March 1-2, 2009
Mar 01 09:41 Why Rush Is the Gold Standard Mar 01 15:57 NY Times, Buffett Criticize Obama Budget Projections Mar 01 23:46 Babington Misses Big Picture Mar 02 04:15 Cantor Getting Noticed Mar 02 11:21 What Superior Economic Policies Look Like Mar 02 11:58 **BREAKING NEWS: ST. PAUL** Mar 02 14:56 EdMinn Refuses to Share In Minnesotans' Sacrifice Mar 02 19:45 Rep. Obey To DC Children: It's For 'THE UNIONS' Mar 02 21:44 DNC Chair Kaine's Shameless Statement
Why Rush Is the Gold Standard
I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh since early 1989 but I've never heard him more eloquent than during Saturday's stemwinder closing out CPAC . Among other things, Rush used his "first address to the nation" to tell the Agenda Media exactly what he believes about President Obama:
"This notion that I want the president to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got," he said. "What is so strange about being honest and saying, I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?" he said, bringing the crowd once again to its feet.Rush maintains exactly the right attitude and perspective with regard to President Obama. Rush recognized President Obama's oratory skills long ago. It's just that he's committed to disagreeing with President Obama's plan to criticize capitalism and achievement every chance he gets.
"Did the Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail? Well, they certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure."
With the exception of presidents, Rush has a sufficiently big enough bully pulpit that he influences the masses, which he did with this flourish:
For those of you just tuning in on the Fox News Channel or C-SPAN, I'm Rush Limbaugh and I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed.Democratic splinter groups try their best at intimidating Republicans into abandoning Rush. Meanwhile, Rush's approach hasn't changed. Rush's approach is to explain that true conservatives are utterly committed to everyone's ability to pursue the American dream. At sonservatism's heart is the commitment to eliminating roadblocks that prevent people from achieving great things.
That doesn't mean that conservatives will do everything possible to ensure a guaranteed equality of outcome. It means that they'll try to remove roadblocks so that the individual has a clear path to achievement. (When true conservatives talk reform, it isn't an effort to add layers of government. It's to remove layers of government.)
The other thing I've known about Rush is that he's great at outlining the key principles that are the underpinnings of Reaganite/Goldwater conservatism. While some think of conservatism as a stationary set of policies, true conservatives know that it's a philosophy that's applied to the day's most difficult, most pressing issues. It's the framework from which policymaking decisions get made.
When King and I have talked political philosophy, I've often said that Reagan's guiding philosophy was that legislation had to be reworked if it didn't make people more free, more prosperous or more secure.
Here's why Rush is the gold standard:
The American people may not all vote the way we wish them to, but more Americans than you now live their lives as conservatives in one degree or another. And they are waiting for leadership. We need conservative leadership. We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate. It's no more complicated than that.George Will has long said that people run their lives based on conservative principles even if they vote Democrat. Rush is right in saying that conservative leadership will pry these voters out of the Democrats' camp and into the GOP's camp.
Another invaluable service Rush provides is his vigilance against conservative elitism:
Conservatism, for us to make the decision that we've got to figure out policies, to get the Walmart voter...psst, we've got most of them already, is the bottom line. Conservatism is a universal set of core principles. You don't check principles at the door. This is a battle that we're going to have. And there are egos involved here, too. When the situation like ours exists, there are people who want to lead it. They want to redefine it. Their egos are such that they want to be the next X, whoever it is. So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is. And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservatism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can't possibly like us; they're our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they're our enemy. They think we need to be defeated. Why do you think...you all in this room know this. For those of you watching at home, my first address to the nation...I'm sure you paid close enough attention, that you knew at one time Senator McCain was the favorite Republican of all the cable news networks and the Sunday shows. And they would just...I mean their tongues would be on the floor. The media people (panting) when they knew McCain was coming. And they would treat McCain as the greatest guy in the world. Did you wonder why? You were told he was moderate. He was not strict. He was not an authoritarian, he was able to walk to the other side of the aisle, able to get along with the enemy. And everybody wants love and bipartisanship.We must be vigilant in guarding against elitism and ego. We must adopt the attitude contained in this Reaganism: It's amazing how much we can accomplish when we don't care who gets credit for doing whatever. Conservatives should put a sign on the door to our movement that says "Your ideas are welcome but your ego isn't."
