I don't know how you pivot a deeply-entrenched cultural problem like this. Pass more laws, if you can get the legislature to act against what's typically their own self-interest, but of course the same bureaucrats who don't want to share the information have to enforce those laws.
And when it's always been done that way, nearly everyone still left in the system has the same negative reaction to transparency.
One method would be what Tonganoxie did in the article. Get pissed and keep making noise until the blowback is unmanageable, if that doesn't work vote them all out.
Hehe reminds me of the computer engineering adage: "The only thing that can't be solved by another layer of indirection is too many layers of indirection."
C-level people in those organizations are not protected by strong unions or government contracts. (Although they may come with golden parachutes.) They are also the people who can institute meaningful change.
Quite the dichotomy you've established. Cutting of services is automatically 'heartless'? As they are always useful, necessary, and better than alternatives... while cleaning house to replace them with another set of politicians with the same prerogative is the 'good' solution?
Context matters. Neither are automatically better solutions, nor is chopping services necessarily 'heartless'.
It's not the bureaucracy. It's the politicos sitting on top of the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats would rather do their jobs and give honest reports about it to the legislature and the public.
Redistribute voting power nationally so that someone living in Wyoming doesn't have 5x the voting power as someone in California, then let the bad cultural ideas expire from natural causes and let their kids with less bad cultural ideas take up the mantel.
This is what "land of opportunity" means to many people, 50+ sovereign jurisdictions to shape the legal framework however you want with no outside pressure possible.
Everyone else is playing by a less effective set of rules.
The point is that many people who claim to want beautiful markets actually liked rigged ones in which they can practice the graft and corruption you refer to. Put another way, some people who say things you find agreeable are hypocrites who are trying to exploit your good will.
Is it corruption if those selling the approach actually understand what will really happen but see it as a great way to advance their own fortunes?
I'm never quite sure what kind of mixture of the gullible, the misunderstanding, true believers, the very earnest, grifters, con men and sociopaths I'm looking at. Oh, and those who are true believers in other areas and just don't care about the fiscal issues as long as their pet thing gets appropriate lip service. Oh, and end-timers who think Revelations is coming, the world's going to end for everyone except the ungodly, and I might as well get everything I can before I ascend.
Unfortunately I think there are way too many people out there with a philosophy of "the best thing about a few billion dollars of churn is that I can probably scrape a few million in profit off it."
Edit: oh, and would you like to buy some bone broth to make you feel like a caveman?
Has anyone demonstrated that charter schools actually have better processes? Last time I read up on this, it was a pretty hotly debated topic. If I recall correctly, the big anti-charter argument was that charter schools' improved outcomes were almost entirely explained by some combination of more school days, higher funding, and increased ability to kick out problematic students (e.g. no requirements to handle remedial or special education students, expedited expulsion processes because students are only being "expelled" back to the regular school, etc.).
If I remember right, it's also due to the fact that the type of parent that will spend the money and time to enroll their child in a charter school is much more likely to be the type of parent that takes an active role in their children's education.
There's an argument that a charter school's real advantage is that it attracts a higher proportion of parents who want to push their kids for achievement and have the resources to do it as well.
It's a huge concern for me. The recent election this month brought gains for Democrats with enough to form a coalition with moderate Republicans in the house. Things finally got bad enough to change minds. Hoping for significant changes in the 2018 election.
I'm always confused as to how the Koch-funded candidates did so well on almost comically evil platforms. It seems the referendum on "Obama" policies in 2010 did nothing but damage the states they were elected in and did little to solve any real problems. People thought they were sticking it to the feds but really just shot themselves in the foot. Massive cuts in every department, even things like transportation which shouldn't be a hyper partisan issue. I get that abortion clinics or healthcare is a hot button issue, but building roads? Who looked at that platform and said, you know, I wish we'd stop spending so much money on maintaining our crumbling roads?
Populist anger did little to improve anyone's lives and you also saw this in the 2016 election. For as angry as everyone was at the status quo, what do we have now? Even worse status quo, vis a vis the new tax plan which is just a oligarchic power grab and a president who literally cannot govern to save his life.
People vote on party lines a super high rate in most areas on the US, it's close to 90% except in unusual cases. Contemporarily it's the reason GOP voters have a tough time choosing between a sexual predator and a Democrat in the Alabama special Senate election, one side thinks the other side is so evil they feel this is a difficult choice.
Also gerrymandering for districts make it so once it's guaranteed to be a party seat, the primaries can skew towards the extreme of that party.
Allegations of sexual misconduct and an actual conviction are two very different things, though modern society tends to treat them as equivalent. I don't know what actually happened, but it's dangerous to ever let go of that legal right.
> Allegations of sexual misconduct and an actual conviction are two very different things, though modern society tends to treat them as equivalent.
A court determination isn't possible in the Moore case. In Alabama, the statute of limitations for a civil claim of sexual abuse of a minor is just years past the victim's 19th birthday. Roy Moore could still in theory still be prosecuted criminally because one of the victims was under 16 and the statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a minor is unlimited, but really there is no chance of that.
But just because allegations don't rise to the level of imprisoning someone doesn't mean that's the end of it. Reputations typically are mediated by non-legal means. If someone writes a blog post: "don't invest with <X> he ripped me off," nobody demands to see the civil judgment for fraud.
Good (allegedly) for them. The whataboutism is getting super annoying. Neither Clinton is running for public office and the last one who did so wound up losing. If you want to have "Clinton is unworthy of receiving my vote / being elected to this office" as a debate, go for it once it matters.
The topic of debate is whether the Republican candidate for the United States Senate from Alabama, Roy Moore, meets the public's reasons for being elected. That he is alleged--by multiple people, all of whom have very low incentive to lie have credible-sounding stores--to have committed sexual assault on several minors is a factor in that decision, whether or not he is actually convicted because there's a difference between legally convicted and what the world thinks of you (otherwise people wouldn't care about if you "were ever arrested" on job applications).
I think OP’s point may have been that Clinton was never convicted, but that doesn’t mean his reputation shouldn’t suffer as a result of the credible allegations.
Of course it does -- because the Senate didn't convict. So the impeachment was about as meaningful as getting arrested then getting the case dismissed.
If he were literally arrested and the case being eventually dismissed would actually be pretty similar. He might prefer a definition of "getting away with it" as hardly anyone knowing or believing it and maybe not involving getting impeached over it and that becoming probably the most memorable thing about his presidency. He partly got away with it but he partly very definitely did not get away with it.
So are you saying that no matter how much evidence there is showing that someone is guilty, you should NEVER use that information to help guide your vote decision unless that person has been convicted by a court of law?
That is just silly, and you can easily see why with just a little bit of thought. Almost everything you use in determining who to vote for in an election has not been adjudicated in a court of law, but you still use it to form your opinion of who should be elected.
There is a difference between the courts not sentencing you for a crime until you are convicted and a voter using accusations against a candidate to inform their vote.
edit: Why downvotes? An alleged sexual predator and a sexual predator are two different things. Anyone can become an alleged sexual predator with an allegation, whereas sexual predators are sexual predators through their own actions, regardless of allegations.
