What The Holy Hell Is Going On?

[The Sicatoka]

Not trying to defend Boeing because it is suspicious to me also, but, in cutting 20% most US airlines also stopped/withdrew/cancelled orders for new planes.

[Scott Murphy]

I'd venture that most of the airlines' problems were already in the works before 9-11, I think only Southwest turned a profit in Q2. Most are bloated, inefficient organizations with labor and other costs that are enormous relative to other industries. I have no problem compensating the airlines for the time they were forced to stay on the ground, but the rest seems like corporate welfare of the highest order.

Now they want limitations on liability and other forms of protection, as the insurance carriers are restricting coverages and getting ready to jack rates up. Talk about taking advantage ... :rolleyes:

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Scott Murphy
I'd venture that most of the airlines' problems were already in the works before 9-11, I think only Southwest turned a profit in Q2.I believe Continental did as well. It's my impression that Continental has the best management team of any of the major airlines (I'm not counting Southwest in that group). That said, they were hemorrhaging money (something like $30 MM / day at the height of the crisis, against cash reserves of $800 MM) just like everyone else, and had to act quickly (layoffs of 20,000) to stay afloat. I'm not sure what the parameters of the bailout are, but I'm not sure they wouldn't (the cash part) be nothing more than compensation for the time grounded.

Now they want limitations on liability and other forms of protection, as the insurance carriers are restricting coverages and getting ready to jack rates up.Interesting, I wonder what sort of limitations they want? Are they worried about running security?

[vicb]

http://www.top-greetings.com/cards/299

[Scott Murphy]

Craig, I read in the WSJ that the airlines are starting to get squeezed or denied coverage by their insurance carriers. As well, there is the very strong possiblity that the airlines and airports involved could be sued for negligence with regard to any failure to prevent the hijackings, etc. As such, if they are successfully sued their liabilities could be staggering, well into the billions perhaps. Therefore, they are lobbying congress to limit their tort liability resulting from this attack, and probably others in the future as well. There is also talk of the US government essentially being the insurer of "last resort" for certain industries, like airlines, much like the FDIC insures banks. Not sure what the odds are of either proposal making it very soon. Probably low, right now, especially with a 15 billion dollar bailout in the pipes

[Craig P.]

I was reading that either this bailout bill or a related one will offer government money to people (family of the dead, I think) who agree not to sue. With Continental being a major employee in Houston, the local paper (the Chronicle) is obviously taking a bit of an interest in the proceedings.

[Scott Murphy]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a waiver of some sort. I think the dollars could be key, as the airlines, airports and their insurers have pretty deep pockets. So I would expect that the plaintiff's bar is already chomping at the bit for a taste of this work.

As well, property damage to the towers and other structures could be litigated, as well as loss of business, etc. With insurance companies and high buck businesses in the mix, the courts could be full of suits for the next decade or so.

[Bobo]

A question for anyone who wants to answer it. Up to about 10 days ago, I heard a lot of talk on here about how the federal gov't. over steps its authority, how its taxes and regulations are too intrusive, how we should just trust the market to take care of business instead of letting the awful gov't get involved.

So, we left the airlines in charge of airplane security, with no interference. I think it's safe to say that didn't work out quite that well. I guess basing your security efforts on making a profit, on the market wasn't really the way to go.

My question for all of you fans of unfettered, wide-open capitalism, governmental non-intereference, and strict Constitutional constructionism, what do we do now?

1. Status quo, leave the airline in charge and live with events like September 11th?

2. Let each of the 50 states be in charge of their own airport security? After all the Constitution doesn't explicitly give Congress the authority to even create the FAA, let alone put a federal gov't body in charge of this problem. (This really strikes me as a truly efficient and effective way to go. Redundancy? Info falling through the cracks? Nah. Strong coordination and cooperation? Sure.)

3. Push Congress to put US Marshalls on planes and the FAA and the FBI in charge of security.

Hmmm, tough one. But I'm interested in how you fierce individualists will go on this one.

