama’s second term if party leadership has the nerve to put forward a liberal Republican willing to make and keep a single promise: No more than 12 students per class, in every public institution from kindergarten to graduate school.
We’ll invest in education until our public institutions have student-faculty ratios that exceed those of the boarding school that incoming New York City Schools Chancellor Cathie Black chose for her own kids.
The slogan “12 in 2012″ isn’t a one-stop fix for all that ails education. As a game-changing simple promise, however, it could be a long-overdue intervention in a conversation that’s gone down a rat-hole of dishonesty and propaganda.
It’s a jobs creation bill. It transcends ethnicity, religion, and class. It targets Obama at his Achilles’ heel, delivering the largest bipartisan constituency in the country: educators, students, and parents.
Here’s your litmus test: Upper East Side parent Patrick J. Sullivan, active in Class Size Matters and NYC Public School Parents, who serves on the powerless New York City Panel for Education Policy (eight of the 13 members are directly appointed by the Mayor).
IMHO, any Republican that can honestly answer and satisfy Sullivan’s outrage below can steal Obama’s second term:
I represent the borough of Manhattan on what the mayor calls the Panel for Educational Policy but what is in the law the Board of Education of the City of New York. I see here today parents and their elected leaders and I see teachers from every borough. I see them from every race and I see them from every income level and from every political party. Why is that?
Because I’ve learned from talking to people is that every parent wants to the same thing for their kids: They want a rich curriculum, they want an experienced teacher, they want small classes, and they want room for their kids in their schools.
But what have I learned from sitting on the Board of Educaiton for three years? I’ve learned that instead of schools, we’re going to build a billion-dollar police academy. Instead of a rich curriculum, we get test prep and drilling in math and ELA. Instead of small classes, we get our kids packed 28, 30, 35, 40 in a class and that’s wrong.
But the worst of all this is the people who control our schools, the people who run our schools, the Mayor, the Chancellor, the Regents, they don’t send their own kids to these schools. They have one idea of education for our kids and and an entirely different one for their own.
Beyond autonomy, beyond accountability, beyond privatization, the core principle of the Bloomberg administration when it comes to education is condescension: the idea that there’s one idea of education for their children and a totally different idea of education for everybody else’s, and that’s what has to stop.
Transcript: NYC Public School Parents
Hat tip: Diane Ravitch and Deborah Meier
xposted: howtheuniversityworks.com
30 Responses to A Liberal Republican Can Win in 2012
trendisnotdestiny - December 9, 2010 at 3:17 pm
As long as we are talking about potentialities,
a progressive democrat could change the trajectory from a Clinton-based democratic party of republican-lite into a more left-center movement addressing Hedges’ main point of the death of the liberal class…..
livefreeordie2 - December 9, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Just as Trendy thinks anyone short of Lenin is “Republican-lite,” I can assure you that after the last 10 years, conservatives have lost interest in any kind of liberal republican. George W. Bush is a liberal Republican – how’d that work for ya? It wasn’t liberal Republicans that just knocked the Dems to their knees in the last election, and you are dreaming (of course you are) if you think those of us on the right are interested in anything other than a conservative.
As for the 12 in 12 stuff, it’s nonsense. Class sizes should go up, not down. How high? 30 – 35 sounds about right to me. The small class size thing is nothing more than a union tactic to increase the size of the union and decrease the workload for its members. I’m sure there are exceptions, however, as a general rule, teachers are no longer underpaid and they certainly aren’t overworked. Cut their pay or make ‘em work 52 weeks a year like everyone else (with appropriate vacation and sick time). Do away with tenure (while at the same time protecting them from capricious city/town politics)and you bet. . . focus on merit and make student success a big part of determining teacher success. Personally, I’m for doing away with ANY unions for public service employees, but especially teachers unions.
Liberal Republicans. . .sheesh! They are even more disgusting than Liberal Democrats!
ledzep - December 9, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I generally learn interesting things from Marc Bousquet’s posts, but this is a new level of wishful thinking. Who is this mythical Liberal Republican, who can capitalize on the mythical silent majority of red-state voters, whose spokesperson, inexplicably, is some guy who lives on the Upper East Side?
trendisnotdestiny - December 9, 2010 at 7:38 pm
@ LFOD2
It is apparent that your comments are meant to provoke by invoking Lenin… I find it amusing that you are so limited in your reactions to the left (as if there are only one or two gradations of social liberalism)…..
