Category: Article Share

Are Teachers Really Underpaid?

Posted on by Lone Candle

“For the 2023–24 school year, the average public school teacher salary was just under $70,000—well over the average for bachelor’s degree graduates ages 25 to 34 (though many teachers have master’s degrees).
West Virginia paid teachers the least, at around $52,000 per year, while California paid them the most, with an average salary of over $95,000. According to the National Education Association, teacher salaries top out at over $100,000 in 16.6 percent of districts. However, salaries have generally stagnated. From 2002 to 2020, inflation-adjusted teacher salaries declined by 0.6 percent while as per-pupil spending increased.

The reality is that teacher salaries vary widely between states and districts, especially when looking at pay adjusted for the cost of living, making it difficult to make generalizations. Adding to the murkiness, pay doesn’t seem to motivate teachers as much as many people think.

According to a December 2023 report from the National Center for Education Statistics, when public school teachers were asked why they decided to leave the profession, only 9.2 percent said it was because they needed higher pay.

A study from earlier this year also concluded that, among teachers who choose to leave their jobs, most don’t earn more in their new position.”

…

“”The biggest relative growth has been in ‘instructional aids’ who assist teachers in the classroom. While teachers were 53.4 percent of all public school system employees in 1990, they were only 47.5 percent in 2022. Aides rose from 8.8 percent of employees to 13.3 percent. It’s not clear why this occurred, but it could be teachers asking for help, regulations requiring more services for kids, or lots of other possible factors.””

https://reason.com/2024/09/10/are-teachers-really-underpaid/

Vance Says He’d Have Gone Along With Trump’s Plot To Block Certification of the 2020 Election

Posted on by Lone Candle

“Understanding the full scope of Vance’s answer requires a quick recap of how Trump’s lawyers wanted January 6, 2021, to play out. The so-called Eastman memo outlined the necessary steps to prevent a transfer of power. It proposed that officials in a handful of states won narrowly by Joe Biden should submit alternative slates of electors and that then-Vice President Mike Pence should invoke his unilateral authority “without asking for permission—either from a vote of the joint session [of Congress] or from the [Supreme Court]”—to count only the Trump-supporting slates from those states.
If state legislators in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other disputed states failed to take the bait, there was a backup plan in which Pence would cite “all the evidence and the letters from state legislators calling into question the executive certifications” as grounds for refusing to count the votes from seven disputed states.

“At the end of the count, the tally would therefore be 232 for Trump, 222 for Biden,” Eastman wrote. “Because the 12th Amendment says ‘majority of electors appointed,’ having determined that no electors from the 7 states were appointed…TRUMP WINS.”

It’s unknown whether this would have worked. Certainly, it would have drawn an immediate lawsuit from the Biden campaign, but it’s unclear how the Supreme Court would have viewed its role in such a dispute.

Crucially, Pence refused to play his part in the scheme. For doing so, he’s become a pariah in Republican politics—though he deserves to be remembered for maintaining his courage in the face of both a literal and metaphorical partisan mob.

Vance indicated in the All-In interview that he would be willing to do the opposite. Asked twice whether he would refuse to certify the election, Vance fell back both times to his claim that he would have simply asked states to submit alternative slates of electors and allowed Congress to have a debate about what to do.

That’s a cowardly response that fails to give a clear answer, but there can be no doubt about the signal Vance is sending. He is effectively saying that he’d have followed the path outlined in the Eastman memo—a path that would allow the vice president to claim he was merely letting Congress debate the outcome, and then use the chaos and uncertainty created by that same debate to throw out the results from certain states in pursuit of a different outcome.”

…

“It’s also worth engaging with the underlying notion here: that the country or Congress needs to debate the results of the election. That is also nonsense.

The country did debate the 2020 election. For months. Votes were cast, results were tallied, and the Electoral College determined the winner. The final certification of the results is not the time or place for that debate to take place. Indeed, the Trump campaign took advantage of many other opportunities that are built into the system to challenge results in specific places, and none of those efforts found systemic fraud or other reasons to doubt the outcome.”

…

“What Eastman proposed (and what Vance is nodding along with) is a reversal of all that: a substitution of the vice president’s and Congress’ opinion for the will of the voters. That’s not constitutional, democratic, or even populist. It’s just authoritarian.”

https://reason.com/2024/09/10/vance-says-hed-have-gone-along-with-trumps-plot-to-block-certification-of-the-2020-election/

Trump and Harris Both Favor Tax Hikes That Would Hurt Ordinary Americans

Posted on by Lone Candle

“The Tax Foundation estimates that a 10 percent general tariff “would raise taxes on American consumers by more than $300 billion a year,” “reduce the size of the U.S. economy by 0.7 percent,” and “eliminate 505,000 full-time equivalent jobs.” Retaliation could “further reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4 percent and eliminate another 322,000 full-time equivalent jobs.”

