Because a lot of people want free market solutions to everything except the military and police.  Personally not a fan of the free market myself.  I don't believe it's a be all end all of solutions.

I believe that, in many situations, it's a better solution than government oversight. Private contractors often improve service and cut costs over government agencies. They tend to hire better people, train them better, hold them more accountable (ever seen the government try to fire someone?), and they frequently do it with less overhead because they know that they can be replaced. All bets are off in the defense arena, where defense contractors can bill the government $100 for a toilet seat and the government gleefully signs off on it, but if a lot of those contractors are hired at the local or state level, you'd see a lot of services improve dramatically.

 

That being said, I'm not sure that education is one of those areas. I'm not a fan of Common Core at all, and I know several teachers who want to burn their Common Core materials because it's just such a woefully inadequate program. It's easy for me to say this now because I'm 12 years out of high school, but I do wish we'd expand the school year by another month like some of the leading countries do. Would it cost more? Yeah, teacher's unions would certainly want and deserve raises for adding a month to the calendar, janitorial and support staff that are typically furloughed or placed on reduced hours during the summer would be needed full-time, the power bill would be marginally higher by virtue of not being able to turn off lights and A/C to unused wings of the school, and other incremental costs would be incurred, but at some point, isn't it worth it?

 

States and local school boards should retain control over school curriculum, and while getting them on board with the idea of adding a month to the school year might be difficult--especially in areas like rural Colorado, where many schools already operate only four days a week because of local needs or budgetary constraints--the federal government stepping in and footing the bill for that extra month, at least initially, while making up the difference elsewhere (cut military spending and raise taxes on the wealthy...sacrilege, I know) would probably bring most states and school districts on board with the idea.

 

If there's an area that we should pay more attention to, education is it. Drop Common Core and focus on state-specific curriculum, increase funding to schools to hire better teachers, stop forcing teachers to promote students that clearly aren't ready (19% of high school graduates being illiterate is ridiculous--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06...80355.html) and rather than grading teachers on standardized test scores, grade students on them. How do we grade teachers if not by standardized test scores and student grades? That's above my pay grade, but there has to be a better way than how it's done now.

 

Despite all I've just said, education is a secondary priority for me. First, I want my damn privacy back, and I'm tired of getting my chain yanked (literally) every time I walk into an airport.

---

I believe that, in many situations, it's a better solution than government oversight. Private contractors often improve service and cut costs over government agencies. They tend to hire better people, train them better, hold them more accountable (ever seen the government try to fire someone?), and they frequently do it with less overhead because they know that they can be replaced. All bets are off in the defense arena, where defense contractors can bill the government $100 for a toilet seat and the government gleefully signs off on it, but if a lot of those contractors are hired at the local or state level, you'd see a lot of services improve dramatically.

 

That being said, I'm not sure that education is one of those areas. I'm not a fan of Common Core at all, and I know several teachers who want to burn their Common Core materials because it's just such a woefully inadequate program. It's easy for me to say this now because I'm 12 years out of high school, but I do wish we'd expand the school year by another month like some of the leading countries do. Would it cost more? Yeah, teacher's unions would certainly want and deserve raises for adding a month to the calendar, janitorial and support staff that are typically furloughed or placed on reduced hours during the summer would be needed full-time, the power bill would be marginally higher by virtue of not being able to turn off lights and A/C to unused wings of the school, and other incremental costs would be incurred, but at some point, isn't it worth it?

 

States and local school boards should retain control over school curriculum, and while getting them on board with the idea of adding a month to the school year might be difficult--especially in areas like rural Colorado, where many schools already operate only four days a week because of local needs or budgetary constraints--the federal government stepping in and footing the bill for that extra month, at least initially, while making up the difference elsewhere (cut military spending and raise taxes on the wealthy...sacrilege, I know) would probably bring most states and school districts on board with the idea.

