Parsing the Spendulus Speech, Part II

Continuing our series of parsing out Barack Obama's "Spendulus Speech" Tuesday in Denver.

Because of this investment, nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our faulty dams and levees, bringing critical broadband connections to businesses and homes in nearly every community in America, upgrading mass transit, and building high-speed rail lines that will improve travel and commerce throughout the nation.

Some bridges are meant to crumble. The federal government is in a poor position to know which bridges are useful, and which are not. In the best case, there's a bit of unfairness about the priorities being decided in Washington DC; but in the more typical case, it is indiscriminate spending. Who is to say where high speed rail lines help the public, or simply draw business away from already subsidized existing lines?

Because we know America can’t outcompete the world tomorrow if our children are being outeducated today, we are making the largest investment in education in our nation’s history. It’s an investment that will create jobs building 21st century classrooms, libraries, and labs for millions of children across America. It will provide funds to train a new generation of math and science teachers, while giving aid to states and school districts to stop teachers from being laid off and education programs from being cut. In New York City alone, 14,000 teachers who were set to be let go may now be able to continue pursuing their critical mission.

The largest investment in education in our nation's history? Excuse me, didn't we just do that with "No Child Left Behind"? Putting another big bag of money on the NEA administrator's desks is not going to help anything. What is needed is a total rethink of education where schools have to compete for students, not have them shuffled in and out like processed feed corn. Don't you think that the 14,000 teachers amassed at the exits in New York are possibly the least capable of teachers? If they aren't then why would New York keep lesser talent and push out the bright ones. If they are, then why should the taxpayer subsidize their retention?

To be continued.