Act 51 reinvents meaning of 'expend'

Thanks to educator Ruth Tschumy for describing the latest developments of Act 51, the so-called "Reinventing Education Act of 2004" ("Principals need more control of school funds," Star-Bulletin, March 6). She confirmed what has been suspected for some time now -- that Act 51 will not be reinventing anything anytime soon. On second thought, it successfully reinvents the way one word in particular is used -- or rather, misused.

At the heart of Act 51 is a formula designed to shift decision making to the school level. The formula supposedly gives principals the power to decide how a minimum of 70 percent of all funds appropriated for public education is spent. Act 51 guarantees that principals will "expend" that money.

According to Tschumy, a committee responsible for working out the details of the formula has decided to give principals the power to expend 72 percent of the education budget. That sounds good at first. But it turns out that principals will have actual discretion over only 38 percent of it, which happens to be the same amount they have control over now. Principals will technically "expend" the remaining 34 percent, but they will have to spend it on items that are pre-determined, which is also just as it is now. After all is said and done, Act 51 doesn't reinvent anything, except for the use of the word "expend."

President trying to trick Americans

"Mandrake the Magician" was a comic book character of the 1930s who could handle multiple events, at one time, with his magical illusions. It seems we have the same kind of illusionist in the White House who has many rabbits in the hat, such as privatizing Social Security. This is a master magician who believes he is omnipotent and who can perform his act with magic numbers, sleight of hand and continue to fool the people. Will they see through the "smoke and mirrors"?

Bickering won't help Social Security

Despite the political rhetoric on both sides, the fact remains that Social Security funding and resulting benefits will be a problem for our children and grandchildren. The sooner it is dealt with, the less of a burden the solution will be on all of us. The Democrats act as though the program is sacrosanct and that any problem is so far in the future, nothing needs to be done. An exaggerated comparison is my charging up to the hilt on my credit card without worrying about the payback.

The president has put all his marbles in private accounts -- he is wrong to suggest that there is only one main solution. Senator Inouye has helped with the hysteria, by saying that private accounts are vulnerable to another Enron, when in fact the president has stated these accounts would be based on index funds. This kind of political bickering needs to stop! There needs to be an agreed-to process of debate, analyzing the problem and suggesting the best solutions.

We need alternative energy, not more oil

The U.S. Senate approved by two votes to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. Those two votes were from Hawaii Senators Inouye and Akaka, who joined the Republican majority. Our senators chose to represent the Republican political interests of Alaska rather than the people of Hawaii.

But the refuge does not belong to the people of Alaska. President Eisenhower set it aside to belong to all of the nation's people. It is time to retire these senators for new ones who will represent Hawaii and not make deals with others. Hawaii does not need more oil. We need more federal money for alternative energy and incentives for hybrid autos.

All that pork comes at a price

About the Alaska drilling vote: Funny that the liberals who claim each election that we should re-elect Senators Akaka and Inouye because they bring the pork home act outraged when those two horsetrade to keep the pork coming.

Is anyone really naive enough to think our congressional delegation is about integrity instead of power?