GasBandit
Staff member
So, instead, we're supposed to reward bad funds management with more funds? There comes a point where you have to stop throwing money at a problem and assuring yourself that you did all you could.[/QUOTE]I'm typically against broad cuts with no targets, like the 10% cut you guys are discussing. It seems like those cuts always go right past any wasteful spending/pork and cut right into the more necessary services. A 10% cut in education spending would mean massive teacher layoffs and slashing school programs like art and music, while the DoE continues to spend money on studies to see if students like math or extra funds for school principals to redo the carpeting in their offices.
Did I say any of that? Please show me where I said that.
What I'm saying is that you need to target cuts. Get specific about what needs to go and what doesn't. You know, actually do the hard part and show some intelligence rather than a clumsy "just cut it all!" approach.[/QUOTE]
We've been trying that for the last 15 years. But it's been like trying to talk a hoarder out of garbage. "Well, how about this?" "OH NO WE CAN'T CUT THAT!" "Ok, then how about this?" "NO! NO, WE NEED THAT!" Well, what if we just shave a little off of..." "NO! STOP! THINK OF THE CHILDREN."
We're long past that point here. Our nation is broke. We're not just borrowing money any more, now we're printing it. And everybody's got a pet project that "can't" be cut. Well, the truth is nothing "can't" be cut by 10%. It won't be the end of the world, especially for the educational system for whom federal money was tantamount to selling off the 10th amendment, just like highway funds.