Text 15592, 53 rader
Skriven 2007-06-22 17:30:31 av lizardgirl (2005.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 15492 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (1905.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
On Jun 18, 2:42 pm, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
> > In article <1182183396.409552.248...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >  lizardgirl <gab...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>there was concern even with the block grants that folks would migrate
> >>to states that offered services that better met their needs.  while
> >>this didn't happen, it is a real possibility for some percentage of
> >>the population.
>
> >     Neve did see what that was such a big whoop. First of all, it has
> > always been thus, even in the old days. I think the feds should pay for
> > it (poverty for any numbers of reasons is not even distributed) and set
> > mimimum for the states and then the states should be able to structure
> > their systems the ways that work best for their states otherwise.  If
> > some, like NYS and CA, for instance, want to have better than average
> > benefits, then they can have them and local taxpayers can pick up the
> > tab,
>
> Ok, a case in point.  In this country, in many areas, there were
> paratransit systems set up to help the disabled with their
> transportation needs.  They were pretty ad hoc, with some towns having
> better, and some worse, systems, but in most cases, they worked.  My
> wife signed up for several of them in her day.
>
> Then, along comes the ADA that 'mandated' these systems.  In most cases,
> these systems quickly became better, as towns and cities felt they
> needed to have them to meet the law.  Very good!
>
> Then, the feds 'really' got involved.  They decided they needed to set
> standards for these things, and minimum requirements, and 'acceptable'
> levels of service.  Immediate effect?  Just about every gosh darn one of
> these cities and towns LOWERED their service to these federal
> 'standards', making just about all of them unusable to a seriously
> disabled individual needing regular transportation.

a great example of the feds mandating a good program and then trying
to micro-manage it at the state level.  easy to see why, given funding
issues, this doesn't work.

part of the problem is that the only way the fed seems to be able to
discourage non-compliance is by witholding funding.  if you have very
specific guidlines to meet it may very well cost the state less money
to do less and still get 100% of the federal tax dollars it's entitled
too under the mandate.

a state only model better suites, i think, social programs given a
broad generalized mandate.  the penalty for non-compliance will have
to change accordingly.

lg
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)