Open Forum: Good people with no money can’t win | BrainerdDispatch.com | Brainerd, Minnesota

Open Forum: Good people with no money can’t win

Posted: August 15, 2011 - 9:12pm

Yesterday (Saturday) Texas Gov.Perry entered the race for president. His biggest strength — according to the article I read — raising money. Yes, that’s what it all boils down to people. Buying a seat in the White House.

 Until we have campaign reform that levels the playing field for all candidates, we will get what money can buy. Not the brightest or a proven leader. Not someone who cares about all of the people in this country but just the man or the woman with that war chest of money. Money that will have to, and will be, repaid with political favors.  It’s true of a lot of things in our government. Justice is often bought in the courts too. Don’t believe that? Try defending yourself in court.

Until we have real campaign reform and tort reform in this country and quit this extortion, those without money will go unrepresented in the halls of congress and in the courts. Good people with good ideas and no money to campaign with will have no chance to prove their skills and we the people will suffer.

I remember as a young boy going to Sunday school and the teacher talking about our Lord throwing the tax collectors and the money-changers out of the temple because they didn’t belong there. Lets take a page out of the good book and throw the lobbyists out of congress because they don’t belong there either. Let’s have politicians who can legislate without thinking about campaign money.

Mike Holst

Crosslake

 

Let’s blame Bush

Obama has a habit of blaming Bush for all his problems. Well here two things he inherited from Bush that he has managed to screw up pretty well: 5.6 percent unemployment, AAA-plus credit rating.

Art Becker

Pillager

 

Questions about education

The Minnesota constitution Article XIII, Miscellaneous Subjects states the following: Uniform system of public schools. The stability of a Republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people , it is the duty of the Legislature to establish a general and uniform  system of public schools. The Legislature shall make or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.

Should the state Legislature appropriate the same per pupil amount to each school district? Because a school district wants to have more and better buildings, should every other district also have more and better buildings? If a school district wants more activities should every other district have more? If a school district’s taxpayers want to pay $1,500 more per year, should every district require $1,500 more per year? Why have the state split into districts at all?

Could the general and uniform system of public schools mean that the state should only cover the basics such as, math, science, English, history? I don't see where it says the state should cover activities, new buildings, buses, and the many more items that have been added through the years.  Have we gotten off the original intent of funding for the schools?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have activities or AP classes as I am one mother that appreciated the classes and activities offered. I am asking if we have misrepresented the original intent for the school funding?

Gwen Kienholz

Brainerd