MCPS troll playground

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point being missed... Whether the "best and brightest" go into teaching is irrelevant. Being of slightly higher intelligence does not equate to being a better teacher.

I agree.

I've worked with PhDs who couldn't handle anything BUT higher level classes. And even then their main method of instruction was lecture. Of course, not ALL PhDs are unsuccessful with struggling students. But as PP said, being a genius doesn't always work to one's benefit in the classroom.

We have to keep in mind that DCUM is filled with elitist assholes who define intelligence in one way. Many of these arrogant posters wouldn't last a day in the classroom. I've seen quite a few career changers (I'm one.) leave w/in a year. One walked out mid-year in fact! He couldn't handle the pressure. Another, who was a researcher turned teacher, broke down and left after two weeks.

Talented teachers are both born and made. You need the personality first of all to keep students engaged but you must also learn that good instruction and management go hand in hand. It's a very difficult job that few can handle.

I think you mean few can handle well.
While there are many teachers, there seem to be few truly good ones.

PP (who stated "a point being missed")

There's a dilemna with throwing out "few truly good ones"....

A teacher is in a way doing a "service" job and evaluation of performance is very subjective. Some teachers thought of as good/bad are really only being judged superficially. I don't care who you place in the classroom no one is going to be happy. You have to please 30 kids, 60 parents, as well as coworkers and supervisors. Everyone with their own nuanced expectations.

[Anonymous]

Continued... a great teacher for Parent A may be a horrible one to Parent B and viceversa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A point being missed... Whether the "best and brightest" go into teaching is irrelevant. Being of slightly higher intelligence does not equate to being a better teacher.

That is exactly what I said at 13:21. I don't disagree with this.

My point was that the comment of one of the previous PPs to the effect that the best & brightest go into education is not supported by any statistics (or for that matter anecdotal observation). Doesn't mean that average-intelligence teachers are not good teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point being missed... Whether the "best and brightest" go into teaching is irrelevant. Being of slightly higher intelligence does not equate to being a better teacher.

That is exactly what I said at 13:21. I don't disagree with this.

My point was that the comment of one of the previous PPs to the effect that the best & brightest go into education is not supported by any statistics (or for that matter anecdotal observation). Doesn't mean that average-intelligence teachers are not good teachers.

But again, this goes back to HOW you define intelligence. Are you going to label your artsy son an idiot b/c his sister is gifted in math and science?

same thing for teachers

While I may admire the PhD for having the knowledge in his head, he is, in my book, an idiot if he can't handle the classroom in his teaching role. So while he's a genius in Medieval literature, he's a moron in the classroom.

This forum does not value certain skills, and sadly, posters are a microcosm of society. We don't value individual skills, which means we're losing so many students b/c we refuse to value their skill as a bricklayer or a plumber, for example.

[Anonymous]

Assuming teachers are to be evaluated via testing, its not clear to me that we should go back to highschool SAT scores in order to do so. I would think that studying Pedagogy for 4 plus, training in the field, Praxis General and Subject area scores and/or GRE would all be more relevant recent factors to consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point being missed... Whether the "best and brightest" go into teaching is irrelevant. Being of slightly higher intelligence does not equate to being a better teacher.



I agree.

I've worked with PhDs who couldn't handle anything BUT higher level classes. And even then their main method of instruction was lecture. Of course, not ALL PhDs are unsuccessful with struggling students. But as PP said, being a genius doesn't always work to one's benefit in the classroom.

We have to keep in mind that DCUM is filled with elitist assholes who define intelligence in one way. Many of these arrogant posters wouldn't last a day in the classroom. I've seen quite a few career changers (I'm one.) leave w/in a year. One walked out mid-year in fact! He couldn't handle the pressure. Another, who was a researcher turned teacher, broke down and left after two weeks.

Talented teachers are both born and made. You need the personality first of all to keep students engaged but you must also learn that good instruction and management go hand in hand. It's a very difficult job that few can handle.


I think you mean few can handle well.
While there are many teachers, there seem to be few truly good ones.

How do you know that? How do you define a truly good teacher?

