Over the past week, I happened upon a column by a local left leaner that bemoaned the recent Republican power play on tax cuts for the wealthy. According to the columnist, the Republicans agreed to the lifting of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision, as well as other concessions, only after tax cuts were extended for the richest Americans. The implication of the column was that the right has no other motivation than in keeping the top 1% of the population obscenely wealthy. The upshot of that sentiment is that the right has no soul, no conviction. How could they abandon their narrow-minded hatred of homosexuals so casually or quickly, so long as the rich got richer.
I commented on the column using the newspapaer's comment feature, and the coulmnist, surprisingly, responded. What ensued was an interesting dialogue that I think is instructional.
Though the 'professional' was initially disrespectful and condescending in his response to my challenges, he ultimately engaged in a thoughtful exchange of information with me.
What I discovered is that although we will continue to disagree on the most compelling principles, we do have areas for agreement. For instance, we both object to the reprehensible money grab that the CEO's - the top 1% mentioned previously - engaged in after the completion of the multitudinous government bailouts. For him, the tax cut extensions recently approved served as validation for the greedy bastards. That the congressman were willing to swallow their principles for the other - rather than greater - good, was troublesome to the columnist.
I, on the other hand, have less trouble with the tax cut extensions, even though the greediness of the top 1% bothers me as well. You see, I suspect that the driving force,otherwise known as arm-twisting, wasn't attributable nearly so much to the top 1% as it was to the people in the top 2 or 3%. Those who are reporting incomes in the millions are less effected by the proposed increase than the people who stand at the $250,000, and higher range. Consequently, a tax increase for that slightly upper echelon is more significant. The tax increase won't necessarily change the lifestyle decisions of these wealthy people. It will, however, strongly influence their ability to build their wealth.
The larger point is this one: my right side point of view objects to the excesses as much as the columnist's left side point of view. We will not bridge the gap on the solution to the problem on a global scale, since he has faith that father government can effectively redistribute the wealth. I, on the other side, distrust the notion that the governemnt can ever do such a thing, nor even that they should.
What we can agree on is the principle that destructive greed of the kind exhibited by the CEO's should not be supported by law. I certainly don't think that the solution is to have all the people who have maximized their income foot the bill for those who cannot or will not adopt a work ethic that will allow them to manage their lives.
The other bridge-able gap, in my opinion, is the picture of the down-trodden that the columnist holds. He sees them, I think incorrectly, as victims of a system that denies them access to opportunities. I see many of them as lazy bastards who rely on the safety nets that we already provide. The truth lies somewhere, and I think rules, laws, and regualtions, can prevent my picture from being the true one, just as well as rules, laws, and regualtions can prevent his vision from being the true one.
So, can the people in charge similarly reach acress the aisle?
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
I have grown tired of the various shibboleths regarding the extended tax cuts and the Republican platform for limiting the taxes that people pay. People need to understand that the wealthiest Americans and the taxes they pay are sgnificant. In fact, the sliding tax rates guarantee that the wealthy pay more in taxes, individually, than the middle class people. The annoyance that I have concerns what has become the general consensus and popular opinion that the Right is motivated by indifference to the plight of lower income people. In fact, the stance that I take is that taxes need to be lower for everyone, including the wealthy.
I happen to fit into that middle class category, so I will pick a nice round number to illustrate my point. For the illustration of the wealthy example, I will pick a similarly round number, though excessivly high in fact, to make the picture clear, I hope.
If I start with a gross income of $100,000, and I usually have 20% discretionary income, then the increased tax burden hits that $20,000 directly. That disretionary income may go toward investments, college funds or costs for children, or large purchases such as cars and vacations. In short, I will spend less on some things than I would normally.
For a very wealthy person who faces a higher increase in tax burden, the cost cutting will not likely influence his personal spending habit. Instead, the cost cutting that must take place will involve finacnial investments, property purchases, or in the cases of self-employed business owners, capital expenditures or business expansions.