[Chuck Murray]

Since the discussion has taken another turn in the direction of insurance, I'll throw in some additional/updated thoughts on some of the issues discussed in the course of this thread:

* Coverage on the WTC itself - there was discussion on the possibility that only one of the towers was insured earlier in this thread. I haven't been able to confirm that, but it seems very unlikely. What the initial rumour may have arisen out of is the possibility that the insured value of the property was only covered up to a certain limit or cap OR perhaps on an ACV basis (including depreciation) instead of full replacement cost. That *might* reduce first-party coverage to the point where, in effect, the equivalent of only one of towers would be insured;

* "Act of War"/terrorism exclusion - not sure how it's playing out in other areas of the industry, but on Friday my company issued a press release indicating that they would NOT be attempting to invoke any "act of war" exclusionary language on their policies. My guess is that the reinsurance market has likely communicated their similar position to the carriers out there, but understand that as the largest single man-made catastrophe of all time (eclipsing the first WTC bombing by a wide margin) this incident is going to go well beyond the industry's profit margin and take a good chunk out of their reserves. I've heard from several sources that the loss could drive at least one fair-sized domestic carrier into insolvency;

* Insurance rates - look for insurers to try to expand the scope of its "act of war" exclusion in the coming months, probably to include acts of terrorism. Insurance policies are rated for price on accumulated actuarial data over many, many years ... but every once in awhile, there is a situation that crops up that does not fit into any existing actuarial models. The primary example of that in the past was the whole asbestos risk dating back to the time of WWII and after, when countless thousands (millions?) of US employees were exposed to the hazards of asbestos in the course of their employment. Thousands of policies were written at that time that never contemplated the enormous latent risk out there, and by the time people started filing asbestosis claims by the truckloads, the industry had no mechanism in place to bill back their exposures. Hence the industry took it on the chin, and many carriers either went insolvent or were crippled to the point that larger carriers gobbled them up at highly-discounted values. This WTC incident promises to be the biggest "curve ball" that the casualty insurance industry has seen since then, and since the public would not be able/willing to absorb the rate increases that would be necessary if the policy language was left alone, you can bet that the focus of the industry will be to beef up the exclusionary language. Which leads me to ...

* Public policy - contrary to the overall public perception out there, policy exclusions are not out there just to *screw* our insureds out of coverage. Without exception, they are out there for one of two reasons: one, either the loss can/should be insured under a different policy; or two, the risk is one that is unacceptable from a position of public policy. An example of the latter would be that an intentional loss by an insured is almost universally excluded, for fairly obvious reasons. Another less-known example would be that employers are usually immune from civil suits by their own employees for unintentional work-related injuries, since workers compensation is almost universally the "exclusive remedy" of an injured worker on a no-fault basis. Likewise, the "act of war" exclusion is there because (1) there is no insurer - no matter how large - that could withstand the losses arising out of a full-scale war in an area where they underwrite coverage; and (2) public policy probably dictates that the losses associated with war are properly placed on the government's plate (see "intentional loss"). If/when there are future losses of this scope, I'm sure the industry will have taken further steps in the interim to shift the risk of similar losses back to the government;

* Liability exposure - as someone mentioned earlier, I'm sure that the plaintiff's bar is "salivating" to some degree over the idea of 6,000+ innocent victims in the pipeline. But once you get past the surface, remember that legal liability usually hinges on the concept of negligence. And what negligence can turn on boils down to what type of actions are determined to be "foreseeable" on the part of the allegedly liable party. Was it "foreseeable" that a small strike force of kamikaze pilots would gain access to an airplane - never mind four (4) at a time - by passing through security with NO illegal weapons?? Remember, the blades that were suspected to have armed the terrorists were not prohibited at the time EVEN IF they had been detected. And was it then foreseeable that the planes would be driven into buildings filled with other people?? There was NO PRECEDENT for a hijacker to scuttle his own plane on a suicide mission here in the US, much less into commercial buildings housing thousands of other people.