[Anonymous]

Lets add the Aftercare Nazi who believes that all should suck it up and go to before and aftercare because his children had too..

[Anonymous]

I was an early defender of Bitter Teacher, but now I'm ready to add her to this list. Incomprehensible rants about how everyone, but everyone, hates her, despite how half the country elected a president who promised to do more for education. Nobody works as hard as she does, but she says she laughs at those Anacostia teachers who buy their own supplies. Today's post about how low FARMS kids are ruining her school. Yeah, I'm done with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was an early defender of Bitter Teacher, but now I'm ready to add her to this list. Incomprehensible rants about how everyone, but everyone, hates her, despite how half the country elected a president who promised to do more for education. Nobody works as hard as she does, but she says she laughs at those Anacostia teachers who buy their own supplies. Today's post about how low FARMS kids are ruining her school. Yeah, I'm done with her.

+1 on inviting Bitter Teacher to the sandbox.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am #3, I did not suggest slashing teacher's salaries. While I do think teachers are well compensated in Montgomery County, the jist of that portion of the thread was the MoCo teacher whinging about how she deserved her raise as teaching your children is far above and beyond what anyone should be asked to do (up to and including those deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan who apparently have it better than she does). Quite frankly, if I were a MCPS parent, I would be more concerned about someone as entitled, lazy and negative as the teacher poster was teaching my children than worry about the handful of people that come here to disagree with you.

Now about the taxes, while I would welcome a tax break (as I'm sure most of you would), I did not suggest taxes be cut so I can better afford my kid's private school tuition. I paid my tuition in full on July 1st without any ill effect on my net worth or my bottom line. But I do appreciate your concern.

Hi #3. I wish they would give us private school people a tax break. I think if they did the public schools would have more incentive to get their act together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Hi #3. I wish they would give us private school people a tax break. I think if they did the public schools would have more incentive to get their act together.

There are so many things wrong with the idea of a tax break for sending your kids to private school, I don't know where to begin. Tax expenditures (which is the technical name for what you're talking about here, a tax deduction or credit) generally have some public policy purpose. Let's think about the "incentives" you'd actually create here:

1. You want to give a tax break to rich people for buying luxury goods like private schools? What's next, a tax break for buying a BMW or a sailboat?
2. The only "incentive" here is that you'd be giving the middle class an incentive to leave public schools.
3. Sucking the upper SES kids out of public schools is not going to help public schools "get their act (sic) together," that's just crazy talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hi #3. I wish they would give us private school people a tax break. I think if they did the public schools would have more incentive to get their act together.

There are so many things wrong with the idea of a tax break for sending your kids to private school, I don't know where to begin. Tax expenditures (which is the technical name for what you're talking about here, a tax deduction or credit) generally have some public policy purpose. Let's think about the "incentives" you'd actually create here:

1. You want to give a tax break to rich people for buying luxury goods like private schools? What's next, a tax break for buying a BMW or a sailboat?
2. The only "incentive" here is that you'd be giving the middle class an incentive to leave public schools.
3. Sucking the upper SES kids out of public schools is not going to help public schools "get their act (sic) together," that's just crazy talk.

NP here:
1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services.
2. I disagree because a tax break/credit could make a difference to a poor/working-/middle-class family in having the same opportunity as wealthier families of leaving a public education that they find dissatisfactory/pursuing an option that may better serve the educational needs of their children.
3. I disagree that a tax break/credit will suck upper SES/rich families from public education because if they are dissatisfied, they've already left or won't stay, and if they are satisfied, they're not going to abandon it just because of a tax break/credit. In other words, tax breaks/credit have little do with how the rich choose to educate their children -- instead, it may be of significance to others like those in #2 above.

BTW, I'm firmly ensconced in the 1% and believe that everyone should contribute to public education (via taxes) because, to me, education is a fundamental "public good" like libraries/parks, highways, fire/police, etc. -- something we all should pay for regardless of whether we "use" it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hi #3. I wish they would give us private school people a tax break. I think if they did the public schools would have more incentive to get their act together.

