Quantcast

Bush to Seek Another $2B for Education

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Bush to Seek Another $2B for Education
AP | January 8, 2004

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- President Bush, visiting a struggling inner-city school, said Thursday his upcoming budget will seek a $2 billion increase in federal funding for education programs aimed at poor students and those with disabilities.

``I'm comfortable in asking the Congress for more money in the '05 budget, which I will do,'' Bush said in a school gym crowded with adults after he watched some school children work on maps in a nearby classroom.

The president gave the small preview of a part of his 2005 budget request that is likely to feature prominently in his re-election campaign. Education was the signature domestic issue of Bush's 2000 campaign.

For the 2004 fiscal year, Bush asked for $12.4 billion for Title I programs that provide remedial education to poor children, which was a $1 billion increase over 2003, and $9.5 billion for state grants to serve children with disabilities, also a $1 billion increase over the previous year.

His 2005 budget, covering the fiscal year that begins in October, is to be presented to Congress early next month, and Bush said he would propose an extra $1 billion for each of those programs.

The announcement came at Knoxville's West View Elementary School, where Bush also celebrated -- for the second time this week -- the second anniversary of a landmark education bill. As the November elections approach, Bush is frequently touting the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' he signed two years ago Thursday as a key achievement of his presidency.

With a record $99 million campaign bankroll on hand, the president also was back in the hunt for more money for his campaign at a fund-raising lunch in Knoxville and dinner in Palm Beach, Fla.

The education law aims to improve teaching and student performance and close the education gap between rich and poor students by relying on required testing and penalties for schools whose students fail to meet goals. Schools could be required to let students transfer to other schools, provide private tutoring, or in cases of repeated failures, let the state take over.

The White House chose the West View school, which serves a diverse community and has a large share of poor students, as the day's backdrop because it meets federal achievement standards despite its challenges.

``As a result of strong accountability measures and good teachers and more funding, the results are positive,'' Bush said. ``We're making a difference.''

But Democrats complained ahead of Bush's trip that the anniversary was no time for celebrating, as it marks two years of Republicans selling short the bipartisan achievement that produced the new law. They and other critics say Republicans have failed to approve as much money as the law authorizes.

``Two years ago, it was right for President Bush to celebrate the promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Today, it's disingenuous,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who formed an unlikely alliance with Bush to pass the law in 2001 but has since become one of the president's strongest critics on the topic. ``It's way too soon for the `Mission Accomplished' banner on `No Child Left Behind.'''

For fiscal year 2004, for instance, the law authorized $18.5 billion in Title I funding -- far more than Bush's $12.4 billion request.

But the White House dismissed the complaints of underfunding. Bush cited growing spending on education, with the federal government ``sending checks, in record amounts I might add.''

``For the first time the federal government is spending more money and now asking for results,'' he said.

It was his eighth trip to Tennessee, where he won by a small margin over Al Gore in the former vice president's home state.

Later, Bush was to make his 18th trip as president to Florida, the state that put him in the White House.

With no challenger for the Republican presidential nomination, Bush plans to raise $150 million to $170 million in all. He raised a record $130.8 million last year and, after campaign expenses, closed 2003 with $99 million.

That means that what Bush spent last year -- only a fraction of what he collected -- is almost as much as the roughly $40 million total raised by his closest challenger in the money chase, Howard Dean.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
MORE spending without any funding in sight.

Good lord you'd think he was a Democrat. Oh wait a minute at least they understand the revenue side of the ledger. Sh!t even is old Man understood that.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Originally posted by DRB
MORE spending without any funding in sight.

Good lord you'd think he was a Democrat. Oh wait a minute at least they understand the revenue side of the ledger. Sh!t even is old Man understood that.

Pres Bush's spending penchant for spending must be brought under control asap!

Especially further education spending, which has been shown, does not improve the average US school kid.


:(
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,390
22,464
Sleazattle
Originally posted by N8
Wasn't it Ohio who doubted that Bush has boosted funding for education...???

Humm...
A good move, I would like to see more. If we can put give the military an additional 87 billion for Iraq why not an additional 10 billion for the little germ factories we call kids.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by N8
Pres Bush's spending penchant for spending must be brought under control asap!

Especially further education spending, which has been shown, does not improve the average US school kid.
:(
Damn straight it does. At this point 2004 looks to have a budget deficit of $500 BILLION which is making the 2003 deficit of $374 billion look like a drop in the bucket.

