John McCain chooses female running mate. Liberals furious.

"However, during her tenure in office she cut spending for The Department of Education and Early Development of Special Needs in Alaska."

Not a bureaucracy?

"Gov. Sarah Palin and state lawmakers have gone ahead with an overhaul of Alaska’s school funding system that supporters predict will provide much-needed financial help to rural schools and those serving students with disabilities.

The plan, enacted in the recently concluded session of the legislature, is based on recommendations issued by a legislative task force last year. It will phase in a greater flow of money to districts outside of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, over the next five years.

Advocates for rural and remote schools have lobbied for years for more funding, in particular noting the higher fuel, transportation, and other costs associated with providing education in communities scattered across the vast state.

A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (emphasis added)."--Education Week

So rural schools are getting more money to serve students with special needs and the Department of Education has lost money.

Your problem with this?

Rural schools have a smaller tax base and greater expenses per student. I'm glad to see them get a shot in the arm.

As to cutting the budget for the education of handicapped kids (where all had similar access to it) by better than half and giving it to the "Alaska Challenge Youth Academy" a largely privately run organization (that many may not have access to)?

Why would I have a problem with that? Nothing to see here...

You are still left with FY 2011 having 3X the per pupil spending as FY 2008.

How do you figure? Not for the Department of Education it didn't.

No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids


It's not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:

O'Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?

Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as "historic."

According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. In particular, it would increase spending for certain special needs students that Alaska calls "intensive needs" (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.

Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs [the intensive needs group] to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.

Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...

Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.

According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.

Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn't the special needs budget. "I don’t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding," Jeans told FactCheck.org. "The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects," such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.

And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.

For someone who said he was leaning toward McCain a month or so ago, Terry has gotten pretty liberal lately in his attacks on both McCain and Palin.

This is the second false story he's quoted in his disdain for her.

So what's up Terry? Is your hatred for her that deep?

And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.

?????

What does military school have to do with special needs?

For someone who said he was leaning toward McCain a month or so ago, Terry has gotten pretty liberal lately in his attacks on both McCain and Palin.

This is the second false story he's quoted in his disdain for her.

So what's up Terry? Is your hatred for her that deep?

Aaron, what does "liberal mean"?

Does your criticism of Obama and Biden make you a "fascist". What "liberal" attacks have I made on McCain?

What is false in that story that I cited (citing is not the same as quoting)? What is the other "false" story I cited?

I now feel sorry for Palin. The GOP has turned her into a fence turtle (she doesn't belong up there, she couldn't have gotten there by herself and you have to wonder what damn fool put her up there in the first place). That doesn't make her less of a hypocrite.

HURRR!!!LIBRULS!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!

Apparently she cut money for the Special Olympics in Alaska also.

Whatever.

Look for yourself. There is so much obfuscation out there, it will be hard to find the truth. It is probably just easier to assume that I'm a lying partisan hack.

Google search

I meant liberal in the the amount and scope of criticism you've heaped upon Palin, not liberal as in politics.

From what Stephanie posted, it appears that you were wrong in her cutting special education budget. I know for a fact you were wrong on the passport issue.

It just seems to me that this has become very personal for you and I'm just wondering why.

TerryRC wrote:Apparently she cut money for the Special Olympics in Alaska also.

She should have cut it as should every other governor. Special olympics shouldn't be covered by state or federal budgets, they should be privately funded. It's a waste of taxpayer money.

Actually, I was close on the passport issue. She applied for the first time seven months ago.

As to her foreign experience, we heard about that in her big interview with Couric.

I meant liberal in the the amount and scope of criticism you've heaped upon Palin, not liberal as in politics.

So only "liberals" criticize would be pols?

The Rovian strategists that are behind the "Obama is a muslim" thing must be "liberals", also.

She should have cut it as should every other governor. Special olympics shouldn't be covered by state or federal budgets, they should be privately funded. It's a waste of taxpayer money.

Well. I want to see NO federal or state tax dollars in the next Olympics that the US hosts, then. It is too late for the past ones that we have hosted.

It just seems to me that this has become very personal for you and I'm just wondering why.

Because I am tired of wacky, lying religionists in places of power in my government. Nothing more than that.

McCain used to be kinda middle of the road. I liked that. Now he has Rove behind him, his campaign has lost integrity and he has picked Palin to appeal the the extreme right-wing of the GOP.

I'd laugh if I wasn't so disgusted.

All I can say Terry is that if you don't like "religionist" in your government, you're going to have to move to another country. Both candidtates as well as their VP's are all Christians and as more then 75% identify as Christians, there will ALWAYS be christians in government.