As long as Rush is around, he will guard against elitism and snobbish behavior. It's our affirmative responsibility to cheerfully provide support in that fight.
Rush's eloquent explanation of what conservatism is dispels the myths and the mischaracterizations given it by the media and elitists in the GOP. That's why he's the gold standard of the conservative movement.
Posted Sunday, March 1, 2009 9:47 AM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 01-Mar-09 06:35 PM
I also go back to when Rush first aired on KSTP, initially just 2 hours. I'm a charter Rush 24/7 subscriber, which I'll later use to watch this speech.
As happy as I am for Rush being the center of GOP attention this cycle, that's happening because there are practically no Conservatives left in the Republican Party. I'm wondering if the Republican brand is so bad now that a new party must emerge, much as the Republicans left the Whigs behind in the 19th Century.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 01-Mar-09 07:03 PM
R-Five, I hope you do your due dilligence because it isn't showing right now.
While it's true that Rush is the highest profile conservative, it's irresponsible to watch Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan or Jeb Hensarling in action & think they aren't articulate advocates for conservatism.
Comment 3 by Walter Hanson at 03-Mar-09 02:02 PM
R-Five
A couple of things you're overlooking. The first thing is if your party has the person who controls the white house you basically can go as far as the President is willing to go.
That's why for example even though Republicans want secured borders we were almost dragged into Amensty and open borders because President Bush wanted that.
That's why for example even though Republicans want restrained federal spending we had the explosion in the federal spending because until 2006 Bush wasn't veoting spending bills.
We got more done with the Republicans controlling congress especially in the years 1995-1996 because the President understood what the American people wanted and had to give it to them (he finally signed welefare reform and agreed to the plan which the Republicans shoved down his throat which eventually created the budget surpluses).
The second thing you have to understand is know that the Republicans are the minority and the president isn't a republican we can be more honest about our opposition to bills. Republicans last year were voting for the first tarp bill in part because the President was telling them it was needed helping to allow cover for Democrats for their votes.
There are a lot of blue dog democrats who don't look like blue dogs. keith Schuler voted against the spending bill.
The third thing to keep in mind is that the democrats know have the exception game on their people and already they are disappointing their people. We're not going to be out of Iraq until August 2010 and there will still be US troops there. The fairness doctrine to get rid of Rush Limbaugh isn't being passed.
I can go on, but that's a good start.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis,MN
NY Times, Buffett Criticize Obama Budget Projections
Yesterday, King took time during the first hour of Final Word to explain why President Obama's deficit projections weren't credible. This article in this morning's NY Times reinforces King's statements. Here's what the Times' article says:
The economy is spiraling down at an accelerating pace, threatening to undermine the Obama administration's spending plans, which anticipate vigorous rates of growth in years to come.That's the polite way of saying President Obama's deficit projections aren't worth the paper they're printed on. For all of his spin that he was serious about cutting the deficit, the reality is that he'll run up more debt in his first two years than Presidents Bush and Reagan combined.
A sense of disconnect between the projections by the White House and the grim realities of everyday American life was enhanced on Friday, as the Commerce Department gave a harsher assessment for the last three months of 2008. In place of an initial estimate that the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 3.8 percent, already abysmal, the government said that the pace of decline was actually 6.2 percent, making it the worst quarter since 1982.
The lesson we've learned, at least if you're being intellectually honest, is that President Obama's economic team is incompetent and dishonest. Expecting the FY2010 budget to shrink dramtically because the recession to have not just ended but for the economy to be in a strong recovery is like expecting a miracle to happen . Either that or the Obama administration hired Rosie Scenario to work on budget forecasts.