Let's say the the income for the very wealthy is $1,000,000. The discretionary income for this person is likely in the area of $400,000. Consequently, the personal effect of the tax increase on daily life is negligible. Instead, the response of the wealthy person will likely take plaace in the investment arena. Using the oft-mentioned 4.9% increase, which I will round off to 5%, we are talking about 5% of $400,000 or $20,000. The point is that the tax infringement will change the wealthy man's spending habits a bit, but the larger suppression will take place in the area of personal finance that affect the larger economy. When these larger sums of money are invested in money markets, stocks, bonds, and other areas, the effect is enormous, especially when people realize just how many millionaires there are out there.
In the case of the middle class effect, a higher volume or population means that a tax increase will suppress consumer spending. In the case of the increase for the wealthy, the effect will be a suppression of available money for business expansion. However, if no one is buying, then the businessman will have no impetus to expand anyway. Decreased expansion and investment in new business opportunities means the jobless rates will remain stagnant.
Republicans want less government and lower taxes. Of course, such is not a prescription for guaranteed success. The principle is that individual people, unburdened by taxes that suppress their ability to choose, will do things that benefit everybody. The Right believes that the concept extends to businesses and everybody else, regardless of income.
In summation, tax cuts for the wealthy MAY result in outcomes that effect everyone positively, the same way that tax cuts for everyone else has the potential to effect everyone else positively. The tax burden on the weatlhy is already higher, and has been for a long time. Why, during an economic crisis, would the government want to risk suppressing the expansion of and investment in businees?
I happen to fit into that middle class category, so I will pick a nice round number to illustrate my point. For the illustration of the wealthy example, I will pick a similarly round number, though excessivly high in fact, to make the picture clear, I hope.
If I start with a gross income of $100,000, and I usually have 20% discretionary income, then the increased tax burden hits that $20,000 directly. That disretionary income may go toward investments, college funds or costs for children, or large purchases such as cars and vacations. In short, I will spend less on some things than I would normally.
For a very wealthy person who faces a higher increase in tax burden, the cost cutting will not likely influence his personal spending habit. Instead, the cost cutting that must take place will involve finacnial investments, property purchases, or in the cases of self-employed business owners, capital expenditures or business expansions.
Let's say the the income for the very wealthy is $1,000,000. The discretionary income for this person is likely in the area of $400,000. Consequently, the personal effect of the tax increase on daily life is negligible. Instead, the response of the wealthy person will likely take plaace in the investment arena. Using the oft-mentioned 4.9% increase, which I will round off to 5%, we are talking about 5% of $400,000 or $20,000. The point is that the tax infringement will change the wealthy man's spending habits a bit, but the larger suppression will take place in the area of personal finance that affect the larger economy. When these larger sums of money are invested in money markets, stocks, bonds, and other areas, the effect is enormous, especially when people realize just how many millionaires there are out there.
In the case of the middle class effect, a higher volume or population means that a tax increase will suppress consumer spending. In the case of the increase for the wealthy, the effect will be a suppression of available money for business expansion. However, if no one is buying, then the businessman will have no impetus to expand anyway. Decreased expansion and investment in new business opportunities means the jobless rates will remain stagnant.
Republicans want less government and lower taxes. Of course, such is not a prescription for guaranteed success. The principle is that individual people, unburdened by taxes that suppress their ability to choose, will do things that benefit everybody. The Right believes that the concept extends to businesses and everybody else, regardless of income.
In summation, tax cuts for the wealthy MAY result in outcomes that effect everyone positively, the same way that tax cuts for everyone else has the potential to effect everyone else positively. The tax burden on the weatlhy is already higher, and has been for a long time. Why, during an economic crisis, would the government want to risk suppressing the expansion of and investment in businees?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
For Parents of School Children...
A conversation with an old friend who has a daughter in 9th grade, and a similar conversation with a teacher and parent has given birth to this monologue.
First, I will attempt to limit the educational jargon that is part of this discussion. I will not, however, apologize for educational jargon, though I have often made great fun of it. All jargons, regardless of the field or discipline that has coazed them into existence, are viable things. Medical professionals, for example, discuss a greater range of things with more clarity when they use appropriate jargon. The problem begins when the audience cannot possibly find the jargon clear or useful. In fact, the outsider is inhibited from understanding when he is ignorant of the jargon, and especially when he understands the jargon inaccurately.