No one is under the illusion that we live in a left center country. My point is that by having a stronger left that we all benefit (as most good ideas require a strong challenge in a democracy to calibrate and integrate divergent interests). If you would have read Chris Hedges, you would know that his criticism is saved for all of those liberal institutions that have sold out their constituencies (Unions, Universities, The Church, Investigative Journalists etc) where these people sell liberal ideals but implement ‘spineless’ incrementalist agendas that really support the right….
Lastly, stay off the crack pipe as it causes statements like Bush being a liberal republican (unless you mean liberal to mean neo-conservative)…
marcbousquet - December 9, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Yes, I know it’s a heightened level of wishful thinking, even for me. But that’s my point. Ever since Obama’s candidacy looked serious, we have been chucking around “New Deal,” “WPA,” and now Sputnik, as if those things weren’t wishful thinking twelve months before they became reality. Obama is proving himself the Hoover of the moment, not the FDR–which leaves room for someone else to play the role.
Contra Trendy, who I frequently find more than sensible: I don’t think a Dem can get in over Obama, period. But–just as who ever hear of Palin or Ron Paul–there’s plenty of room for an enterprising Republican machine to put forward some unknown Chafee type who can strike effectively at Obama’s very large weakness with educators, students, and parents.
trendisnotdestiny - December 9, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Marc,
I will defer to you about Chaffee’s of congress… I appreciate your helping advance essential issues for educators, students and parents and do not mean to be trite as your example is much more likely than mine…
I guess if you asked me down deep, I just want the left to improve itself whether it secures the presidency next time or not. The biggest travesty of a failed Obama is the loss of energy and potential for even greater apathy and acceptance of the status quo.
Unfortunately I have come to believe that Obama needs a challenger on the left to enforce his so-called progressive belief system… The possibility of a quasi four party run-off would be potentially an interesting exercise in co-option…
At the very least we need a progressive at Treasury/Cabinet level to offset the Clintonian neoliberals bent on repeating the errors of the past (looking to new markets to exploit like education)…
Thanks for the dialogue
livefreeordie2 - December 10, 2010 at 9:56 am
Well, Trendy,my view of the left and progressives only leaves one possible response – revulsion. Why? The foundation of everything the left believes requires the taking that which does not belong to them and giving it to those who did not earn it. It’s really no more complicated than that. There are many gradations of stealing, from petit theft to grand larceny, just as there are many gradations of leftist/progressives. At bottom, they are all the same and therefore do not require nuanced responses.
Which is not to say that individuals do not have an obligation to society or to support the government. Of course they do. But it a necessary evil, not something to expand endlessly and around which to build one’s political philosophy. Frankly, taking anything more than the absolute minimum in taxes is immoral. Pelosi is all ripped about only assessing a 35% Death Tax. Goxewu and others here (including you?) talk about the confiscation of all wealth when one dies. Well, every penny that is confiscated by inheritance taxes has already been taxed at least once. Only those consumed with jealousy and covetousness could support such an immoral piece of legislation. In fact, taxing any one American at a different rate than another American, while not as despicable as the death tax, is nonetheless discriminatory and unfair. All Americans should be treated the same regardless of race, religion, creed, or wealth.
Which is why watching the current political theater is just so enjoyable! Two years ago, those on the left thought that they had vanquished the right forever. And now look at them. The progressives are saying what I’ve been saying all along – Obama was not qualified to be president. He didn’t have the experience. He never did anything tough or significant in his life. He’s not a leader – he’s a snake charmer. He sounded really wonderful to the left and now they’re freaking out because there’s no substance. He’s an empty suit. Here’s an example of why the left has lost it completely. . .
