Big Idea From Akron

What is a certain amount of years for qualification, and what are the requirements for this benefit? This already sounds totally political, how much are you getting $$$ for the sale of the sewer dept. Big Don?

This is an insidious plan. How clever to link the sale of a public asset to education! Yes, education is needed, but not at the cost of the public's clean water. You should take a lesson from other cities' mistakes. As assets are sold, the city loses standing and also loses its ability to respond to the needs of its citizens. Typically when a city privatizes an asset it means a loss of jobs, lower wages for workers and less consistent service. The more affluent areas get premium service and poorer areas get poorer service, even in some instances lose service. The corporate record is not very stellar in delivering on their promises. An Enron is not acceptable for this needed public service. Keep the sewers in the commons for all the citizens to use and support. Corporations serve their stockholders, not their customers.

I'm torn because I think training people for jobs that are in demand should be an extremely high priority. In 2008, you need more than a high school diploma to get a decent job. It's better for all of us if we all have at least training from a trade school or an associate's degree.

Otherwise, not only do the uneducated suffer by not being able to get a decent job, but the rest of us suffer because we have to care for them. Making people self-sufficient is good for everyone.

Therefore, I'm inclined to support just about any means of getting people trained. If selling the sewer system is the only way to make this happen, it's worth it. However, if there is another way, we wouldn't have to deal with the negatives of selling the sewer system.

Many taxes are not justified by what the money is spent on. However, for once, a tax to support providing 2 years of training to everyone would be a great investment. People would be able to get decent jobs, employers would feel comfortable moving to a well-educated region, and the tax base would grow. Meanwhile, taxpayers wouldn't have to provide as much health care, unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc., so government expenses would reduce. Eventually, tax rates could be lowered below what we're paying now while we still support education.

If you don't believe me, think about the decision made over a century ago to fund public schools with tax payer money. I'm sure many didn't want to increase their taxes. However, imagine if that decision were never made. We'd be living an economically backwards existence akin to something out of the 18th century. Most of us wouldn't be able to read, write, or do simple math, let alone practice medicine or do accounting. The strength of an economy is directly related to the skill set of a community.

What was decent job-training 50 years ago (i.e., high school) is no longer sufficient. We need publicly funded education at least to the level of a trade school/associate's degree/first 2 years of college.