My guess is that the primary targets for potential liability would be anyone in the second WTC building who may have instructed their people to stay put. But again, remember - what did we/they know at the time regarding what happened with the first WTC impact? My recollection was that no one was really sure on the cause of the first crash when it happened, and it was only after the second crash that it became obvious what was afoot. And the time between the two impacts was, what - 15 minutes? Then again, keep in mind that MANY of these losses would only be limited to WC claims as with regards to their employers anyway - unless the employee could show that their employers' conduct rose well past the level of negligence and into the area of gross negligence, recklessness or willful/intentional conduct. Those are MUCH stricter standards than simple negligence, and even in the case of negligence, I think it's really hard to say that most of the entities outlined above could be judged as negligent.

Having said that, personal injury law is a dirty business at times, and there is no shortage of practitioners who will be more than happy to become professional "Monday morning QB's" trying to nitpick every possible perceived lapse and oversight in search of a payday. And with such mechanisms as joint & several liability, sometimes a finding of only 1% negligence (as in the cases of the many completely innocent victims here) is enough to saddle what might appear to be a marginally-involved entity who may have deep pockets with a crippling body blow. I'm certain that a good chunk of the proposed airlines bailout proceeds have been earmarked for eventual distribution (either directly or indirectly) to the folks who might pursue these actions, given the prevalence of self-insurance that pervades the airlines industry.

Anyhow ... my apologies for going on and on and on ... and for anything here that might be perceived as insensitive to any of the victims of this unparalleled tragedy. My intent was merely to outline some of the ways that this incident has impacted (and will continue to impact) not only the insurance industry, but also the consumers who buy our product and expect our service ...

[Randy May]

Originally posted by Bobo


My question for all of you fans of unfettered, wide-open capitalism, governmental non-intereference, and strict Constitutional constructionism, what do we do now?



Hmmm, tough one. But I'm interested in how you fierce individualists will go on this one.

My answer is ... right now anyway...

3. Push Congress to put US Marshalls on planes and the FAA and the FBI in charge of security.

Having 50 different institutions trying to coordinate everything from possible terrorist profiling and basic fundamental procedures, mechanics, etc. would not work. Eventually gaps would exist and something would fall through the cracks...something that probably wouldn't if it was Federal. Not that a Federal system would be foolproof...but I think it would be better coordinated. And no, I am not afraid of the Gov't getting too much power.

[Chuck Murray]

"So, we left the airlines in charge of airplane security, with no interference. I think it's safe to say that didn't work out quite that well. I guess basing your security efforts on making a profit, on the market wasn't really the way to go."

Bobo - I love ya, man ... and I know where you're going with this one ... but remind me exactly what the airline security folks did to mess this one up? You mean, they didn't detect/confiscate legal weapons?? How many times have you or countless others snuck past airport security while packing your trusty Gillette Mach Threes in the last year alone??? :confused: ;)

C'mon - hindsight is 20/20, and we're all geniuses on what we (or others) should have done or said in retrospect. I don't remember anyone giving us a choice of paying more taxes or watching four planes on kamikaze raids rack up 6,000+ casualties. Or did I miss something along the way, where you recommended that we place armed federal marshalls on planes last year??? :confused:

Now - I'll go ahead and answer your question ... :)

In light of the unprecedented attacks of last week, I'm sure that any sane person (even me ;)) now realizes the need for changes to be made, and the need to absorb the costs associated with them. BTW - I don't fly unless absolutely necessary - like, say, overseas. And I've never had to do that in my career to date. So it's not like I'm too worried personally about getting into a plane anytime soon, but I can see where it's kinda important to many facets of our economy. So I for one am willing to take the hit even though I personally will get no direct benefit for the extra $$$ I'll likely be paying.

How's that for being a selfless taxpayer, eh?? :D

[Bobo]

Chuck,

It wasn't a case of specifically choosing lower taxes over hijacking and deaths, it's the general and pervasive attitude of doing things as cheaply as possible and "keeping the GD gov't. out of MY pocket" that led to this, and will undoubtedly lead to more events like this. You get what you pay for, we just need tombstones to remind us of this, EVERY TIME.

