An education, or a lack thereof

Okay, you might not like the distinctions.  You might not agree with the statements.  But if you watched the debate you have probably seen one of the more interesting and actually informative debates, by present political standards, that you will ever see, if not the best overall debate, content wise, of the television generation.

Admittedly, the content detail was not what most would want it to be, but it was there.  A rare event in a debate all by itself.

While it may not be nearly enough to change the tide, there is no doubt that Romney won the first debate, hands down.  It seems to be a universal opinion, at least among the mainstream and cable news channels, commentators and the vast web.

This was more than just a first debate "challenger" looking good win.  Romney won.  Obama lost.  You have to either be a supported blinded by loyalty, or work for the President or his campaign to think otherwise.

When MSNBC goes to the point of acknowledging Romney had the stronger performance, you know who won.  I mean even Bill Maher lamented the performance of the President.

This debate was a clear Romney victory, hands down. As one pundit put it, the President got spanked, and I will add real bad. I must also add that Obama isn't the first sitting President to get spanked in the first debate, so ...

But the CNN flash poll had Romney winning 67% to 25% for Romney. 

So what does this mean.    Does it mean anything more than that?

The most significant thing it does in the short term, it puts a tourniquet on the bleeding.  Whether that will be enough to save the campaign for Romney does in fact remain to be seen.   Nonetheless it is not an insignificant result.

In a country seemingly suck in a 50 -50, us against them mode mode, a 67/25 level is astonishing.  It is a 180 degree turn from a pre-debate poll on the public expectation on who would win.

This was more than someone being a bit off their game.  Obama was just pretty awful.  And as vague as Romney continues to be accused of being, Obama has been even more vague about details.

Has there ever been a President who has failed to have a budget in his first term, besides Obama?  I know, I am getting a bit off track here, but having listened to the rants of Chris Matthews last night, just a bit not hard not to throw that out.  But relevant to the point when you question a challenger's "budget" plan, it might be nice to show or even defend your past ones.

Over the next few days, those flash poll numbers are more than likely to level off some.  And the flash polls do not equate into who will win the election, just won won the debate.  However, for the moment, it is what it is.

The problem with instant infatuation, it does in fact have a tendency to wear off.  Plus if that second date/debate doesn't go like the first, opinions do change quickly.

Of course that will be a key, the second date/debate.  

It will take a full week to see whether there is any significant play in the numbers from that first night's encounter to even justify a serious shift in thought about the outcome of the presidential race. 

Till then though it keeps it all interesting.

Speaking of whirlwind romances, Fairhaven will apparently be courted over whether to support the new addition proposed for the GNBRTVHS (might have the letters jumbled a bit, but we all now it more commonly as Voc-Tech).

An article in today's Standard Times informs us of the the fact that MSBA has approved.  There has been a piece or two in the paper on this proposal.  Formally, I can't recall any presentation made to Fairhaven officials at any time.

Hey what the heck, they didn't need to before hand.  As flawed as our recent school building matter may have appeared to some, it is a model of open and transparent government compared to this one.  The line in the article worth noting at this point "debt that was taken on to fund the school's last addition is just about paid off, so if a new bond is issued, it will, essentially, replace that old debt rather than increase the burden on the taxpayers."

As a simple matter of opinion on the concept of debt in general, and not the merit of this, or any particular project, such an argument holds water only to the extent the taxpayer doesn't have to cough up more money, if and only if there aren't any other competing needs.

The presumption on borrowing for a specific purpose is that at some point, the payout stops.  

Adding new debt to replace old debt may not "increase" the burden to the tax payer directly, and this may even be a statement of fact when the old debt is outside of Prop. 2 and 1/2.  When it is paid out of the general fund however, the argument loses steam.

The amount of money needed to fund that debt is in direct competition with other town operational needs.  The burden to the taxpayer becomes real.  In today's reality of maxing out taxes, or foregoing existing levels of service, the use of the general levy for an appropriation for funding one project means something else does not get done.

Could be I am the only one that looks at that as a burden.

By the time our school project had reached the MSBA approval stage, there had been numerous a number of attempts in an effort at public outreach.  The strongest criticism leveled at that process, was there hadn't been enough public involvement nor enough outreach at any stage of the process.  But in comparison, the efforts that were made where herculean. 

In reality, at this point I can't judge the merits of the project, because I really don't know anything about it.  I can say definitely say the "debt" argument on its own, isn't going to sway me.

Neither may I add will any wealth base argument.

All that is left to say is time will tell.