SENATE BILL: Power to Parents Act (Failed)

[Redalgo]

I was simply going to have it come out of the planned budget surplus. If you would like to discuss options for where to cut some amount of spending to offset that, however, that's okay too. I just assumed that cutting a billion dollars into a ten billion dollar item would seriously jeopardize the success of several other transportation programs for which the details are unbeknownst to me.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I was simply going to have it come out of the planned budget surplus. If you would like to discuss options for where to cut some amount of spending to offset that, however, that's okay too. I just assumed that cutting a billion dollars into a ten billion dollar item would seriously jeopardize the success of several other transportation programs for which the details are unbeknownst to me.

I'd forgotten we had a surplus... in that case I am completely fine removing the Go Green Fund from the bill and with your version. Scott???

[Napoleon]

Clarence has compromised by moving one disastrous policy to another. Quite a low standard if you ask me. I really hope it doesn't become a trend for this Senate to ignore common sense because the sponsor of a bill expresses a willingness to compromise. After all, the Fugitive Slave Act was a compromise.

The amount of money allocated for transportation by this bill would not be nearly enough to cover the costs. Has anyone thought about how this bill would actually affect policy? There is an average of 6 schools per school district. You are expecting school districts to cover the cost of transporting any student to any school. It already costs approximately $18 billion to provide transportation for K-12 students to get to the school serving their communities. You are trying to open the flood gates. Any student can go to any school and we are supposed to pay to transport them with expensive and polluting buses running multiple times through neighborhoods to get to schools all the way on the other side of town. And to do this we are expected to make it more difficult for working people to make their commute. I am absolutely bewildered.

[Napoleon]

I was simply going to have it come out of the planned budget surplus. If you would like to discuss options for where to cut some amount of spending to offset that, however, that's okay too. I just assumed that cutting a billion dollars into a ten billion dollar item would seriously jeopardize the success of several other transportation programs for which the details are unbeknownst to me.

I'd forgotten we had a surplus... in that case I am completely fine removing the Go Green Fund from the bill and with your version. Scott???

Because we are currently running a surplus we should implement a long term policy with long term costs and no direct funding?

[Napoleon]

While we are discussing how to waste our surplus, has anyone looked into the benefits of this bill? Like how much variance in performance typically exists within a singular school district? Not much. Its basically insignificant. School districts are normally small entities.

[Napoleon]

Would this bill not severely undermine efforts to racially diversify educational environs in a sizable number of districts, result in overcrowding the best schools, and eventually siphon funding away from the schools struggling the most (thus being least attractive to parents) to improve their levels of performance? I am a bit concerned about these things. What are your thoughts, Clarence? Is there a way to circumvent these issues or might they not be a priority?

Redalgo- I want to say first that I appreciate your respectful and genuine feedback event hough we do not often agree...

As for racial diversity- in Florida communities are often divided by race... there are parts of my county which have many blacks while others have many fewer. As is- with school boundaries divided geographically this results in some schools having a higher percentage of blacks then others. Giving blacks (particularly poorer blacks) the opportunity to attend schools in another area which are often higher performing would likely help diversify schools

Overcrowding- one of the problems with low performing schools is overcrowding as they don't have the resources for every child... they lack computers and sometimes even desks. Higher performing schools likely have the capacity to take in more students while lower perofrming schools would be able to concentrate their resources on the students who remain, therefore improving those student's learning experiences

Siphoning funds- I believe the above answer shows my theory- which is that the schools will eventually even out. The disparity now between high performing and low performing schools is a shame on our nation's educational system...I believe this will give equal opportunity to every student to have the best possible education

Overcrowding is a by district problem. A school district adjusts its school boundaries to ensure that all of their schools are run efficiently and overcrowding is not something that affects only one school in a district.

With an average of six schools per district, I highly doubt any racial diversity is achieved here.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Clarence has compromised by moving one disastrous policy to another. Quite a low standard if you ask me. I really hope it doesn't become a trend for this Senate to ignore common sense because the sponsor of a bill expresses a willingness to compromise. After all, the Fugitive Slave Act was a compromise.

You are a repulsive, loathsome individual... I'd say your immaturity never ceases to amaze be but this time- it has. I would've figured a victory would humble you as it does most people- instead, you've only extended your "my way or the highway" arrogance
If any one wants to respond to your points- they should feel free. I will choose not to engage in dialogue with a "man" who is ruining the pleasant experience of debating and discussing issues by bringing his arrogance and attitude into every discussion he enters

Grow up, Mr. President...

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Mr. President, it is not productive for you to personally attack members of the Senate; it only damages your image among its members.  Voice your objections without resorting to personal attacks.

