Again, I won’t comment on the first article, but this one has opinions that are supported. You don’t agree with them, but that does not make them “unprofessional.”

As for my point on your admission, well, you seem to be making my argument. You question Mande’s professionalism based on, I presume, her inability to support her opinion. But your contrary opinion cannot be supported if you don’t know anything about the subject. You’re just offering an opinion based on what appears to be your view that you should give govt. the benefit of the doubt. That’s an opinion you have every right to hold, but you don’t support it in any way.

I never said you are disqualified from disagreeing with anyone. I simply disagreed with your view, and pointed to your admitted lack of understanding of the subject being discussed. You claim her criticism was unfounded, yet your criticism was even more unfounded, in my opinion.

As for govt. v. business, both you and rick make the same sort of argument. You both seem to be saying we shouldn’t expect govt. to operate like a business because, well, it doesn’t. But that’s a weak argument. Working to change govt. for the better should be the goal of all citizens. And if that means making it operate more like a business by being more responsive to sudden changes, and running more efficiently, then that is a laudable goal. A daunting task? You bet. Unattainable? Only if you believe it to be.

And you keep going back to my admission that I don’t know a whole ton about the particular case at hand. That’s because it’s all based on ONE article. My point is that based on that ONE short article, probably none of us knows all the details of the matter and, thus, it might be most appropriate refrain from drawing negative conclusions. So I’m not “freely admitting” anything that should disqualify me from disagreeing with Mande or you and whomever. I was simply saying that we’re all looking at a sketchy picture (based on that single short article), so, again, I took objection to what I saw as rather unfounded criticism leveled….I guess it’s back to the benefit of the doubt question.

In any case, we may have different views on how government should work, etc. Others on this thread have stated — more effectively than I have — the ways in which government does and cannot function quite like a business. And I’ve agreed that it’s entirely proper for taxpayers to expect certain businesslike efficiencies and accountability, but that may not capture the entire definition of “good government.” Either way, I hope we can agree that we’re fortunate in this country to have the opportunity to replace public leaders who do a poor job…..I think Rick in post 31 gets at that issue pretty nicely.

Of course, when you freely admit you don’t know that much about the issue at hand, but object to her take on it, you end up sounding like it’s just a personal thing for you. Based on how poorly most govts. address problems, assuming the worst is probably a more sound strategy than giving govt. the benefit of the doubt. That may not be your personal view, of course, but when you post your thoughts, expect differing views to be expressed.

As for logical inconsistency, the concept of tax breaks on the front end has its supporters. The idea is that, the more disposable income available to citizens, the more they might spend. The more they spend, the more tax revenue is generated, thus certain services would not need to be cut. But the real point to consider is not that she wants tax cuts and full funding of services, but tax cuts, full funding of certain services (like educating kids), and cutting other services that may not be necessary or as important.

Did she say that? No, but there’s also only so much one generally says in these little pieces. If you want a detailed account of sound fiscal policies, buy a book on the subject. Just as you find it objectionable that she would assume the worst of govt., some may find it objectionable that you assume her economic theories are flawed when she has yet to offer a fully detailed account of what they might be. I presume there is more to her views than the simplistic “cut taxes but offer full service” theory you attribute to her. If I’m wrong, then perhaps you are correct. But your posts offer little more than selective quotes to support your theory on her being “logically inconsistent.” Sounds personal to me.

As I said a while back, I suspect we’re at the agreeing to disagree point. In any case, I have questioned the soundness of Mande’s arguments on this and another issue (her factually incorrect piece about DNA research), but I have no “personal agenda.”

As for the issue of the article, if this truly is the only district in the country looking to this solution, they are either ahead of the curve, or grasping at straws. I doubt it is the former, as govt. is rarely the source of truly innovative solutions.

My point, and I think this was plenty clear, was to say that WHATEVER THE REASON….if the school board in MN is really compromising the education of children, then, again, I hope people are outraged. And yes….that include reasons related to inefficiency, to keeping taxes down, whatever.

I just took exception to Mande’s conclusion that this was apparent waste. We just don’t know. Maybe I’m overly willing to give a public entity the benefit of the doubt and to trust in the check-and-balance system of a publicly elected board. I stated early on here that did not necessarily advocate the four-day week plan. If it was my decision, I’d probably look for other ways to cut, as well. But I think it’s a cheap shot to make such claim’s about “education taking a backseat…” and so on. It’s too early to draw that conclusion at this point, in my opinon.

And, indeed, I think it’s ironic to talk about what a travesty it is to put money ahead of education while asking for “tax cuts on the front end.”

Of course, maybe these folks in MN really are wasteful and wrong-headed. If so, this is the only school district I’ve heard of going to a four-day week…..if it’s the only one crafting such a plan of neglect and wastefulness out of the thousands of school districts across the country, then maybe local public school systems work better than we’re giving them credit for. Or at least I hope we’re being careful not to paint with a broad brush.

Questioning govt. actions is not anti-govt. Anarchists are anti-govt. Everyone else falls under a different heading. Implying someone is anti-govt. because they question certain govt. actions is another red herring. If you can’t beat the message, beat the messenger.

-”Blah, blah, blah. Same tired arguments already made. Look how smart I am, everyone.”

Yes, we all get it. Questioning govt. is OK with you, as long as it is a position you support.

