Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

What is the role of the government? What should the government provide? Defense Health Care Welfare Transportation Education Parks Food and Drug Safety.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "What is the role of the government? What should the government provide? Defense Health Care Welfare Transportation Education Parks Food and Drug Safety."— Presentation transcript:

1 What is the role of the government? What should the government provide? Defense Health Care Welfare Transportation Education Parks Food and Drug Safety and other regulation

2 Spending in 1930

3 Spending in 1960

4 Budget spending 2014

5 Projected estimates for 2019

6 What are the major changes? Defense: %  %  %  % Health: %  %  %  % Welfare: %  %  %  % Transportation: %  %  %  % Education: %  %  %  % Pensions: %  %  %  % Interest: %  %  %  %

7 Health Care

8 Welfare (TANF, food stamps)

9 America’s crumbling infrastructure Bridging the gap For a country where everyone drives, America has shoddy roads. The Economist Jun 28th 2014 | WASHINGTON, DC | From the print editionFrom the print edition THE Pulaski Skyway is a bridge of beauty, a lattice of steel held high above the river that separates Newark from Jersey City. It is also a bit rickety. Some of its struts have begun to resemble the pastry on a millefeuille. Its structure is described as “basically intolerable” by the National Bridge Inventory. The thousands of motorists who cross it each day probably agree. With no money to pay for its maintenance, New Jersey re-classified the Pulaski as an entrance to a tunnel that maps suggest lies miles to its north, so that the Port Authority could be tapped for funds. For this, Chris Christie, the state’s governor—who has had other troubles with bridges recently—finds his administration under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York’s District Attorney. New Jersey’s scramble to find money for basic repairs is not unusual. The Highway Trust Fund, a pot of federal cash that covers a quarter of spending by states on infrastructure, will have to start withholding money this summer to keep its balance above zero, as required by law. “The problem with the trust fund,” says David Walker, a former head of the Government Accountability Office, “is that it’s not funded and you can’t trust it.” A short- term fix may be found: Congress has already passed ten of these, shifting money from elsewhere to make up for a persistent shortfall in revenue from fuel taxes, which have been held constant since But such hand-to- mouth financing makes planning difficult and encourages city, state and local governments to put off repairs for as long as possible. America saw two great booms in infrastructure spending in the past century, the first during the Great Depression, when the Pulaski skyway was built, and the second in the 1950s and 60s, when most of the interstate highway system was. Since then, public infrastructure spending as a share of GDP has declined to about half the European level. America is one of the most car-dependent nations on earth, yet it spends about as large a share of GDP on roads as Sweden, where public transport is pretty good (see chart). The federal government scrimps on airports and sewage pipes so it can pay for pensions and health care. Something similar is unfolding at the state and local level, where three quarters of all spending on infrastructure occurs. States cut their budgets by 3.8% in 2009 and 5.7% in 2010—and have not made up the lost ground. Meanwhile bills for repairs are coming due. Much of what was built after the war was only designed to last for 50 years and now needs replacing. That includes almost half the country’s bridges. From the print edition: United States

10

11 education

12 1. Focus of Accountability: Schools or Teachers Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), schools and school districts were held accountable based on student scores. Under Common Core/Race to the Top (CC/RttT), teachers are to be held accountable based on varying percentages of student scores from state to state. 2. Source of State Standards: State Agencies or Private DC-Based Organizations Under NCLB or earlier, standards were developed by state departments of education guided by education schools, national teacher organizations, teachers, and higher education academic experts. They were approved through a public process applied to multiple drafts. Under CC/RttT, standards were developed by private organizations with no transparent review and finalization process, and no public discussion of final draft. The March 2010 public comment draft went out for two weeks of comment, but the comments are not available to the public. 3. Control of Test Content: State Agencies or Federal Agency Under NCLB, state tests were developed/contracted for by state departments of education and reviewed by a state’s teachers, consultants, and public agencies. Test items were also reviewed by independent sources before tests were given and/or after test administration. Under CC/RttT, tests are developed by private organizations and unknown individuals, with limited public review of test items before tests [are] given and no public release of all or most test items after use. 7 MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND COMMON CORE/RACE TO THE TOP by DR. SANDRA STOTSKY 19 Jul 2014DR. SANDRA STOTSKY 1. Focus of Accountability: Schools or Teachers Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), schools and school districts were held accountable based on student scores. Under Common Core/Race to the Top (CC/RttT), teachers are to be held accountable based on varying percentages of student scores from state to state. 2. Source of State Standards: State Agencies or Private DC-Based Organizations Under NCLB or earlier, standards were developed by state departments of education guided by education schools, national teacher organizations, teachers, and higher education academic experts. They were approved through a public process applied to multiple drafts. Under CC/RttT, standards were developed by private organizations with no transparent review and finalization process, and no public discussion of final draft. The March 2010 public comment draft went out for two weeks of comment, but the comments are not available to the public. 3. Control of Test Content: State Agencies or Federal Agency Under NCLB, state tests were developed/contracted for by state departments of education and reviewed by a state’s teachers, consultants, and public agencies. Test items were also reviewed by independent sources before tests were given and/or after test administration. Under CC/RttT, tests are developed by private organizations and unknown individuals, with limited public review of test items before tests [are] given and no public release of all or most test items after use.

