Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Obama lowered income taxes


For 3rd Straight Year, Americans Paying Less In Federal Taxes Than They Did Under Bush

By Ben Armbruster on Feb 8th, 2011 at 9:50 am LINK

The rise of the Tea Party — “Tea” standing for “Taxed Enough Already” — was inspired by the myth that Americans were suffering under an oppressive tax-raising regime of President Obama. Yet the reality is quite the opposite. As Obama noted in his pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly on Sunday, “I didn’t raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years.” Yesterday, the Congressional Budget office provided the numbers to back that claim up, the AP reports:

[A]s a share of the nation’s economy, Uncle Sam’s take this year will be the lowest since 1950. [...] And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike. [...]

But in the third year of Obama’s presidency, federal taxes are at historic lows. … in the current budget year, federal tax receipts will be equal to 14.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, the lowest level since Harry Truman was president.”

The AP adds that even though federal income tax rates have remained unchanged, “many taxpayers are seeing their bills drop under Obama because of more generous tax credits for college students, working families, homebuyers and the working poor.”

Teacher Training Emphasized in Top Countries

Randi Weingarten



Posted: December 20, 2010 02:23 PM LINK

One of the great frustrations with America's public education system is that our success stories are rarely scaled up so that more students can benefit. To our children's detriment, decision-makers are more likely to chase fads, shift course or choose "reforms" lacking evidence of effectiveness than they are to adopt and expand educational approaches that have been proven successful.

Unfortunately, this is true on many levels. Accomplished teachers rarely have opportunities to share their craft with colleagues or to mentor new teachers. The "secrets" of successful schools too often remain a mystery, even to schools close by. And rather than replicate the practices of high-performing school districts for the benefit of far more students, many superintendents seem intent upon putting their own imprint on a school system -- evidence be damned.

The results of an international assessment released earlier this month show the consequences of America's failure to build on what works in education. American students ranked in the middle of countries participating in the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA. Underlying the results are the stark differences between practices in the top-performing countries and the prevailing approaches to education in the United States.

President Obama has said the countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. Unfortunately for U.S. children, the top-down, test-driven, evidence-free approach to education that dominated this past decade has failed to put the United States on the path that high-achieving nations have followed.

Simply put, the highest-achieving countries in the world out-prepare, out-invest, out-respect and, as a result, outperform the United States.

The top-performing countries on PISA -- Finland, Singapore and South Korea -- place a heavy emphasis on teacher preparation, mentoring and collaboration. They de-emphasize standardized tests, and each has a well-rounded curriculum that teachers can tailor. In Finland, which I recently visited, teacher training is demanding, rigorous and extensive -- with ample clinical experience. Teachers in these countries are esteemed, and are expected to make teaching their profession, and they're virtually 100 percent unionized.

Contrast this with the United States, where teacher preparation too often is insufficient for the complexity and importance of this work. Teachers frequently are assigned a classroom and left to sink or swim. High rates of turnover are expected and even built into the system. Indeed, half of all teachers leave within their first five years. This constant churning costs American school systems $7 billion each year. The cost to American students is incalculable.

The top-performing countries provide a more equitable education for all students and offset the effects of poverty through wraparound services that support students and their families. South Korea provides increased pay, smaller class sizes and more time for collaboration for teachers working in hard-to-staff schools.

Shanghai, which outranked all its competitors, emphasizes support for struggling teachers and schools. As the New York Times reported, "When a school is in trouble in Shanghai, authorities pair it with a high-performing school. The teachers and leaders of the strong school help those in the weak school until it improves. The authorities send whatever support is needed to help those who are struggling." The United States, in contrast, too often substitutes last-resort measures such as school closings and mass teacher firings for this thoughtful approach proven effective by the world's education leader.

High-achieving countries treat teachers as professionals, and responsibility for student outcomes is shared. School systems work with teachers and their unions, and parents and students are engaged and responsible, as well. Compare this with what happens in the United States, where teachers are routinely asked to accept policies made without their input, and then blamed when the policies fail. And often teachers are held solely accountable for student achievement, rather than the mutual responsibility approach that has proven so successful in many other countries.

