While we can certainly debate the degree of despotism within the teacher’s unions, their taxpayer-funded pursuits of self preservation come at the cost of the most education-starved students, and discourage our nation’s most talented people from joining organizations like Teach for America.

I completely agree that following the money trail is a must for education reform - moreso than loopholes, millions of paper passing bureaucrats at the district level not only bleed the coffers of the educational system, but enact careless and shortsighted rules which get between teachers and their students. And just as with other levels of government, the case for additional funding should not even before a clear understanding and justification is made for the millions of dollars wasted in the current system.

I believe that the difficulty in tying pay to performance comes specifically from teachers’ unions, and not the idea itself. Your point about students failing standardized tests as a variable in teacher salary is true, but I do not believe that the education system cannot come up with pay scales which are normalized to the school and the community which houses it. This normalization can be the starting point, ramped up over time as incentives do their work.

You talked about developing a stronger market for private companies and non-profits to provide comprehensive school rankings - I think that’s a secondary step. What about developing a stronger market for private companies and non-profits to provide comprehensive schooling? While our students are racing to the top, why not incentivize schools to race against each other as well?

I agree that bringing teachers to the table to create and experiment with new performance standards would be a step in the right direction. Do you have any idea why this hasn’t happened, or better yet, why it hasn’t yielded any notable results?

Oh an PS - This is a blog on the internet: no comment has a thesis here :P
PPS - Have you guys seen Robert Reich's voucher idea?

First off, thanks for commenting - the precise purpose of these posts is to inspire conversation among those that read them. Let me reply to your points in the order you made them:

First of all, short of watching CSPAN (as our good friend Jyot does), there are little-to-no articles which are written without explicit slant and goal to them. That said, everyone reads (and in this case shares) the articles that resonate with them, regardless of slant.

Second, your point about the reasons that politicians seek office is completely correct - its not about right or left - all politicians fight for reelection the minute they get into office. The article, if you look again, is making this very point - "No longer do politicians seek office as protectors of life, liberty and property -- they seek only to run the oppressive bureaucratic state more efficiently." It is stating that this is not a partisan problem but a problem with the system in general, and the point of the statement is that the author (and I), lament the current state of affairs where term limits have given way to the ego-stroking despotism of the career politician, on both sides of the aisle.

Third, the poll, as with the article, is a matter of personal preference. As we all know, polling is about as reliable as the statistics they produce (just look at polling of likely voters vs registered voters, and you'll get more confused the more information you get).

Your final point about the differences in the role of government is also completely correct - what exactly this role should be is the wedge which divides the conservative and the liberal. You state that the government should provide for A, B, and C. The problem is in that one word: should. In reality, when has the government efficiently done anything on this scale? The key is to look to history once again, and you'll see the government's track record. Social security - on its way to devastating bankruptcy. Medicare - on its way to bankruptcy. Education - consistently below average worldwide rankings. I mean even on a much smaller scale - take Cash for Clunkers - it cost the taxpayers $24,000 per car, and that's reported by the consistently 4th place (and White House favorite) CNN news.

But unclenching the rusty fist of government from major elements of the economy (take then internet for example with the passage of the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act in 1992) allows the free market to work more efficiently. Therefore, what we need is the government to back off, permit interstate insurance markets, allow employer created health savings accounts, enact tort reform, etc.

Even if we ignore the (historical) fact that large entitlement programs always bankrupt our economy, hurt the very people they're intended to help (look at LBJ's Great Society and its effects on the African American family), and burden our children with empty promises in exchange for some feel-good politics, we still have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Where in the Constitution (or even the Declaration of Independence) does it say that healthcare is a fundamental right?

Trying to redistribute anything (including healthcare) will result not in "the people with the least" getting healthcare but instead everyone getting some shoddy form of rationed medicine - take it from someone who is the product of a socialist country and whose parents don't hesitate to share the greatness of a system which provides its citizens nothing in exchange for all they have.

And that's despite the fact that we don't even have enough doctors for everyone. So the solution is to lower wages for doctors? Lower Medicare and Medicaid payments? Your school loans are going to love that when you get out, and so are everyone else's.

Would love to hear what you think!

Yeah man we stopped there on the way back too (<a href="http://egord.in/day8)." target="_blank">http://egord.in/day8). It was a fun trip, and way happy we got to see Becca and Joe!

Interesting point Joe, but the thing is, if you're going out then its unlikely that you care about any parking meters or timed parking.

That is, of course, unless you're drinking during the day, in which case I'm guessing the time left on your meter is the last of your problems :P