There are so many things wrong with the idea of a tax break for sending your kids to private school, I don't know where to begin. Tax expenditures (which is the technical name for what you're talking about here, a tax deduction or credit) generally have some public policy purpose. Let's think about the "incentives" you'd actually create here:

1. You want to give a tax break to rich people for buying luxury goods like private schools? What's next, a tax break for buying a BMW or a sailboat?
2. The only "incentive" here is that you'd be giving the middle class an incentive to leave public schools.
3. Sucking the upper SES kids out of public schools is not going to help public schools "get their act (sic) together," that's just crazy talk.

NP here:
1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services.
2. I disagree because a tax break/credit could make a difference to a poor/working-/middle-class family in having the same opportunity as wealthier families of leaving a public education that they find dissatisfactory/pursuing an option that may better serve the educational needs of their children.
3. I disagree that a tax break/credit will suck upper SES/rich families from public education because if they are dissatisfied, they've already left or won't stay, and if they are satisfied, they're not going to abandon it just because of a tax break/credit. In other words, tax breaks/credit have little do with how the rich choose to educate their children -- instead, it may be of significance to others like those in #2 above.

BTW, I'm firmly ensconced in the 1% and believe that everyone should contribute to public education (via taxes) because, to me, education is a fundamental "public good" like libraries/parks, highways, fire/police, etc. -- something we all should pay for regardless of whether we "use" it.

Your argument basically amounts to, "We should subsidize people who don't want to leave bad Anacostia schools (see #2 below) with a tax break they can't use (see #1 below). It's just incidental that rich people like me, who can actually use the tax break (see #1 below), will also benefit. So let's give middle and upper class families a $10K or $35K tax break, which without a doubt would bust the federal budget (see #5 below) so that people can avoid moving to the BCC district."

1. Unless the tax break is huge ($35K), low-income families still won't be able to afford the good private schools anyway. A $10K tax break isn't going to help a low-income family find the other $25K they need for private school.

And for the tax break to be meaningful, the low-income family would need to have $35K in tax liabilities in every year to take the full deduction -- which just never happens. Most low-income families have no annual tax liability, in fact many of them are already getting not only a refund of their entire withholdings (which are less than $35K, guaranteed), but also the Earned Income Tax Credit to refund part of their Social Security taxes. Basically, a tax break for rich people is only going to help rich people who pay taxes.

The only way this sort of subsidy makes sense is if (a) it's a voucher and (b) it's only available to lower-income families. But I'm going to guess that's not what you want. Instead, you want a tax break that would help rich people at all income (AGI) levels.

And you realize that many new, bad private schools that are going to sprout up to take advantage of your tax credit or voucher subsidy. Why do you want to subsidize these? And I can't say, but I'm going to guess that schools will offer less FA if the poorer (really, middle class) families are getting a tax break. But that would lessen the burden on you to donate to your private school, so it's all good, right?

(Yes, there are some so-so private schools for less than $35K, but many of these are no better than a MoCo public in Silver Spring or Takoma. We tried private elementary school but found MoCo magnets are way, way better. And there are tons of great non-magnets in MoCo at all school levels - at the HS level there are Whitman, Wooton, Churchill, BCC and the rest, which have great reputations. )

2. Private school is a luxury. I don't think this is even up for debate. As long as families have the option of voting with their feet and moving from a lousy school to a good MoCo or VA public school, it's a luxury to say "Let's give a tax break to people just because they don't want to move out of Anacostia." Being low income means making tradeoffs in many areas, including buying a used Honda instead of a BMW and, what's germane to this discussion ... moving to an apartment in MoCo for the better schools. I'd agree with you if your point was that some families have no good school options, but that's just not the case as long as anyone can move to Silver Spring or Arlington. So you're basically saying: "So you don't want to bother moving to MoCo or Arlington? Here's a tax break for you."

3. You're right, the upper class families have already left for private schools, although not all of them (and as I say, this included us for a while). The change will be among the families who are on the fence, what's known to economists as "at the margin." These are the families of government workers who couldn't afford private school before but now, thanks to your large tax credit, they can. The $90K families still won't be able to afford private school, because $10K in tax credits isn't enough (especially when you have no tax liability). So the change from public to private will occur among the upper middle class.