13 4. Control of Passing Score: State Agencies or Federal Agency Under NCLB in each state, the process for determining passing scores was controlled by state departments of education, with parents and state legislators participating in the determination of passing scores by means of an open vote. For CC-based tests, there seems to be a non-transparent process controlled by both state departments of education and the test consortia, with possible oversight by the USDE. While parents and others may be included, committee membership may be controlled by both state DoEs and the test consortia, with no participation in a vote permitted to parents and state legislators. It is not clear how the passing score for all states will be determined and if there will be state-specific scores. An announcement from one test consortium indicates that “recommendations from the Online Panel, the In-Person Panel, and the Vertical Articulation Committee” will be presented to the chief school officers in Smarter Balanced governing states for their consideration and endorsement, in order to establish a common set of achievement levels for mathematics and English language arts/Literacy across grades 3–8 and high school. No involvement is indicated for the Congressional House of Representatives. 5. Purpose: High school graduation or college-readiness Under NCLB, the goal of K-12 standards was graduation from high school based on passing tests based on state- developed standards. Under RttT, the goal after passing tests based on CC standards is enrollment in credit-bearing coursework at post-secondary institutions, with the further goal of a college diploma or certificate. Assumption: every student is judged on preparedness for college, even though it is not clear that preparedness for that goal is equivalent to preparedness for an occupational career. 6. Who benefits? Professional Development Providers or Technology and Global Education Companies Who makes money from the public trough? Under NCLB, professional development providers. Under CC/RttT, high-tech companies that need to equip 50 million students for computer-based testing, and global/national professional development providers that can now provide the same kind of program to all teachers. 7. Subject Expertise of Teachers: Assured by School District or State Licensure Test Only Under NCLB, states and local school districts were to ensure the subject expertise of all teachers (via an undergraduate major, a teacher license, or HOUSSE plan to ensure “highly qualified” teacher). Under RttT, teacher subject expertise is subsumed under teacher “effectiveness,” on the basis of which redistribution of teachers may take place if it can be determined that low-income students have a lower percentage of “effective” teachers than do other students.HOUSSE plan

14 Pensions Funds Amount (billions) Portion of Total Social Security $2,607 56% Civil Service Retirement and Disability $767 17% Medicare $337 7% Military Retirement $333 7% Department of Defense Retiree Healthcare $160 3% Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits $43 1% Other $372 8%

15 Pensions: CSRS vs. FERS: CSRS: The Civil Service Retirement Act, which became effective on August 1, 1920, established a retirement system for certain Federal employees. The Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) is a defined benefit, contributory retirement system. Employees share in the expense of the annuities to which they become entitled. CSRS covered employees contribute 7, 7 1/2 or 8 percent of pay to CSRS and, while they generally pay no Social Security retirement, survivor and disability (OASDI) tax, they must pay the Medicare tax (currently 1.45 percent of pay). The employing agency matches the employee's CSRS contributions. CSRS employees may increase their earned annuity by contributing up to 10 percent of the basic pay for their creditable service to a voluntary contribution account. Employees may also contribute a portion of pay to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). There is no Government contribution, but the employee contributions are tax-deferred. FERS: Congress created the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) in 1986, and it became effective on January 1, FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security, and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Two of the three parts of FERS (Social Security and the TSP) can go with you to your next job if you leave the Federal Government before retirement. The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions.Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life. The TSP part of FERS is an account that your agency automatically sets up for you. Each pay period your agency deposits into your account amount equal to 1% of the basic pay you earn for the pay period. You can also make your own contributions to your TSP account and your agency will also make a matching contribution. These contributions are tax- deferred. The Thrift Savings Plan is administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

16 California company expands peach recall news-press.com8:54 a.m. EDT August 4, 2014 Wawona Packing Company is expanding its voluntary recall from July 19 of whole white and yellow peaches, white and yellow nectarines, plums and pluots due to the potential of the products being contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The July 19 recall covered specific lots of products packed from June 1 through July 12. Wawona Packing Company of Cutler, Cal. is expanding the recall, as a precautionary step, to cover all products packed in the Wawona Packing Co. facility from June 1 through July 17 because the company's experts have yet to identify with scientific certainty the source of Listeria monocytogenes in the facility. The fruits had been sold to wholesale clubs including BJ's, Costco and Sam's, and retailers such as Trader Joe's, all of which can be found in Southwest Florida. Listeria monocytogenes can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Beginning on July 18, no products have been packed at the Wawona Packing facility in Cutler, Cal. Products packed on or after July 18 outside of the Wawona Packing Co. facility are not affected by this recall.


Download ppt "What is the role of the government? What should the government provide? Defense Health Care Welfare Transportation Education Parks Food and Drug Safety."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google