It's nice to hope that the deficit will shrink dramatically but it's important that President Obama changes some of the staff putting these statistics together. I'll guarantee that this paragraph is giving the Obama administration heartburn:
Rather, economists are using the word depression, a subjective term with no academic definition, to describe a condition of broad and extreme economic distress that remains stubbornly in place for much longer than a typical downturn.It's one thing for the White Hosue to argue against statements made by Larry Kudlow . It's another thing for them to criticize the NY Times. It isn't easy for the Obama administration because the NY Times is seen as an Obama sympathizer. It's bad enough to hear the NY Times question the math. It's worse than that because Warren Buffett, an enthusiastic Obama supporter, is saying the economy will be in shambles for the rest of 2009 and possibly beyond that:
Billionaire Warren Buffett said the economy will be "in shambles" for the rest of this year as financial firms take losses tied to reckless loans made during the housing boom.Here's what Allen Sinai said about the Obama administration's projections:
Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics, sees a 20 percent chance of "a depressionlike possibility," up from 15 percent a week ago.That's another polite way of saying the Obama administration is cooking the books. It's my suggestion that we not take seriously the things that President OBama or his economic team say. They've been either wrong or willfully inaccurate with every major economic announcement thus far.
"In the housing market, the financial system and the stock market, we're already there," Mr. Sinai said. "It is a depression."
Yet, in drawing up the budget, the White House assumed the economy would expand by a robust 3.2 percent in 2010, with growth accelerating to 4 percent over the next three years. "It's a hope, a wing and a prayer," Mr. Sinai said. "It's a return to a sanguine view of the economy that is simply not justified."
Their forecasting looks more like political spin than scientific forecasting. If that doesn't change, the Wall Street types will lose all faith in him and his policies.
Thus far, President Obama and his economic team haven't given professionals a reason to trust their policies or their forecasts. After all, why should these professionals trust the perscription when President Obama's team misdiagnosed the situation?
Posted Sunday, March 1, 2009 4:03 PM
No comments.
Babington Misses Big Picture
Charles Babington is missing the point in this article about the GOP's opposition to President Obama's porkfest bill. Here's where he goes wrong:
The GOP's united stand against the Democratic president seems to play well in conservative districts. But it could hurt their party's national image and its efforts to regain control in Washington.Those polls will change the instant people notice that the Democrats' plan isn't lifting us out of this recession. Citing polls that show support for the Democrats' policies now is utterly irrelevant. What matters is whether the Democrats' policies make things better for working families and small businesses. At this point, there's little proof that they will. There's more proof that the Democrats' policies will lengthen and deepen this recession. What's worse is that President Obama's policies will require massive additional amounts of borrowing.
Democrats cite polls showing considerably higher support for Obama and his economic policies than for the House Republicans who twice voted unanimously against his $787 billion stimulus package, the heart of his economic agenda. Only three GOP senators backed the bill, and congressional Republicans now are condemning Obama's budget proposal with equal fervor.
While we've heard the talk about the national debt before, we haven't dealt with this it on this large a scale. The CBO recognizes what it's doing, though, saying that the GDP growth will be significantly stunted for the next decade.
QUESTION FOR MR. BABINGTON: What do you think people's reaction will be when they find out that President Obama's policies not only haven't worked to shorten the recession but stunted economic growth for a decade or more? What's the odds that people will be content with a continuation of those policies?
While that's possible, I wouldn't bet the proverbial ranch on it. In fact, I wouldn't bet the money in my change jar on it.
ADDITIONAL QUESTION FOR MR. BABINGTON: Are you suggesting that Republicans would do better if they ignored conservative principles?
There's alot of anxiety within the Obama administration. They know that they'll be judged on whether their policies lift the economy out of its current recession. An endless barrage of CrisisSpeak and spin won't matter to people if they're still unemployed, their 401(k)'s have dwindled into 104(k)'s and the housing market is spiraling downward and the banking crisis hasn't been solved.