And some new ones:

4. I don't get how you can say in the same post (a) "I believe everyone should contribute to public education via taxes" and (b) give me a tax break. What do you consider an "OK" share of the public school tax burden for private school families and childless families? $1K? Because I think you know that sucking money out of the public school system -- even if we can all point to inefficiencies in MoCo administration (this is like the old "let's reduce waste and fraud" argument in federal budgets, you'll just save a drop in the bucket) -- is going to be devastating.

5. Then there's the cost to the federal budget. Why would you give even a $10K tax break to millions of middle class, would bust the federal budget, so that people can avoid Whitman? How could we ever afford a $35K/year tax break every single school-age kid in the whole country, so they can choose private over public, and by "every single family" I mean even the 1% families like yours, because you say you want this tax break. Are you a fiscal conservative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hi #3. I wish they would give us private school people a tax break. I think if they did the public schools would have more incentive to get their act together.

There are so many things wrong with the idea of a tax break for sending your kids to private school, I don't know where to begin. Tax expenditures (which is the technical name for what you're talking about here, a tax deduction or credit) generally have some public policy purpose. Let's think about the "incentives" you'd actually create here:

1. You want to give a tax break to rich people for buying luxury goods like private schools? What's next, a tax break for buying a BMW or a sailboat?
2. The only "incentive" here is that you'd be giving the middle class an incentive to leave public schools.
3. Sucking the upper SES kids out of public schools is not going to help public schools "get their act (sic) together," that's just crazy talk.

NP here:
1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services.
2. I disagree because a tax break/credit could make a difference to a poor/working-/middle-class family in having the same opportunity as wealthier families of leaving a public education that they find dissatisfactory/pursuing an option that may better serve the educational needs of their children.
3. I disagree that a tax break/credit will suck upper SES/rich families from public education because if they are dissatisfied, they've already left or won't stay, and if they are satisfied, they're not going to abandon it just because of a tax break/credit. In other words, tax breaks/credit have little do with how the rich choose to educate their children -- instead, it may be of significance to others like those in #2 above.

BTW, I'm firmly ensconced in the 1% and believe that everyone should contribute to public education (via taxes) because, to me, education is a fundamental "public good" like libraries/parks, highways, fire/police, etc. -- something we all should pay for regardless of whether we "use" it.

Your argument basically amounts to, "We should subsidize people who don't want to leave bad Anacostia schools (see #2 below) with a tax break they can't use (see #1 below). It's just incidental that rich people like me, who can actually use the tax break (see #1 below), will also benefit. So let's give middle and upper class families a $10K or $35K tax break, which without a doubt would bust the federal budget (see #5 below) so that people can avoid moving to the BCC district."

1. Unless the tax break is huge ($35K), low-income families still won't be able to afford the good private schools anyway. A $10K tax break isn't going to help a low-income family find the other $25K they need for private school.

And for the tax break to be meaningful, the low-income family would need to have $35K in tax liabilities in every year to take the full deduction -- which just never happens. Most low-income families have no annual tax liability, in fact many of them are already getting not only a refund of their entire withholdings (which are less than $35K, guaranteed), but also the Earned Income Tax Credit to refund part of their Social Security taxes. Basically, a tax break for rich people is only going to help rich people who pay taxes.

The only way this sort of subsidy makes sense is if (a) it's a voucher and (b) it's only available to lower-income families. But I'm going to guess that's not what you want. Instead, you want a tax break that would help rich people at all income (AGI) levels.

And you realize that many new, bad private schools that are going to sprout up to take advantage of your tax credit or voucher subsidy. Why do you want to subsidize these? And I can't say, but I'm going to guess that schools will offer less FA if the poorer (really, middle class) families are getting a tax break. But that would lessen the burden on you to donate to your private school, so it's all good, right?

