Tag Archives: wasteful

Way to go, U.S. Senate. You made a 5-year-old boy cry. How dare you vote to take away scholarships from D.C. kids who really need them! Have you seen these kids? Even the Eduwonk – no big fan of vouchers – says “the spectacle of forcing the kids to leave their schools before they age out is pretty cold-hearted.” Uh-huh. Fifty-eight U.S. Senators – including Colorado’s own Michael Bennet and Mark Udall – have decided to spend billions on wasteful pork projects, but can’t spare anything to keep 1,700 students from exercising the choice to enroll in a better school. And to think I’ve said nice things about Mr. Bennet before. I’m thinking about taking it back. Andy Smarick at the Flypaper blog asks: “Why are they doing this?” He makes some very good points, and I have to agree with him. But really, I’m just plain mad right now. I’ve even thought about throwing some of my Legos at the next U.S. Senator who comes my way. (Not that many ever have, mind you.) Will President Obama show the Senators who’s in charge? His press secretary said today that “it wouldn’t make sense to disrupt the education of those […]

The horse isn’t dead yet, so I’m not going to stop beating it. I’ve already highlighted the silliness of the “magical money tree” solution to education coming from Congress. Let’s not mince words: the so-called “stimulus” bill in Washington, DC, is a disaster. A disaster for education reform, and a disaster for students – who would end up being burdened with far, far more debt than we can hope to gain from the proposed education spending. As much as I have enjoyed picking apart the nonsense of this gargantuan wasteful spending bill, the writers at the Edspresso blog truly have been in their heyday unraveling the topic. After a hot start a few years ago, Edspresso went through some tough, slow times. That appears to be in the past, though. The latest piece “Status Quo Education Stimulus” ironically lauds the National Education Association for showing us how “the stimulus bill is nothing more than additional funding for the education programs and structures that already exist, regardless of efficacy.”