[Napoleon]

Clarence has compromised by moving one disastrous policy to another. Quite a low standard if you ask me. I really hope it doesn't become a trend for this Senate to ignore common sense because the sponsor of a bill expresses a willingness to compromise. After all, the Fugitive Slave Act was a compromise.

You are a repulsive, loathsome individual... I'd say your immaturity never ceases to amaze be but this time- it has. I would've figured a victory would humble you as it does most people- instead, you've only extended your "my way or the highway" arrogance
If any one wants to respond to your points- they should feel free. I will choose not to engage in dialogue with a "man" who is ruining the pleasant experience of debating and discussing issues by bringing his arrogance and attitude into every discussion he enters

Grow up, Mr. President...

You've offered no reason for adopting this policy and can't defend it so you resort to personal attacks and somehow I am the immature one? Okay. Someone dares to speak out against your bill and actually debate it's merits and you say I am ruining the experience of debate. There has been no debate until now! The whole discussion has been spent nitpicking on how to implement a policy without any peep about whether its a good or bad policy and why. Grow up Senator and learn some manners.

[Napoleon]

Mr. President, it is not productive for you to personally attack members of the Senate; it only damages your image among its members.  Voice your objections without resorting to personal attacks.

Clarence is the only one making personal attacks so I will assume you meant to address him.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Clarence has compromised by moving one disastrous policy to another. Quite a low standard if you ask me. I really hope it doesn't become a trend for this Senate to ignore common sense because the sponsor of a bill expresses a willingness to compromise. After all, the Fugitive Slave Act was a compromise.

You are a repulsive, loathsome individual... I'd say your immaturity never ceases to amaze be but this time- it has. I would've figured a victory would humble you as it does most people- instead, you've only extended your "my way or the highway" arrogance
If any one wants to respond to your points- they should feel free. I will choose not to engage in dialogue with a "man" who is ruining the pleasant experience of debating and discussing issues by bringing his arrogance and attitude into every discussion he enters

Grow up, Mr. President...

You've offered no reason for adopting this policy and can't defend it so you resort to personal attacks and somehow I am the immature one? Okay. Someone dares to speak out against your bill and actually debate it's merits and you say I am ruining the experience of debate. There has been no debate until now! The whole discussion has been spent nitpicking on how to implement a policy without any peep about whether its a good or bad policy and why. Grow up Senator and learn some manners.

I suppose it's a good thing the web gives pipsqueaks like yourself a chance to be  a "big man" and the chance to bully...

I've been standing for this issue thru out my entire time in Atlasia- in the IDS legislature, or two bills in the Senate... and go to page 1 and read from there if you believe I haven't debated or offered reasons or there's been no discussion if this is a good or bad policy

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm going to make this brief... I'm really stressed today because of personal matters, so I'm sorry if I won't be as involved today.

Personally, I'd rather cut a little from each department whether than take a lot out of one expenditure.  Some can be taken from the surplus, but I don't favor reducing programs to the point that they're ineffective.

Please tone down the rhetoric here, guys.

[Napoleon]

I do remember when you proposed school vouchers in the IDS legislature. If I recall correctly, and I do of course, you ended up resorting to personal attacks like "douchebag" similar to what you are doing here and now instead of debating the bill. I suppose this is due to maturity?

Anyway you haven't stated why we need this policy to my standards. I have already explained how your overcrowding and racial diversity arguments don't work and I haven't seen any justification for the expense, which is going to be much larger than the funding that is currently being suggested.

I have done nothing but try to present my point of view in good faith. To be blunt I am a bit aggravated that I am expected to double duty as President and Senator. This body used to be a place where ideas were debated on their merits and from what I hear here I get the impression that we are doling out Ayes for effort which I find disturbing.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Things got rowdy in the IDS legislature because I was called a racist and bigot by Teddy for proposing school vouchers... something you yourself recognized was highly inappropriate considering my background and you apologized with a private message which I appreciated...you are not the only one with a fine memory

But as for "presenting your view in good faith"- is that what you call this...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your second statement there is clearly a personal attack and your last statement is what makes it such a vile commentary overall...

You have ZERO authority in case you've forgotten- you are the President of a phony country on a fantasy board so get off your damned high horse and realize that some of us are here because we enjoy pleasent discussion. If any of these bills truly affected a single person- I'd disagree with but understand your insolent attitude. As they don't affect any real person- I find your attitude unbecoming of any one who calls himself a man

I should post for the record the private message I sent you first conceding the election- a polite concession hours before the final votes were cast. In it- I privately tried to give you polite advice in good faith from my far more extensive life experience then yours. If I post the message, others would agree it is polite and well intentioned... but you reacted to that in a negative way, taking offense and a similar attitude you have here. You did the same when Mechaman wrote a piece opposing Tweed's case in the Supreme Court and backing up your election because you didn't like some of what he had written... never mind that he was supporting your election

Those who want respect show respect- you've yet to show respect, and when you do I will return the favor

[Napoleon]

How in the world can that second statement even be construed as a personal attack? I would love to see you explain that.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

How in the world can that second statement even be construed as a personal attack? I would love to see you explain that.

