Reply #72: walking off with it?

[orangeapple]

Sure, pay taxes on the extra $7614 that you get. Otherwise you're walking off with an extra $7614 per student of tax free $$$'s.

I'm not 'getting it', it is being used as allocated by the government, for the education of a pupil.


Because the waste doesn't come close to what the public will be charged when PROFIT is involved. When the Army privatized serving their meals to soldiers, (Chaney did this when he was Sec. of Def. under Papa Bush), Halliburton got the contract (Surprised?). It was later determined that they were charging the Army almost $30 per meal, when it only cost the Army about $2 per meal when they did it themselves.

Ok, you're confusing a few things here. First, the government assigning of contracts isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about letting parents decide where to allocate the resources that the public has appropriated for the education of their children on a per pupil basis.
The issue with Halliburton is a reference to billing the Pentagon much more than the subcontractors cost:
"The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) completed a comprehensive review of Halliburton's system for billing the government for work in Iraq. The DCAA said Halliburton billed the government for 36 percent more meals than was actually served to the troops while an internal KBR report said it had overcharged by 19 percent...
In a related development, the Los Angeles Times reported that "the Army recently renegotiated a contract that Halliburton had with a Kuwaiti company to provide meals. By contracting directly with the Kuwaiti company instead of going through Halliburton, the Army knocked 40 percent off the cost of the contract." Once the Pentagon dealt directly with the Kuwaiti-owned company, known as Timimi Co., the cost per-meal dropped from about $5 to about $3, according to GAO Comptroller David Walker."

This type of 'outsourcing' of formerly DoD functions is a direct result of the downsizing of the military. I know, because my first job at 16 was in the mess hall at Eglin AFB and Duke Field. As the military started downsizing they emphasized keeping military staff for the 'point of the spear' functions, and outsourcing as many non-combat functions as they could. I took that job because the pay was significantly higher than other summer jobs available (but it did mean getting up at 5am to be at Duke Field on weekends for the Guard). In the mess hall were a handful of enlisted and an NCO overseeing food prep, but the bulk of 'grunt work' (washing dishes, putting food on trays, cleaning tables, etc.) was done by contract staff like me.

That having been clarified, this kind of government assignment of 'cost plus' contracts isn't what I'm advocating. I'm advocating letting parents/students be empowered with the funds the public appropriates for education to pursue the education venue of their choice.


Last but not least, try mailing a letter to a neighbor across the street without using the USPS.

Irrelevant, but that's actually been made illegal, please see: Private Express Statutes
The government outlaws competition in the field of first class mail so it can overcharge customers in densely populated areas and undercharge customers in sparsely populated areas. This is done to create universal costs (mailing a letter from Maine to California costs the same as mailing a letter across town).
I would be fine with ending that monopoly, but the Constitution empowers the Congress to regulate postal service as they see fit and you have plenty of Congressmen from rural districts where people wouldn't want to bear the true costs of postal service to their area. The USPS monopoly lets them 'free ride' on overcharged people in more dense settings. But really, this has nothing to do with parent/student choice in education.


Because the $9000 belongs to the public schools system not the student!

Here's our difference: You think people fund education in Florida to provide income to government run schools, whereas as others (like me) think that people fund education in Florida in order to educate students. You're more concerned with the means (is this a vested interest on your part?) than the ends.


Talk about Apples and Oranges. Those people work for the public school system. They're not privatize entities. Pay cut? They should be paid even more. Talk about a race to the bottom. These people didn't choose to work for a public school system for profit.

But they do 'profit' (advantage; benefit; gain). If they didn't do it to their economic benefit they would be doing it for free. Last time I checked the volunteers didn't outnumber the paid staff.


They have a calling, and they should be rewarded for it.

Is being a teacher at a government school a calling while being a teacher at a private/parochial/charter school isn't?


Yes, by having students get an education. Charter schools are not obligated to hire accredited teachers, and accredited teachers are not allowed to collectively bargain. So, they will hire the cheapest teacher, not feed your child, and not supply services like libraries, computers, after school care, or any athletics. Why? BECAUSE IT WILL EAT INTO THEIR PROFITS!!!

And yet your suppositions are wrong, and I have an example in my community that is private and supplies those things at cost in line with per pupil public school spending, and outstanding educational outcomes. You can't insist it isn't possible when I see it with my own eyes.