That looks alright, what's the problem? Clearly our education system is mismanaged. Main culprit the fact that you cannot motivate people who belong to strong unions, and cannot fire the bad ones to make room for the good ones. We need to take steps to privatize the whole system.
No problem, just the observation that many nations, achieving better educational outcomes than we are, are paying their teachers more. In spite of our "strong unions".
Hard to compare, too many variables, very different circumstances. Greece is shown in a good place, while Israel is not... makes no sense.
A Las Vegas "odds maker" opines on why Obama will get "killed" by Romney in November by Wayne Allyn Root Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races. But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980. Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge? First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger. Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics: *Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama. *Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama. *Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60âs. This is not good news for Obama. *Youth voters. Obamaâs biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama. *Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That wonât happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama. *Small Business owners.Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to âgive someone different a chance.â I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that heâd support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didnât listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama. *Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama. *Suburban moms. The issue isnât contraceptionâ¦itâs having a job to pay for contraception. Obamaâs economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their childrenâs future. This is not good news for Obama. *Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama. Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying âI didnât vote for Obama 4 years ago. But heâs done such a fantastic job, I canât wait to vote for him today.â Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure? Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obamaâs radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again. But Iâll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.
Obamaâs Public Sector Full Employment Plan by:Ann Coulter Last week, President Obama said "the private sector is doing fine." This was not reassuring to those of us who suspect the Democrats haven't the first idea what "private sector" means. He did not help matters by becoming lachrymose over the suffering of public sector employees: "Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. ... And so, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is, how do we help state and local governments ..." When Democrats say the public sector is suffering, they mean public sector employees have half the unemployment rate of the rest of the country -- 4.2 percent compared to 8.2 percent. Obama's monumentally idiotic statement has led his media defenders to recycle Mitt Romney's alleged "gaffe" from several months ago, when he said: "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." But that was not a gaffe at all -- except as deceptively edited by the media to end after the word "people." (Only Donald Trump enjoys firing people, and by the way, people love watching Donald Trump fire people.) Far from a gaffe, Romney's actual sentence is the key to understanding the nation's health care crisis -- which happens to be exactly what he was talking about. Nearly every product you can think of has gotten better and cheaper in the last 20 years because of market competition: cell phones, television sets, computers, food delivery, airline tickets (constrained by the cost of fuel), express mail, and on and on. There aren't a lot of restaurants serving lousy food or dog walkers who lose your dog because they'd go out of business pretty fast if they provided rotten services. They're not the only game in town. But you know what is the only game in town? The government, including putatively private businesses that are heavily regulated by the government. Only with the government do we continuously get worse service for a higher price. Take away the ability to fire people, and you have airport security, public schools, Veterans Administration hospitals, the Postal Service, General Motors and Pinch Sulzberger, New York Times family scion. Health insurers may technically be private companies, but they are required by law to cover a slew of services, making them an extension of monopolistic government. (Similarly, the old AT&T was a "private" company, but in reality it was just a government-run monopolistic phone company providing no choice, poor service, little innovation and obscenely high prices.) In most states, you can't choose a health insurance plan that doesn't cover gambling and sex addictions, psychological counseling, speech therapy and prenatal care -- even if you plan on never having children. Health insurance companies don't need to compete for your business -- they're all offering the same product, anyway. Moreover, because of government regulation concerning how health insurance is taxed, most people aren't choosing their insurers. Their employers are. As a result, insurance companies have become outrageously unresponsive to both patients and doctors. Insurance companies need only concern themselves