Considering the fact that Warren Buffett said that this recession will last through 2009 and that it might last well into 2010, why wouldn't people start expressing their disappointment in 2010 polls?
John Hinderaker's post about Rasmussen's polling is spot on:
Inside the Beltway and the media bubble, Barack Obama is still the man of the hour. On CNN, his speeches are even compared to sex . (Someone needs to have a talk with that commentator. I don't think he's doing it right.) The Democrats obviously believe that they are in a unique historical moment, of which they can take advantage by moving the country decisively to the left.I remember joking that Hillary's approval ratings reached their peak after she'd stayed out of the media's spotlight and that her approval ratings dropped like the proverbial lead balloon when she was forced into the spotlight.
There is strong evidence, however, that the American people are not excited about the Dems' leftward lurch. Last week, President Obama gave his first State of the Union address to an adoring Congress and unveiled his administration's first budget. What happened? His approval rating declined.
That's starting to happen with President Obama. He's given several high profile speeches. Each time he's given a major speech, his approval ratings drop. I've kidded with my brother that 401(k)'s would be in better shape if he didn't make so many high profile speeches.
This quote shows that Rep. Elijah Cummings, (D-MD), isn't in touch with Main Street America:
"I don't think the strategy is going to work," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Baltimore Democrat whose district is heavily liberal. Congressional Republicans underestimate Obama's popularity, which is likely to endure despite the huge problems facing the country, he said.Rep. Cummings' opinion is based on ideological preference, not on polling trends. Thus far, Wall Street and Main Street alike have said what they think of President Obama's policies. Majority Democrats played an instrumental part in passing the stimulus bill. While that isn't likely to hurt Rep. Cummings or Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi, it's bound to hurt people like Heath Shuler and others representing swing to conservative districts.
Finally, Mr. Babington hasn't factored in how jazzed conservatives are. Last year's story during the primaries was about the enthusiasm gap. Having all 177 House Republicans vote against the stimulus bill twice was a huge shot in the GOP's arm. Activists are noticing that they're being paid attention to.
Electing Michael Steele has been a positive, too. Combine those things with Rush's tour de force speech closing out CPAC and you've got the recipe for a conservative revival.
Posted Sunday, March 1, 2009 11:49 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 02-Mar-09 08:05 AM
"There's alot of anxiety within the Obama administration. They know that they'll be judged on whether their policies lift the economy out of its current recession."
I don't think so. There may be a lot of hubris, elitism, audacity, but they are so firmly self-absorbed with their Messianic complex that they believe everything they do is right, and that they can make anything happen just by declaring it to be so. In less enlightened times we would have called them madmen.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Mar-09 11:30 AM
I'll respectfully disagree, Jerry. It's one thing to promote a crisis atmosphere. It's another for the financial markets to panic. There's alot of panic involved right now, especially with 401(k)'s losing value so quickly.
They've turned an artificial crisis into the real thing.
Cantor Getting Noticed
Eric Cantor isn't just the House Republican Whip. He's the guy President Obama highlighted as the man he'd win over . He's also getting noticed by the national media as giving the "GOP back its mojo." First, I'd caution President Obama from thinking that Rep. Cantor as being easy to persuade. Here's the flippant thing that President Obama said in referencing Cantor:
"I'm going to keep on talking to Eric Cantor," the president said. "Some day, sooner or later, he is going to say, 'Boy, Obama had a good idea,'" he added, prompting some laughter. "It's going to happen. You watch, you watch."The odds of President Obama winning over Rep. Cantor while advocating irresponsible, radical policies is essentially non-existent. I understand why President Obama is pursuing this tactic. It's just that he'll have to change because Rep. Cantor won't abandon the conservative principles that have served him well.