At this point no one really knows if Roy Moore is a sexual predator or not besides for Roy Moore and his accuser, who is only attempting to try Moore in the court of public opinion and not in a court of law, despite retaining council of a very well known lawyer.
You're not helping your argument by pretending there's only one person accusing him of such behavior, when in fact there are many and doing so from a variety of perspectives.
You would still be entitled to be skeptical of such allegations, of course, but their multiplicity is an empirical fact that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
Dating 18/19 year olds in your 20s/30s does not make you a sexual predator. As far as I understand it there was only one person who is accusing Moore of actual crimes, who alleges he dated and kissed her when she was 14. Are there other allegations I missed?
It's very interesting that Moore has been quite an active and public elected official in the past, but every current accuser independently decided to not say anything until this election cycle. What gives?
You wondered why accusations would come out now, The Onion headline very accurately articulates a reason for that:
"Roy Moore On Pedophilia Accusers: ‘These Women Are Only Discrediting Me Now Because Shifting Sociocultural Norms Have Created An Environment In Which Assault Allegations Are Taken Seriously’"
Sure, that is one explanation. Another explanation is that these people are trying to blow up any persons career who has an (R) next to their name, or they want 15 minutes of fame. How do you determine what is the truth and what isn't in a he-said-she-said story from 30 years ago?
The same way I would in any other difficult circumstance, by weighing the evidence and making the best guess I can. This seems to be affecting people across the political spectrum, across industries, and across local culture. What seems to be consistent is that more of the harassment comes from men, and that people in powerful positions often exploit their privileged position to get easy sex.
Maybe you've never had to deal with this in your own life or in the life of someone who was close to you. Congratulations, you've been lucky.
I could similarly say: Maybe you've never had to deal with a false rape accusation in your own life or in the life of someone who was close to you. Congratulations, you've been lucky.
> Maybe you've never had to deal with a false rape accusation in your own life or in the life of someone who was close to you.
False rape accusations are a little more rare than men abusing their position of power over women. The later is endemic. Avoiding a false rape accusation isn't luck. But ask your wife, your mother, your daughter, your sister. I bet they all have stories of unwanted sexual attention from men. This kind of stuff happens daily for them. For women, it's like a constant background drone of men leering at them. Sometimes it's whistling. Sometimes it's stalking. Sometime's it's groping, and yes, sometimes it's rape. But it's a minefield, and it really is luck if they are never confronted with such indecency.
Further, if you've been paying attention, you'll notice the people being accused are serial offenders. In one case, more than a dozen women came forward. Unless you're willing to claim that women are engaged in a widespread conspiracy to take down men in positions of power, it's pretty hard to dismiss any of this as "false" accusations.
> False rape accusations are a little more rare than men abusing their position of power over women. The later is endemic
Okay, but that doesn't tell you anything about the truthiness of this specific event. Black people commit way more murders per capita than asian people in America - would you use that factoid as a hunch that between two suspects in a murder(one asian, one black), that the black one is more likely guilty?
> Unless you're willing to claim that women are engaged in a widespread conspiracy to take down men in positions of power, it's pretty hard to dismiss any of this as "false" accusations.
Is that the only possibility you see? It's either a massive conspiracy among women in general, or the accusations are true?
> Okay, but that doesn't tell you anything about the truthiness of this specific event.
That wasn't really a comment about the truthiness of this specific event, but about your comment about being lucky for avoiding a false rape accusation. That's like saying you're lucky that you didn't get struck by lightning. Well, okay I guess, but it's not a frequent occurrence to begin with.
> Black people commit way more murders per capita than asian people in America
In Moore's case, I'm not coming to any conclusion by looking at frequency of occurrence alone, as I wouldn't in a murder case. However, I probably wouldn't elect either man accused of murder to the Senate. Regardless, I think you're still not appreciating how widespread an issue this is for women. It happens on the sidewalk walking down the street, on the bus, at work, at a restaurant, on the train, at church, at school, at the hospital. Men are sleazes, and I'm pretty sure the sleaze frequency in men is much higher than the murder frequency in blacks. Much higher. Like, 60-80% high. And the worst part is, there is zero awareness of this by sleazy men.
> Unless you're willing to claim that women are engaged in a widespread conspiracy to take down men in positions of power, it's pretty hard to dismiss any of this as "false" accusations.
Is that the only possibility you see? It's either a massive conspiracy among women in general, or the accusations are true?
Yeah, pretty much. Although, I'm willing to hear a scenario that could account for all of the accusations, the corroborating facts, the mall ban, and Roy Moore not being able to definitively say he didn't pursue teenage girls.
1) Some of the accusers are Republicans and voted for Trump. They probably are ideologically aligned with Moore in many ways.
2) It's not a he-said-she-said story. It's 9 accusers, whose stories were corroborated by others (who were told 30 years ago). One accuser can describe the inside of Moore's house in detail. Another has a yearbook signed from him referencing the restaurant he claims to have never visited. Still others from the community note that he was banned from the mall for being creepy with teenagers. And finally, Moore himself cannot offer a full throated denial that he has pursued teenagers in the past. Just not these particular women.
3) Claiming these women want "15 minutes of fame" is naive. No one is getting "famous" off of this. The victims are opening old wounds and getting new ones in the form of death threats and attacks on their character. It's not fun for anyone coming forward.
It does seem odd that the allegations never came up either time he ran for and won a spot on the state's supreme court. He was a controversial figure both of those elections so it's not because of flying under the radar. Glad I don't live in Alabama.
It's not so much of a stretch. This is by far the highest-profile race Moore has ever been involved with. The allegations were sniffed out by a national paper that was there to cover it. Moreover, we're in the midst of a moment when women who've been harassed or abused by public figures are more willing to come forward.
But more to your point, Roy Moore has not been arrested. He has not been, and probably will not be, charged with any criminal or civil infraction. He has, however, accepted his party's nomination for a seat in the United States Senate and is currently actively campaigning for same.
It is worth remembering that allegations are not, in and of themselves, proof of wrongdoing. It's also worth remembering that a political campaign is not a trial, that the press does not have the same investigatory powers as the judicial system, and that the "punishment" being threatened is not being able to be a United States Senator after all. It's actually okay for "the court of public opinion" to have a different burden of proof and standard of evidence than an actual court.
"[I]t is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" is a wise and good maxim. "It is better 100 guilty Persons be elevated to high office than one innocent Person should resign from a campaign they had no guarantee of winning in the first place" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
At this late stage, if Moore dropped out(which he won't), he would be handing the election to the other party. It isn't like the republicans can just find an allegation-free drop-in replacement for Moore and get him elected.
My problem with making any kind of decision based on these allegations is that it is impossible to differentiate them from fabrications designed to blow up a campaign, all down to the detail of having Gloria Allred as legal council(a person heavily involved in the DNC - from Gloria's DNC leaks: "We will come together and discuss the upcoming race, and why we as Democrats must do everything we can to ensure a Democrat remains in the White House for the next four years." - any reason to believe she has given up on her mission to ensure democrats succeed over republicans after the 2016 elections?)