with satisfying government regulators and corporate purchasers. Meanwhile, doctors have to please only the insurance companies, which don't particularly care how patients are treated, as long as it's cheap. This is a third-party-payer problem, or as the proverb goes, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." All third-party-payer systems are disasters. The customer is trapped, forced to pay for something he doesn't want, with no one to complain to and no possibility of taking his business elsewhere. An example frequent travelers will recognize are the online discount hotel brokers. These can be great -- unless you arrive at a hotel and there's no WiFi, or there's massive construction going on, or your room isn't available until four hours after check-in time. But you've already paid the full price to the booking company. If you had paid for the room yourself, you could walk away and find another hotel. (Even if you used a credit card, you can reverse the charges because, again, credit card companies would go out of business if they didn't refuse payment for scams.) But if you booked through a third party, the hotel tells you, "Sorry, take it up with Expedia." Ironically, Romney is proposing that all Americans have the same ability he has to hire and fire insurance companies and doctors. The rich already can do this. Why can't the rest of us? We hire -- and fire -- our own appliance stores, pet groomers, restaurants, hairdressers and computer companies. Why not health providers? And why are the media so desperate to avoid that conversation? We need a free market in health insurance, which Congress could accomplish with a one-page bill stating, "There shall be interstate commerce in health insurance." Once we were allowed to purchase health insurance across states lines -- prohibited by law today -- everyone would be buying insurance from companies based in states such as Utah, which have the fewest mandates about what health insurers must cover. Insurance companies would be responsive to us, the people buying their services, and not the government or corporations. Most people would choose to buy insurance only for what insurance is intended for -- catastrophes -- while paying for regular checkups themselves, the same way we pay for our own cell phones, computers, baby sitters, manicures and everything else that's been getting better and cheaper, unlike all government-regulated services. Doctors would then have to be responsive to us, not to our insurance companies. Nothing improves the quality of a service like being able to fire the people providing it. The media don't want you to think about that, so they edit Romney's remark and call it a "gaffe." For better service right now, for example, the American people need to fire Barack Obama and hire Mitt Romney.
"When Democrats say the public sector is suffering, they mean public sector employees have half the unemployment rate of the rest of the country -- 4.2 percent compared to 8.2 percent." What does this mean?
Liberal and Incompetent by Gov. Bobby Jindal A few weeks back I found myself at the scene of the crime⦠campaigning in Wisconsin with Governor Walker. One thing was abundantly clear, and if you spent any time helping out Governor Walker in his campaign, you can attest to this â The radical left has taken over the Democrat Party. Last Tuesday in Wisconsin, the silent majority was very loud. Call it the Cheesehead Rebellion. I suppose you could say that the people have spoken, but the truth is they spoke a year and half ago and this entire recall election was nothing more than a case of sour grapes from the radical left that has taken over the once proud Democrat Party. Letâs remember what happened here. The hard left launched this recall because Scott Walker had the audacity to act in the best interests of the people of Wisconsin. Governor Walker inherited a fiscal mess from the previous Democrat Governor, with a fiscal shortfall of over $3 billion, so he fixed the problem and balanced the budget without raising taxes. Indeed, property taxes will actually now go down. And now, Wisconsin is adding jobs for the first time in quite a while and the unemployment rate is lower than it has been since 2008. But again, letâs remember WHY the radical left launched this recallâ¦Hereâs the frightening policy that Scott institutedâ¦which is what caused all the fussâ¦are you ready for it?â¦itâs very scaryâ¦here it goesâ¦. In order to eliminate the budget deficit and avoid having to layoff teachersâ¦.Governor Walker asked the public employee union members to pay a small portion into their own retirement plans and medical insurance, just like most folks in the private sector already do. Thatâs it. Thatâs what prompted the Democrat legislators to flee the state and hide in Illinois, thatâs what prompted them to put Wisconsin through this civil war, which by the way, cost the taxpayers about 18 million dollars. And hereâs the kicker â the Democrat candidate, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett did NOT EVEN campaign on the issue of collective bargaining. He didnât run TV ads on it, he didnât run radio ads on it, it was nowhere to be found. So the very reason for the recall was absent from the actual recall. Why is that? Very simple â the people of Wisconsin agree with the conservative reforms of Governor Walker. The truth is â Governor Walkerâs conservative reforms are reasonable, they are sound policy, they are fair, and they are working. Thatâs the entire story. Where was the President? On Tuesday, election night, I was scheduled to