Rep. Cantor's conservative principles are what drive him to craft policies and inspire party unity in his effort to return the GOP to majority party status:
Representative Eric Cantor has a giant mounted photo propped like a canvas on a chair in the corner of his office in the Capitol. The image seems like an innocently iconic one, a shot of the National Mall from Congress, until a staffer explains that it's the view from the Virginia Republican's old office when the GOP controlled the House, and it's there to serve as a daily reminder of what he's working toward: regaining the majority.I've said it before but it's worth repeating: President Obama is popular; His policies aren't. If Rep. Cantor was taking on a popular president's popular initiatives, I'd question his tactical abilities. That isn't what he's doing.
Toward that end, Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican behind minority leader John Boehner, has been busy of late. The party's chief vote counter whipped his colleagues into united opposition of President Barack Obama's stimulus plan. Taking on the relatively unpopular congressional Democrats is one thing, but flagrantly opposing a wildly popular new President is risky, especially when any payoff could take years. But the move energized the GOP for the first time in a long while, inspiring six Republican governors, all rumored 2012 wannabes like Cantor himself, to threaten to decline some of the stimulus money.
What's helping Cantor is the fact that the House GOP hasn't been just saying no. During the stimulus debate, they proposed an alternative to the Democrats' plan. In fact, the CBO's analysis was that their plan would create more jobs and cost less than the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan. Having that alternative gave Rep. Cantor the abililty to tell his House GOP colleagues that they return to their districts and tell their constituents that they'd voted for a superior plan.
What's unveiling before our eyes is the newest GOP leadership team. Mike Pence works with Tom Price and Paul Ryan to craft appealing alternative legislation while Mr. Cantor sells these alternatives to their colleagues. It won't be long before the team of Pence, Ryan, Price and Cantor will be making a major impact in DC.
To those strategists that think the GOP is leaderless, I'd suggest that they haven't done their due dilligence or that they don't know what they're talking about. Or both. Eric Cantor is a leader, as is Mike Pence. It appears that Cantor spends his time persuading colleagues to vote for the GOP's alternative solutions. Meanwhile, Pence spends time talking with the media, whether it's with Jon Scott or Sean Hannity or Megyn Kelly.
What's been fun for me is watching Pence articulate his unabashedly conservative message to the public while Rep. Cantor wins praise from his colleagues for keeping the troops adhering to the right principles. Here's an example of Cantor sticking with his principles:
Cantor bristles when asked about taking an opposing position from business interests on the stimulus plan. "I knew about the endorsements from some of the business groups for sure, but their obligation is not to the voters and the people of this country like mine is," he says. "I feel that my obligation is to be a prudent guardian of taxpayer money."Thanks for not losing sight of the prize, Rep. Cantor. It's about time we had leadership that won't abandon principle for popularity on the Beltway cocktail circuit.
Posted Monday, March 2, 2009 4:20 AM
No comments.
What Superior Economic Policies Look Like
Paul Ryan is often the smartest man in the room on economic policy. His op-ed in this morning's WSJ offers abundant justification for that characterization. Here's his opening shot at the Obama/Pelosi policies:
Inheriting countless challenges, Congress and the Obama administration have moved quickly on many fronts to implement their economic agenda. After two months of drastic interventions, has hope replaced fear, and confidence pushed aside uncertainty? Hardly.Rather than just criticize President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Ryan lays out this positive, appealing alternative agenda:
The budget the president released last week, however, does provide some certainty about where we are headed: higher taxes on small businesses, work and capital investment.
In this spirit, here is what I would do differently:It's clear that the financial markets aren't buying into President Obama's economic blueprint. That's become even more clear now that the DJI had dropped into the 6800 range, the first time it's been this low since October, 1997.
- A pro-growth tax policy . Rather than raise the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6%, it should be dropped to 25%. The lower tax brackets should be collapsed to one 10% rate on the first $100,000 for couples. And the top corporate tax rate should be lowered to 25%. This modest reform would put American companies' tax liability more in line with the prevailing rates of our competitors.