Yes, at least one dyed-in-the-wool Democratic operative is now attached to this scandal. And yes, at this late date the only realistic alternative is that the seat goes to a member of the other party. I would hate to be a Republican partisan in Alabama right now, and if I were I'm genuinely not sure how I would choose to vote. That's different, though, than refusing to consider the allegations because they're politically inconvenient. It's possible Roy Moore is a creep. It's also possible half a dozen unrelated people are lying. There's no reason to think those must be equally possible, and there's certainly no reason not to think that one can't make an educated guess as to which is true.
To shift political gears somewhat, our legislature is currently engaged in a debate about tax reform. One party claims the currently proposed plan will cut taxes on the middle class. The other party claims that the plan will raise taxes on the middle class. That's a question of fact, and both positions can't simultaneously be correct. The thought process you engaged in above can be applied equally well to that situation regardless of which party one favors, but it's guaranteed to make at least one party's fans wrong.
When we, as a polity, begin to completely disregard information because it comes from a partisan source or has strong partisan implications then I worry that we lose the idea of a shared reality. We can't convince those who disagree with us, nor allow ourselves to be convinced, if we refuse on general principle to listen to and engage with people who disagree with us.
I'm not refusing to consider the allegations, because there is frankly nothing for me to consider besides for the not-under-oath account of someone, and perhaps a yearbook signed by a 'Ray' or 'Roy'.
> We can't convince those who disagree with us, nor allow ourselves to be convinced, if we refuse on general principle to listen to and engage with people who disagree with us.
But in this case, you have to decide who to take the word of. There is no way to logically analyze the claims and come up at the correct answer.
> But in this case, you have to decide who to take the word of.
That is true. And by refusing to give the allegations credence you have implicitly decided whose word to take.
> There is no way to logically analyze the claims and come up at the correct answer.
Sure there is. You can evaluate the plausibility of each claim. You can verify that the claims are internally consistent. You can ask what motivations each party would have to lie, or what motivations each party would have to tell the truth here and now. None of those will get you to ironclad, unquestionable certainty, but it sounds like you're at ironclad, unquestionable certainty now and I'm not sure logical analysis had much to do with you forming that opinion.
It's fine, really, if you've looked at the evidence and found it unconvincing. It's fine, too, if you've decided it is convincing but that your partisan interests are strong enough that you're willing to overlook them. But it sounds like you're just refusing to engage with them because they're confusing. That's not wisdom. It's anti-intellectual tribalism at it's most raw, and I for one expect better of the commenters at HN.
> My problem with making any kind of decision based on these allegations is that it is impossible to differentiate them from fabrications designed to blow up a campaign
In order to believe this is a conspiracy against Moore, you must also believe that a bunch of teenagers 30 years ago made up stories about Moore, which they told their friends and loved ones at the time, and then waited to use those allegations across all of his political career only to come out now and derail him. Either that, or the conspiracy is so vast as to include 9 accusers, 30 corroborating witnesses, former mall employees, and an ex cop. Many of the accusers are also Republicans and voted for Trump, so you must also believe they are secret Democrats, or at least were somehow bribed by the Democrats to switch sides.
You have a public figure, law enforcement official and chief judge with a pretty well demonstrated (even celebrated) contempt for following the law, whose behavior towards young girls while a law enforcement official is fairly well documented.
The idea that an ADA in his 30s is cruising the shopping malls looking for teen (even if legal) companions is disturbing on many levels. Is that really the caliber of man that belongs in the US Senate?
Tag line I keep seeing is "Pedophile vs Abortionist", or the less quaint "Pedophile vs baby killer". You can argue over which is true or not about the Democrat (I don't live in that state and know nothing of the candidate...I'm reporting on my Facebook feed and and a few subreddits I subscribe), but I'm seeing acceptance over the Pedophile part, and abortion is a hot button topic among the religiously conservative.
However, women voted Bill Clinton and feminists aggressively supported him despite his sexual assault of multiple women. So there are ideological nutcases on all sides.
I don't think that's fair except in hindsight. The entire national conversation and attitude towards sexual harassment and sexual assault was pretty different 2 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. And to their credit, a number of liberal writers and thinkers have recently admitted that they got it wrong and should have called for Clinton's impeachment / resignation in light of the accusations back then.
Of course they don't want an abortionist. Then they won't have enough kids for all the pedophiles. /s As an outsider, it's impossible to have any respect for anyone who even considers voting for sexual predators (especially those of children) or any culture in which that is at all acceptable.
It's probably going to cost me a ton of totally fake, made up Internet points to say this, but consider this from the perspective of (some) religious conservatives:
1. Candidate R thinks assaulting pubescent girls is OK.
2. Candidate D thinks murdering innocent babies is OK.
From this (I'll admit quite warped) perspective, candidate R is the lesser of two evils. This calculus---which we all engage in---doesn't mean religious conservatives think hebephilia or statutory rape is OK. They're as disgusted by it as you are, but they hate abortion more.
No. He's saying that voting D in the election is saying that "murder is terrible, but it's not a deal breaker for you." I'd probably vote R as well in the election if that were my perspective.
By that logic, menstruation could be considered murder too. How stupid! My original comment stands; people's stupidity is in no way a defense of their disgusting actions and culture, and shedding light on that stupidity in no way lessens the horror of their actions.
You missed my point: People with the values system I described are acting rationally within the confines of that values system. In that system, zygotes are as human as you and I, and harming zygotes (et seq.) is infinitely worse than harming 14-year-olds. The moral calculus is that simple. I don't agree with it either, but I'm not going around insulting people's sincerely and deeply held moral beliefs. As a rhetorical strategy, that sucks. It won't convince anyone.
I grew up in this kind of environment, and I completely agree that this is how religious conservatives talk about this issue and what they'd say to defend their choice, but it's mostly bullshit.
If Candidate D was pro-life, they still wouldn't vote for them. They'd either call them a liar and say they secretly DO believe in abortion, or they'd attack them for their stance on guns, or immigration, or prayer in schools, or whatever. And they'd continue to cast doubt on the accusations, so that it becomes a question of "candidate A was accused of X, but it's probably a bullshit conspiracy by liberals" vs. "candidate B definitely thinks Y!"
Like almost ALL voters, these folks don't really think for themselves that much. They're products of their tribe, the influencers in the media they watch and listen to, their preacher, their friends, etc. The argument you've laid out is the one they'd use because it's available and the strongest from their perspective, but they'd just swap it out for another slightly weaker one if needed.
The best example of this is the fact that "evangelical voters" in the Republican primary election chose a venal divorce enthusiast who hadn't been to church in decades over a devout Southern Baptist whose father is a born-again evangelical minister. Hey, that guy looks like us and he was on TV! These people have no ethics; let's ignore them from now on.
The most warped part of that "perspective" is the idea that one must vote R or D. I only vote for candidates whose election could possibly be a good thing. Typically that's neither blue nor red.
Posting like this will get your account banned. Would you please take a look at the guidelines, which as us to comment civilly and substantively, and then follow them?
> Who looked a that platform and said, you know, I wish we'd stop spending so much money on maintaining our crumbling roads?