Of course with the new $400 billion in Medicare drug coverage, this new space plan and the baby boomers hitting the retirement roles, gaining control of the deficit without some sort of fiscal responsibility being put in place is going to be impossible.

All of this on top of a dollar that is very weak due to the low interest rates that are currently proping up the economy. Which in turn is driving the trade deficit even futher thru the roof. The Japanese yen is currently the only thing keeping a modicum of control in the dollars fall right now.

And to really pile on, a huge bulk of tax cuts (some of the really big ones) are about to come to pass which is going to futher strap the revenue to pay for all this crap.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,390
22,464
Sleazattle
Originally posted by DRB
Which in turn is driving the trade deficit even futher thru the roof.
Not trying to flame you, just an honest question: With a weak dollar doesn't it make it cheaper to buy US products and more expesive for the US to buy foreign products? I thought this would help the trade imbalance.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by Westy
Not trying to flame you, just an honest question: With a weak dollar doesn't it make it cheaper to buy US products and more expesive for the US to buy foreign products? I thought this would help the trade imbalance.
If we were talking about goods only but that's only part of the picture. With the dollar in the state it is now, it is proving very difficult for the US to attract foreign investment which finances our debt. That lack of influx of foreign investment is the other side of the trade equation.

In the past even with deficit spending, ala Reaganomics, and a weak dollar, it was still not difficult to attract foreign investors in the dollar. However, the Euro is providing an attractive alternative and makes it a more competitive choice. Especially when you look at the incredibly low interest rates that make the dollar an even less attractive investment instrument for foreign money.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
Originally posted by RhinofromWA
now you are trolling........:nope:
No he's not. He's right. I did ask about that, because I didn't buy Bush putting money into public education...

I expect to be called out. I'd do the same to N8.

Speaking of which... N8, do you have any backup for the (outrageous) claim that spending on education "does not improve the [quantifiable statistic missing from here] average US school kid."?
 

RhinofromWA

Brevity R Us
Aug 16, 2001
4,622
0
Lynnwood, WA
Originally posted by ohio
No he's not. He's right. I did ask about that, because I didn't buy Bush putting money into public education...

I expect to be called out. I'd do the same to N8.

Speaking of which... N8, do you have any backup for the (outrageous) claim that spending on education "does not improve the [quantifiable statistic missing from here] average US school kid."?
:D

The "Hmmmm" was what brought the trolling reference up. But it is all cool....:) I thought it was pretty good trolling.

Spending for spending sake does not improve a kids education....much like spending $$$ on bikes after a certain point improves are riding ability.

Seems that kids attained a level of education with much less supplies/money spent on them...in the past. Throwing money at it won't garauntee an education.

Rhino *going into a meeting* from WA
 

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
Spending more money hasn't worked up to this point.

We have tests (a whole series of threads and books could be spent discussing the merit or relevance of these tests) that indicate that our children are not competitive with students of other industrial nations.

CNN has an article with the numbers and statistics:

Report: U.S. No. 1 in school spending

Spending seems to be the intuative thing for governments to do to address a problem but the results just don't seem to be there.

What does work is smaller class sizes. This report from the University of Chicago talks about that issue here.

Will the spending plan address class size?

Isn't it ironic that Clinton had a budget surplus and Bush is running a deficit?

:devil:
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
Originally posted by ummbikes
What does work is smaller class sizes. This report from the University of Chicago talks about that issue here.
Am I right in thinking that smaller class sizes require more funding?

I'd never claim that the simple fact of more cash in a school's bank will produce results. But a school with more resources CAN better educate it's students. I don't know how you can argue against the value of small class sizes, up to date text books, and after-school programs. These are the things that get cut when schools run out of money. Next comes sports. Last come basic supplies... chalk, paper, bussing, heat/electricity. I know many school systems in Ohio have had to cut all the way into that last category.
 

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
Originally posted by ohio
Am I right in thinking that smaller class sizes require more funding?

It definitely requires more money. It could mean having to build more schools, hire more teachers and all the costs that come down the line.

What is the case with the Federal Gubment is that they will design some plan that they will fund IF the schools will run it just like the plan was designed. So it would be like going to the bank and asking for a homeloan and them telling you, "Sorry we are only lending money for cars this year." It's great that the bank is lending and great if you need a car but if what you really need is a house it doesn't do you much good.

I would love to see the money spent on making classes small but what really happens is some other program will come in and suck up resources and we will still have 30 kindergarden kids in room together which just doesn't work.
 