- Guarantee sound money . For the last decade, the Federal Reserve's easy-money policy has helped fuel the housing bubble that precipitated our current crisis. We need to return to a sound money policy. That would end uncertainty, help keep interest rates down, and increase the confidence entrepreneurs and investors need to take the risks required for future growth.
- Fix the financial sector . A durable economic recovery requires a solution to the banking crisis. There are no easy or painless solutions, but the most damaging solution over the long term would be to nationalize our financial system. Once we put politicians in charge of allocating credit and resources in our economy, it is hard to imagine them letting go.
- Get a grip on entitlements . With $56 trillion in unfunded liabilities and our social insurance programs set to implode, we must tackle the entitlement crisis. President Barack Obama deserves credit for his recent efforts to build a bipartisan consensus on entitlement reform. But we can't solve the entitlement problem unless we acknowledge why the costs are exploding, and then take action.
It's time for a thoroughly thought through change of direction instead of the intellectually flimsy change of direction that Democrats campaigned on in 2006. we can't afford more of that new direction. It's time that our economic policies were based on time-tested principles rather than on gimmicky policies that
There's little chance that President Obama and
The GOP can't be the party that just says no. The GOP must be the political party that says yes to appealing, intelligent policies.
Posted Monday, March 2, 2009 11:26 AM
No comments.
**BREAKING NEWS: ST. PAUL**
MINNESOTA HOUSE & SENATE REPUBLICANS
For Immediate Release
March 2, 2009
Contact (Senate): Michael B. Brodkorb
(651) 296-4184
Contact(House): Kevin Watterson
(651) 296-5989
MEDIA ADVISORY
HOUSE & SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY TO DISCUSS LACK OF PROGRESS AND PRIORITIES FROM DFL LEADERSHIP ON SOLVING BUDGET DEFICIT
WHO: Republican leadership of the Minnesota House and Senate
WHAT: Press conference to discuss the lack of legislative progress and priorities from the DFL leadership on solving the growing budget deficit
WHEN: TODAY, March 2, 2009 2:30 p.m.
WHERE: Room 181, State Office Building
The DFL has had ample time to put a coherent budget together. Actually, the DFL majorities had more than ample time to accomplish that. It isn't even fair to say that the DFL majorities been hesitant in putting a budget plan together. It's accurate to say that the DFL majorities ignored their legislative responsibilities.
Instead,
the DFL majorities opted to hold choreographed hearings across the state to criticize Gov. Pawlenty's budget.
These choreographed hearings' purpose was an attempt to sway public opinion by calling on advocates who rely on government funding to run their special interest groups to 'testify' that cutting budgets should be put offlimits.
At the St. Cloud choreographed hearing, several of these witnesses made it sound like cutting their budget would cause the end of the world as we know it.
It's time for Minnesota to see what real leadership looks like. That's what this press conference is about.
Posted Monday, March 2, 2009 11:58 AM
No comments.
EdMinn Refuses to Share In Minnesotans' Sacrifice
Days into this legislative session, EdMinn quietly, though firmly, announced that they wouldn't share in Minnesotans' sacrifices. Here's the statement issued by Tom Doher, EdMinn's president:
This afternoon I met for just over an hour with Gov. Tim Pawlenty, DFL and Republican legislative leaders, the commissioner and deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education, and representatives of eight other statewide education organizations, in what was supposed to be a session to generate ideas on the state's budget crisis.Gov. Pawlenty "twice vetoed EdMinn's shared services plan because the pooling on insurance would've hurt more than helped. That's particularly true of the Cold Spring Rocori school district, one of the poorest-funded districts in the state. Rocori's teachers would've actually paid a higher insurance premium had Gov. Pawlenty signed EdMinn's bill into law.
Before any brainstorming could begin, however, the governor proposed that Minnesota teachers accept a total pay freeze, no improvement to the salary schedule, no advancement in steps and lanes. In addition, he asked me if we would be willing to give up our right to strike in order to keep kids in class. So much for budget creativity; Pawlenty and others have raised these ideas before, and they have gone nowhere.