When Clinton tried to pass Hilary-care in ’93, the Dems got squeamish and backed out. They then got clobbered in the ’94 election. Liberal conventional wisdom since then has been that if they had passed it, they wouldn’t have lost. Clinton told them that again last year. So they passed it. And got clobbered even harder! Why? Because the majority of the American people don’t want it – they don’t want progressive schemes. They are compassionate and want to help others, but unlike the left, they correctly don’t think that an all-consuming government is the way to go. They saw all the things the Dems did in the last two years, plus all the things they have threatened to do, and they said, “Hell NO!” And that’s what the left never understands. When the people say no, the left just thinks they didn’t go far enough. When risky leftist schemes (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the war on poverty, etc.) start to go bad, you think the answer is to just throw more money (other people’s money) at it and that will fix it. And of course, it doesn’t. It can’t. And that brings us to the current situation.
The hard left Dems in the house are having a temper tantrum and have threatened to block the tax compromise. That creates the ultimate win/win scenario for the Republicans. The American people have already heard the Dem President announce that he has compromised (remember that word) with the Republicans. That means that the Republicans have what? Compromised. And what is it that the Dems are doing? Not compromising. So, if they cave now, they have already provided for lots of 2012 campaign commercials with their “just say no” to compromise announcements. And if they do block it, guess who gets the blame for everyone’s taxes going up in January? I believe the phrase is “Hoist with his own petard.” There’s no need for a RINO like Chaffee. . . As long as the Republicans remember why they were voted into office, they will do well. And that will set the stage for a conservative president. I don’t know that there is a Reagan out there, but just as the incompetent Carter brought about the Reagan revolution, the incompetent Obama will likely cement another generation of conservative ascendancy.
Oh my God! I do love it so. . .
cmcclain - December 10, 2010 at 10:07 am
Politicians get elected by making promises. Then they lead by breaking them.
tappat - December 10, 2010 at 10:52 am
Brilliant post, MB. Haven’t read you in quite a while. Loved reading this one.
22118130 - December 10, 2010 at 2:52 pm
The only problem with such wishful thinking is there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell that Republicans would ever nominate a liberal. The Republican Party organizations in a large number of states are dominated by the Religious Right, making it so that not even a moderate has much of a chance. There is a greater chance that the Republicans will nominate Sarah Palin than there is that they will nominate a liberal. Their best chance of winning the general election would be to nominate a sensible, middle of the road candidate, but there’s not much chance even that will happen. To be nominated, any Republican will have to pass two litmus tests– that of the Tea Party movement and of the Religious Right. Which is why someone like Palin has a great shot of winning the nomination, if she decides to run. She will then suffer the fate of Christine O’Donnell, her handpicked candidate in the Delaware Senate race.
trendisnotdestiny - December 10, 2010 at 3:05 pm
@ LFOD2
You have said so many things here (points of contention) that it boggles the mind from which I fear a major time-suck is imminent. Nevertheless, I will contain my response to just one item….
QUOTE
“Well, every penny that is confiscated by inheritance taxes has already been taxed at least once.”
You should probably re-think this comment livefree as every dollar put into traditional retirement accounts (IRA’s), Defined Contribution plans like (profit-sharing, Keough or 401k’s) and annuities all are protected from taxation. In other words, if I make 200K and max out my contribution of 15% or 30K into one of these accounts my new taxable income is 170K…. This is called pre-tax savings from making a contribution. Also, these assets are not taxed until withdraw (which is it mandatory at age 70).
Since there is a large segment of the population that dies before age 70, you can see how the some pools of money never undergo the first taxation that you were so certain of. Also, this doesn’t include the number of accounts that are held in foreign banks avoiding detection (58K) as well as taxation (corporate and individual). Lastly, there are other ways to shield money from taxation (Generation Skipping Trusts, Gifting 12K/year tax free).
Not to mention that: “Only those consumed with jealousy and covetousness could support such an immoral piece of legislation” you refer to includes Warren Buffet, Bill & Melinda Gates and a couple hundred billionaires but what do they really anyway….