 

If there's an area that we should pay more attention to, education is it. Drop Common Core and focus on state-specific curriculum, increase funding to schools to hire better teachers, stop forcing teachers to promote students that clearly aren't ready (19% of high school graduates being illiterate is ridiculous--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06...80355.html) and rather than grading teachers on standardized test scores, grade students on them. How do we grade teachers if not by standardized test scores and student grades? That's above my pay grade, but there has to be a better way than how it's done now.

 

Despite all I've just said, education is a secondary priority for me. First, I want my damn privacy back, and I'm tired of getting my chain yanked (literally) every time I walk into an airport.

 

It never ceases to amaze me that this comes out of the mouths of so many.

 

First, regarding cuts in military spending, it has been done and as a result, our military is reduced and much weaker than it's been in a long time.

 

Second, how is raising taxes on the wealthy a fair idea?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It never ceases to amaze me that this comes out of the mouths of so many.

 

First, regarding cuts in military spending, it has been done and as a result, our military is reduced and much weaker than it's been in a long time.

 

Second, how is raising taxes on the wealthy a fair idea?

The US spends $711 billion (with a B ) dollars on its military every year. The next closest is China at $143 billion. We spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world does combined. Our military can afford to come down on spending a little...or a lot. There is not a single country in the world that could pose a serious threat in a one-on-one fight, and we don't need to spend as if the entire world is going to attack us at the same time.

 

Source: http://www.military1.com/all/article/402...gest-power

 

In the 1950's, tax rates on the highest earners peaked at 90%. The economy boomed. In the 1920's, tax rates were extremely low, and we enjoyed the Roaring Twenties right up until the stock market collapsed and the US sunk into the Great Depression. Point being, increasing tax rates on the wealthy has proven over time to balance and stabilize the economy, and dramatically lowering them often contributes to a short peak then a crash.

 

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-o...tes-2012-5

---

A profit motive is not the best way to get results within an industry which does not produce profits as the primary mission statement. Social services and other endeavors that focus on the public good should not be driven by profit and loss statements.

---

The US spends $711 billion (with a B ) dollars on its military every year. The next closest is China at $143 billion. We spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world does combined. Our military can afford to come down on spending a little...or a lot. There is not a single country in the world that could pose a serious threat in a one-on-one fight, and we don't need to spend as if the entire world is going to attack us at the same time.

 

Source: http://www.military1.com/all/article/402...gest-power

 

In the 1950's, tax rates on the highest earners peaked at 90%. The economy boomed. In the 1920's, tax rates were extremely low, and we enjoyed the Roaring Twenties right up until the stock market collapsed and the US sunk into the Great Depression. Point being, increasing tax rates on the wealthy has proven over time to balance and stabilize the economy, and dramatically lowering them often contributes to a short peak then a crash.

 

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-o...tes-2012-5

 

That's a common misconception among a lot of people, and a very dangerous one.  I'm not going to get into specifics, but our military isn't the "powerhouse" that so many believe that it is.

 

Now are there cuts that can be made in regards to how the military spends money?  Absolutely.  Under current rules, the government in general, not just the military has a "spend it or lose it" rule.  They must spend all of the money given to them under the current budget, or the following year they would get less.  As an example, I often would see aircraft launch, fly down to say Key West and do a couple of "touch and goes" just to burn fuel and use up money.  I've seen furniture replaced in government offices just to "burn up" the money in their budget, even if the furniture doesn't need to be replaced.  This usually happens near the end of the fiscal year.  Again, it's not just the military that does it, but all of the Federal Government.  Let that sink in for a moment.

 

Regarding taxes, I still firmly believe that we should switch to a consumption based tax, rather than an earnings based tax (The Fair Tax).  Let everyone pay their "fair share" rather than targeting those that worked hard enough to have a well paying job.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

A profit motive is not the best way to get results within an industry which does not produce profits as the primary mission statement. Social services and other endeavors that focus on the public good should not be driven by profit and loss statements.

 

If I hear one more politician say "we need to run government like a business." ...