And

- I'm not talking about just the ground security, we USED to have armed air marshalls until we decided the the money was better spent on jet-skis and SUVs than the FAA's budget.

- Last week proved you don't have to be a frequent flyer to be affected by air security. You don't even have to be in the air.

- Finally, didn't I recommend air marshalls last year? No, but I did think it was a stupid idea when they stopped using them. Should I list all the stupid things I think we do in the name of saving a buck? Just to cover myself? I can assure you it's quite a list.

You...get..what...you...pay...for

Btw, I'm sure this has been dealt with, but what is the plan to keep this from happening to Seabrook?

[Chuck Murray]

Originally posted by Bobo
Chuck,

It wasn't a case of specifically choosing lower taxes over hijacking and deaths, it's the general and pervasive attitude of doing things as cheaply as possible and "keeping the GD gov't. out of MY pocket" that led to this, and will undoubtedly lead to more events like this. You get what you pay for, we just need tombstones to remind us of this, EVERY TIME.

Listen, for every worthwhile, cost-effective government program like the FBI, FAA, OSHA, etc. there are dozens of pork programs like studies on the mating habits of albino spotted owls in the ANWR. You are painting with a broad brush to make your point. Jeez - even Libertarians concede the need for *some* limited government, and even the most "fierce individualists" that I know concede the benefits of social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Like most everything in life, there are good aspects of government, and there are abuses (see Massport, Central Artery Project, Mass Turnpike Authority ... do we detect a pattern??;))

- I'm not talking about just the ground security, we USED to have armed air marshalls until we decided the the money was better spent on jet-skis and SUVs than the FAA's budget.

Question: what evidence do you have to show that even with an armed air marshall on each of those planes, that not ONE of the attacks may still have succeeded? Less of a chance? Sure. A degree of deterrence? Hell yeah ... either that, or just another contingency for these fruit loops to work around. An absolute guarantee that NONE of these lives are still lost? No way ... :(

BTW - I agree with you on the SUV's ... but did someone hit you in the head with a jet-ski when you were a kid swimming over at Hampton Beach, or what?? Just curious ... ;)

- Last week proved you don't have to be a frequent flyer to be affected by air security. You don't even have to be in the air.

Correct-amundo. And while we're stocking the airplanes with federal marshalls, pretty much the entire Eastern MA region is drinking water out of a single, largely-unguarded water source. The potential threats are endless, and not all of them are easily forseeable or preventable, no matter HOW much effort you put into it. It doesn't necessarily mean that more taxes changes the end result, does it??? :confused:

- Finally, didn't I recommend air marshalls last year? No, but I did think it was a stupid idea when they stopped using them. Should I list all the stupid things I think we do in the name of saving a buck? Just to cover myself? I can assure you it's quite a list.

I'd love to see that list sometime, Bobo. :) I'm just a little bit uncomfortable with the second-guessing angle that *some* of your comments may be taking. I'm very much into the whole "live and learn" concept, and I think there have been MANY lessons to be learned by ALL of us after the events of last week.

You...get..what...you...pay...for

Yes, indeed you do. And all of that money that's been paid out to either (1) tax refunds by Bush, or (2) pay down the national debt by Clinton - just to cite two broad issues - I'm sure the first thing both of those guys would have done, if they'd have been given a "do-over" after the Tuesday before last, would be to plow that money into additional airline/airport security. Up until Monday before last, I'm sure it wasn't on EITHER of their radar screens.

SHOULD it have been? Using 20/20 hindsight, sure. Using only our life experiences up to that point, in which a hijacking of a domestic commercial airliner in the US hadn't happened in the last generation?? Not so easy that way now, is it ...

Btw, I'm sure this has been dealt with, but what is the plan to keep this from happening to Seabrook?

Ummmmmmmm ... :confused: ... the only thing my handy-dandy Seabrook escape booklet tells me is that if the place blows, I grab the family and drive like he11 to Rochester. Or is it "drive like Rochester to he11"?? Isn't Rochester really like he11 anyway??? And why Rochester?? What if I like Gonic better???