-”In any case, I don’t think it’s particularly logical to compare the purchase of a single retail product at Lowe’s to the delivery of a multi-faceted “product” stretched out over the course of months and months. Nonetheless, there are examples….”

Again, analogies are not intended to be perfect comparisons. But your newspaper example? Let’s see. I can drop my subscription and demand my money back for those papers that I have not yet received. It is done all the time. No “flim-flam” if there is a solution, which there is, so here’s yet another red herring. If the paper refuses, yes, that’s a “flim-flam.” But in my experience, they do not. Again, the point was that you would not stand for such actions with business, but you at least have a way to respond. With govt., you do not. If you want a “better” analogy, how about this? You join a gym, sign a one-year contract, pay your dues, then the gym removes all of its weight-lifting equipment, or shuts down its pool. Would you stand for that? No. You would quit and get your prorated dues back, or negotiate a reduced fee. Again, you have a way to respond to business, but not with govt.

-”Is the school district in Minnesota reducing services? Maybe it is. Again, we can’t yet know — me or you or Mande — how it will play out. Maybe test scores will reveal that the four-day week hasn’t been problematic.”

You can blindly accept the concept that the govt. is more likely to do the right thing in this case. Others choose to question what will happen. There is nothing wrong with raising the questions, though, especially based on what everyone knows to be true: In general, govts. are horribly inefficient at doing what they are supposed to do. But here’s something nobody has asked. What about the single parent with the five-day work week? How will this impact that tax payer? Did the school district take that into account? School is not intended to be used as day-care, of course, but the fact remains that some people simply cannot afford to drop a day of work to stay home and watch the kids. Even worse, some may actually lose their jobs. Won’t that create an added drain on govt. resources? And another thing nobody mentioned. They did this, at least partially, in response to a petition signed by 55 people? How many people pay taxes in that county? If there is a counter-petition that has more people signing it, will they change their mind? Fifty-five seems like a pretty low number to me to be given such influence.

-”Still, I will certainly acknowledge this: If that district up in Minnesota is shortchanging the education of children in order to have more money to waste, in order to meet a budget, or in order to hold the line on taxes, then I think folks should be up in arms.”

Nobody said they are doing this “in order to have more money to waste.” The idea is that they are wasting money and should look to other solutions that do not have the potential for negatively impacting the education of children. And nobody said what was being proposed was “in order to hold the line on taxes.” They did say it was “in order to meet a budget.” The complaint, as I saw it, was to look for other solutions, rather than cut back on school days. Kids in most (if not all) of the other countries that score better than U.S. kids have more school days than ours. Maybe that’s because more days in school=smarter (or, at least, better educated) kids. Maybe not. My feeling is that more days in school probably helps. Again, the bottom line is that govt. tends to be inefficient, and looks for the “easy” solution when met with budget problems.

Not until your third post did you think it important to mention this plan was for next year. Good work on backtracking to try to support your attacks on Mande. Nonetheless, perhaps you can explain a couple of things. First, are the taxes paid this year intended for this year’s budget? Or are they intended for next year? And if this plan is for next year, when we don’t know what will be the cost of fuel, how is this a “solution”? If they discovered they ran over budget because of the cost of fuel, which they did not anticipate, are they anticipating fuel next year will be a specific price? Sounds a little “flim-flammy” to me.

-”Even at that, I think FWFIV is correct that the Lowe’s analogy isn’t a particularly good one.”

Just because you either don’t understand an analogy, or it doesn’t support your opinion, does not mean it is not good. A “service” is a “product,” regardless of how long it is rendered. If you cannot understand that basic business principle, I cannot help you. No, govt. is not EXACTLY the same as a TRUE business. But the analogy still holds. It is painfully obvious to probably everyone that there is a big difference, of course. You rarely can simply drop your govt.-supplied service, stop paying (taxes) for it, and turn elsewhere for the service. And that’s kind of the point of articles such as Mande’s. Expose possible problems with the way govt. operates with the hope of correcting it. Again, if you don’t get that, I cannot help you. Oh, and you can drop your “new customers” red herring. It doesn’t work no matter how many times you want to repeat it. Again, “new customers” is not the issue

-”There are ways that we’d all like the government to function more like businesses. But the fact is that they are two different animals, and analogies comparing government to business are often not on target.”

Uh, yeah, I think your first sentence is pretty obvious. Analogies, however, are not intended to be perfect, apples-to-apples comparisons. In fact, they are defined as showing similarities in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. It’s difficult for two people to effectively communicate when only one actually understands the subtle nuances of the language with which they are “communicating.” (hint: you are not the “one”)

-”As for Mande, it was in post #5 that she explained her position on complaining about cutbacks while advocating tax cuts.”

A semi-valid point, but the Mande-bashing to which I was referring is your “question” in post #3. Again, you clearly enjoy trying to slap her around a little through your post. But you are rather clumsy at it, which I so enjoy pointing out.

See how the ‘morubind ecomony’ phrase is qualified by the jabs at people’s excessive lifestyles? Also see how I said that people
‘whine about a moribund economy’ while living excessivley?

So as not to overwhelm your neurons, I’ll give you a chance to go back up and read that first paragraph once more.

Ok, you’re back? In that first paragraph, which you so gingerly point to as evidence of my raging Marxism, I’m illuminating the national hypocrisy regarding the economy. You know, people living the high life, yet complaining that there’s a price tag for it? So dear, we actually sort of agree!