Comments on: CBA Paper: Government Revenue http://smugpuppies.com/2010/01/25/cba-paper-government-revenue/ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:44:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: WendyB_09 http://smugpuppies.com/2010/01/25/cba-paper-government-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-4992 WendyB_09 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:28:41 +0000 http://smugpuppies.com/?p=2034#comment-4992 Geez, the government can't figure this out and they're running the program! And now the state wants high school students to take a crack at it? Well, who knows...maybe one of them will come up with a way to accurately track stimulus money spent. Geez, the government can’t figure this out and they’re running the program! And now the state wants high school students to take a crack at it?

Well, who knows…maybe one of them will come up with a way to accurately track stimulus money spent.

]]> By: Eric http://smugpuppies.com/2010/01/25/cba-paper-government-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-4991 Eric Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:28:01 +0000 http://smugpuppies.com/?p=2034#comment-4991 Jeri--it sounds to me, unless I'm missing something, that they have to argue <i>both</i> sides of the stimulus package. The wording could be more artful, but it covers not just who "benefits" but also who "pays." It also seems to me that this is a separate issue from whether the program is <i>successful</i>, i.e. whether the program achieves its goals or whether any social benefits outweigh any social costs (indeed, the focus on revenues and expenditures suggests that social or moral costs/benefits are outside the intended scope of the paper). I don't see it as a propaganda exercise at all--it looks to me like it's a flat fiscally-focused analysis. Students are meant to analyze use of the stimulus package in terms of who receives a financial benefit and who pays the financial cost, not whether it's smart, good, necessary, etc. The skill being taught/tested, I would think, is the ability to make an impartial analysis divorced from ideological considerations, which would be the exact opposite of a propaganda exercise. (On a tangent, this is why John Yoo deserves to be disbarred: ironically it's not so much because torture, which he endorsed, is evil (it is, of course), but because his job in writing a legal memorandum was to present a dispassionate analysis of the available caselaw, statutory authority, and similar legal considerations, not to cherrypick motley clauses and phrases to justify what he thought his client wanted to implement as policy--i.e. the problem isn't merely that his work was immoral, but also that it was incompetent, and would have been just as legally condemnable if he'd written a brief like that about real estate or taxation.) But maybe I'm missing something. Jeri–it sounds to me, unless I’m missing something, that they have to argue both sides of the stimulus package. The wording could be more artful, but it covers not just who “benefits” but also who “pays.” It also seems to me that this is a separate issue from whether the program is successful, i.e. whether the program achieves its goals or whether any social benefits outweigh any social costs (indeed, the focus on revenues and expenditures suggests that social or moral costs/benefits are outside the intended scope of the paper).

I don’t see it as a propaganda exercise at all–it looks to me like it’s a flat fiscally-focused analysis. Students are meant to analyze use of the stimulus package in terms of who receives a financial benefit and who pays the financial cost, not whether it’s smart, good, necessary, etc. The skill being taught/tested, I would think, is the ability to make an impartial analysis divorced from ideological considerations, which would be the exact opposite of a propaganda exercise. (On a tangent, this is why John Yoo deserves to be disbarred: ironically it’s not so much because torture, which he endorsed, is evil (it is, of course), but because his job in writing a legal memorandum was to present a dispassionate analysis of the available caselaw, statutory authority, and similar legal considerations, not to cherrypick motley clauses and phrases to justify what he thought his client wanted to implement as policy–i.e. the problem isn’t merely that his work was immoral, but also that it was incompetent, and would have been just as legally condemnable if he’d written a brief like that about real estate or taxation.)

But maybe I’m missing something.

]]> By: Janiece http://smugpuppies.com/2010/01/25/cba-paper-government-revenue/comment-page-1/#comment-4990 Janiece Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:21:11 +0000 http://smugpuppies.com/?p=2034#comment-4990 That's a very thought provoking assignment. More college level work than HS, IMO. Would it be less troublesome to you if the component read "..who pays for, and who benefits from or is hurt by...the policy or program."? That’s a very thought provoking assignment. More college level work than HS, IMO.

Would it be less troublesome to you if the component read “..who pays for, and who benefits from or is hurt by…the policy or program.”?

]]>