I don’t disagree with the overall message, but I’m going to have to call out that first sentence:
The average U.S. taxpayer in 2022 spent over four times as much on Pentagon contractors than on primary and secondary education, according to the annual Tax Day analysis published in recent days by the Institute for Policy Studies’ National Priorities Project.
This is a misleading use of the data. In the US, k12 education is mostly funded at the state or local level, not the federal level. The National Priorities Project’s per-state data is what just the federal government is spending at the state level. That makes sense give the complexity of funding of schools. Some states fund schools through local taxes, while others disperse funds from the general fund through a formula. Digging through all the state and local laws would be a nightmare. It’s fine to leave that out of the data, but it does a disservice to their argument to make such a basic error.
Good point identifying schools are mostly state funded. But the overall conditions of public schools demonstrate additional funding is a necessity. Allocating some of the massive Pentagon Contractor funding to the younger generation who will have to curb everything previous generations left for them to fix seems like a good idea. The discrepancy in spending between the two area’s is obscene plus STEM will be the best way to try and fix the climate crisis. At least thats my take on it all.
Many large contractors have made it very politically difficult to cut their products, to the point where there is defense spending that the Pentagon has stated it does not want and Congress adds back in. For these large projects like an expensive fighter plane, production will be spread across most Congressional districts. A vote against it means a vote to forgo jobs, even though they’re essentially useless make-work jobs.
The condition of schools is uneven, in addition to falling short. The federal government does provide some funding to help schools that have high levels of poverty under Title 1 programs, which helps with the greater need associated with poverty. My mother worked at a Title 1 school for many years.
Some common funding models use a tax district that is associated with each individual school district. The effect is that already poor districts don’t have the funds to keep up schools, trapping poor students in a cycle of poverty. At the same time, wealthy districts can afford lavish facilities and low student-teacher ratios. Families often buy in a neighborhood specifically for the local schools. For this reason, I favor a switch to Oregon’s funding model. Most funding is doled out from the state general fund, ensuring at least a good baseline funding level. Oregon still has its problems, but basic inequality is much less of an issue.