Livefree, your idea of having everyone pay one rate is the EXACT way to reinforce the current hierarchies that exist and to expand them all in the of social darwinism… This is truly sad since the issue is not about income tax, but who holds the largest assets….
livefreeordie2 - December 10, 2010 at 3:54 pm
22118130 – The important question isn’t whether Palin can win, rather, if she is nominated, against whom would she run? If Obama continues to perform in the second half the way he did in the first half of his term, the Republicans won’t need to nominate Ronald Reagan, they could nominate Bonzo and win. If Obama suddenly grows some political common sense and triangulates in the fashion of Bubba, it may be a different story. I don’t expect that since he’s a dedicated progressive ideologue, current protestations from his base notwithstanding, but it is possible. In any event, it may be that he is already beyond salvaging. If the middle is running to the right, and both the right and the left think you’re incompetent, there’s really no where left to go, (no pun intended) is there?
The more likely outcome is the draft Hillary scenario. A showdown between Hilary and Palin would be quite entertaining. At any rate, I think HC presents the only scenario in which the Democrats have at least a fighting chance not to lose the White House. In any event, if you think Palin is the same as O’Donnell, please preach that to all your lefty friends. She’s not the first choice of a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean she couldn’t command a lot of support. But don’t you worry about it, okay? You just keep thinking about her the way liberals think about all Republican women.
Trendy – Dude. You’re working way too hard to pick a nit with phraseology rather than arguing the philosophical point. One supposes, then, that you cannot refute my point – Taking the property of a human being simply because of death, stealing from an estate and depriving heirs of their inheritance, is immoral. If Buffet, Gates, et al, wish to give their fortunes to charity, then God bless them! Listen, they are free to give all their money to the government right now! All of these tremendously wealthy people who are donating their vast wealth to charity work. . .why do you think they just don’t give it to the government to handle? They don’t need to do anything special! The IRS accepts donations. The point is, whether to a charity or to the government, it should be their choice, not yours or mine.
Six or seven generations ago, the Rockefellers, the Astors, JP Morgan, etc, held the assets. Then there was the Kennedys and other prohibition crooks. When I was younger, I remember that JP Getty was the wealthiest man, now we have Buffett and Gates. And what was the name of that punk kid from Harvard who coded Facebook and is now worth billions? The old players get older and the new kids in town take over. We do not, as a society, need to rob their graves to keep our society going. And if we do, then it’s not a society worth having.
wlgoffe - December 10, 2010 at 4:00 pm
My understanding is that the educational research suggests that small class sizes aren’t that effective in increasing learning.
On how to improve learning, I found “Most Likely to Succeed”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell very interesting. Here’s a key part:
“Hanushek recently did a back-of-the-envelope calculation about what even a rudimentary focus on teacher quality could mean for the United States. If you rank the countries of the world in terms of the academic performance of their schoolchildren, the U.S. is just below average, half a standard deviation below a clump of relatively high-performing countries like Canada and Belgium. According to Hanushek, the U.S. could close that gap simply by replacing the bottom six per cent to ten per cent of public-school teachers with teachers of average quality.”
trendisnotdestiny - December 10, 2010 at 4:11 pm
@ LFOD2
“Trendy – Dude. You’re working way too hard to pick a nit with phraseology rather than arguing the philosophical point.”
I was hoping that your exaggerated rhetoric would not surpass factual reality. During these times when this occurs (yes, it is fatiguing), I feel compelled to make sure that ‘a dose of reality’ is injected into the dialogue so as to not kill the conversation through quackery… I fear that my work may never be done in this way with you.
My dream would be that for once though that I could read a post from livefree that said: Trend, Dude I was wrong when I said that: “every penny that is confiscated by inheritance taxes has already been taxed at least once.” I do not know what I could have possibly been thinking about. Maybe I am just so damn angry at the government for intruding into my life that sometimes my judgment gets clouded and I have a hard time trusting anything remotely liberal.
I could then respond, no worries livefree I get pissed off too but not at the same things. We are two pissed off Americans who ventilate on CHE for free: what a country!
But these dialogues cannot possibly occur as long as I am the devil spawn of Vladimir Lenin!
social_scientist - December 10, 2010 at 8:25 pm
On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I apologize for a dumb F*** like live free or die 2. He/she/it obviously doesn’t know what “freedomn” means.
livefreeordie2 - December 10, 2010 at 9:21 pm
socialist_scientist – I’m one of the people of New Hampshire and I’ve got a lot of friends who agree with my point of view. That pretty much means you are speaking on behalf of yourself, not for the people of New Hampshire. One method of determining how many of the people of NH might agree with me rather than you is to look at the results of the last election.
