[washingtonismoney]

I clearly misunderstood the target of your response, WIM; and I'm guilty of severe understatement in the 1 Internet vs. Dozens of Ethanol... comparisons (bad rhetorical form to concede the greatest example ever for the opposing side of the argument, and my Dozens could easily have been Thousands!).

In my own experience, public funding of education has been both a "good" (e.g., in the semi-rural areas where I grew up) and a clearly inferior alternative (to my private college education at Stanford).  Living the Bay Area, and reflecting on what's happening at our local elementary, middle-, and high-schools, while watching what's happening to the UC system vs. the now far-LESS-expensive (to most families) privately funded Stanford/Princeton/Harvard model... I'd again question your stated assumption.  Ever see Waiting for Superman?  That's a heck of a lot closer to the reality that the kids of many of my friends and neighbors now face, and this is a relatively wealthy area!  Of course, if you're a teacher who gets tenure after 4 years of marginal performance, never really has to develop another syllabus again, and is given a cushy (and effectively fraudulently accounted for) 8% risk-free return in their government/taxpayer-guaranteed retirement account, when long-term treasuries are yielding 2-3%, you may may be right about public funding for education being "good"!?!

Sure, we can debate the exact permutation the educational system takes. I'm open to voucher experiments in K-12 education, or aggressively-sought reform. But the government funding is the bedrock.

(Of course, while you can say thousands of ethanols, government also gets to talk about more benefits than the internet. GPS, basic satellite tech, radar...to name just a few.)

[washingtonismoney]

I clearly misunderstood the target of your response, WIM; and I'm guilty of severe understatement in the 1 Internet vs. Dozens of Ethanol... comparisons (bad rhetorical form to concede the greatest example ever for the opposing side of the argument, and my Dozens could easily have been Thousands!).

In my own experience, public funding of education has been both a "good" (e.g., in the semi-rural areas where I grew up) and a clearly inferior alternative (to my private college education at Stanford).  Living the Bay Area, and reflecting on what's happening at our local elementary, middle-, and high-schools, while watching what's happening to the UC system vs. the now far-LESS-expensive (to most families) privately funded Stanford/Princeton/Harvard model... I'd again question your stated assumption.  Ever see Waiting for Superman?  That's a heck of a lot closer to the reality that the kids of many of my friends and neighbors now face, and this is a relatively wealthy area!  Of course, if you're a teacher who gets tenure after 4 years of marginal performance, never really has to develop another syllabus again, and is given a cushy (and effectively fraudulently accounted for) 8% risk-free return in their government/taxpayer-guaranteed retirement account, when long-term treasuries are yielding 2-3%, you may may be right about public funding for education being "good"!?!

Sure, we can debate the exact permutation the educational system takes. I'm open to voucher experiments in K-12 education, or aggressively-sought reform. But the government funding is the bedrock.

(Of course, while you can say thousands of ethanols, government also gets to talk about more benefits than the internet. GPS, basic satellite tech, radar...to name just a few.)