Having watched 26th Street paved, torn up for one utility, re-paved, torn up for another utility, re-paved, torn up for a construction project that was scheduled months in advance and re-paved again, all in the span of two weeks, I empathize with this sentiment. In certain states and cities, public spending is so wasteful that returning the cash to private citizens can feel, if not be, better than continuing to throw it down a hole. The effect can persist if people rationalize away the pain as necessary medicine.
Totally, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Combating government waste is a solvable issue and requires civilian accountability, transparency etc. Elect more progressive candidates instead of Koch funded stooges. Instead of demanding more from our government we instead decide to just destroy it and elect destructive backwards candidates whose only real solution is regression to some developing world state.
The "starve the beast" mentality just doesn't work, and serves only to ensure the average person suffers.
I guess it doesn't help that the Right has been engaged in a war against education for decades now...
We choose to be Governed by a system that has a tendency to be inefficient at times. The solution is probably to try and fix it rather than abandon it altogether. It seems to have worked for the past 200+ years...
Our government isn't just inefficient at times. It's notably less efficient than other developed countries. E.g. even if you take military spending out of the equation, Canada provides more services to citizens while spending a couple of thousand dollars less per head than we do. Peoples' frustrations aren't unwarranted.
You can take defense spending out of both budgets and compare the two. You also can't ignore state and local budgets. Defense spending is only about 10% of total combined government expenditures.
You can take defense spending out but you can't take out the distribution of Canada's population. According to [1] and [2], the top 30 municipalities of Canada make up 16 million people (across ~20,000 sq km) out of Canada's total population of 36 million while the top 30 cities in the US have a population of only about 40 million (out of 310+ million in the country) on roughly ~22,000 sq km. The scale and density of the United States is completely different to Canada, where a much larger percent of the population is within the same area as ~14% of the US population as measured by the biggest cities (the smallest autonomous entity that is still practical to analyze wrt spending relative to Canadian municipalities). We're talking 2-5x cost increases on infrastructure, services, and logistics for at least half the population compared to urban areas
The right wing of the US has been conditioned for 3+ decades now to hate secular liberal ideals in general and the Obamas / Clintons in particular. Neither Bill or Hillary Clinton have held an elected office in years, but you'd never know it by viewing any of the big conservative outlets. Those outlets created boogeymen who are easy to get a negative response from, and their politically aligned allies just run against those boogeymen and win, because voting against Evil(tm) makes being screwed feel a little better.
And the end result isn't even the advertised low-tax state, at least for normal citizens. Topeka's sales tax rate (including the city portion) is over 9%, which is right up there with me in Seattle (about 10%). Plus an income tax (Washington has none). Plus property taxes that are higher than mine. Plus personal property tax on vehicles, so car registration in Kansas costs basically the same as in the transportation benefit district I live in.
Corrupt as hell, and actively lying about the reason the state has no money.
> And the end result isn't even the advertised low-tax state, at least for normal citizens.
That's the point. It's playing out again on the national stage. When they say "tax cuts" they don't mean tax cuts for you, silly. Tax cuts are for people who meet the minimum threshold for being able to take advantage of pass-through rates. Not for the mother of 5 working two jobs just to get her kids through a school that's only open 4 days a week.
A mother of 5 because her state has restrictive, non-factual or non-existent sex education, and won't support free access to birth control.
Working two jobs to get her kids through school because of a lack of childcare social services and a high burden of education cost on teachers and families.
Schools only open 4 days a week because of Republican refusal to invest in education, which has been demonstrated to be the best long-term investment a country can make.
I personally have abandoned all faith in anybody with an (R) next to their name, and anybody that bubbles in an (R) on a ballot.
I live in a (D) State. My tax rate is comparable to what it would be in the UK or Germany. We’re among the highest spenders nationwide in education (and by extension the world). But the roads are still terrible, the trains don’t run on time, the schools are just okay, and our largest city has a murder rate about 20x that of big Western European cities. There’s few public services—no child care, no health care, no labor protections, etc.
You could replicate what I wrote for pretty much all the big (D) states: New York, California, New Jersey, etc. California has the highest tax burden in the country but its average NEAP math scores are lower than in 36 other states.
The thing is, Medicaid would be cheaper if instead of verifying income eligibility and having a long application process, we just enrolled everyone. It sucks enough to make sure middle class people will still get their own insurance, just because so many doctors won't take it, so letting anyone use Medicaid would lower the cost of administering the program.
I live in MA. We are ranked 25th nationwide for tax burden.
Yes, you read that right.
Schools are good. The trains are showing their age, but we got new rolling stock in production and coming on line. The roads are okay, but the big deal with our roads is that we save shit tons of money by keeping them narrow.
High taxes on the rural poor won't net as much revenue as low taxes on wealthy, dense populations. Even with very high taxes it would be hard for Kansas to match MA infrastructure.
Most Democrats in the US aren't remotely close to social-democrats in Canada or Europe. Politicians such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are considered centrists in Canada.
What does "Democrats" in this sentence mean? Democrats have had much less say in DC over the last 30 years than Republicans. If you're talking about the state level which state? When comparing a state to a country how do you account for military?
Democrats in Democratic states like California and New York. You can account for military simply by removing military expenditures from both sides of the equation (us and Canada).
I did the calculation using quick Google search numbers. for California's state budget $183 billion/ 39.5 million people = $4,600 per capita
Canada ($330 billion - $14 billion in defense) / 35 million people = $9,028 per capita
So Canada spends more. But a lot of US government health care spending is at the federal level. And the differences how, for example, education is funded with a complicated mix of state and federal dollars makes it just too hard to make an apple to apple comparison.
You have to include both state and local spending for California: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spendi.... $580 billion / 39.5 million people = $14,680. Also got to add California's share of federal spending. The U.S. Federal Government spends $3.8 trillion - $600 billion defense = $3.2 trillion / 324 million = $9,900 per person.
I'm glad you did the math to demonstrate this - now that we have this information, what was the purpose of your original comparative statement between democrats in the States and Social Democrats in Canada?
I complained that my (D) state has crappy government services. Someone said that is because our Democrats are like centrists elsewhere. But Democratic states are certainly left enough to spend more money than Canada. That doesn’t explain why they get so little in return.
I'm not sure what money has to do with this? They can spend as much as they want, but it doesn't mean it's going to the right places. Universal healthcare, for example, is much most efficient and cost-effective.
Mother of 5 because the lack of sex education? You'd think after the first 3 she might make a connection.
Regarding school days -- you don't know what you're talking about.
The required number of schools days has decreased, but the required number of instructional hours has remained the same.
So education isn't "suffering" under Republicans in Kansas. In fact, making the day longer and going fewer days is far more cost effective because you don't have to run the buses as much, you save on food preparation costs, etc. And you get the same number of school hours as you would on a longer schedule. That's just smart management.
By way of comparison, France has 4-day-a-week school and kids go to school only 144 days per year, which is about 40 fewer than the OECD average. Are the Republicans conspiring to ruin France as well?
Blaming a short week on Republicans is just silly. Kansas public schools rank around 15th nationwide -- ahead of liberal bastions such as Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon, California and others. [1] It seems like other states might ought to see what Kansas is doing right. What's California's excuse?[2] There aren't many Republicans in California -- they're an endangered species. If "Republicans are bad for education" then it would follow that in a state with few Republicans, education ought to be better right? But the data just doesn't support that conclusion. It doesn't support the opposite conclusion either. There really isn't a correlation between dominant political party and education quality.