Let’s see. Both House seats, occupied by Dems, went back to the Republicans. The vacant Senate seat went back to the Republicans. But even more relevant, perhaps, would be the state elections. The Dems held both the NH House and Senate for four years. After the election, 19 of the 24 Senate seats are now held by Republicans and roughly 300 of roughly 400 are held by Republicans. The Dem Governor, John Lynch, was reelected, but let’s face it, he’s more conservative than any Massachusetts Republican. And if you didn’t get the math, the Republicans now hold veto proof majorities in both houses.
So. . . I’d say you don’t speak for the people of New Hampshire. And more importantly, I not only know what freedom means, I know how to spell it.
trendisnotdestiny - December 10, 2010 at 10:00 pm
@ Social Scientist
Social scientist, I too get frustrated with LFOD2 as if my previous posts are not enough hypocritical evidence. I have spent time making mocking lists of things livefree says as way to point out what I would say is black and white reductionism. I have found that it really does no good with livefree considering he comes back for more (even at times more affable than the time previously, hence my nickname Vladimir Trendy)…
This notwithstanding, I like to think that we all have some things in common that can be articulated in ways that increase dialogue versus shut it down. While I have attacked livefree’s education, perspective and overall diatribes against the left for months now, I do consider him apart of this community and he/she deserves more respect than your words suggest. Let’s not devolve into cute ‘put downs’ that are dated back to grade school.
@ LFOD2
No need to answer the last post as it is not an accurate reflection of who you are. However, I suspect that people who do not recognize your posting style (first time readers) are much more reactive to you and your ideas. While I will not condescend to give you advice, I wonder what purpose talking about your great number of friends, all the political affiliation who won recently and the whole state of New Hampshire have to do with anything. We know that big majorities can make big mistakes (see Iraq War). If you are comforted by people being in agreement then fine, but you do not strike me as someone who needs a lot of affirmation. Let Social Scientist flame out and be done with it.
BTW, nothing about the estate tax comment you made prior to this bust up?
livefreeordie2 - December 10, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Trendy – Just for the record. . . I’ve never called you Vladimir. And. . . I never said it was a great number of friends, just that I have a lot who agree with me. The point? S_S was claiming to speak “on behalf of the people of New Hampshire.” I was merely pointing out that he wasn’t doing any such thing. As for me being comforted by agreement, you’re kidding, right?
Regarding the estate tax. Here’s what makes it so absolutely terrible. Let’s say that there is a farmer who own a small dairy farm with 100 acres of land and n number of cows – the maximum that can be supported on 100 acres. He employ his spouse and a couple of his own kids, plus 10 people from the community. From this business, he derives $100K of income per year, but the majority of the money he makes goes to paying wages, paying property taxes, or back into the farm. When his great grandfather started the farm, it was 20 miles from town and the land was worth a few thousand dollars. Town is now a lot closer and a developer builds a shopping center just 3 miles from the property. The causes the price of land in the area to skyrocket – including his property. Even so, he’s been frugal all his life and has saved a million dollars. And then he dies of a heart attack.
The government assesses his land at $50,000 per acre making it worth $5 million. The buildings, livestock, and equipment are worth another $2 million. He’s got a million in the bank for his widow to live on, but other that, she has no resources. His kids have their limited savings.
What the Dems want is an inheritance tax of 55% on anything over $1 million. That means that the farmer’s widow would be assessed a tax bill of over $3 million. The only way to pay is sell the farm. Sure, after that she has a couple of million dollars, but the family farm is gone. The kids have to find jobs, and so do the members of the community that are put out of work. THAT is the kind of story that translates to small business all over this country. People work hard and build a business that has assets worth money. That doesn’t make them wealthy in the sense that they can come up with cash equaling even 35% of what their business is worth, let alone 45% or 55%. Inheritance taxes are immoral. It’s theft by the government. Period.
social_scientist - December 10, 2010 at 11:16 pm
@ “Live Free or Die 2″: I’ve worked in the mills and on the dairy farms; I know New Hampshire from Coos to the sea. You and your two friends don’t represent anyone!