The friend and parent complained about his daughter's geometry teacher. She has historically been an A student, they say, but now she is really struggling with geometry. Correspondence with the teacher has been non-productive. The teacher's primary - indeed, only - response to the parent's request for help has been to advise the student to attend a tutoring session that takes place after school. This session has been somewhat effective, but it has not helped the student to do any better at learning the material when it is initially taught.
The parents have also told me that the teacher explicitly told them that s/he doesn't teach. Instead, s/he described an inquiry-based (I will clarify later) approach that works as follows. Students are organized into groups and presented with a problem, which they are charged with solving. Relying on prior knowledge and creative thinking skills, the groups achieve consensus on a workable solution which is then presented to the whole class. [I am assuming that discussions/corrections which ensue during the presentation period provide a mechanism by which the teacher can remediate stragglers, clarify strategies, and identify critical concepts that are 'discovered' by the group problem solvers.]
Inquiry based learning is a great way to structure a lesson, but, like all strategies, it falls short when implemented poorly. Essentially, inquiry based learning presents the students with an issue or problem, provides access to resources by which the issue or problem can be attacked, then allows the teacher to define, identify, explain, and clarify the principles that students have used to achieve their solution. Done well, inquiry based learning is very efficient; done poorly, it almost guarantees that less learning is taking place.
How can parents know whether the situation is good or bad? This account isn't really meant to choose any presentational or instructional strategy over another. What parents need to know, in my opinion, is rather simple.
Every lesson should have a few major components, and parents can determine whether things are being done well regardless of the teacher's approach.
First, every lesson should have a clear objective that the instructor should clarify at some point in the lesson. That objective can be introduced at the beginning of the lesson, and the teacher can explain how the students are going to tackle the objective. In the inquiry approach mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the lesson objective may be revealed as late as the last few minutes of class.
Second, every lesson should have an activity that forces the student to employ the skill (practice problems?) or evaluate the information (discussion, lab report, written statement) that is at the center of the day's objective.
Third, every lesson must have a mechanism by which the teacher can monitor student progress and adjust instruction if necessary to provide remediation or enrichment. The translation for the last statement is simple: the teacher should have a way to respond to the discovery that the students haven't learned or have learned very well. If they haven't acquired what they ought, the teacher must have a way to try again. If they have grasped the material well, the teacher needs to have a way to challenge them further.
Unfortunately for parents, the means by which teachers can create lessons that meet these requirements are almost limitless. Gurus have written books that try to provide a manageable spectrum of possibilities, but the variability of clientele and teacher skill make it almost impossible to provide a range of approaches that really, truly covers all the possibilities.
In the case of the teacher mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I hypothesize two possibilities. The teacher is doing a competent to excellent job of using inquiry based learning but the student is not being responsible about asking for help in class, or isn't doing the work necessary to acquire the objective. The other possibility is that the teacher is doing a less than adequate job, and the parents need to find out why their daughter isn't learning the material in class.
I don't like the answer from the teacher, if it's true, that the student must attend a daily or regular tutoring session in order to function in the class. I certainly don't like the teacher saying, even in jest, that s/he doesn't teach. As a parent, I want to know how the teacher is monitoring the student's progress during the lesson. I want to know why, as reported by the teacher on conference night, students are not regularly asking questions during the lesson? If material is challenging and appropriate, students are going to have questions. If they are not comfortable asking questions, for whatever reason, the teacher needs to find out why.
The parents with whom I was talking need to be certain that their respective children are doing what they are supposed to be doing in the class. If the children are being responsible, and are still not learning, the parents need to urge school leaders to facilitate the necessary adjustments. Learning needs to take place every day, and teachers should have a good idea of individual student progress at all times. Of course, some students are going to learn at a faster pace than others, but none of the students who aren't learning at an appropriate pace should be allowed to coast on through.