(Yes, there are some so-so private schools for less than $35K, but many of these are no better than a MoCo public in Silver Spring or Takoma. We tried private elementary school but found MoCo magnets are way, way better. And there are tons of great non-magnets in MoCo at all school levels - at the HS level there are Whitman, Wooton, Churchill, BCC and the rest, which have great reputations. )

2. Private school is a luxury. I don't think this is even up for debate. As long as families have the option of voting with their feet and moving from a lousy school to a good MoCo or VA public school, it's a luxury to say "Let's give a tax break to people just because they don't want to move out of Anacostia." Being low income means making tradeoffs in many areas, including buying a used Honda instead of a BMW and, what's germane to this discussion ... moving to an apartment in MoCo for the better schools. I'd agree with you if your point was that some families have no good school options, but that's just not the case as long as anyone can move to Silver Spring or Arlington. So you're basically saying: "So you don't want to bother moving to MoCo or Arlington? Here's a tax break for you."

3. You're right, the upper class families have already left for private schools, although not all of them (and as I say, this included us for a while). The change will be among the families who are on the fence, what's known to economists as "at the margin." These are the families of government workers who couldn't afford private school before but now, thanks to your large tax credit, they can. The $90K families still won't be able to afford private school, because $10K in tax credits isn't enough (especially when you have no tax liability). So the change from public to private will occur among the upper middle class.

And some new ones:

4. I don't get how you can say in the same post (a) "I believe everyone should contribute to public education via taxes" and (b) give me a tax break. What do you consider an "OK" share of the public school tax burden for private school families and childless families? $1K? Because I think you know that sucking money out of the public school system -- even if we can all point to inefficiencies in MoCo administration (this is like the old "let's reduce waste and fraud" argument in federal budgets, you'll just save a drop in the bucket) -- is going to be devastating.

5. Then there's the cost to the federal budget. Why would you give even a $10K tax break to millions of middle class, would bust the federal budget, so that people can avoid Whitman? How could we ever afford a $35K/year tax break every single school-age kid in the whole country, so they can choose private over public, and by "every single family" I mean even the 1% families like yours, because you say you want this tax break. Are you a fiscal conservative?

20:09 again:

1. No, that's not my argument;
2. You're also wrong that I "want this tax break" (in fact, I said just the opposite -- see boldface above); and
3. Being/not being a fiscal conservative is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hi #3. I wish they would give us private school people a tax break. I think if they did the public schools would have more incentive to get their act together.

There are so many things wrong with the idea of a tax break for sending your kids to private school, I don't know where to begin. Tax expenditures (which is the technical name for what you're talking about here, a tax deduction or credit) generally have some public policy purpose. Let's think about the "incentives" you'd actually create here:

1. You want to give a tax break to rich people for buying luxury goods like private schools? What's next, a tax break for buying a BMW or a sailboat?
2. The only "incentive" here is that you'd be giving the middle class an incentive to leave public schools.
3. Sucking the upper SES kids out of public schools is not going to help public schools "get their act (sic) together," that's just crazy talk.

NP here:
1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services.
2. I disagree because a tax break/credit could make a difference to a poor/working-/middle-class family in having the same opportunity as wealthier families of leaving a public education that they find dissatisfactory/pursuing an option that may better serve the educational needs of their children.
3. I disagree that a tax break/credit will suck upper SES/rich families from public education because if they are dissatisfied, they've already left or won't stay, and if they are satisfied, they're not going to abandon it just because of a tax break/credit. In other words, tax breaks/credit have little do with how the rich choose to educate their children -- instead, it may be of significance to others like those in #2 above.

BTW, I'm firmly ensconced in the 1% and believe that everyone should contribute to public education (via taxes) because, to me, education is a fundamental "public good" like libraries/parks, highways, fire/police, etc. -- something we all should pay for regardless of whether we "use" it.

Your argument basically amounts to, "We should subsidize people who don't want to leave bad Anacostia schools (see #2 below) with a tax break they can't use (see #1 below). It's just incidental that rich people like me, who can actually use the tax break (see #1 below), will also benefit. So let's give middle and upper class families a $10K or $35K tax break, which without a doubt would bust the federal budget (see #5 below) so that people can avoid moving to the BCC district."