Questions, questions ... millions of the little buggahs out there, but easy answers usually aren't that easy to find.

Throwing more money at a problem isn't any guarantee that the money gets spent the right way either. JMHO ...

[walrus]

Bobo
Seabrook said they were confident that they could take a direct hit, like WTC, and survive. That the containment area was strong enough to take it. Who knows whether it is true or not. The WTC were designed to take a hit from 707 and really the hit they survived but not the fire.
I believe the feds have to step in and take control of airport security. 1 agency most coordinate security not 50.

BTW, you know how to make a point:);)

[Rodentsrule!]

Bobo,

The purpose of our Goverment, as established by the Founding Fathers is to provide for the defense of the nation and needed infrastructure.

The problem does not lie as Chuck Said in the Tax Cuts. The same politicians who were opposed to tax cuts, were also opposed to increased spending on the military and defense. This is a big reason the U.S. had zero intelligience that would give an inkling to what was coming. The U.S. has let it's guard down since the end of the cold war, as there was no perceived enemy.

You're **** right I want to keep the Goverments hand out of my pocket when it comes to the redistribution of wealth through pork barrel programs, designed to get politicians reelected.

I understand I have to pay taxes and have no problem paying my fair share. What I have a problem with is supporting every Politician's pet program designed to get him/her reelected, while morale is at an all time low in our armed services, our equipment needs improving, and until last week recruiters were having trouble finding recruits because the men and women of our armed forces are so grossly underpaid.

So you see the problem really isn't jet ski's and Suv's. Cut the pork, put the money where it belongs, upgrading our armed services and paying those who serve appropriately.

The liberal idea of "throwing more money at the problem" will not solve this problem any more than it has solved a single one of the many social problems evident daily in this country.

[Bobo]

Walrus, I mention Seabrook for a few reasons. I live within the so-called evacuation zone (joke). I disagree with those who believe nuclear power is safe and clean, and efficient, but that's another issue,which I'm sure we'll get to at some time. And I was in school when they were building the place, our class went down to the Education Center, Pease was still an active AFB at the time, there was a lot of concern about a jet crashing into the place, as an accident not an attack, they told us that the dome was designed to withstand a jet fighter crashing into it, a jet fighter is a mosquito compared to a 757 full of fuel, I'm not saying this was a definitive engineering statement but it's always stuck with me.

Rodentsrule, my problem with what you said is how inaccurate and mis-leading it is. What pork barrel projects, and hwow much of the budget do they actually make up? It seems to me that anti-tax proponents love to find these one-off exceptions and hold them up as examples of how we waste tax money. These so-called "welfare mothers" who are supposedly getting rich off having children, and supposedly represent welfare in general, or a couple million for the study of dust particles on the life cycle of beach umbrellas. Is there waste? Yes. Is it even a hiccup in the overall budget? No. If we eleiminated anything even close to waste int e budget it MIGHT lead to a 5% reduction, you wouldn't even notice it. And you do the same in any large organization, public or private. But if you disagree, feel free to list what you'd like cut, specifically, and we'll see what it adds up to in light of the entire budget.

[Bobo]

Chuck,

Comparing the FBI to saving owls as an example of good v. bad spending? Slightly mis-leading, I would guess we spend at least a $1000/year more on the FBI than we do on saving owls. At least. And what do you have against owls anyway? "Pave the country now..."

Air marshalls are a "contingency" that would just be gotten around by terrorists? Fine, you could say that about all security, lets just do away with it altogether.

Jet-skis produce more pollution in 8 hours of operation than the average car does in it's lifetime. If that's not enough, they're a noisy pain in the ***, just like these motorcycles that deafen you that the white trash love so much.

"Live and learn"? You're the one who posted Howie Carr's diatribe the other day. At least I've spent the last couple years on here singing the same song I'm singing now, you know "You get whaaaaat you paaaay for, bababa boom..."

