politicartoons | Just wondering what you all think....

I checked out his wiki to find out more info, and OMG THERE IS A COMPETITION TO DETERMINE FEDERAL FUNDING OF SCHOOLS???!!?

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/faq.pdf

Yeah, if his numbers check out then he's got a point. I won't check them because I don't like his demeanor.

Wahhhh!!! waahhhh!!! nobody likes the way I talk!!!!

That was not pleasant to watch. His demeanor is deplorable, and watching his cronies laugh on cue is painful.

On the other hand, he's a governor, which means he needs to take part in a COMPETITION to determine how much his state will get for an education budget. Geeze luise, I'd be furious.

well NJ took part in the competition and the NJ BofEd screwed up, and the commissioner got fired as the result.

I can't find a concise source on this issue... But I have many questions, and if you could point me to reliable sources I'd much appreciate it.

1) What is the average percentage the federal government contributes to state education systems?

2) What percentage of the total federal budget is awarded in this competitive basis?

3) Since when has it been competitive?

4) If a state decides not to compete, do the citizens of that state get some form of tax relief?

Well this is a one-time 2009-2010 program (though Obama requested continuation for the next year) part of the whole Stimulus Package and such, called Race To The Top - $4.39 billion dollars split between a number of states that provide plan for education reform which meats minimum federal requirements. Money will be distributed based on the state budget.

I think a good place to start is here http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2010/02/02012010.html

The Race to the Top program was a specific thing that was designed to reward states with innovative ideas with extra funding money. It wasn't the sole funding provided by the federal government. It was additional funding provided under the Stimulus program.

New Jersey was on track to be the 10th state in the program (there were 10 states total). The state Sec. of Education prepared the required paperwork in cooperation with the teachers' unions. That paperwork contained the correct information and if it had been submitted as/is New Jersey would have received somewhere around half a billion in education funding. The paperwork was sent to the Governor's office for approval. While there, Christie decided it was insufficiently punitive towards the teacher's unions and demanded it be changed.

During those changes, the information was somehow screwed up and data from the wrong years was provided. Because this information was incorrect, New Jersey lost points and Ohio beat them out for that last slot. The Governor then lied about conversations he had with the Sec. of Education about the application, lumped all the blame on Schunder (the Sec. of Education), and fired him. Personally, I think Christie intentionally screwed up so the state wouldn't get the money and the schools would still have to fire the teachers (but that might just be partisan politics on my part). Even if he didn't do it intentionally, he still screwed up and then blamed someone else.

Christie's "demeanor" has been a problem from the beginning. His last actual political position was County Freeholder (a position rewarded to well connected partisan hacks with very few actual legislative responsibilities mostly concerned with passing out money to political allies). After he left that position he bought himself an appointment as US Attorney for New Jersey when Bush was President.

His brash, self-aggrandizing attitude was more appropriate back then (though even then he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by constantly grandstanding and trying to get in front of the cameras. He also, of course, launched a lot of Rovian investigations against Dems in election years).

Now that he's Governor, the attitude is catastrophic for the state. If a few minutes of tape was enough to sour you to his demeanor, think how bad those in the legislature and his staff have it. They have to hear him constantly.

I can't say I've been following New Jersey very closely, but having read his wikipedia article, I think you're being unfair about some things.

First, if it is true that he is self serving, he wouldn't do anything INTENTIONALLY so that it would be necessary to fire teachers. (Do you have proof that he lied about conversations with the secretary of education?)

Second, apparently as US attorney, he won convictions for corruption for republicans as well as democrats, something which in this political climate is special.

Third, if his attitude and demeanor have always been this harsh, then you get what you vote for. Nothing says he needs to be likable after being elected.

Fourth, in the response to the teacher, to his credit, he does not blame anybody except the teachers union. He has figures (which I haven't checked) at the tip of his tongue, and presents his argument in a convincing way.

I still don't like him though.

First, if it is true that he is self serving, he wouldn't do anything INTENTIONALLY so that it would be necessary to fire teachers.

You're assuming the people he's playing to are rational. That's a mistake. The Republican voter in New Jersey is a special, and despicable, creature. They've been hating on the teacher unions, and the teachers in general, for a long time. They've never understood the need to maintain well funded schools and most of them don't seem to care about the quality of education in New Jersey (it was one of the best in the nation but then maybe they send their kids to Catholic school). Regardless, he's scoring major points with those who voted for him by sticking it to the teachers unions/teachers and that is quite clearly his intention and not just a happy accident.