Excuse me- I meant the first... the one in which you accuse me of moving from one disastrous idea to another. This is perhaps my main problem with you Napoleon- you are more dogmatic and doctrinaire then any one else on this board! Calling something "disastrous" or comments such as "of course not" show that you are not willing to explore or consider new ideas... you are not even willing to tone down your rhetoric to make polite discussion possible. I pride myself on being open to new ideas and being willing to change based on new information- for example, I used to oppose rights for gays and lesbians and now I am proud to do so. You- on the other hand- seem to have such an inflated view that you alone are right and if one doesn't agree with you, he or she is dead wrong and either must adopt your point of view or else is not worth it. This is reflected when you made the statement earlier in this post....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look at that statement- after I have compromised and worked to amend this bill- as others have admitted... you state that I am not interested in compromising and before that you state you have made your position clear, as if I must somehow acquiese to your view to compromise. Your statements that we should drop this bill as you will veto it show your lack of regard for debate

Open your mind!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Mr. President, do you have any specific proposals that would improve the bill so that it would better fulfill its intention?

[Napoleon]

Mr. President, do you have any specific proposals that would improve the bill so that it would better fulfill its intention?

Kill it.

You are completely missing the point. I am not interested in fulfilling the intentions of this bill and you shouldn't be either. This is a $40 billion boondoggle by my estimates. I could not care less how the Senate decides to fund it at this point if you actually believe this policy is pratical then there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Mr. President, do you have any specific proposals that would improve the bill so that it would better fulfill its intention?

Kill it.

You are completely missing the point. I am not interested in fulfilling the intentions of this bill and you shouldn't be either. This is a $40 billion boondoggle by my estimates. I could not care less how the Senate decides to fund it at this point if you actually believe this policy is pratical then there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

I believe I already indicated that I'm not automatically a vote for or against this.  I am still weighing the pros and cons of the legislation, and even if I vote against the final draft, I want Clarence and everyone else to understand that at least I looked at both arguments and based my judgment off of that instead of simply having a knee-jerk attitude against it.  But even if you don't like the mechanics of the bill itself, it's better to provide an alternative solution that aims to accomplish what this bill does in a better way (that being, of course, improving our country's education and expanding access to it).  (Personally, I'd prefer a bill that transition our nation's education system into a Finland-based one, but I'm not sure how we'd go about achieving that right now.)

[Napoleon]

I am still weighing the pros and cons of the legislation, and even if I vote against the final draft, I want Clarence and everyone else to understand that at least I looked at both arguments and based my judgment off of that instead of simply having a knee-jerk attitude against it. 

Is that what you think I've done? Sorry, I've actually researched how this bill would affect the status quo to reach my conclusion. There is no compromise that could make this function practically.

Let's take a look at what this bill does. It gives money to school districts to provide transportation to any school from any neighborhood. Buses can't just pick kids up from a neighborhood and go from school to school. Many schools start at the same time, so that's a lot of buses and buses are expensive. That's a lot of miles, and gasoline is expensive. That's a lot of kids to a lot of schools. I really feel like I'm the only person who has thought about the impact of this bill. Now, as I said, it gives money to school districts, but it doesn't fund transportation. $1 billion is not nearly enough money to cover the costs incurred. Considering the cost of buses and gasoline and the number of schools per district, my estimation is that at least forty times that is needed to actually work, and that is a lot of money.

Now let's focus on the merits of this bill. Yes, allowing parents to send there child to the school they want to is a good idea but on who's dime? Does the outcome justify the cost? Most school districts are small- it isn't as if you will find really good schools and really bad schools within a single district very often. So what tangible benefits will be seen from this bill, and how in the world could they outweigh a $40 billion price tag?

You- on the other hand- seem to have such an inflated view that you alone are right and if one doesn't agree with you, he or she is dead wrong and either must adopt your point of view or else is not worth it.

I do believe that in regard to this bill, quite strongly in fact. I encourage you to explain how this bill would do anything other than create chaos. You haven't provided any argument as to why this policy should be adopted: the only favorable comments you made of the bill I've shown can't really apply- the racial diversity and overcrowding arguments don't align with the reality of our education system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your second statement there is clearly a personal attack and your last statement is what makes it such a vile commentary overall...

Senator, that second statement is in no way a personal attack and cannot even be stretched or twisted into such. Quite clearly, I stated that your willing to compromise (which is respectable, but in this case, impossible) has resulted only in making a bad policy into a different bad policy, and saying that is a poor standard on which to judge legislation. This is in response to a Redalgo post which has since been edited out of the form my response was to. The point was that compromise is good, but you can't vote for a bad policy just because compromises were made to get there. Voting on legislation should be about the policy itself and not the process- and this process has been dreadful by the standards of this esteemed body.