TerryRC wrote:And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.

?????

What does military school have to do with special needs?

For someone who said he was leaning toward McCain a month or so ago, Terry has gotten pretty liberal lately in his attacks on both McCain and Palin.

This is the second false story he's quoted in his disdain for her.

So what's up Terry? Is your hatred for her that deep?

Aaron, what does "liberal mean"?

Does your criticism of Obama and Biden make you a "fascist". What "liberal" attacks have I made on McCain?

What is false in that story that I cited (citing is not the same as quoting)? What is the other "false" story I cited?

I now feel sorry for Palin. The GOP has turned her into a fence turtle (she doesn't belong up there, she couldn't have gotten there by herself and you have to wonder what damn fool put her up there in the first place). That doesn't make her less of a hypocrite.

HURRR!!!LIBRULS!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!

She didn't cut funding for special needs children, she increased it.

She didn't cut funding for "special schools", the budget line item got split.

I honestly think it is driving you nuts that Sarah Palin, a conservative woman, is within reach of the vice presidency. You disapprove of her politics, her decision to carry Trig to term, and other choices she has made in her personal life.

From other posts you've made, it is fair to say you use the DailyKos as a primary news source. Of course you loathe Sarah Palin, a white conservative woman with the unmitigated gall to think she can have a family and a career in politics. After all, aren't all conservative woman supposed to be at home doing either the June Cleaver thing or on Fox News villifying Muslims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton?

Heck this makes it tough for political critics.

If you criticize Obama you are a racist and if you criticize Palin you are an anti-Christian male chauvinist.

Especially Palin.

I don't think so S. I'm not necessery a huge fan of Palin (other then her looks) but I don't buy Terry's particular criticism's.

They seem personal and I was just wondering why.

After all, the same question was ask of me about Edwards so I was curioius here.

I honestly think it is driving you nuts that Sarah Palin, a conservative woman, is within reach of the vice presidency. You disapprove of her politics, her decision to carry Trig to term, and other choices she has made in her personal life.

From other posts you've made, it is fair to say you use the DailyKos as a primary news source. Of course you loathe Sarah Palin, a white conservative woman with the unmitigated gall to think she can have a family and a career in politics. After all, aren't all conservative woman supposed to be at home doing either the June Cleaver thing or on Fox News villifying Muslims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton?

Cite one article from the Kos (and I have done it ONCE that I can remember) and I use it as a primary news source?

How about the times I have used Fox or FreeRepublic?

I don't like Palin because she isn't content to live with her beliefs, she would like to force them on others.

Whatever.

You are to busy attacking me to look at her. Just what the GOP wants.

After all, the same question was ask of me about Edwards so I was curioius here.

Not by me. As a matter of fact, I have been critical of Edwards.

It is personal to me for the reasons I have stated.

The other thing is that the GOP made bundles of attacks on Clinton. Now that they have a female in the docket, all of the sudden, their stance has shifted.

It makes me puke.

Like I said, I feel more sorry for her now than anything.

She has lied and fibbed about the "bridge to nowhere". She has disowned her mentor, Stevens. She touts family values yet is halfway across the country from her family. She DID slash spending on Special Ed programs (according to some sources - not all of them from the Kos) and after said she was a friend to the handicapped.

I'm a liberal for pointing that out?

You people slay me.

I didn't say you were a liberal Terry. You are wrong in your misunderstanding of what I said, which was that you've been liberal in your continuous criticisms of her. Do you understand what I’m saying or do I need to break it down some more for you?

Personally, I don't think you should feel sorry for her. I've not seen her apologize for or try to be anything different then whom and what she is and I doubt she would want your pity.

She is a VERY conservative person (so much so that she’s been touted by the extreme right of the party as one of the leaders of the next generation of the religious right) and John McCain got exactly what he was looking for when he chose her.

He just not particularly found of her message and the criticism it brings form the (liberal-political) media so he's muzzled her somewhat in an attempt to control those criticisms (which mirror yours) and I think that's a mistake.

She appeals to the religious right of the Republican party and in muzzling her, while he may be somewhat limiting those criticisms, he's also stifling her message to those she was chosen to appease and IMHO that will lead to the natives getting restless quick and is hurting him.

I think he needs to realize that the individuals that are constantly criticizing her are, for the most part, the very liberal (which the media belongs too) and that while those criticisms may be front and center every day, it's doing two things. One, it's keeping his ticket as the lead story on the daily news (and the only bad advertising is no advertising) and two, the constant criticism and negative stories by the (liberal) media will rile up the religious right, mobilize them and bring them out on election day.