go on FOX News to talk about the election. They had me scheduled for about an hour after the polls would close. So of course, I figured I would be put in the unenviable position of talking about the election prior to the returns being at all conclusive. Wellâ¦as it turns outâ¦.the race was called 49 minutes after the polls closed. What was supposed to be a long night at the Walker headquarters in Wisconsin ⦠actually turned into a long night at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. As we all knew would happen, the White House immediately declared that the Wisconsin recall election results donât matter. In fact, they said that early in the day on Tuesday. Apparently, when Democrats win elections it is a big deal, but when Republicans win it doesnât matter. But the big head-scratcher is the Presidentâs absence in this recall election. Why did he not come to Wisconsin to save the day at the end? Was this not an important election? Remember â President Obama carried Wisconsin by 14%! Surely he had enough capital built up that he could spend some for the cause? Did the President not go to Wisconsin because he was afraid he might not be an asset? Did the President not go to Wisconsin because he knows a majority of voters favor Governor Walkerâs reforms? Did the President not go to Wisconsin because he was afraid of hurting himself by backing a loser? There is a lesson about leadership in here. Scott Walker was faced with some tough choices, and he did not shrink from them. He stood tall, he took decisive action, and his state is better off for it. Scott was not lacking in courage. The President, however, he shrunk from the challenge, he elected to stay away for fear of losing. This is not what leaders do. The President would have done well to show the courage to engage in the fight. He did not. Againâ¦there is a lesson in leadership here. Leaders do not run from a fight. The bottom-line takeaway from the Cheesehead Rebellion is this â Conservative reform ideas work in the real world. Weâve found this over and over in Louisiana, and we are now finding it in Wisconsin. Next, we need to elect Governor Romney and get about the business of rebuilding America and ending this left wing experiment otherwise known as the Obama Presidency. LIBERALISM AND INCOMPETENCE It is of course well understood by now that Iâm not a fan of the Obama Administration. Let me take just a moment to be very clear on why this is. The Obama Administration is the nexus of Liberalism and Incompetenceâ¦and this is a deadly combination. The liberalism part is widely understood and easily documented. After running a clever campaign in 2008 where he positioned himself as a centrist, President Obama has been the most liberal president since Jimmy Carter. He jammed through a government takeover of health care that has never enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans, not on even one single day. It is bad policy and it is unpopular and he jammed it through anyway. It cost the Democrats control of the House, but President Obama considers that a small price to pay. This Administration lurches America every day toward a model of government that is patterned after European style socialist policies. Hereâs the real problem â I suspect that many in the Obama Administration donât really believe in private enterprise. At best, they see business as something to be endured so that it can provide tax money for government programs. Indeed, the President had to quickly retract his recent comment that the private sector was doing fine, despite lagging economic growth, stagnant wages and continued record high unemployment rates. The problem is that the private sector is so foreign to our President that he would need a passport to go there and a translator to understand what is happening. We scoff at the notion of redistribution of wealth as if it is a nutty and discredited socialist notion. But thatâs not the way they see it. They see âredistribution of wealthâ as a pejorative term for exactly what they believe in. They of course donât call it âredistribution of wealth,â they call it âtaking care of people,â they call it âprogress,â they call it âgovernment.â While the liberalism of the Obama Administration is widely understood, the incompetence of it remains a bit of an untold story. A few weeks back, I made the comment that prior to being President, Obama had never run anything, that in fact he had never even run a lemonade stand. Thatâs a fun line, and folks were entertained by it. But, hereâs the problem: itâs not a joke, itâs the truth. We put a guy in the White House who has no experience running anything. In that sense, the jokeâs on us. But again, itâs not a joke. America simply cannot afford another four years of on-the-job training. There may have been times in our countryâs history where having an untested leader in the White House would have been fine, but this is certainly not one of those times. Yes, President Obama needs to go because his liberal policies are wrong and bad for America. But itâs worse than that; itâs basic incompetence. He is also the most incompetent president since Jimmy Carter. Politicians are like the boy who cried wolf; they always say the sky is falling, a wolf is coming, the end is near, etc. Itâs been said so much that people donât believe it. But the truth is that America is the proverbial frog in the pot, itâs coming to a boil, but we think itâs cozy and relaxing. This time, however, the sky IS falling, and the wolf of debt and bankruptcy really IS at the door. We simply have to win this election.