1. Unless the tax break is huge ($35K), low-income families still won't be able to afford the good private schools anyway. A $10K tax break isn't going to help a low-income family find the other $25K they need for private school.

And for the tax break to be meaningful, the low-income family would need to have $35K in tax liabilities in every year to take the full deduction -- which just never happens. Most low-income families have no annual tax liability, in fact many of them are already getting not only a refund of their entire withholdings (which are less than $35K, guaranteed), but also the Earned Income Tax Credit to refund part of their Social Security taxes. Basically, a tax break for rich people is only going to help rich people who pay taxes.

The only way this sort of subsidy makes sense is if (a) it's a voucher and (b) it's only available to lower-income families. But I'm going to guess that's not what you want. Instead, you want a tax break that would help rich people at all income (AGI) levels.

And you realize that many new, bad private schools that are going to sprout up to take advantage of your tax credit or voucher subsidy. Why do you want to subsidize these? And I can't say, but I'm going to guess that schools will offer less FA if the poorer (really, middle class) families are getting a tax break. But that would lessen the burden on you to donate to your private school, so it's all good, right?

(Yes, there are some so-so private schools for less than $35K, but many of these are no better than a MoCo public in Silver Spring or Takoma. We tried private elementary school but found MoCo magnets are way, way better. And there are tons of great non-magnets in MoCo at all school levels - at the HS level there are Whitman, Wooton, Churchill, BCC and the rest, which have great reputations. )

2. Private school is a luxury. I don't think this is even up for debate. As long as families have the option of voting with their feet and moving from a lousy school to a good MoCo or VA public school, it's a luxury to say "Let's give a tax break to people just because they don't want to move out of Anacostia." Being low income means making tradeoffs in many areas, including buying a used Honda instead of a BMW and, what's germane to this discussion ... moving to an apartment in MoCo for the better schools. I'd agree with you if your point was that some families have no good school options, but that's just not the case as long as anyone can move to Silver Spring or Arlington. So you're basically saying: "So you don't want to bother moving to MoCo or Arlington? Here's a tax break for you."

3. You're right, the upper class families have already left for private schools, although not all of them (and as I say, this included us for a while). The change will be among the families who are on the fence, what's known to economists as "at the margin." These are the families of government workers who couldn't afford private school before but now, thanks to your large tax credit, they can. The $90K families still won't be able to afford private school, because $10K in tax credits isn't enough (especially when you have no tax liability). So the change from public to private will occur among the upper middle class.

And some new ones:

4. I don't get how you can say in the same post (a) "I believe everyone should contribute to public education via taxes" and (b) give me a tax break. What do you consider an "OK" share of the public school tax burden for private school families and childless families? $1K? Because I think you know that sucking money out of the public school system -- even if we can all point to inefficiencies in MoCo administration (this is like the old "let's reduce waste and fraud" argument in federal budgets, you'll just save a drop in the bucket) -- is going to be devastating.

5. Then there's the cost to the federal budget. Why would you give even a $10K tax break to millions of middle class, would bust the federal budget, so that people can avoid Whitman? How could we ever afford a $35K/year tax break every single school-age kid in the whole country, so they can choose private over public, and by "every single family" I mean even the 1% families like yours, because you say you want this tax break. Are you a fiscal conservative?

20:09 again:

1. No, that's not my argument;
2. You're also wrong that I "want this tax break" (in fact, I said just the opposite -- see boldface above); and
3. Being/not being a fiscal conservative is irrelevant.

1. So what is your argument?
2. Here's what you also said: "1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services." So maybe you don't want the tax break for yourself. But your whole post is an argument about why you think it's good policy.
3. Being a fiscal conservative is totally relevant. If you're proposing that the fed gov give tax breaks of $10-35K for every kid in this country, that's a butt-load of income tax revenue that will be lost to this program. Even if you restrict the tax breaks to families with, say, less than $200K in annual income, it's still a ton of money (because most families are not in the 1%). How can that be irrelevant?