George W.Bush is a liberal republican! Teachers are evil! Where do you get this stuff? Not even Sarah Palin puts out such pap on her tweets.
Stay out of the sheep barns–otherwise I will have to call the ASPCA!
livefreeordie2 - December 10, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Socialist_scientist – Sadly, with all that effort, you learned nothing – not even how to spell. I’ve already outlined quite clearly that NH is far more to the right than it is to the left. You can stammer and whine and hold your breath until you turn blue. My guess is that you are simply a Mass-hole pretending to be from the Granite State.
George W. Bush claimed to be a “compassionate conservative.” That’s liberal double talk. Why? Because conservatism doesn’t need a modifier. True compassion is forcing people to do for themselves and not be dependent upon others – especially the government. Turning education over to Teddy Kennedy, putting tariffs on steel, the bailouts. . . he was never a true conservative. And I never said teachers were evil. Their unions, perhaps, but not necessarily the teachers. I said they were overpaid and underworked and that reducing class sizes was a scam. And why should I be an echo of anything Palin has to say? I realize that liberals cannot think for themselves and therefore one says the same thing as another, but as a libertarian and conservative, I don’t need Sarah Palin to tell me how to think or what to think.
As for sheep and barns, I wouldn’t know. I spent most of my adult life before higher ed in the military. It seems, however, that you know a great deal about sheep. Why don’t you enlighten us? From reading your posts, I’ll bet that it’s a topic you really get into.
social_scientist - December 10, 2010 at 11:37 pm
If you have been in the military, you don’t need me to instruct you about sheep!
trendisnotdestiny - December 11, 2010 at 9:13 am
@ LFOD2,
QUOTE
“Regarding the estate tax. Here’s what makes it so absolutely terrible. Let’s say that there is a farmer who own a small dairy farm with 100 acres of land and n number of cows – the maximum that can be supported on 100 acres. He employ his spouse and a couple of his own kids, plus 10 people from the community. From this business, he derives $100K of income per year, but the majority of the money he makes goes to paying wages, paying property taxes, or back into the farm. When his great grandfather started the farm, it was 20 miles from town and the land was worth a few thousand dollars. Town is now a lot closer and a developer builds a shopping center just 3 miles from the property. The causes the price of land in the area to skyrocket – including his property. Even so, he’s been frugal all his life and has saved a million dollars. And then he dies of a heart attack.” I did not paste the rest!
First LFOD2, you have to know your estate tax laws. Each person gets a unified credit exemption. Here are the amounts that are shielded from taxation:
$ Exemption (per person) Top Tax Rate
2001 $675K 55%
2002 $1M 50%
2003 $1M 49%
2004 $1.5M 48%
2005 $1.5M 47%
2006 $2M 46%
2007 $2M 45%
2008 $2M 45%
2009 $3.5M 45%
2010 NO TAX Repealed
2011 * $5M (proposed) * 35% (proposed)
Second, your story of the family farm is an old narrative, one that is increasingly becoming less and less a reality(not because of estate taxes but due to the consolidation of industry’s biggest players in food production). While you make an interesting but dated point about the difference between wealth and liquid wealth (land/equipment versus financial assets), you might consider the progressive idea of changing the provisions for family businesses (farm families) that maintain much of their wealth in non-liquid assets versus changing the whole estate tax law schema.
Third, if you look at these rates and their implication. Most family businesses if they do basic estate planning (two-party division of marital assets for titling purposes) have been able to protect anywhere from 2M to $4M on average over the last decade. In your example, the widow maintains $1M (which might return $30-50K in income annually depending on the return). The farm’s income is somewhere near $100K as you mention. There is no mention of social security which I find ironic and no mention of trans-generational business or estate plan. The problem of this family is not income (having at least $140K of annual revenue). The problem is how to handle non-liquid assets for small family business at point of death. There are specialists who deal in this area as well as many other options that I will not delve into.
