SENATE BILL: Power to Parents Act (Failed)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I can't even think of how this bill could be amended to get my signature.

Eliminating the Go Green Fund is out of the question.

Mandating local school districts to take on this policy is also inappropriate.

I can't stand by the removal of the community as a partner in education that this bill would bring about.

1- this does not eliminate the Go Green Fund, but takes some away. Every part of the budget should be open to cuts

2- I appreciate that you did this in the Northeast...I commend you for it. However, the ultimate goal of legislation should be to give power to the people...the regions are sometimes a more favorable arena for that, sometimes not. I am not in the IDS legislature so I proposed it here and believe we have an obligation in this body to give as many rights as possible directly to the people

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Perhaps we could come up with a compromise, and give local communities the incentive to adopt this policy, rather than a mandate?

Though I must say, I am also uncomfortable with gutting the Go Green Fund.

I don't see any reason why we should offer incentives.

Because if we do, we can give a strong reason for why the policy should be adopted by the individual communities without taking their role out of the equation.

I would support this idea, Scott-

[CLARENCE 2015!]

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

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Scott- your amendment is FRIENDLY but I'd like to make one change... instead of "municipality" I believe it should be "school governing authority" as in many parts of the nation this is done by county

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Just to be clear I would veto this bill with or without Senator Scott's amendment. I am not very enthusiastic about making this an even more expensive proposal.

I urge Senators to continue these discussions- if we can come to a consensus we will have numbers to overturn a veto

I also ask Mr. President- you proposed a redrafted bill in my discharge benefits bill... are there changes in this bill you could see that would make you likely to sign it? Unlike the Tea Party- I recognize compromise can achieve great things and can come to the table to discuss it

[CLARENCE 2015!]

The amendment is friendly

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Redalgo- would you object if we allocated the funding specifically for schools which need it.... such as those gaining students in this arrangement?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

In that case- I propose the following amendment to Scott's amendment

-The participation reward shall be allocated according to need by the school governing authority to schools within the district and will be used only for the purposes of providing resources to expand the school's capacity for students

Does that wording sound fine, Redalgo?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Thank you, Redalgo... it is great to work with you on this!

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Added to Scott's text... it is a specification on his rewards to school governing authorities

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Again I will be vetoing this...can we move on?

Considering the cooperation the Senate has had on this... it takes a whole lot for me, Scott, and Redalgo to be lock step...I believe we can override your veto

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Once again- I believe an override is likely if you choose to veto a bill which is the result of cooperation and compromise... this game exists to have these debates and discussions and I'm sure you don't want a productive debate to end

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Once again- I believe an override is likely if you choose to veto a bill which is the result of cooperation and compromise... this game exists to have these debates and discussions and I'm sure you don't want a productive debate to end

I don't believe an override is likely once Senators wake up and realize that all this does is kill green jobs so that we can employ more bus drivers. Never mind the fact that regions like the Northeast are perfectly able to fund regional policy decisions on their own.

If you wanted to debate the bill- you should have done so from the start rather then attempt to end the debate...

There's been discussion of replacing the Go Green Fund with another source and that is a compromise I am willing to make because compromise is something that ought to be valued, rather then having a point of view and refusing to budge and attempting to close debate because you don't like a bill

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Senator I have made my position on this proposal very clear and you aren't interested in compromising.

Tell that to Scott and Redalgo- with whom I've worked to amend the bill

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I can't even think of how this bill could be amended to get my signature.

This is the attitude you came into this bill with...

I hope the Senate will continue to discuss this bill because we can have the votes to override the President's veto he had decided on before any of this great debate and discussion took place

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Redalgo- I support your wording generally but have a question about 5... where does that increase come from? I believe a strength of the bill is that it is revenue neutral and perhaps I am misreading here, but the increase in the Other Mass Transit line item doesn't seem to have a source identified here. Do you have ideas?

[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???

[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...

[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

[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

[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!

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Ben's amendment is friendly...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I posted a Leave of Absence thread like you asked, Yankee! I am back now from your stomping grounds in North Carolina...

I'd like to ask TJ- you are attempting to eliminate the transportation assistance? That is the goal of your amendment?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I'd like to ask TJ- you are attempting to eliminate the transportation assistance? That is the goal of your amendment?

Yes. I'm all for giving parents the power to choose schools, but if they are going to choose a school their child wouldn't otherwise the parents ought to have the responsibility to get their kids there. If they really want their kids to go there, they'll find a way.

The benefit I see to this is that it could potentially prevent overcrowding at certain schools... the other side of this is that it could prevent lower income students from having access to the finest schools which is one of the major intentions behind this legislation

Redalgo and Scott- what are your thoughts?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I'm going to put it as unfriendly but haven't decided whether or not I will vote for it yet... I'd like to see the President respond to Senator Scott