The governor is well aware he would have to change Minnesota's bargaining laws to impose such draconian measures. He also knows full well that we will fight any such effort to make educators the scapegoat for Minnesota's failed education funding system.
I told the governor that today's meeting was not an appropriate forum to discuss such proposals. Even Bob Meeks, executive director of the Minnesota School Boards Association, said his members would bargain in good faith with the teachers.
I also made an observation of my own at the meeting today:
The governor is interested in "shared services" save money. But in fact, he twice vetoed Education Minnesota's "shared services" plan, the statewide health insurance pool for school employees, which would have directly tackled one of the state's biggest cost drivers and saved significantly more money than pooling paper purchases.
Education Minnesota's position remains the same: The best economic stimulus is a well-educated workforce. Slashing school funding and forcing educators to pay the price are self-defeating responses to the economic crisis. We expect our state leaders to come up with solutions that preserve quality programs and teachers for Minnesota's students.
In Solidarity,
Tom Dooher, President
I'd further sugest that Mr. Dooher's comment that "Slashing school funding and forcing educators to pay the price are self-defeating responses to the economic crisis" is what I'd expect from EdMinn. Unfortunately, education isn't the only thing that will determine whether Minnesota remains economically viable. High taxes have the potential to have as significant an effect Minnesota's economic viability as education funding.
It's time for EdMinn and the DFL majority to understand that this deficit will require new thinking and the elimination of their sacred cow mentality. If EdMinn and the DFL majority won't rethink things, then they're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Originally posted Monday, March 2, 2009, revised 10-Aug 12:14 PM
No comments.
Rep. Obey To DC Children: It's For 'THE UNIONS'
Based on what the Washington Post is reporting , House Appropriations Chairman David Obey has shown the middle finger to DC's school children. Here's how the Washington Post ripped into Chairman Obey:
REP. DAVID R. Obey (Wis.) and other congressional Democrats should spare us their phony concern about the children participating in the District's school voucher program. If they cared for the future of these students, they wouldn't be so quick as to try to kill the program that affords low-income, minority children a chance at a better education. Their refusal to even give the program a fair hearing makes it critical that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) seek help from voucher supporters in the Senate and, if need be, President Obama.If Sidwell Friends sounds familiar, it should. It's where Chelsea Clinton attended high school. It's also where Sasha and Malia Obama are attending school.
Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for students forced back into the public schools.
We would like Mr. Obey and his colleagues to talk about possible "disruption" with Deborah Parker, mother of two children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. "The mere thought of returning to public school frightens me," Ms. Parker told us as she related the opportunities, such as a trip to China for her son, made possible by the program. Tell her, as critics claim, that vouchers don't work, and she'll list her children's improved test scores, feeling of safety and improved motivation.
It's time that Chairman Obey was honest. If he was honest, he'd admit that this policy isn't "for the children", that it's 'for the NEA'. If there's anything I can't stand, it's elitist legislators treating us like we can't figure things out for ourselves. Chairman Obey is treating us like we're totally gullible.
What's worse is that he's telling the children enrolled in this obviously successful program, and their parents, that public schools are just fine, that these children's safety isn't a policy priority to the Democrats, that giving these children the best possible opportunity isn't as important as appeasing the NEA.
I didn't often agree with President Bush on education policy but one thing that I'll wholeheartedly and consistently agree with him was his statements about education being proof of the "soft bigotry" of the 21st century. In fact, Chairman Obey is the personification of that soft bigotry.
This paragraph from an NY Times article is worth examining:
For decades, liberals and conservatives have made school vouchers a policy battlefield. Many Republicans see them as a way to offer middle- and low-income students the same chance at a high-quality private education as wealthy children have, and to give public schools some free-market competition along the way. Many Democrats, and the teachers' unions that back them, say the voucher programs leech taxpayer money from public schools, making it harder for them to serve any children well.Why should taxpayers fund failing inner city public schools? Does the NEA think the failing inner city public schools are entitled to lavish funding just because they're represented by the teachers' union?
Frankly, DC's public schools offer a worthless product. It's immoral for people to have to pay for such abject failures.
This statement cuts to the heart of the matter:
Michelle A. Rhee, the schools chancellor, said she did not share the negative view of vouchers held by many big-city superintendents.The goal of setting education policy should be to guarantee that children get the best educational opportunity possible. The goal shouldn't be about preserving failure just because legislators are getting campaign contributions for supporting anti-voucher policies.
"Part of my job is to make sure that all kids get a great education, and it doesn't matter whether that's in charter, parochial or public schools," Ms. Rhee said. "I don't think vouchers are going to solve all the ills of public education, but parents who are zoned to schools that are failing kids should have options to do better by their kids."
It's obvious that Michelle Rhee thinks that it's part of her job description is to use every tool at her availability to guarantee that the children in DC's school district get a great education . It's obvious that she doesn't care about the unions or the administrators or the bureaucrats. Rather, she truly cares about the kids.
Chairman Obey can't say that. That's because he's been bought by the NEA.
Originally posted Monday, March 2, 2009, revised 09-Mar 7:10 AM
No comments.
DNC Chair Kaine's Shameless Statement
Gretawire just posted DNC Chairman Tim Kaine's statement on the Steele-Rush tempest in a teapot. Calling it a lame statement is giving Gov. Kaine far too much credit. Here's one of the lamest parts of Gov. Kaine's statement:
"As Congress works to pass the President's budget, Republicans need to stop following divisive figures like Rush Limbaugh, stop apologizing to him and put aside the failed politics of the past so we can put our economy back on track, reform our health care system, break our dependence on foreign oil, improve our schools, and lay the foundation for long-term growth in the 21st Century."This tempest in a teapot will undoubtedly be used in DNC and candidate fundraising letters. It undoubtedly will get the nutroots to pry into their wallets with great fervor.
This statement's real purpose, though, is to distract people's attention from President Obama's disastrous economic policies. President Obama's policies are thinning out retirement accounts. President Obama's policies aren't solutions.
Since President Obama's election, the stock market has dropped from 9,717 to today's low of 6,737, a drop of 2,980 points. That represents a 31 percent drop since then-Sen. Obama was elected.
It's stunningly dishonest of Gov. Kaine to say that President Obama's policies will "lay the foundation for long-term growth in the 21st Century" or that they'll "put our economy back on track" much less free us from our dependence on foreign oil.
The only thing President Obama's policies have done is dealt a death blow to people's 401(k)'s by turning them into 104(k)'s while putting people out of work. What's worse is that President Obama's rhetoric has turned this recession into a deeper, long-lasting recession.
It's time that the DNC stopped with playing such lame partisan games. It's time the Democratic Party to get serious about righting the wrongheaded policies of the Obama administration before we're all in souplines.
I'd love reading the polling results asking whether people are better off now than on Election Day, 2008 or if they aren't as well off. I can't imagine people are happy with the direction President Obama and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate are taking us.
That's far more important than a squabble between the RNC Chair and Rush Limbaugh.
What's more likely: People walking into a voting booth and saying "I can't pull the lever for the Republican after that squabble between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele"? Or is it more likely that people will walk into voting booths and say "I can't vote for the Democrat because they've taken our economy in the wrong direction"?
Let's just say that I'm not betting on the former.
Posted Monday, March 2, 2009 9:49 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-Mar-09 08:51 AM
What is maddening is that what the DNC says it wants to do-- get the economy roaring, reform health care, improve schools, energy independence and create economic growth-- are all problems exacerbated by their actual proposals! To expect Republicans to buy this crock of crackpot lies is the height of hubris AND insanity. But that won't stop the DNC. It never has.
