re: Alabama Governor: Use Education Funds for Industrial Recruitment

quote:

---

The mere mention of raising taxes, despite the possible need to raise them, gets one voted out of office with a swiftness.

---

There are some taxes that could be raised that would have little to no political blow back.

The first and most obvious is the cigarette tax. The national average is over $1.50. Alabama's is 42 cents a pack - 47th in the country. Of the states that touch us, only Georgia is lower at 37 cents a pack.

There's absolutely no downside to raising that tax and a ton of upside. First is that most of that 25% of that money goes to the general fund and 60% goes to Medicaid - the two biggest budget problems in the state.

That measly 42 cents a pack generates $120 MILLION dollars a year. Simply raising the tax to Tennessee's 62 cent rate would generate an additional 60 million. Bringing it to the national average could potentially generate close to $400 million. You could easily expand Medicaid, better fund corrections, and restore some of the other general fund agencies that have been seriously cut.

Of course, the "down" side is that people might smoke less - but that's the real beauty of it. It is a totally and completely optional tax. Not one single person is forced to pay it and if they smoke less they'll be healthier to boot.

Only about 22% of Alabamians smoke, so right off the bat 4 out of 5 people are complete unaffected. Throw in that of those remaining 22%, roughly a quarter are black and probably aren't voting Republican no matter what happens and you've got the recipe for a tax that could pass.

It got a little bit of traction in the last session. With the general fund budget issues looming in 2016 (they're big) and the elections being 4 years away after November of this year, I almost guarantee you'll see it and a few other revenue measures pass in the 2015 session. There's even an outside chance you might see a lottery discussed.

On my phone, so quoting won't be done here. I'll hit you back point by point and marvel at my general agreement.

Schools: yes. More competition in urban areas and school choice would be a good thing in those areas. That's likely the better strategy in those areas. So we should go that route. The potential for specialization is exciting in that case too. Language immersion. Technology focuses.

There is such a thing as smart government. I do understand why you wouldn't believe it, because there isn't nearly enough of it.

Finally, I'm basically saying we should cut the programs that don't work and invest in those that will. A leaner, smarter government focused on long term benefits to society and not wasting money to make us feel good.

I'm more mad that Jindal turned his back on common core.

In my opinion, the reason it wasn't working is that it needs to be implemented at a young age. It's not fair for kids in the 9th grade to have their curriculum and methods learning turned upside down. start at an early age, and the kids will do just fine. doesn't it put a lot of emphasis on critical thinking?

We need charter schools in the worst way too

Right. If it gets in the way of doing the job better, you get rid of it. To me, it's waste vs investment.

quote:

---

Privatizing education is one of the worst ideas to come out of the conservative movement in my lifetime.

---

Why? We constantly see people wring their hands over the United States's education standing relative to the rest of the world -- what exactly has public education done to show how superior it is to private education?

Depends on where and how it's done. Seems to me more private schools tied with vouchers could do wonders for the failing educational situation in our inner cities.

In rural areas however, it would be an abject disaster most likely. Not enough demand for competition would lead to little church schools teaching kids about Jeebus and the dinosaurs. I'm all for public schools being an option but there's nothing wrong with trying to get more private schools into the mix.

quote:

---

as a student who went to one of Mobile's best privative HSs

---

Not to derail, but McGill or St. Pauls?

quote:

---

Why? We constantly see people wring their hands over the United States's education standing relative to the rest of the world -- what exactly has public education done to show how superior it is to private education?

---

Because privatization leads to profit-motivated, with leads to greed, which leads to cutting corners, which leads to putting profits over the good of the student. That's not to say the current system is not in need of revamping and improving, because it certainly is. Total privatization is just a terrible solution.

quote:

---

Because privatization leads to profit-motivated, with leads to greed, which leads to cutting corners, which leads to putting profits over the good of the student

---

You don't think these motives exist in public education? You don't see profit-motivated greed when teacher's unions shut down schools in Chicago to march for higher wages? You don't see schools cutting corners to meet federal standards that will guarantee them more funding from state or federal governments? Schools put their monetary interests ahead of "the good of the student" all the time. It's human nature to act in self-interested ways. What is it about public, government-run schools that somehow subverts this?