(Do you have proof that he lied about conversations with the secretary of education?)

Schundler (the former sec. of education) has provided proof that he didn't say the things to Christie that Christie claims he did. Christie's justification for firing him was that he lied to the Governor, Schundler provided proof he didn't lie.

Second, apparently as US attorney, he won convictions for corruption for republicans as well as democrats, something which in this political climate is special.

He prosecuted a couple low ranking Republicans to maintain appearances. He didn't indict anyone high on the state party hierarchy. He also leaked to the media that an investigation was pending against Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) when he was running for election. That investigation magically disappeared when Menendez's election was over (he won, despite Christie's efforts) and they could no longer try to throw the election. This is a classic Rovian trick. The very fact that he survived those famous US Attorney firings under Gonzales prove he was willing to play ball with Rove.

Third, if his attitude and demeanor have always been this harsh, then you get what you vote for. Nothing says he needs to be likable after being elected.

I didn't vote for him. The people from NJ had ample information to make an informed decision about the man, and should not have voted for him. There was lots of information about his demeanor. There was also information about how he used his position as US Attorney to escape justice (including a case where he was driving the wrong way down a one-way street and almost killed a guy). Unfortunately, the people of NJ were just too pissed off that Corzine didn't wave his magic wand and solve the problems caused by Bush's economic policies quickly enough so they didn't make the rational decision and instead just tried to punish Corzine.

he does not blame anybody except the teachers union.

Blaming the teachers unions is a time honored way of blasting teachers in this state. Make no mistake, his comments are directed at every single teacher in the state.

He has figures (which I haven't checked) at the tip of his tongue,

That's easy to do when you're making things up on the fly.

and presents his argument in a convincing way.

I never said he wasn't a good con-man.

I still don't like him though.

You are a very good judge of human character.

1)
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/new_jersey/article_9b3871f4-afd5-11df-88dd-001cc4c03286.html

2)
After a demeaning 2 hour trip to youtube, I have to conclude that at least his statements to the public are consistent. Whether or not he was informed, there is no doubt who made the error and didn't provide the numbers. Apparently he even had a chance to correct the mistake!

3)
I wish I had the time to evaluate everybody's importance in his closet cleaning maneuver, but I don't... According to Wiki, he never lost a case as attorney, so he must have been doing something right..

4)
I agree with a previous poster. He is a startled cat, and should rather switch to decaf!

5)
Somehow I'm not surprised, unions can be difficult to deal with.

6)
Dear lord, and attack... are you really going to make me check those? can't I please just assume they're correct?

8) Thanks, and thanks for a lovely and informative discussion!

I have to conclude that at least his statements to the public are consistent.

Consistently false is still consistent I guess...

Whether or not he was informed, there is no doubt who made the error and didn't provide the numbers.

There is a doubt, that's the whole point. Just because he says it's all Schundler's fault doesn't make it so. Christie saw that a mistake was made, and that the shit was about to hit the fan, so he threw Schundler under the bus.

Apparently he even had a chance to correct the mistake!

Says Christie. Again, the man's a professional liar. Just because he says it doesn't make it true. I am no fan of Bret Schundler, and I would love to see the guy go down in history as a colossal failure (at least it would keep him from running for Governor again), but in this case I'm honestly convinced he's not the villain. It takes a lot of talent to be worse than Bret Schundler, Christie has that talent in spades.

According to Wiki, he never lost a case as attorney, so he must have been doing something right..

I never said he wasn't a good attorney. Some of the best attorneys are good liars (probably all of them in fact). I'm sure the fact that many of the judges on the federal bench were appointed by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II didn't hurt that statistic. Besides, leaking that an investigation exists and then revealing later that it was a lie doesn't change his stats since it never actually went to trial.

Somehow I'm not surprised, unions can be difficult to deal with.

The union's responsibility is to take care of their members. I doubt they care about anyone's opinion outside the union. Besides, those with interests which run counter to the interests of labor are obviously going to hate unions. That's not the union's fault.

Dear lord, and attack... are you really going to make me check those? can't I please just assume they're correct?

You know what happens when you assume...

They check out!

Who is they?

the figures quoted in his little teachers diatribe.

Care to provide any evidence of that?

If it's all the same to you I'm not gonna take the word of a guy with 0 friends and 0 posts who created his account on Saturday and seems to have spent every waking moment since then posting replies to threads.

Just wondering what you all think....

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject