A Spending Education

Opinion Journal (WSJ) | Feb. 7, 2009 (Editorial)
Milwaukee gets money for unneeded schools.

o understand the problem with the stimulus bill, it helps to focus on specific parts. Take the $142 billion for schools, which is nearly double the total outlays of the Department of Education in 2007. Now consider that much of this cash would go to public-school systems that don't even need the money for its earmarked purposes.

The Milwaukee Public School system, for example, would receive $88.6 million over two years for new construction ... Full Story »

Posted by Dale Penn

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: Education, U.S., Politics, Extra, Local
Topics: Obama Administration, Midwest News
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dale Penn - Feb 7, 2009 - 10:17 AM PST
Reviewed by: Dale Penn (review), Karen Schmitt (review), Jim Lang (review), Gerald Zuckier (review)
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dale Penn - Feb 7, 2009 - 10:22 AM PST
Like | | | Comments

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Related Comments: Obama Administration (3)

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
N1126433387_2982_thumb
2.9
 by Dale Penn - Feb. 7, 2009

The problem with this story is simple, it takes a shot across the bow of the stimulus bill with a sample story that makes one cringe. Then it implies that this sample is representative of the entirety of the $142 billion for education in the package. While this doesn't, in my mind, taint the stimulus bill, it does taint the WSJ editorial.

Dale posted this story.
See Full Review » (11 answers)
Silhouette_sml
2.5
 by Gerald Zuckier - Feb. 9, 2009

Fine example of advocacy journalism; starts with the conclusion and makes no attempt to explain the other side of the coin, why the "opposition" came to their conclusion.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
2.5
 by Jim Lang - Feb. 7, 2009
See Full Review » (10 answers)
Silhouette_sml
1.2
 by Karen Schmitt - Feb. 7, 2009

The writer of this article is too biased for words,. And too ignorant for my time.

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.3

Poor
from 4 reviews (40% confidence)
Quality
2.3
Information
3.5
Insight
2.0
Style
2.8
Context
2.0
Enterprise
2.0
Expertise
2.5
Originality
3.0
Relevance
3.0
Popularity
2.2
Recommendation
2.2
Credibility
2.2
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!