Trump’s proposed tariffs, including a 60 percent levy on Chinese goods, “would reduce after-tax incomes by about 3.5 percent for those in the bottom half of the income distribution,” the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates. They “would cost a typical household in the middle of the income distribution at least $1,700 in increased taxes each year.”

Just as Trump ignores those costs, Harris wants voters to believe that raising the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent is simply a matter of “ensur[ing] the wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations pay their fair share.” But that is true only if you overlook the broader economic impact of that change, which would hurt non-wealthy Americans as employees, consumers, and investors.

“Studies have shown that the corporate income tax is the most harmful tax for economic growth,” the Tax Foundation warns. On the flip side, recent research indicates that the Trump-backed 2017 reduction in this tax rate, which moved the U.S. from the high end among industrialized countries to the middle of the pack, “significantly boosted domestic investment.”

By raising the cost of doing business in the United States, a higher corporate tax rate inhibits investment, drives down wage and benefit growth, encourages offshoring of jobs, and reduces the return on retirement savings. “Under a 28 percent corporate rate,” the Tax Foundation estimates, “GDP would fall by $1.84” for “every $1 of higher revenue.””

https://reason.com/2024/09/11/trump-and-harris-both-favor-taxe-hikes-that-would-hurt-ordinary-americans/

Disaster loan program fully ‘exhausted’ with Congress still out of town

Posted on by Lone Candle

“The nation’s loan program for disaster survivors has fully exhausted its funding, the Biden administration announced Tuesday. And lawmakers, the only ones who can greenlight more funding, are slated to be out until after Election Day.
Without congressional action, the Small Business Administration can’t make new loan offers to people trying to rebuild businesses and homes hit by disasters like Hurricanes Helene and Milton. Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly said he does not intend to call lawmakers back to town before the scheduled Nov. 12 return, however, saying over the weekend that it would be “premature” to gavel back in to approve emergency disaster aid before states have calculated their recovery needs from the two hurricanes.”

…

“President Joe Biden said in a statement Tuesday that Johnson “has promised that this and other disaster programs will be replenished when Congress returns.” He urged Americans to continue to apply for the loans.

Without a refill, the agency must halt all new loan offers but can still do some prep work like initial processing of loan applications.

FEMA, on the other hand, is still expected to have enough funding to last until after Election Day, even though the agency has blown through nearly half of the $20 billion Congress approved for the disaster relief fund in late September.

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell warned last week that she might have to pivot to covering only “immediate needs” with money in the disaster relief fund earlier than anticipated.

Criswell has predicted that she would need to switch to that cash-conservation mode in December or January, pausing all long-term disaster recovery efforts like rebuilding on Maui after last year’s wildfires. But last week the administrator warned that she’s “going to have to assess that every day to see if I can wait that long.”

The more than $20 billion Congress cleared before they left in September does not fulfill any of the emergency disaster aid requests the White House has sent over the last year. In June, the White House requested $4 billion in extra disaster funding to respond to tornadoes, wildfires and hurricanes, as well as the rebuilding of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.

That unfulfilled request builds on the White House’s year-old plea for Congress to provide $23.5 billion in extra disaster aid.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/15/disaster-loan-program-exhausted-00183784

On Abortion, Harris and Trump Were Both Right and Both Infuriatingly Wrong

Posted on by Lone Candle

“Trump is likely referencing comments made by former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam in 2019. Northam was discussing what happens if a woman delivers a nonviable fetus or a baby with life-threatening deformities. “The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said. Some Republicans ran with this comment to suggest that Northam supported “post-birth abortions,” when what he was really discussing was palliative care for babies born fatal or likely fatal conditions.
Trump also kept suggesting..that the Roe v. Wade regime meant states had to allow unfettered abortion through nine months of pregnancy. But the Roe regime actually allowed states to significantly restrict abortion in later months, and the vast majority did. Then—as is still the case now—only a handful of states opted out of setting legal limits on what point in a pregnancy abortion was banned. Even in these states, the lack of a legal prohibition on later-term abortions does not necessarily mean physicians would actually perform later-term abortions, nor that women were generally seeking them without good reason, like a pregnancy that was life-threatening or a fetus that was nonviable.”

https://reason.com/2024/09/11/on-abortion-harris-and-trump-were-both-right-and-both-infuriatingly-wrong/