Historically, the percentages of taxation have been trending at lows while the dollars shielded at highs. Also, this year (year of the sunset provision) means that no estate tax will be due during a period of such economic devastation, which is a travesty. LFOD2, all of these changes have been sold to the American public (anyone who assets total under 5-7 million or under), but are designed to help mostly those who have ten’s of millions and greater. This wannabee class of estate tax foes are used to generate an indignant rage while very wealthy (10 million and above) people shield more assets from taxation (which reinforces the same power/money hierarchies) and allows them to buy of congressional members from both parties.
Lastly, it seems that many of your examples are meant to warm the heart-strings and tensions around families on the border of the estate tax (1990 = $2M in assets and above, 1995 = $3M in assets and above, 2011 = $10M in assets and above). The changes that have already occurred in the law and the scenario you posit do not align. You talk about ordinary, hardworking people as a demographic (farm families), but the major beneficiary of these laws goes unexamined (wall street nouveau riche banksters and the truly liquid and wealthy)…. It seems disingenuous for you to talk out the middle class side of your mouth in an example, but to align with the wealthy in the actual implementation.
goxewu - December 11, 2010 at 9:45 am
Naive questions about the estate tax:
* If I make, say, $250,000 in year, pay income tax on it, and pay an electrician $20,000 to re-wire my house, and she pays income tax on that, is not that $20,000 “double-taxed”?
* Is there any reason that an inheritance couldn’t be taxed as income? (If the lump sum put the income tax in too high a bracket, an annuity could be set up to reduce that. Sure, if the heir were left the stately family abode, Old Oak Manor, worth $3 million, a cash tax on the home would probably force an unwelcome sale of it. On the other hand, one can’t be paid in houses or cars and avoid income tax on them simply because they’re not cash.)
Obviously, I’m not a tax lawyer.
trendisnotdestiny - December 11, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Gox,
Is there any reason that an inheritance couldn’t be taxed as income?
I believe inheritance IS taxed as income in that tax year that the death takes place assuming things go smoothly (no probate).
The issue is that some assets are shielded from tax using the unified tax credit provision listed above. All assets above the unified tax credit provision are taxed using a finite percentage that has moved from 55% to 35% over the last decade. Here we have to acknowledge that 95% of the American population’s financial situations are not relevant to this issue. Its the top 5% where all the action resides with these rules…..
BUT, Gox related to your question. The problem with using income tax rates is that it is progressive tax (people may be in a higher tax bracket 35% and since not every dollar is taxed at 35% may actually pay an effective tax rate that is much less). What this means is that all income received at 0-15K is not taxed, the next 15K-45K is tax at 15% etc. and income up to 100K are taxed at 25% (this is an example of what I mean not actual tax rates)….. Anywho, having one fixed percentage due in the tax year of death for filing returns is much easier to navigate with multiple issues that combines complexity, anguish and the dual loss of family and resources….
I am not a tax lawyer either (and things could have changed since I left)….
fruupp - December 11, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Forget it. Only someone to the right of Ghengis Khan–or Jesus H. Christ–is acceptable to Republiclowns and the wack-job Right.
pocvecem - December 11, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Let’s take this discussion back to the original topic. Bousquet’s premise is that this educational agenda “targets Obama at his Achilles’ heel, delivering the largest bipartisan constituency in the country: educators, students, and parents.”
I suggest that Bousquet look into the possibility of an independent Ventura run. Does anyone think Ventura could grab that “largest bipartisan constituency?” If not, I take it to mean that these voters care about more than the one issue. Why should a liberal Republican’s chances with Bousquet’s proposed electoral strategy be any different than Ventura’s? The answer to that last question probably says it all.
trendisnotdestiny - December 11, 2010 at 7:02 pm
While I do not share the likelihood of ‘Ventura possibility’, I did see Ron Paul reading a statement about the Julian Assange from a pro-transparency standpoint on the floor of the house. I do not know if his constituency is predisposed to an education agenda (probably not), but there is something about the reincarnation of Ross Perot in Paul’s voice that leads me to believe he is well positioned to benefit as Bernanke screws up the economy through Quantitative Easing I & II.
