"There is a growing awareness, however, that levels of expenditure alone are not an adequate measure of public policy outcomes. Sharkansky has shown, for example, that levels of expenditure and levels of actual service are seldom correlated; presumably, some states are able to reach given service levels with much less expenditure than others."
Jack Walker in this passage from him essay is that the amount of money being put in for each state does not always add up with what each state gets from it. He says how Sharkansky shows that a lot of times the levels of expenditure are not equal to the amount of levels of actual service the state relieves. He also says that some states are able to reach their need in service levels using less money than other states.
This passage stood out to me because it's one thing I do not agree with what this state does. I feel as the state takes more money (ei. From taxes) then what is actually needed. They could probably find a way to manage getting the NECCESSARY services done with less than the amount they take. Another issue is having higher expenditures because of states getting or providing extra services which are not even needed. It also makes me wonder, if some states can manage to get their required services on a lower budget why can't all states manage a lower budget? Then again, location, population, economic status ect. must have an effect on the amount the state needs. There can be many different things that play a role with the amount needed for a state to maintain its self but I still believe they take more then they need.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
PASSAGE FROM NY TIMES
REVISITING THE CONSTITUTION: DO WE REALLY NEED THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
Article by Melynda Price
"I am not naïve enough to believe that doing away with the Second Amendment would do away with gun violence, but I know firsthand the impact of guns and gun shots on children. This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts. Still, the Framers believed that not only the Constitution, but also the peaceful way the document was created, would penetrate the Americans' minds and change they engaged. The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy."
In this passage, the author is implying the idea that we may be better off without the second amendment which gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. She adds in a personal note which is that she personally knows the impact that guns can have, even to children. The quote I found most interesting in this passage was "This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts" I found this very true and thought back to many events in which the nation was changed due to ugly conflicts. One that came to mind was the civil war. Melynda makes it clear that she knows getting rid of the second amendment won't get completely stop gun violence, but she is hoping it would in some way help reduce the amount of gun violence we have now.
I chose this passage because it is a very interesting one in that there can be so many arguments with and against this article. In a way I would agree with her in the sense that if we did not have the second amendment it may make it a little harder for unauthorized people to get a hold of guns which can reduce gun violence. On the other hand if we do away with the right to bear arms, the people who really contain guns for safety will no longer have the right to protect themselves in that way. It would not be an easy decision if it were ever to be up for discussion but the negative side to doing away with the second amendment would be that it would not completely end gun violence and those who would of had guns for protection would be unprotected.
Article by Melynda Price
"I am not naïve enough to believe that doing away with the Second Amendment would do away with gun violence, but I know firsthand the impact of guns and gun shots on children. This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts. Still, the Framers believed that not only the Constitution, but also the peaceful way the document was created, would penetrate the Americans' minds and change they engaged. The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy."
In this passage, the author is implying the idea that we may be better off without the second amendment which gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. She adds in a personal note which is that she personally knows the impact that guns can have, even to children. The quote I found most interesting in this passage was "This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts" I found this very true and thought back to many events in which the nation was changed due to ugly conflicts. One that came to mind was the civil war. Melynda makes it clear that she knows getting rid of the second amendment won't get completely stop gun violence, but she is hoping it would in some way help reduce the amount of gun violence we have now.
I chose this passage because it is a very interesting one in that there can be so many arguments with and against this article. In a way I would agree with her in the sense that if we did not have the second amendment it may make it a little harder for unauthorized people to get a hold of guns which can reduce gun violence. On the other hand if we do away with the right to bear arms, the people who really contain guns for safety will no longer have the right to protect themselves in that way. It would not be an easy decision if it were ever to be up for discussion but the negative side to doing away with the second amendment would be that it would not completely end gun violence and those who would of had guns for protection would be unprotected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)