Personally, I think after she cleans Biden's clock in the debate and his poll numbers take a jump as a result, he and his campaign will realize their mistake and you'll start to see more and more of Sarah (she’s hot) and her (I know you hate it) religious themed message.

I didn't say you were a liberal Terry. You are wrong in your misunderstanding of what I said, which was that you've been liberal in your continuous criticisms of her. Do you understand what I’m saying or do I need to break it down some more for you?

So you would call the Rovian GOP strategists that have accused Obama of being a muslim "liberal in their criticisms", also.

At least there is some truth to my criticisms of Palin.

She was dishonest about the Bridge to Nowhere. She has been one of the biggest seekers of earmarks of ANY current governor...

Personally, I think after she cleans Biden's clock in the debate and his poll numbers take a jump as a result, he and his campaign will realize their mistake and you'll start to see more and more of Sarah (she’s hot) and her (I know you hate it) religious themed message.

You are kidding, right? With the exception of a prewritten speech at the GOP convention, she has yet to put two coherent sentences together.

I would say you and the Rovian GOP strategist share the same strategdy in that you've both made statements that aren't true as fact.

And no, I'm not kidding about her cleaning Biden's clock. She's had weeks to study, prepare and get answers to pre-approved questions down pat and she's going against a man that's been a Senator for over 30 years so he's taken at least 3 stances on every issue.

What worked for Obama will work for her as well. She'll win the debate hands down.

All I can say Terry is that if you don't like "religionist" in your government, you're going to have to move to another country. Both candidtates as well as their VP's are all Christians and as more then 75% identify as Christians, there will ALWAYS be christians in government.

Are they REALLY "Christians", or do they just claim to be? Or is just claiiming to be Christian enough to qualify as a Christian?

TerryRC wrote:I honestly think it is driving you nuts that Sarah Palin, a conservative woman, is within reach of the vice presidency. You disapprove of her politics, her decision to carry Trig to term, and other choices she has made in her personal life.

From other posts you've made, it is fair to say you use the DailyKos as a primary news source. Of course you loathe Sarah Palin, a white conservative woman with the unmitigated gall to think she can have a family and a career in politics. After all, aren't all conservative woman supposed to be at home doing either the June Cleaver thing or on Fox News villifying Muslims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton?

Cite one article from the Kos (and I have done it ONCE that I can remember) and I use it as a primary news source?

How about the times I have used Fox or FreeRepublic?

I don't like Palin because she isn't content to live with her beliefs, she would like to force them on others.

Whatever.

You are to busy attacking me to look at her. Just what the GOP wants.

Terry,

I looked into the funding of special education services in Alaska, and what I found was that under Palin they have increased each and every year and she has plans to increase funding for special needs students dramatically over the course of the next 3 years.

Check it out for yourself, and stop swallowing whatever her enemies are spoon feeding the public.

I don't care too much to look closely at Sarah Palin, this is most certainly true. I have two very good reasons for my apathy:

1.) Sarah Palin is not running for President. John McCain is. We haven't had a Veep step-in since Gerald Ford way back in '73 or '74. Whenever it was it was so very long ago I was in grade school. You're younger than I am. You may not even been school age then. The last time a Veep stepped up due to a death was LBJ and I wasn't even born yet.

2.) I have rejected John McCain, so I have no intention of voting for Palin. The only way to vote for Palin for VP is to cast a ballot for McCain, and I won't do it.

She is being attacked by you for mounting a 2 month campaign for the vice presidency because she has young children. If ever once I heard you criticize or dismiss any man for this behavior, or a mother of young children out stomping around the country on behalf of her husband, in some cases for 10x longer, you'd hardly hear a peep out of me.

However, we've been debating topics for over 18 months now. I've heard you discuss other candidates and other people and given past posts and statements you have made during this time, the only conclusion I can arrive at is the one I posted earlier.

ziggy wrote:

All I can say Terry is that if you don't like "religionist" in your government, you're going to have to move to another country. Both candidtates as well as their VP's are all Christians and as more then 75% identify as Christians, there will ALWAYS be christians in government.

Are they REALLY "Christians", or do they just claim to be? Or is just claiiming to be Christian enough to qualify as a Christian?

I'm not a christian in the sense that I go to church and follow a religious doctrine. My beliefs are a little different then that and can't be summed up quite so easily. I will say that I do believe in a supreme being but I wouldn't identify as a christian in the same sense as Sherm would in his way, or TerryH would in his way, so I wouldn't say I'm part of that 75%.

So that means you still 225,000,000 people to ask. You should probably get started soon given your age and all.