First, I will attempt to limit the educational jargon that is part of this discussion. I will not, however, apologize for educational jargon, though I have often made great fun of it. All jargons, regardless of the field or discipline that has coazed them into existence, are viable things. Medical professionals, for example, discuss a greater range of things with more clarity when they use appropriate jargon. The problem begins when the audience cannot possibly find the jargon clear or useful. In fact, the outsider is inhibited from understanding when he is ignorant of the jargon, and especially when he understands the jargon inaccurately.
The friend and parent complained about his daughter's geometry teacher. She has historically been an A student, they say, but now she is really struggling with geometry. Correspondence with the teacher has been non-productive. The teacher's primary - indeed, only - response to the parent's request for help has been to advise the student to attend a tutoring session that takes place after school. This session has been somewhat effective, but it has not helped the student to do any better at learning the material when it is initially taught.
The parents have also told me that the teacher explicitly told them that s/he doesn't teach. Instead, s/he described an inquiry-based (I will clarify later) approach that works as follows. Students are organized into groups and presented with a problem, which they are charged with solving. Relying on prior knowledge and creative thinking skills, the groups achieve consensus on a workable solution which is then presented to the whole class. [I am assuming that discussions/corrections which ensue during the presentation period provide a mechanism by which the teacher can remediate stragglers, clarify strategies, and identify critical concepts that are 'discovered' by the group problem solvers.]
Inquiry based learning is a great way to structure a lesson, but, like all strategies, it falls short when implemented poorly. Essentially, inquiry based learning presents the students with an issue or problem, provides access to resources by which the issue or problem can be attacked, then allows the teacher to define, identify, explain, and clarify the principles that students have used to achieve their solution. Done well, inquiry based learning is very efficient; done poorly, it almost guarantees that less learning is taking place.
How can parents know whether the situation is good or bad? This account isn't really meant to choose any presentational or instructional strategy over another. What parents need to know, in my opinion, is rather simple.
Every lesson should have a few major components, and parents can determine whether things are being done well regardless of the teacher's approach.
First, every lesson should have a clear objective that the instructor should clarify at some point in the lesson. That objective can be introduced at the beginning of the lesson, and the teacher can explain how the students are going to tackle the objective. In the inquiry approach mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the lesson objective may be revealed as late as the last few minutes of class.
Second, every lesson should have an activity that forces the student to employ the skill (practice problems?) or evaluate the information (discussion, lab report, written statement) that is at the center of the day's objective.
Third, every lesson must have a mechanism by which the teacher can monitor student progress and adjust instruction if necessary to provide remediation or enrichment. The translation for the last statement is simple: the teacher should have a way to respond to the discovery that the students haven't learned or have learned very well. If they haven't acquired what they ought, the teacher must have a way to try again. If they have grasped the material well, the teacher needs to have a way to challenge them further.
Unfortunately for parents, the means by which teachers can create lessons that meet these requirements are almost limitless. Gurus have written books that try to provide a manageable spectrum of possibilities, but the variability of clientele and teacher skill make it almost impossible to provide a range of approaches that really, truly covers all the possibilities.
In the case of the teacher mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I hypothesize two possibilities. The teacher is doing a competent to excellent job of using inquiry based learning but the student is not being responsible about asking for help in class, or isn't doing the work necessary to acquire the objective. The other possibility is that the teacher is doing a less than adequate job, and the parents need to find out why their daughter isn't learning the material in class.
I don't like the answer from the teacher, if it's true, that the student must attend a daily or regular tutoring session in order to function in the class. I certainly don't like the teacher saying, even in jest, that s/he doesn't teach. As a parent, I want to know how the teacher is monitoring the student's progress during the lesson. I want to know why, as reported by the teacher on conference night, students are not regularly asking questions during the lesson? If material is challenging and appropriate, students are going to have questions. If they are not comfortable asking questions, for whatever reason, the teacher needs to find out why.
The parents with whom I was talking need to be certain that their respective children are doing what they are supposed to be doing in the class. If the children are being responsible, and are still not learning, the parents need to urge school leaders to facilitate the necessary adjustments. Learning needs to take place every day, and teachers should have a good idea of individual student progress at all times. Of course, some students are going to learn at a faster pace than others, but none of the students who aren't learning at an appropriate pace should be allowed to coast on through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)