Paul would probably would align with the corporatists on this, but this might be one person who could exploit the divide (albeit someone who is much further to right than I am comfortable with)
fizmath - December 12, 2010 at 10:12 pm
There are plenty of non-elite private schools that are doing well without a 12 to 1 student-teacher ratio. This might fly in NYC but a Republican won’t be able to clinch the nomination in a national race with this issue. It would also help if the author would offer a little more detail on what he means by “liberal”.
trendisnotdestiny - December 14, 2010 at 2:26 pm
@ Marc,
any more thoughts on an education minded liberal republican?
drspektor - January 10, 2011 at 5:37 pm
livefreeordie2 wrote:
“As for the 12 in 12 stuff, it’s nonsense. Class sizes should go up, not down. How high? 30 – 35 sounds about right to me. The small class size thing is nothing more than a union tactic to increase the size of the union and decrease the workload for its members. I’m sure there are exceptions, however, as a general rule, teachers are no longer underpaid and they certainly aren’t overworked. Cut their pay or make ‘em work 52 weeks a year like everyone else (with appropriate vacation and sick time). Do away with tenure (while at the same time protecting them from capricious city/town politics)and you bet. . . focus on merit and make student success a big part of determining teacher success. Personally, I’m for doing away with ANY unions for public service employees, but especially teachers unions.”
Well, well…another education “expert” who thinks he knows about class size in public schools. Listen, bub, class sizes need to go DOWN, not up, and I will explain why, using my current classes as examples (yes, I am one of those equitably-compensated, evil, shiftless public school teachers you seem to know SOOOO much about, as evidenced by your absolutely genius comments which I quoted here): I teach six sections per day (148 students) of the same subject. In the classes with 22 ormore students, the class average has been consistently 66 – 68% all year. The classes of 20 or fewer students have averages of from 76% up to 86%. Same lesson plans each day, identical assignments and assessments, yet the disparity remains – I have observed this phenomenon for over 21 years now, and any teacher in any public school will provide similar information regarding class size and student achievement. So, you think 30 – 35 students per class is about right, do ya?? OK then, get your butt in the classroom and DO IT. SHow us how it should be done, since we are “just trying to get out of work”. And drop the union bashing rhetoric, pal. I am in a state where unions are NOT recognized – one of those “Right-to-Work states” the republicans adore. SHould be called “Right-to-have-your-butt-fired” state law.
I mean, really, when I hear non-teachers spout off about “just adding a few more students per class”, I want to scream. I have NEVE< EVER heard any public school teacher say such a thing, because we know better. I have found over the years that the optimum class size in secondary classes is 14 – 15 students per class period.
And making student success a measure of teacher success? OK, under the following conditions – I get to pick the students in all my classes and fire those who don't do their jobs, just like in the "real world" you appear to value so highly. If I am not given full control of the students while at school, then, by god, I am not going to be "measured" by that student's success or failure. And don't even start on the standarized exam BS as a way to "measure" teachers. Teaching is not measureable. Sorry. That's just the way it is. ANyone who says otherwise is simply incorrect. Regardless of what bill gates says on the topic.
Do away with tenure, you say?? Why, already done in my state! You should be very happy for me! I have NO protections of any kind! You must be swooning as you read about my life in the nirvana that is the SOuthern USA.
And by all means, let's keep school in session 52 weeks per year, because teaching 35 students per period (210 per day) is such a treat. Not vexing or tiring in any way! And all in a room that measures 20' X 22'!! Well, lfod2?? Wanta come play in that world? No?
I worked in the "real world" for 11 years before teaching, and the amount of time spent actually working in the "real world" was roughly 4.5 – 6 hours per 8 hour day. I could take a break when I needed to, chat with co-workers, check the e-mail, and had a full hour for lunch, rather than 28 minutes. Teaching secondary school requires one to be "on" for 8 straight hours, no breaks, no downtime between classes. All the jackwagons out there who give teachers crap, come on in and do it. SHow me what you can do. Come on!!
So yeah, I think I AM entitled to work 10 months out of the year, for a salary well below the median national income.
Oh, and by the way, teachers ARE NOT PAID for those so-called "summers off", which are actually spent in workshops and at development conferences which we mostly pay for out of our own pockets. Just FYI.
Anything else? Or do you finally understand a few things now?