Money Doesn't Fix Everything

Kurt Cobain; wealthy; suffered horrible depression. Shot himself in the head because he couldn't take it anymore. Money didn't save him.

This money doesn't fix everything rule gets tossed around a lot and the unfortunate truth is that money itself causes more problems than good. Money creates greed and desire to be the guy with the most toys when the time comes.

Today the NJ Supreme Court ruled that the State must put an additional $500M back into the hands of the Abbott Districts because the cuts enacted by the Christie Administration were ultimately unconstitutional. Christie went on record today as saying, "We must acknowledge that money does not equal quality results." (Newark Star Ledger 5/24/11 http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/gov_christie_legislature_must.html). If money does not equal quality results then why not hand Mark Zuckerberg back that $100M check he gave to the Newark schools in September. OK, I say check for sake of being dramatic. It was a $100M grant (Newark Star Ledger 9/27/10 http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2010/09/facebook_ceo_mark_zuckerbergs.html).

So how is it that the $500M won't solve anything when in Newark $100M will? It seems to me that sometimes money does solve the problem and sometimes it doesn't. So which is it? Christie claims that the Abbott funding formula is a failed educational theory. What theory would that be exactly? The theory that money won't fix it. But yet that $100M from Zuckerberg will fix it?

The point in all of this is where does the money come from and how is it being used. There is a growing drive in this nation to turn education into a business that brings rewards to those who already have it. Do you think Mark Zuckerberg knew a thing about Newark schools and the situation there? He probably knew Newark only for the airport or the fact that at one time it was known as the car theft capital of the country. I doubt the plight of Newark students was really keeping Zuckerberg up at night so much so that he had to step in and save the day with his money.

No, he is a business man and he knows that his money will go towards a school that has better equipment, better paid teachers, and a link to a vast set of resources that will allow the school to succeed and achieve. So, maybe money does solve everything. Oh wait, no it doesn't. Read some of the articles out there about failed charter schools:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/100203439.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/education/02charters.html?scp=2&sq=charter+schools&st=nyt
http://www.irpumn.org/uls/resources/projects/2_Charter_Report_Final.pdf

I guess I'm going here with this discussion--money alone does not solve the problem. It takes a lot more than that. I am a firm believer and supporter of public education and I will also be first to admit it requires reform. No one denies this.

You don't just cut the budget and say, "do more with less." Just as you don't go hand over more money and say, "here, go nuts." You need a combination of good educational theory and practice, fiscal responssibility, and the resources (which yes means money). Look at the operating budget for any district and go line by line and ask yourself, "do we really need to spend that much on that?" Set out the priorities. Salary is always the largest expense. Granted salary for public schools are mandated by contracts and unions etc., you can still properly evaluate and analyze a teacher's ability to be effective. No you don't base it on test scores. You base it on the knowledge that a student obtains as a result of the teacher. This isn't fact and recall, this is actual ability to take what is learned and apply it. This concept and method of evaluation is difficult in courses like English or even History, but if you have the right people in place you can do this.

It's reform, not revolution, not destroy what we have and build it anew. It is work from within to change it. It can be done if you have the tools. Instead politicans make it into issues of money, tax payer dollars, corporate donations, etc. All to serve their own purpose to get somewhere in life.

You see that in NJ. Chris Christie has made it a battle among the people. One side complains about their taxes being too high and the other side are those who are blamed for the high taxes--the teachers that are part of this system. Don't make them out to be the bad guy here. Their union did what was right by its brothers and sisters. Now as elected officials you should do what's right for all, give the districts what they need, money, personnel, tools, which can be used to fix from within. I would gladly pay more in taxes if I knew it was going towards something that mattered. What I pay now I do happily because I see my oldest son in college, my middle one headed there, and my youngest getting the resources he needs as a disabled student. Is it perfect? No, but my children are intelligent and while my wife and I have a piece in that, so too do the schools they have gone to. I see the benefits obtained from the cost of my taxes, at least as they pertain to education in my town. Can everyone say that? No, and that is why we have this battle.

I don't have the immediate solution and I never promised one. I guess like in all debates I look at the much larger issue than the one standing in front of me. Politicans have always played games with our money and our people and it has to stop. To some degree the Supreme Court of NJ did that. They told a schoolyard bully he can't just cut what he deems as not important, at the same time they can't tell all of us how our money should be spent because that is not their place.

I guess my concern is more on the principle of this case. I don't like Chris Christie, and I didn't like Jon Corzine before him, or Jim McGreevey or Christie Todd Whitman, or Jim Florio.

I don't like the politics of this country and the greed it propogates.

More tax revenue?

OK, this one will be quick and to the point. Word came out today that NJ is expecting an additional $300M more in tax revenue this year and this in turn will go towards higher homestead rebates. Taxpayers are rejoicing and Governor Chris Christie and his brainwashed followers are taking to the web to proclaim the Governor's policies a success. So I wondered, how is this a success? Where is this money coming from?

I asked a person who goes on Twitter as Capt. Republican, a loud mouthed poster child for the unintelligent. Sorry, had to take the dig. This person claims people are making more and thus paying more in taxes which means higher revenues.

Let me make sure the readers at home get this. PEOPLE ARE MAKING MORE MONEY AND SO THEY ARE PAYING MORE TAXES. If that is true, and a person making $200K is taxed at (let's use simple math here) 10%, they pay $2000 in taxes. Let's apply the same logic to the "Millionnaire's Tax" which Christie vetoed and vows to never restore. A person making $1M, taxed at 10% brings in $100K. You make more, you pay more.

So now I ask you out there, shouldn't we tax the higher wage earners more? Wouldn't that bring in more revenue? They are paid more, they'll pay more. Or they'll pay the same and simply use loopholes to avoid the additional taxes.

The Christie clan claims the millionnaires will flee the state if we tax them. I challenge you, find me one person of millionnaire status that has moved from NJ and will go on the record as saying they left because taxes were too high. Cause you know I don't see a lot a vacant properties in Englewood Cliffs, I believe Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy still own residences there. I know Bruce Springsteen lives in NJ and Jon Bon Jovi still has a house here. New Jersey is known as one of the more affluent states. There was a point in time when Bergen County ranked as one of the most exclusive and affluent areas to live.

Provide proof to back up the claims. I just never seem to see that.