Then why did my local district have to make a choice between losing six teachers and fixing a roof on a school? That was improperly installed by a bankrupt contractor.

They chose the roof. After all, what's a few more students in each class....

To a point, money does matter, especially in high poverty schools.

Actually, based on PISA scores, we are one of the top countries in the world. Many countries come here to learn about our education system. You just never hear about it. Why? Because they never adjust for relative poverty levels when reporting. The "reformers" want a crisis.

We are trying to use our schools to fix the effects of poverty. I think you can figure out how well that has been going. Of course, considering our willingness to fix inequality, we don't seem to have a choice.

It's easy to fire teachers. Even those with "tenure", more accurately called due process. Plenty of districts do it. Districts that have poor teachers by definition have poor administrators. And since administrators are really easy to fire, if you think you have poor teachers, I suggest you take it up with your school board.

"A job is not a job is not a job, it's not true that government can spend into prosperity, it's not true that government jobs add to prosperity and to economy, it's not true that spending is what grows the economy."

There was a boom in the economy due to WW1, then a recession after WW1, at least in certain regions. According to your statement, this is did not happen. Please explain how government spending did not increase jobs and add to prosperity.

WW2 ended the great depression in the US. According to your statement, this did not happen. Please explain how government spending did not increase jobs and add to prosperity.

"In fact AFAIC there is no difference between a welfare recipient and a government worker. Just because the government worker has a job to go to, it doesn't change the fact that his job is being paid from the productivity stolen from people who ACTUALLY produce the wealth that ends up as salaries."

As to the difference between a government and a private job, there is none. Paying $X to the government for a service via taxes is no different that paying $X dollars to a private company for a service.

" (* see my sig, I explain about the fact that the personal income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally in USA *)."

Seriously? Are you a POE? If you really believe this then I suggest refusing to pay your taxes and notify the IRS of this fact.

"Cutting tax rates without cutting spending does not equal cutting taxes, and that is exactly why the jobs are leaving,"

Actually, according to economists who actually study these things, cutting tax rates are causing the jobs to leave. If you increase effective tax rates on the wealthy, more jobs will be created with less offshoring. Right now it is cheap to take money out of companies as profit. The goal is to make it costly to take money out of companies. This drives investment and creates jobs.

Well, luckily for you, the world is a libertarian's paradise. There are hundreds of governmental options, some of which do not tax the output of your labor. Feel free to relocate.

I won't waste time reading your journal as your grasp on basic concepts is lacking. First, government is not a luxury item. Second, the idea that a government will be constrained by a consumption tax is absurd. As long as it can print money and sell debt it can spend. The US, for instance, has been constrained by taxes for a long time. It hasn't stopped spending. And any spending by a government is by definition tax expenditures.

"20% of the people use up 80% of the health care costs according to a NPR report recently."

This is roughly correct. Although the 20% changes from year to year to some degree.

"These are the obese, the smokers, the "lifestyle choices"."

This is incorrect. First, most lifestyle choices really aren't that expensive. Second, they are encouraged by society (yes, even smoking). Third, and most important, plenty of expensive care doesn't fall into those categories.

"Fix that, and the healthcare cost issue goes away."

You can't. Or, at least no one has figured out how to do it. Ever.
We do however have the worst system in the world because we pay the most money for the least results.

For instance, if you want to "fix" obesity then you have to fix society. It's mixed in with our farm policy, housing policy, transport policy, employment policy, health policy, etc. You just don't tell people to eat less and exercise. We know that doesn't work.

There isn't much point in developing a light bomber if you have cruise missiles or UAV's. They perform much of the same role, are cheaper and expendable.

Actually, there is no inherent reason that the right to life dictates a right to own property Rights don't exist in the natural world but are created by humans. What most people find awful about Libertarian philosophy is the idea that property rights are equal to or greater than human rights.

Insisting that a company follow a well established law designed to promote access is not taking property. The company is free not to distribute the material (they have no right to make money). In fact, without the government and the laws, they wouldn't have a business model in the first place. That's what Libertarians frequently ignore in their faulty analyses.

Your minimum wage statistic is wrong. In my state, for instance, minimum wage is above $9 an hour for tipped positions.

This is simply untrue. Any carrier can deliver "mail" or the equivalent. They just can't use the mail boxes, as it is not their property.

It just so happens that they charge a lot more than the USPS. Mail delivery isn't cheap and it's not cost effective if you don't have the infrastructure.

Really? Do you even know the definition of a standardized test? If you think it means just multiple choice, you are incorrect. That is a common variant but it could also be a performance assessment. For instance, in Washington state, every new teacher has to pass a standardized test related to their teaching to get their teaching credentials. Being good on tests won't help you.

And exactly what content does Congress mandate?

I'll wait.

The states mandate content. We don't have national standards or subjects. We have suggestions for national standards. The Common Core standards (the closest thing to a national standard) are driven by the states.

Don't be misled by averages.

Federal funds typically are distributed unevenly through a state. Poor schools receive more funding, the wealthy schools receive less. So by refusing that funding you further penalize certain schools and certain populations. And while you can refuse some of the funding, you still have to provide the services (or get sued).

So how much did your students learn? And what standards did they meet? Do you have the data?

If you do, congratulations. You have done testing. If not, then perhaps you aren't as good a teacher as you think you were.

I agree that comprehensive formative and summative assessment done in the classroom matched to standards will be far more effective than general standardized tests. Any teacher and administrator that isn't an ignoramus knows that. And if you think unions are opposed to that, then perhaps you need to catch up with current events. I couldn't get my teaching certificate without proving I could do what you describe in the beginning; it was incorporated in the state assessment (wow, a useful standardized test, imagine that). Finally, good districts advertise to new teachers a system fairly close to what you propose. These are public systems.

If they can apply what they have been taught, then you ARE testing what you taught them.

Ultimately you need a balance between rote knowledge and the ability to apply it. In general, those students that don't know their facts also can't apply them if provided. As you noted, the opposite is not always true.