 

Which business? Should we run schools like a used car lot?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

That's a common misconception among a lot of people, and a very dangerous one.  I'm not going to get into specifics, but our military isn't the "powerhouse" that so many believe that it is.

 

Now are there cuts that can be made in regards to how the military spends money?  Absolutely.  Under current rules, the government in general, not just the military has a "spend it or lose it" rule.  They must spend all of the money given to them under the current budget, or the following year they would get less.  As an example, I often would see aircraft launch, fly down to say Key West and do a couple of "touch and goes" just to burn fuel and use up money.  I've seen furniture replaced in government offices just to "burn up" the money in their budget, even if the furniture doesn't need to be replaced.  This usually happens near the end of the fiscal year.  Again, it's not just the military that does it, but all of the Federal Government.  Let that sink in for a moment.

 

Regarding taxes, I still firmly believe that we should switch to a consumption based tax, rather than an earnings based tax (The Fair Tax).  Let everyone pay their "fair share" rather than targeting those that worked hard enough to have a well paying job.

As to the first bolded point, I see that in action almost frequently. My wife works in an academic lab that gets lots of government contracts. If they don't spend every last penny of the grants they get, they have to provide a detailed accounting of where every penny went. If they spend it all, there's no oversight. As a result, her lab gets new furniture, new equipment, a new coffeemaker, even new computers if the grant allows for it, at the end of every project. In what world does it make sense to hold a lab accountable for grant money only if they don't spend it all?

 

To your second point, we agree completely. I've long been a supporter of the idea that the fairest way to tax Americans is to place a high, flat consumption tax on every item purchased, new or used, and eliminate income tax entirely. Income tax is certainly one of the government programs most susceptible to fraud, and to be frank, in my experience it's the middle class that gets squeezed by fraud committed by the wealthy and the poor. A certain amount of that consumption tax can be returned at the end of the year to account for children, college tuition, etc., but only if the person claiming it can prove through receipts and bank statements that they actually spent all of that money. No more, "Here's $3,000 for claiming your neighbor's kid as your own dependent."

 

The next logical step would be to go after welfare, but that's going to be an uphill battle as long as the Democratic Party seeks to cater to the lowest common denominator.

---

As to the first bolded point, I see that in action almost frequently. My wife works in an academic lab that gets lots of government contracts. If they don't spend every last penny of the grants they get, they have to provide a detailed accounting of where every penny went. If they spend it all, there's no oversight. As a result, her lab gets new furniture, new equipment, a new coffeemaker, even new computers if the grant allows for it, at the end of every project. In what world does it make sense to hold a lab accountable for grant money only if they don't spend it all?

 

To your second point, we agree completely. I've long been a supporter of the idea that the fairest way to tax Americans is to place a high, flat consumption tax on every item purchased, new or used, and eliminate income tax entirely. Income tax is certainly one of the government programs most susceptible to fraud, and to be frank, in my experience it's the middle class that gets squeezed by fraud committed by the wealthy and the poor. A certain amount of that consumption tax can be returned at the end of the year to account for children, college tuition, etc., but only if the person claiming it can prove through receipts and bank statements that they actually spent all of that money. No more, "Here's $3,000 for claiming your neighbor's kid as your own dependent."

 

The next logical step would be to go after welfare, but that's going to be an uphill battle as long as the Democratic Party seeks to cater to the lowest common denominator.

 

It's been going on for years/decades.  That is the biggest waste when it comes to government, yet most people don't realize that it exists.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Because a lot of people want free market solutions to everything except the military and police.  Personally not a fan of the free market myself.  I don't believe it's a be all end all of solutions.

 

I don't either.  Free market is susceptible to greed.  Always has been, always will.  

---

I don't either. Free market is susceptible to greed. Always has been, always will.

Still better than every other alternative.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don't either.  Free market is susceptible to greed.  Always has been, always will.  

 

So what kind of system would you propose?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.