Educating all our students at high levels is not easy, but our international neighbors show that it can be done. We must study and replicate the best practices, both here and abroad, for the benefit of our kids, and our competitiveness.

Paradox of American's Unborn

January 2, 2011 LINK

The Unborn Paradox

The American entertainment industry has never been comfortable with the act of abortion. Film or television characters might consider the procedure, but even on the most libertine programs (a “Mad Men,” a “Sex and the City”), they’re more likely to have a change of heart than actually go through with it. Reality TV thrives on shocking scenes and subjects — extreme pregnancies and surgeries, suburban polygamists and the gay housewives of New York — but abortion remains a little too controversial, and a little bit too real.

This omission is often cited as a victory for the pro-life movement, and in some cases that’s plainly true. (Recent unplanned-pregnancy movies like “Juno” and “Knocked Up” made abortion seem not only unnecessary but repellent.) But it can also be a form of cultural denial: a way of reassuring the public that abortion in America is — in Bill Clinton’s famous phrase — safe and legal, but also rare.

Rare it isn’t: not when one in five pregnancies ends at the abortion clinic. So it was a victory for realism, at least, when MTV decided to supplement its hit reality shows “16 and Pregnant” and “Teen Mom” with last week’s special, “No Easy Decision,” which followed Markai Durham, a teen mother who got pregnant a second time and chose abortion.

MTV being MTV, the special’s attitude was resolutely pro-choice. But it was a heartbreaking spectacle, whatever your perspective. Durham and her boyfriend are the kind of young people our culture sets adrift — working-class and undereducated, with weak support networks, few authority figures, and no script for sexual maturity beyond the easily neglected admonition to always use a condom. Their televised agony was a case study in how abortion can simultaneously seem like a moral wrong and the only possible solution — because it promised to keep them out of poverty, and to let them give their first daughter opportunities they never had.

The show was particularly wrenching, though, when juxtaposed with two recent dispatches from the world of midlife, upper-middle-class infertility. Last month there was Vanessa Grigoriadis’s provocative New York Magazine story “Waking Up From the Pill,” which suggested that a lifetime on chemical birth control has encouraged women “to forget about the biological realities of being female ... inadvertently, indirectly, infertility has become the Pill’s primary side effect.” Then on Sunday, The Times Magazine provided a more intimate look at the same issue, in which a midlife parent, the journalist Melanie Thernstrom, chronicled what it took to bring her children into the world: six failed in vitro cycles, an egg donor and two surrogate mothers, and an untold fortune in expenses.

In every era, there’s been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.

Some of this shift reflects the growing acceptance of single parenting. But some of it reflects the impact of Roe v. Wade. Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead.

And lives are what they are. On the MTV special, the people around Durham swaddle abortion in euphemism. The being inside her is just “pregnancy tissue.” After the abortion, she recalls being warned not to humanize it: “If you think of it like [a person], you’re going to make yourself depressed.” Instead, “think of it as what it is: nothing but a little ball of cells.”

It’s left to Durham herself to cut through the evasion. Sitting with her boyfriend afterward, she begins to cry when he calls the embryo a “thing.” Gesturing to their infant daughter, she says, “A ‘thing’ can turn out like that. That’s what I remember ... ‘Nothing but a bunch of cells’ can be her.”

When we want to know this, we know this. Last week’s New Yorker carried a poem by Kevin Young about expectant parents, early in pregnancy, probing the mother’s womb for a heartbeat:

The doctor trying again to find you, fragile,

fern, snowflake. Nothing.

After, my wife will say, in fear,

impatient, she went beyond her body,

this tiny room, into the ether—

... And there

it is: faint, an echo, faster and further

away than mother’s, all beat box

and fuzzy feedback. ...

This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.

Tracking the Shrinking Middle Class


http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/features/view/1

Income Inequality Hurting Social Security