Money doesn't solve all problems? Totally agreed. But a lack of it sure can sink even the best solutions. A favorite of yours, I believe, class sizes. It's odd that you don't find it, and the money to support it, well spent. It's also a bit odd that schools like PEA think it's worthwhile, the Harkness Plan, ten or so students around a table and all that mumbo-jumbo. Or the year and a half I spent at the Defense Language Institute, with classes of ten students and one instructor, funny that the gov't goes to the expense there but it isn't worth it elsewhere. Question, would you get the same education in a class of 100 as you would in a class of 10-15? If not, where does the degradation start, and where does it reach a critical point?

Finally, 1 in 5 children in this country live in poverty. If you don't think this a hidden timebomb...the resentment being built up...when, not if, this reaches a boiling point the results are going to make the actions of foreign terrorists look like a minor nuisance. But lets not fund schools, health care, social programs, I'd much rather save the money now and just suffer the consequences 20 years from now, when we can take all that money we've saved and build a few hundred nice prisons with it.

[Ralph Baer]

Bobo, I hope that we spend more than $1000/year more on the FBI than on saving owls. Did you perhaps mean to say 1000 times more on the FBI? That may not be the case.

[rufus]

"This is a big reason the U.S. had zero intelligience that would give an inkling to what was coming. "


not to seem callous or belittle this tragedy, but it seems that various instruments of u.s intelligence had quite a bit of information concerning either the peoples involved, or theat something big was on the verge of happening. unfortunately, they chose to either disregard, overlook, or file away without examining said info. and it seems that they got onto a trail of confederates, acquaintances and others involved pretty quickly.

we may need more money spent on intelligence, but we also need those people charged with analyzing and evaluating the raw data compiled to do a better job of it. i don't think you need a reminder of the problems that have come to light over the past couple years in our fbi and national security departments. possibly too many government beaurocrats sitting too comfortably in their jobs for too long?

[Chuck Murray]

Originally posted by Bobo
Chuck,

Comparing the FBI to saving owls as an example of good v. bad spending? Slightly mis-leading, I would guess we spend at least a $1000/year more on the FBI than we do on saving owls. At least. And what do you have against owls anyway? "Pave the country now ... "

The FBI is one agency, Bobo. My "spotted owls" crack is just a single example of countless hundreds (thousands?) of little pork projects that proliferate out there. I think the events of the last week should lead to a little bit of fine-tuning of our priorities as a people. Screw the frickin' spotted owls ... :mad: ;)

Air marshalls are a "contingency" that would just be gotten around by terrorists? Fine, you could say that about all security, lets just do away with it altogether.

Not my point, Bobo. But yeah - you can say that about all security. There is always an argument to be made that an event *could have* been prevented if someone did something different. I see bizarre, contorted arguments about this stuff every day of my professional life. It's usually nothing more than "Monday morning QB'ing". I've conceded that the events of last week dictate the need for more open security measures, as much for deterrence as for prevention. My point is that there's NO guarantee out there, and criticizing anyone for the lack of such a presence after the fact is shooting fish in a barrel, no??

Jet-skis produce more pollution in 8 hours of operation than the average car does in it's lifetime. If that's not enough, they're a noisy pain in the ***, just like these motorcycles that deafen you that the white trash love so much.

Thanks for the explanation. Never been on one before, no plans to buy one anytime soon either. Like I said - just curious.

"Live and learn"? You're the one who posted Howie Carr's diatribe the other day. At least I've spent the last couple years on here singing the same song I'm singing now, you know "You get whaaaaat you paaaay for, bababa boom..."

Go back and read those comments. I thought I made it pretty clear that I thought Carr's MMQB'ing and second-guessing the actions of the Massport folks was inappropriate and went too far. More 20/20 hindsight, preaching and "I told you so" but from a decidedly different perspective than you. And he's also singing the same song now as he's been for ages, just like you. Do you guys get extra credit for inflexibility, or what??? :confused: ;)

Money doesn't solve all problems? Totally agreed. But a lack of it sure can sink even the best solutions. A favorite of yours, I believe, class sizes. It's odd that you don't find it, and the money to support it, well spent. It's also a bit odd that schools like PEA think it's worthwhile, the Harkness Plan, ten or so students around a table and all that mumbo-jumbo. Or the year and a half I spent at the Defense Language Institute, with classes of ten students and one instructor, funny that the gov't goes to the expense there but it isn't worth it elsewhere. Question, would you get the same education in a class of 100 as you would in a class of 10-15? If not, where does the degradation start, and where does it reach a critical point?