Case in point: NJ and Mass. are very blue states with great public education while Rhode Island is also a very blue state but with middle of the pack education. Iowa is a deep red state and it's ranked number 9 in the country. Wisconsin is a red state that voted for Trump as well as many years of a being under a Republican Governor -- and their education system is ranked 4th. There's no correlation -- and to make such a claim is irresponsible because the data doesn't support it.
As far as abandoning faith in Republicans -- since the growth of the sheer absurdity of this whole social justice warrior movement (seriously, they literally riot when they disagree with someone's viewpoints,) along with the near religious anti-capitalism class warfare rhetoric from Democrats -- I've abandoned all faith in anyone voting Democrat. There was a time when Republicans and Democrats could find common ground. That time has passed since pretty much every modern Democrat idea starts from the premise that white males are viruses that must be controlled or that people are all victims unable to go to the toilet without a government program to help them wipe their ass. [3]. When a political party makes a point of lecturing me on my "privilege" and how I'm personally responsible for all of society's ills -- then they've lost me forever. Might as well be blaming me for slavery. I don't even care if Democrats are right on some issues. I'm never voting for a party that accuses me of being:
1. ..a tax evader (I live in France and the Democrats are responsible for the hell caused by FATCA.)
2. .. a racist
3. .. a hater of women
4. .. greedy
5. .. a destroyer of the environment
I am none of those things and I'm a libertarian who tends to vote Republican. Correction -- I am a bit greedy -- I think I should be entitled to keep more of the money I earn and pass it on to my children rather than giving it to people who didn't earn it nor have any right to it. So ok, I'll admit to being greedy.
> The required number of schools days has decreased, but the required number of instructional hours has remained the same.
That doesn't really help someone who is expected to work 5 days a week.
> Blaming a short week on Republicans is just silly.
Why? Gov. Brownback, a Republican, instituted the tax cuts which created the budget shortfall that prevented the state government from properly funding schools.
"Kansas enacted sweeping cuts to income taxes in 2012 and 2013 championed by Gov. Sam Brownback that have reduced the amount of available resources to comply with a court order. Lawmakers could be forced to reconsider the tax measures, which Kansas and other Republican-run states have pushed as a means to stimulate their economies." [1]
They didn't reconsider those tax measures, and instead doubled down on them, making things worse.
"Wichita, which serves more than 51,000 students, is facing cost increases of about $23 million next year with no increase in state funding." [2]
And then 4-day schools became a thing. You're right that Kansas is highly ranked, but we'll see how long that lasts as teachers continue to flee the state [3]. California and other blue states have education problems, but let's be clear: Kansas' problems seem to directly stem from Republican governance in the state.
Also, you rip on California a bunch in your post, but let's remember, California has twice as many students (lower ed.) as the entire population of Kansas (6M vs 3M). California has its own problems, but I think those problems are very different than those faced in Kansas (maybe not in kind, but definitely in degree).
You're rather judging a lot of people by the views expressed by a few.
If we went about Republicans the same way, well, we had several party representatives in Alabama say that they would vote for a child molester ("even if true ..."), just so their party would have an extra vote in Senate.
> A mother of 5 because her state has restrictive, non-factual or non-existent sex education
Although I understand your overall point, you nearly lost me here. To assume someone wouldn’t choose to have five kids (or wouldn’t have done so if properly educated) is rather narrow-minded, in my opinion. Many wouldn’t, but (a) many people chose to have several kids and have no regrets, and (b) many people chose not to have several kids and do have regrets. Against common assumptions to the contrary in many sectors, kids and family really can be a joy.
A lack of transparent government somewhere like Kansas is a much smaller problem for the governed than lack of transparency in a state with a larger government bureaucracy.
edit: It's still a problem, I'm just pointing out that the per-capita harm of a state like NY or CA playing by the same transparency rules as KS would be much greater. This may be why the people of KS are more willing to put up with it, the net harm to them is low because the government's involvement in their lives is low.
For a citizen and their family that live somewhere, it's either 100% or 0%. It's of marginal benefit to say a 'problem is much smaller' than somewhere else; this is similar to telling those citizens and their families they can solve it by moving, which has its own issues.
I meant more along the lines of a terrible government that mostly stays out of your way is no worse than a mediocre one that involves itself in your daily life.
On the topic of the 'suicide curve' freeway. I watched the video of those wrecks. It's all people driving too fast for that curve. Instead of seeking funds to completely rebuild the freeway, maybe they could liberally implement rumble strips and serious looking signage/flashing lights. These are cheap fixes.
or a couple of traffic control officers, who could help generate revenue for the state police, while at the same time, encouraging everyone to slow down....
I was surprised to find that the Kansas City Star's recent article on the 'Suicide Curve' [1] (also linked from the topic's article) fails to mention the fact that in Kansas City, Kansas, there is a perfectly good alternative route to the 'Suicide Curve' 1 mile away, built in 1990: Interstate 670 [2].
In fact, both eastbound (in Kansas) [3] and westbound (in Missouri) [4], the leftmost three lanes channel drivers to I-670. In this area, I-670 is a straight-line through route, while I-70 is a meandering mess [5][6].
The cheap fix would be to drop some Jersey barriers and shut off the exit altogether. Looking at the highway configuration in the area (particularly the fact that I-670 is just a few blocks to the south and has equal access to the area), the traffic implications of closing off the exit wouldn't be too bad. Particularly since people driving too fast is a sign that the utilization is low enough that people can drive too fast.
There's The Kansas Open Records Act they could use.
Not once, not twice, not ten times. Bury them in them. Use the ones they fulfill as data to inform the public, the ones they don't, well make them sink time and funding into defending why they won't.
It's only secret because the media and public is apathetic. Hammer down the doors and sooner or later they'll have to seriously consider whether not being open with the public is worth it.
Not true. They sent KORA requests for that exact states reason. They say the staffing isn't sufficient to handle the current volume of KORA requests and thus the request is dismissed. This is apparently legal.
Yeah, after looking at a couple of agencies pages discussing it, it's like you can ask, but 400 things are exempted, we're not going to compile for you (already has to be a record of note, not a new data point), and basically reserve the right to tell you to fuck off.
sad, really.
A proper FOI approach would give the constituents a reasonable chance to be informed, but I guess that's the whole idea.
Also, Kris Kobach is their Secretary of State. He campaigned on and won special powers to stamp out the rampant voting by dead people and illegal aliens. 20,000 dead people were voting. He personally knew of hundreds of cases of illegal aliens voting. After two years he found nine verified cases, with no clear pattern to them (some were confused old people, some R's some D's).
Unrepentant, he is Trump's boy in pushing for voting "reforms" nationally. Although he supported Trump's claim that 3,000,000 illegal aliens voted for Hillary Clinton, he hasn't explained why none have been found.
158 comments
[ 257 ms ] story [ 4597 ms ] threadAnd when it's always been done that way, nearly everyone still left in the system has the same negative reaction to transparency.