RhinofromWA

Brevity R Us
Aug 16, 2001
4,622
0
Lynnwood, WA
Originally posted by ummbikes

Isn't it ironic that Clinton had a budget surplus and Bush is running a deficit?

:devil:
Same line of thought with you on class size. But I argue the classes we make cost more than they should and don't provide any better education. Basicaly I don't think we need classrooms hooked up to the interent and heated seats (OK exagerating here) for a kid to get a quality education.

last part is another thread....

Considering Bush probably could have sat back and did nothing about 9/11, Ossama, Saddam, and all the rest of the stuff Clinton did and say he had a surplus. But I hazzard a guess he would be getting just as much crap as now...if not more.

These are different times than the Clinton years....he had it easy enough the country chased his 'sex scandle' for as long as it did.

Rhino
 

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
Rhino-

Point taken on the budget issues in regards to Clinton -vs- Bush. I'm just not sure how it's all going to be paid for. It was a cheap off-topic shot at Bush.:p ;)

I just can't resist.

For the record, I was no fan of Clinton's either.
 

RhinofromWA

Brevity R Us
Aug 16, 2001
4,622
0
Lynnwood, WA
Originally posted by ummbikes
Rhino-

Point taken on the budget issues in regards to Clinton -vs- Bush. I'm just not sure how it's all going to be paid for. It was a cheap off-topic shot at Bush.:p ;)

I just can't resist.

For the record, I was no fan of Clinton's either.
OK, gotcha.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Considering Bush probably could have sat back and did nothing about 9/11, Ossama, Saddam, and all the rest of the stuff Clinton did and say he had a surplus. But I hazzard a guess he would be getting just as much crap as now...if not more.

These are different times than the Clinton years....he had it easy enough the country chased his 'sex scandle' for as long as it did.

Rhino
It still does not excuse financial irresponsibility. Since 9/11, Afghanistan, and homeland security "needed" to be taken care of FINE then don't decrease your revenue streams or increase spending elsewhere.
 

RhinofromWA

Brevity R Us
Aug 16, 2001
4,622
0
Lynnwood, WA
Originally posted by DRB
It still does not excuse financial irresponsibility. Since 9/11, Afghanistan, and homeland security "needed" to be taken care of FINE then don't decrease your revenue streams or increase spending elsewhere.
Agreed. I was challenging the Clinton/Bush "surplus"/deficit put out there.

Clinton would be in the same place Bush is. Lots of need to spend money with empty pockets. Problem is no one wants to pay more taxes to fund anything the government wants to do...so what are we to do?

Increase taxes for everyone from the destitute up? No way would that fly...would it? Are you willing to pay 50%+ of your wages to the goverment?

Cut spending on all none essential spending. Lower education and make them teach without the bells and whistles? Stop wellfare? Stop repairing roads? Stop paying farmers to not plant anything? Stop any and all grants for a few years.....

Oh now we have a surplus....but no one is happy still.

How far as a nation are we ready to be fiscally responsible? I fear not far enough at all.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Agreed. I was challenging the Clinton/Bush "surplus"/deficit put out there.

Clinton would be in the same place Bush is. Lots of need to spend money with empty pockets. Problem is no one wants to pay more taxes to fund anything the government wants to do...so what are we to do?

Increase taxes for everyone from the destitute up? No way would that fly...would it? Are you willing to pay 50%+ of your wages to the goverment?

Cut spending on all none essential spending. Lower education and make them teach without the bells and whistles? Stop wellfare? Stop repairing roads? Stop paying farmers to not plant anything? Stop any and all grants for a few years.....

Oh now we have a surplus....but no one is happy still.

How far as a nation are we ready to be fiscally responsible? I fear not far enough at all.
The problem is that you are wrong. Discretionary spending is up a bunch over Clinton.

Cato Institute Link

Balancing the budget is a tough thing to do when revenues are down, granted. I'm no expert but the first thing I do in that situation is NOT cut taxes.

Hell, let's say you have to take a 50% paycut at your job? Do you go out and immediately double your monthly spending?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Sorry about the older link on that last post, I'm working my way throught a six pack right now...

Anyways, pulling numbers off of whitehouse.gov, federal Defense spending in 2002 was 327.8 Billion and federal Education spending was 48.5 Billion.

Maybe there is something to that bumper sticker I saw that asked why there is always money for bombs but never enough for schools...
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Has anyone considered the fact that maybe american kids are just stupid because of too much TV and not enough breast feeding?