#342 (10/6) - From the Debate > 'War Savings,' 'More Teachers;' 32 Days Till the Election

 [FYI - 1) Did you know tomorrow is PUPIT FREEDOM SUNDAY? (http://www.speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702); 2) There are just 32 days before the election; are you praying for it and our nation? 3) Be sure YOU are REGISTERED to VOTE; 4) Ttry to either read the book (you can get it from your library)"Obama's America" or see the movie "2016" ( http://personalliberty.com/2012/09/21/the-movie-that-could-defeat-obama/)  I promise you, you will not understand our President's worldview until you do.; and  5) You might also try to get a copy of the book, "Divider-In-Chief"; go to the follow site to read a lengthy preview of it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621570118/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1621570118&linkCode=as2&tag=null07-20#reader_1621570118;  www.truthinaction.org;  and 5) At the end are two brief thoughts about the polling that seems to dominate much news.- Stan]    PRAYER REQUEST: That the Vice-Presidential debate NEXT THURS., 10/11, will clearly reveal the policies each candidate will pursue; that Americans will discern the truth of that from what they've been told by political ads and media spin; and that the moderator will not pursue any biased agenda in the questions he asks either  candidate. 

__________________________________________________________

"Spending 'War Savings' Is Still a Budget Gimmick", Emily Goff, October 4; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/04/spending-war-savings-is-still-a-budget-gimmick/

During the first presidential debate, President Obama reiterated a policy proposal that barely holds water. His proposal to use so-called war savings from the troop drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for more domestic spending is nothing short of a budget gimmick. It would also justify continued federal spending excesses. Obama argued for taking “some of the money that we’re saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments [on education, transportation, and infrastructure].”

It’s a myth that merits debunking.

Myth: Money not spent on wars overseas counts as budget savings.
Fact: The overseas military operations are winding down, so the federal government will spend less money in that area. Counting those spending reductions as new savings is an elementary budget gimmick. In late 2011, when the super committee floated the idea of funneling these phony savings into domestic programs to create jobs, The Heritage Foundation’s Patrick Louis Knudsen was quick to bat it down:

"The gimmick starts with an assumption that the government would continue its peak levels of war spending indefinitely and would also increase those amounts for inflation in the future. But no one ever intended this to happen: Even the Bush Administration had begun planning a reduction in troop levels. Nevertheless, from President Obama’s first budget, he has used the inflated projections for overseas contingency operations (OCO) [used to be called the "War on Terror," remember?] as a budget benchmark so he could claim large savings by proposing to spend less than those amounts, and he has continued the practice right up through his recent debt reduction proposal."

The President tried to count war spending reductions as part of his debt-reduction plan unveiled last fall; again Heritage cried foul. It was, and remains, a wonder how the President could use those illusory savings for deficit reduction and domestic spending at the same time. Giving credence to the war savings budget gimmick would give cover for lawmakers to send more taxpayer money flowing out of Washington.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Debate 2012: Do We Need More Teachers?"; Jason Richwine, October 4 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/04/debate-2012-do-we-need-more-teachers/

“Governor [Mitt] Romney doesn’t think we need more teachers,” President Obama said last night. “I do.” The President’s confidence that “we need more teachers” to improve education is misplaced, and his proposal to subsidize teacher hiring using federal dollars would do more harm than good.

Adding teachers is intended to reduce class size. It’s worth pointing out that the national student–teacher ratio is already historically low, according to projections by the National Center for Education Statistics. Nevertheless, class size reduction does not produce reliably higher student achievement. Smaller classes may help particular students with particular socioeconomic backgrounds at particular times in their lives with particular kinds of teachers teaching a particular kind of curriculum. In general, however, the benefits of class size reduction to the average student are small to nonexistent, and no reasonable cost-benefit analysis endorses class-size reduction as a general policy.

But subsidizing teacher hiring would be more than just an inefficient use of federal tax dollars. It would essentially be a bailout of states and localities for their fiscal irresponsibility. The average public school teacher already receives a total compensation package (wages plus benefits) that is above fair market levels, and this overly generous compensation is part of the reason that teacher layoffs and cutbacks were necessary in the first place.

So while “more teachers” may sound like a wonderful reform in the abstract, the proposal carries little to no public benefit, while helping to perpetuate irresponsible budgeting at the state and local levels.

[bold  and italics emphasis mine]