Having professional data oversight and built in transparency would build institutional protections against Governors of Mr. Brownback’s ilk.
In this case, though, the bureaucracy exists to protect the politicians.
Well, that has worked great so far.
Many countries (That are not the United States) have this largely figured out.
Quite the dichotomy you've established. Cutting of services is automatically 'heartless'? As they are always useful, necessary, and better than alternatives... while cleaning house to replace them with another set of politicians with the same prerogative is the 'good' solution?
Context matters. Neither are automatically better solutions, nor is chopping services necessarily 'heartless'.
Nobody working in CPS wants to be in a place where child abuse is covered up and ignored. That’s a leadership problem.
Everyone else is playing by a less effective set of rules.
Asking what voters care about is a red herring. Voters care about things that the press talks about, and the press is owned by the two parties.
There are a lot of issues. I’m not sure how high this is. I’m not sure many people even know about it.
The budget is a result of the Republican idea that extreme tax cuts bring revenue gains.
Neither of those is actual corruption. Corruption may have made things worse (I don’t know), but it’s not actually corruption. Just bad policy.
I think Louisiana is having similar issues for the exact same tax-cut reason.
NPR’s Planet Money covered the Kansas plan in January: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/01/11/509378842/epis...
I'm never quite sure what kind of mixture of the gullible, the misunderstanding, true believers, the very earnest, grifters, con men and sociopaths I'm looking at. Oh, and those who are true believers in other areas and just don't care about the fiscal issues as long as their pet thing gets appropriate lip service. Oh, and end-timers who think Revelations is coming, the world's going to end for everyone except the ungodly, and I might as well get everything I can before I ascend.
Unfortunately I think there are way too many people out there with a philosophy of "the best thing about a few billion dollars of churn is that I can probably scrape a few million in profit off it."
Edit: oh, and would you like to buy some bone broth to make you feel like a caveman?
Most charter schools are real estate developments that happen to house school kids.
There's an argument that a charter school's real advantage is that it attracts a higher proportion of parents who want to push their kids for achievement and have the resources to do it as well.
One could claim corruption if this wasn’t the exact governing philosophy that was explicitly voted for.
Populist anger did little to improve anyone's lives and you also saw this in the 2016 election. For as angry as everyone was at the status quo, what do we have now? Even worse status quo, vis a vis the new tax plan which is just a oligarchic power grab and a president who literally cannot govern to save his life.
Also gerrymandering for districts make it so once it's guaranteed to be a party seat, the primaries can skew towards the extreme of that party.
A court determination isn't possible in the Moore case. In Alabama, the statute of limitations for a civil claim of sexual abuse of a minor is just years past the victim's 19th birthday. Roy Moore could still in theory still be prosecuted criminally because one of the victims was under 16 and the statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a minor is unlimited, but really there is no chance of that.
But just because allegations don't rise to the level of imprisoning someone doesn't mean that's the end of it. Reputations typically are mediated by non-legal means. If someone writes a blog post: "don't invest with <X> he ripped me off," nobody demands to see the civil judgment for fraud.
The topic of debate is whether the Republican candidate for the United States Senate from Alabama, Roy Moore, meets the public's reasons for being elected. That he is alleged--by multiple people, all of whom have very low incentive to lie have credible-sounding stores--to have committed sexual assault on several minors is a factor in that decision, whether or not he is actually convicted because there's a difference between legally convicted and what the world thinks of you (otherwise people wouldn't care about if you "were ever arrested" on job applications).
On The Media has a nice piece on exactly this topic over the weekend.
That is just silly, and you can easily see why with just a little bit of thought. Almost everything you use in determining who to vote for in an election has not been adjudicated in a court of law, but you still use it to form your opinion of who should be elected.
There is a difference between the courts not sentencing you for a crime until you are convicted and a voter using accusations against a candidate to inform their vote.
edit: Why downvotes? An alleged sexual predator and a sexual predator are two different things. Anyone can become an alleged sexual predator with an allegation, whereas sexual predators are sexual predators through their own actions, regardless of allegations.
At this point no one really knows if Roy Moore is a sexual predator or not besides for Roy Moore and his accuser, who is only attempting to try Moore in the court of public opinion and not in a court of law, despite retaining council of a very well known lawyer.
You would still be entitled to be skeptical of such allegations, of course, but their multiplicity is an empirical fact that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
It's very interesting that Moore has been quite an active and public elected official in the past, but every current accuser independently decided to not say anything until this election cycle. What gives?
"Roy Moore On Pedophilia Accusers: ‘These Women Are Only Discrediting Me Now Because Shifting Sociocultural Norms Have Created An Environment In Which Assault Allegations Are Taken Seriously’"
Maybe you've never had to deal with this in your own life or in the life of someone who was close to you. Congratulations, you've been lucky.
False rape accusations are a little more rare than men abusing their position of power over women. The later is endemic. Avoiding a false rape accusation isn't luck. But ask your wife, your mother, your daughter, your sister. I bet they all have stories of unwanted sexual attention from men. This kind of stuff happens daily for them. For women, it's like a constant background drone of men leering at them. Sometimes it's whistling. Sometimes it's stalking. Sometime's it's groping, and yes, sometimes it's rape. But it's a minefield, and it really is luck if they are never confronted with such indecency.
Further, if you've been paying attention, you'll notice the people being accused are serial offenders. In one case, more than a dozen women came forward. Unless you're willing to claim that women are engaged in a widespread conspiracy to take down men in positions of power, it's pretty hard to dismiss any of this as "false" accusations.
Okay, but that doesn't tell you anything about the truthiness of this specific event. Black people commit way more murders per capita than asian people in America - would you use that factoid as a hunch that between two suspects in a murder(one asian, one black), that the black one is more likely guilty?
> Unless you're willing to claim that women are engaged in a widespread conspiracy to take down men in positions of power, it's pretty hard to dismiss any of this as "false" accusations.
Is that the only possibility you see? It's either a massive conspiracy among women in general, or the accusations are true?
That wasn't really a comment about the truthiness of this specific event, but about your comment about being lucky for avoiding a false rape accusation. That's like saying you're lucky that you didn't get struck by lightning. Well, okay I guess, but it's not a frequent occurrence to begin with.
> Black people commit way more murders per capita than asian people in America
In Moore's case, I'm not coming to any conclusion by looking at frequency of occurrence alone, as I wouldn't in a murder case. However, I probably wouldn't elect either man accused of murder to the Senate. Regardless, I think you're still not appreciating how widespread an issue this is for women. It happens on the sidewalk walking down the street, on the bus, at work, at a restaurant, on the train, at church, at school, at the hospital. Men are sleazes, and I'm pretty sure the sleaze frequency in men is much higher than the murder frequency in blacks. Much higher. Like, 60-80% high. And the worst part is, there is zero awareness of this by sleazy men.
> Unless you're willing to claim that women are engaged in a widespread conspiracy to take down men in positions of power, it's pretty hard to dismiss any of this as "false" accusations. Is that the only possibility you see? It's either a massive conspiracy among women in general, or the accusations are true?
Yeah, pretty much. Although, I'm willing to hear a scenario that could account for all of the accusations, the corroborating facts, the mall ban, and Roy Moore not being able to definitively say he didn't pursue teenage girls.
2) It's not a he-said-she-said story. It's 9 accusers, whose stories were corroborated by others (who were told 30 years ago). One accuser can describe the inside of Moore's house in detail. Another has a yearbook signed from him referencing the restaurant he claims to have never visited. Still others from the community note that he was banned from the mall for being creepy with teenagers. And finally, Moore himself cannot offer a full throated denial that he has pursued teenagers in the past. Just not these particular women.
3) Claiming these women want "15 minutes of fame" is naive. No one is getting "famous" off of this. The victims are opening old wounds and getting new ones in the form of death threats and attacks on their character. It's not fun for anyone coming forward.
> Moreover, we're in the midst of a moment when women who've been harassed or abused by public figures are more willing to come forward.
Right, so does that mean we are more likely to hear about true, buried stories, or hear about new fabricated stories? Or both?
But more to your point, Roy Moore has not been arrested. He has not been, and probably will not be, charged with any criminal or civil infraction. He has, however, accepted his party's nomination for a seat in the United States Senate and is currently actively campaigning for same.
It is worth remembering that allegations are not, in and of themselves, proof of wrongdoing. It's also worth remembering that a political campaign is not a trial, that the press does not have the same investigatory powers as the judicial system, and that the "punishment" being threatened is not being able to be a United States Senator after all. It's actually okay for "the court of public opinion" to have a different burden of proof and standard of evidence than an actual court.
"[I]t is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" is a wise and good maxim. "It is better 100 guilty Persons be elevated to high office than one innocent Person should resign from a campaign they had no guarantee of winning in the first place" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
My problem with making any kind of decision based on these allegations is that it is impossible to differentiate them from fabrications designed to blow up a campaign, all down to the detail of having Gloria Allred as legal council(a person heavily involved in the DNC - from Gloria's DNC leaks: "We will come together and discuss the upcoming race, and why we as Democrats must do everything we can to ensure a Democrat remains in the White House for the next four years." - any reason to believe she has given up on her mission to ensure democrats succeed over republicans after the 2016 elections?)
To shift political gears somewhat, our legislature is currently engaged in a debate about tax reform. One party claims the currently proposed plan will cut taxes on the middle class. The other party claims that the plan will raise taxes on the middle class. That's a question of fact, and both positions can't simultaneously be correct. The thought process you engaged in above can be applied equally well to that situation regardless of which party one favors, but it's guaranteed to make at least one party's fans wrong.
When we, as a polity, begin to completely disregard information because it comes from a partisan source or has strong partisan implications then I worry that we lose the idea of a shared reality. We can't convince those who disagree with us, nor allow ourselves to be convinced, if we refuse on general principle to listen to and engage with people who disagree with us.
> We can't convince those who disagree with us, nor allow ourselves to be convinced, if we refuse on general principle to listen to and engage with people who disagree with us.
But in this case, you have to decide who to take the word of. There is no way to logically analyze the claims and come up at the correct answer.
That is true. And by refusing to give the allegations credence you have implicitly decided whose word to take.
> There is no way to logically analyze the claims and come up at the correct answer.
Sure there is. You can evaluate the plausibility of each claim. You can verify that the claims are internally consistent. You can ask what motivations each party would have to lie, or what motivations each party would have to tell the truth here and now. None of those will get you to ironclad, unquestionable certainty, but it sounds like you're at ironclad, unquestionable certainty now and I'm not sure logical analysis had much to do with you forming that opinion.
It's fine, really, if you've looked at the evidence and found it unconvincing. It's fine, too, if you've decided it is convincing but that your partisan interests are strong enough that you're willing to overlook them. But it sounds like you're just refusing to engage with them because they're confusing. That's not wisdom. It's anti-intellectual tribalism at it's most raw, and I for one expect better of the commenters at HN.
In order to believe this is a conspiracy against Moore, you must also believe that a bunch of teenagers 30 years ago made up stories about Moore, which they told their friends and loved ones at the time, and then waited to use those allegations across all of his political career only to come out now and derail him. Either that, or the conspiracy is so vast as to include 9 accusers, 30 corroborating witnesses, former mall employees, and an ex cop. Many of the accusers are also Republicans and voted for Trump, so you must also believe they are secret Democrats, or at least were somehow bribed by the Democrats to switch sides.
It's either that, or Moore is guilty.
Here's something for you to read. Go ahead and give it a go, and then maybe you can figure out which is more likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
You have a public figure, law enforcement official and chief judge with a pretty well demonstrated (even celebrated) contempt for following the law, whose behavior towards young girls while a law enforcement official is fairly well documented.
The idea that an ADA in his 30s is cruising the shopping malls looking for teen (even if legal) companions is disturbing on many levels. Is that really the caliber of man that belongs in the US Senate?
In public service, perception matters.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/11/19/why-evange...
1. Candidate R thinks assaulting pubescent girls is OK.
2. Candidate D thinks murdering innocent babies is OK.
From this (I'll admit quite warped) perspective, candidate R is the lesser of two evils. This calculus---which we all engage in---doesn't mean religious conservatives think hebephilia or statutory rape is OK. They're as disgusted by it as you are, but they hate abortion more.
If Candidate D was pro-life, they still wouldn't vote for them. They'd either call them a liar and say they secretly DO believe in abortion, or they'd attack them for their stance on guns, or immigration, or prayer in schools, or whatever. And they'd continue to cast doubt on the accusations, so that it becomes a question of "candidate A was accused of X, but it's probably a bullshit conspiracy by liberals" vs. "candidate B definitely thinks Y!"
Like almost ALL voters, these folks don't really think for themselves that much. They're products of their tribe, the influencers in the media they watch and listen to, their preacher, their friends, etc. The argument you've laid out is the one they'd use because it's available and the strongest from their perspective, but they'd just swap it out for another slightly weaker one if needed.
It's about the tribe, not the truth.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Having watched 26th Street paved, torn up for one utility, re-paved, torn up for another utility, re-paved, torn up for a construction project that was scheduled months in advance and re-paved again, all in the span of two weeks, I empathize with this sentiment. In certain states and cities, public spending is so wasteful that returning the cash to private citizens can feel, if not be, better than continuing to throw it down a hole. The effect can persist if people rationalize away the pain as necessary medicine.
The "starve the beast" mentality just doesn't work, and serves only to ensure the average person suffers.
I guess it doesn't help that the Right has been engaged in a war against education for decades now...
If you want to change things you gonna have to look at defense and healthcare.
I can't remember the last time I've heard the phrase "the defense budget has been reduced this year...".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_munici...
The domain I know a lot about, election administration, the various US state, county, local governments are being fleeced by the vendors.
From what little I know about education, all the standardized tests, text books, charter schools, etc. are just excuses to divert funds to cronies.
Corrupt as hell, and actively lying about the reason the state has no money.
That's the point. It's playing out again on the national stage. When they say "tax cuts" they don't mean tax cuts for you, silly. Tax cuts are for people who meet the minimum threshold for being able to take advantage of pass-through rates. Not for the mother of 5 working two jobs just to get her kids through a school that's only open 4 days a week.
Working two jobs to get her kids through school because of a lack of childcare social services and a high burden of education cost on teachers and families.
Schools only open 4 days a week because of Republican refusal to invest in education, which has been demonstrated to be the best long-term investment a country can make.
I personally have abandoned all faith in anybody with an (R) next to their name, and anybody that bubbles in an (R) on a ballot.
If you add private spending in it's more than twice that of total Canadian healthcare spending.
Yes, you read that right.
Schools are good. The trains are showing their age, but we got new rolling stock in production and coming on line. The roads are okay, but the big deal with our roads is that we save shit tons of money by keeping them narrow.
Most Democrats in the US aren't remotely close to social-democrats in Canada or Europe. Politicians such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are considered centrists in Canada.
Canada ($330 billion - $14 billion in defense) / 35 million people = $9,028 per capita
So Canada spends more. But a lot of US government health care spending is at the federal level. And the differences how, for example, education is funded with a complicated mix of state and federal dollars makes it just too hard to make an apple to apple comparison.
For Canada you need to look at federal + provincial. Ontario spends a further $12,600 per person: http://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/Relative%20Fiscal....
Ontario federal + provincial = ~$21,600 per person.
California local + state + federal share = ~$24,500 per person.
citation needed
Regarding school days -- you don't know what you're talking about.
The required number of schools days has decreased, but the required number of instructional hours has remained the same.
So education isn't "suffering" under Republicans in Kansas. In fact, making the day longer and going fewer days is far more cost effective because you don't have to run the buses as much, you save on food preparation costs, etc. And you get the same number of school hours as you would on a longer schedule. That's just smart management.
By way of comparison, France has 4-day-a-week school and kids go to school only 144 days per year, which is about 40 fewer than the OECD average. Are the Republicans conspiring to ruin France as well?
Blaming a short week on Republicans is just silly. Kansas public schools rank around 15th nationwide -- ahead of liberal bastions such as Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon, California and others. [1] It seems like other states might ought to see what Kansas is doing right. What's California's excuse?[2] There aren't many Republicans in California -- they're an endangered species. If "Republicans are bad for education" then it would follow that in a state with few Republicans, education ought to be better right? But the data just doesn't support that conclusion. It doesn't support the opposite conclusion either. There really isn't a correlation between dominant political party and education quality.
Case in point: NJ and Mass. are very blue states with great public education while Rhode Island is also a very blue state but with middle of the pack education. Iowa is a deep red state and it's ranked number 9 in the country. Wisconsin is a red state that voted for Trump as well as many years of a being under a Republican Governor -- and their education system is ranked 4th. There's no correlation -- and to make such a claim is irresponsible because the data doesn't support it.
As far as abandoning faith in Republicans -- since the growth of the sheer absurdity of this whole social justice warrior movement (seriously, they literally riot when they disagree with someone's viewpoints,) along with the near religious anti-capitalism class warfare rhetoric from Democrats -- I've abandoned all faith in anyone voting Democrat. There was a time when Republicans and Democrats could find common ground. That time has passed since pretty much every modern Democrat idea starts from the premise that white males are viruses that must be controlled or that people are all victims unable to go to the toilet without a government program to help them wipe their ass. [3]. When a political party makes a point of lecturing me on my "privilege" and how I'm personally responsible for all of society's ills -- then they've lost me forever. Might as well be blaming me for slavery. I don't even care if Democrats are right on some issues. I'm never voting for a party that accuses me of being:
1. ..a tax evader (I live in France and the Democrats are responsible for the hell caused by FATCA.) 2. .. a racist 3. .. a hater of women 4. .. greedy 5. .. a destroyer of the environment
I am none of those things and I'm a libertarian who tends to vote Republican. Correction -- I am a bit greedy -- I think I should be entitled to keep more of the money I earn and pass it on to my children rather than giving it to people who didn't earn it nor have any right to it. So ok, I'll admit to being greedy.
[1] https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/ [2] http://...
That doesn't really help someone who is expected to work 5 days a week.
> Blaming a short week on Republicans is just silly.
Why? Gov. Brownback, a Republican, instituted the tax cuts which created the budget shortfall that prevented the state government from properly funding schools.
"Kansas enacted sweeping cuts to income taxes in 2012 and 2013 championed by Gov. Sam Brownback that have reduced the amount of available resources to comply with a court order. Lawmakers could be forced to reconsider the tax measures, which Kansas and other Republican-run states have pushed as a means to stimulate their economies." [1]
They didn't reconsider those tax measures, and instead doubled down on them, making things worse.
"Wichita, which serves more than 51,000 students, is facing cost increases of about $23 million next year with no increase in state funding." [2]
And then 4-day schools became a thing. You're right that Kansas is highly ranked, but we'll see how long that lasts as teachers continue to flee the state [3]. California and other blue states have education problems, but let's be clear: Kansas' problems seem to directly stem from Republican governance in the state.
Also, you rip on California a bunch in your post, but let's remember, California has twice as many students (lower ed.) as the entire population of Kansas (6M vs 3M). California has its own problems, but I think those problems are very different than those faced in Kansas (maybe not in kind, but definitely in degree).
[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kansas-supreme-court-public-sch... [2]: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/education/article72631157.h... [3]: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/07/kansas...
If we went about Republicans the same way, well, we had several party representatives in Alabama say that they would vote for a child molester ("even if true ..."), just so their party would have an extra vote in Senate.
Although I understand your overall point, you nearly lost me here. To assume someone wouldn’t choose to have five kids (or wouldn’t have done so if properly educated) is rather narrow-minded, in my opinion. Many wouldn’t, but (a) many people chose to have several kids and have no regrets, and (b) many people chose not to have several kids and do have regrets. Against common assumptions to the contrary in many sectors, kids and family really can be a joy.
edit: It's still a problem, I'm just pointing out that the per-capita harm of a state like NY or CA playing by the same transparency rules as KS would be much greater. This may be why the people of KS are more willing to put up with it, the net harm to them is low because the government's involvement in their lives is low.
https://archive.is/4fep5
In fact, both eastbound (in Kansas) [3] and westbound (in Missouri) [4], the leftmost three lanes channel drivers to I-670. In this area, I-670 is a straight-line through route, while I-70 is a meandering mess [5][6].
[1] http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article145534779.html [2] https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-670_moks.html [3] https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0918284,-94.6332342,3a,75y,9... [4] https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0962355,-94.5667216,3a,60y,2... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_70_in_Kansas [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_70_in_Missouri
Not once, not twice, not ten times. Bury them in them. Use the ones they fulfill as data to inform the public, the ones they don't, well make them sink time and funding into defending why they won't.
It's only secret because the media and public is apathetic. Hammer down the doors and sooner or later they'll have to seriously consider whether not being open with the public is worth it.
sad, really.
A proper FOI approach would give the constituents a reasonable chance to be informed, but I guess that's the whole idea.
Unrepentant, he is Trump's boy in pushing for voting "reforms" nationally. Although he supported Trump's claim that 3,000,000 illegal aliens voted for Hillary Clinton, he hasn't explained why none have been found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kobach#Voter_fraud_claims