The last statement was included to demonstrate that compromise in and of itself is not a virtue, and does not make something worthy of becoming law. Compromise can be good, compromise can be bad, just like anything else.

I believe that working to improve a bill is a good thing but I understand this bill is unworkable in any form if the goals Senator Clarence has set out are to be achieved, so I recommend not spending more time on it. In no way is this an attempt to stifle debate. See the problem Clarence is that there hasn't been any debate (maybe that's what made it enjoyable?), and no one was, until I spoke out, focused on the merits of the policy itself. Hopefully we can now reach a decision on this by considering the relevant facts and realize not every bill was meant to be passed.

[Redalgo]

I have done nothing but try to present my point of view in good faith. To be blunt I am a bit aggravated that I am expected to double duty as President and Senator. This body used to be a place where ideas were debated on their merits and from what I hear here I get the impression that we are doling out Ayes for effort which I find disturbing.

Nobody expects you to be both a President and Senator, and to be fair I try to look for flaws in legislation, and object to them insofar as I (a.) care about the issues at hand, (b.) know about the issues at hand, and (c.) am not letting any legislation which offends my conscience pass through the Senate unopposed. On this particular piece of legislation I don’t much care about where children go to school and am thus inclined to let Clarence have what he wants within reason, know next to nothing about busing children - again making me feel inclined to defer to others’ judgments (researching the matter is a waste of my valuable, finite resource of time given what I perceive to be this bill’s low levels of impact and personal importance), and within the scope of what I already knew earlier on there were no consequences to this legislation that appeared to be morally objectionable (well, at least at the point we would have been at after implementing the amendment(s)). Now I have become relatively uncertain about what this legislation will accomplish again.

As semi-helpful as it is that you welcomed yourself onto the floor to speak on the matter, if the relatively inactive half of the Senate were willing to speak up more frequently maybe  concerns such as those you have expressed would have already been aired by now. Your arguments make me curious to see where this discussion carries on to, and has at least temporarily drawn me back into the camp of opposition, but so long as the atmosphere for debate here is toxic I have no interest in wading into the fray and jeopardizing the continued pleasantness of my splendid summer evening. I am willing to hear out anything folks have to say here, but will not suffer dramatic shenanigans and heated rhetoric over this kind of stuff.

Aside from that, as an afterthought, what does the Senate think of re-purposing the bill to allow parents to have their children attend public schools of their choices provided that it is the parent - not school district(s) involved - who are left to be wholly responsible for transporting their child or children? This would circumvent the cost of taking buses out of their usual ways, would it not? Does anybody else have ideas to bounce off of the President now that he has become firmly embedded in the fabric that is this discussion?

[TJ in Oregon]

Aside from that, as an afterthought, what does the Senate think of re-purposing the bill to allow parents to have their children attend public schools of their choices provided that it is the parent - not school district(s) involved - who are left to be wholly responsible for transporting their child or children? This would circumvent the cost of taking buses out of their usual ways, would it not? Does anybody else have ideas to bounce off of the President now that he has become firmly embedded in the fabric that is this discussion?

Actually I would much prefer this to having the school help responsible for busing.

In Ohio, we have an open-enrollment law that allows schools to admit students from neighboring districts, if the school chooses to take part, and the funding for that student is transferred to the district the student attends. But the school provides no transportation and the parents are responsible for that.

This bill is designed to be restricted to a single district, which means many, probably most, districts in the country will be completely unaffected because they only have one high school. The idea is more similar to the system in Arizona where parents can choose which school in the district to send their kids to. The school my sister taught at there was rated the best in the district (a pretty poor, heavily minority district much like her school) in test score improvements one year, so the next year they had a huge surge in enrollment. In some ways it was a good thing to have since parents had the option of sending their children to the best public school in the area, but it also caused overcrowding issues because the school, despite having the power to reject students, would reject no one.

[Gustaf]

Could I point out that we have this type of system in Sweden and there is no chaos or exploding costs that I'm aware of? Although, we don't do school buses, you just pay for the kids getting a public transportation card and let the families figure out transport on their own. I commuted almost an hour for several years to get to a good school in the city rather than the local one.

Also, as moderator, chill people.

[Sbane]

I think we should allow open enrollment but we shouldn't pay for transportation. If you want to send your kid to a school farther away, you should arrange for the transportation.

[Napoleon]

I think we should allow open enrollment but we shouldn't pay for transportation. If you want to send your kid to a school farther away, you should arrange for the transportation.

School districts can already allow that if they want; this bill is only about paying for transportation.