Putting the emphasis on class sizes in the quality of education is already making the assumption that school is the only source of education worth considering. I personally never attended a school with any sort of credentials/reputation until I went to college, and no one ever confused Bentley with the Ivy League either. I never was in a class with less than 30+ other students.

But my folks cared a lot about education, and I was going to be the first kid in my dad's extended family to graduate college. No discussion, no room for debate. That meant I did my homework before I even thought about going out to play ball. It meant going through homework, assignments, and projects with them on a daily basis. It meant watching the local and network news at the dinner table each and every day, instead of TV dinners in front of reruns of "Gilligan's Island" like my friends did. It meant explaining to my folks why I didn't get an "A" in EVERY subject, even if it was Art or Music. I was motivated to the point where my focus was to avoid those discussions, and usually I did. Once it was for over three years ... happiest days of my childhood. :)

In the end, my folks were demanding, but they held up their end of the bargain, and I thank them every day for instilling that kind of first-things-first mentality in me. And I'll admit that I might not be quite as demanding on our kids as my folks were with me BUT if my kid doesn't get an "A" at school, or if she cannot understand an issue that I think is important to her future success, I'm not going to go ******ing to the local school board about why some teacher can't drill it into my kid's head. That's still MY job first and foremost, not someone else's. At least that's how I see it.

And if other parents want to cede their kids' educations 100% to some grade school or high school teacher, and spend all of their time and efforts on building their stock portfolios (or riding on their jet-skis ;)), then good luck to them. Just don't expect me to pick up the financial slack for their lack of personal commitment to their kids' educations. Let them pay for private schools. JMHO ...

((( ... BTW - sorry for the soliloquy, but I thought maybe it would be important for you to understand exactly why I feel the way I do on education/class size. And yeah - my folks BOTH worked full-time for a majority of my childhood, so don't even THINK of going there ... :) )))

Finally, 1 in 5 children in this country live in poverty. If you don't think this a hidden timebomb...the resentment being built up...when, not if, this reaches a boiling point the results are going to make the actions of foreign terrorists look like a minor nuisance. But lets not fund schools, health care, social programs, I'd much rather save the money now and just suffer the consequences 20 years from now, when we can take all that money we've saved and build a few hundred nice prisons with it.

Listen, it's not like I disagree with you in principle. I worry about disparity in a lot less serious settings (see my rant on disparity of salaries in pro sports elsewhere today), so yeah - that concerns me a bit more in society in general too.

But let's not confuse the issue here. Our schools, health care or social programs may not be perfect. There are always things that can be improved, and it's the quest for constant improvement as a society that has made the US what it is today. But our schools, health care and social programs as a whole are STILL THE BEST IN THE WORLD. There's not a long line of people who live in US "poverty" lining up for passage back to Ireland, Italy, Russia, Africa, China, Bosnia or Pakistan, at least not that I'm aware of. There are still enough examples out there of "rags to riches" success in this country that MOST people know the opportunity can be theirs IF they put their minds to it, and *maybe* catch a break. Even if that *break* might only be a $5,000 settlement of a personal injury claim, it might still be better than they could have ever hoped for elsewhere. ;)

And I'm not trying to downplay poverty as a key social issue, but remember - poverty in the US still usually comes with a welfare check (or low wages), some food stamps and a roof over your head. That's probably better than a large majority of the folks in Afghanistan, Sudan or Iraq (and many other places on this planet) are living.

Can we do better? Sure. We always have tried, and usually have found ways to improve. But incentives cannot be left out of the equation. Capitalism may not be perfect, but our version of it has beaten the socks off of any socialist society that we've seen in the history of mankind to date, no??