May 12-13, 2009
May 12 01:22 He Vetoed Hope? May 12 08:02 Pelosi Tortures Truth May 12 14:02 The Death Of Cap & Trade? May 12 15:40 Rubio vs. Crist Equals Conservatism vs. RINO May 13 08:26 Voters Notice DFL Incompetence May 13 00:15 Updates From The Front Lines May 13 10:59 DC Vouchers: Ram It Down Obama's Throat
He Vetoed Hope?
Speaker Kelliher is insisting in this article that Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the DFL's ill-fitted collection of tax increases amounts to Gov. Pawlenty's vetoing hope amongst the masses. With this being the final week, it's easy to overlook the drama dripping from Speaker Kelliher's quote. Here's what she's quoted as saying:
"It's going to be very apparent to people very quickly that what the governor did on Saturday is he vetoed hope," she said. "He vetoed hope for our schools. He vetoed hope for our hospitals. And he vetoed hope for nursing homes around the state."It might be that I'm just out of touch but I'm not sensing the desperation in Minnesotans' lives following Gov. Pawlenty's veto. Then again, it might just be Speaker Kelliher's attempt to put pressure on Gov. Pawlenty. That hasn't worked all that well in the past, mostly because Gov. Pawlenty is a skilled negotiator. Throw in the fact that the DFL is attempting to defend unpopular policies and it's easy to understand why the DFL usually gets the short end of things.
The DFL will have a difficult time selling their tax increases. Phil Krinkie's post explains why:
A recent Minnesota Poll conducted by the Star Tribune found nearly 60 percent of Minnesotans oppose across the board income tax increases and 40 percent of the poll respondents said they believed that the state's $4.6 billion deficit should be balanced with spending cuts alone. With only 4 percent favoring balancing the budget primarily with tax increases, its clear Minnesota voters aren't in support of the approach being taken by the DFL legislature.If 2 in 5 voters polled by the Strib think that the budget should be balanced without taxes getting hiked, then it's safe to say that there isn't much appetite for tax increases. Mr. Krinkie throws in this interesting factoid for good measure:
In the aftermath of last year's veto override, the landscape has changed. Two of the "override six" House Republican legislators decided not to run for re-election. Two others were defeated, one in a primary election, the other in the general election. Of the two who survived the 2008 election, both have stated repeatedly they will not vote to override the Governor this year. Rep. Abeler was recently quoted as saying: "Remember, we had crumbling roads and bridges falling down. There is not that demand this time. I'll support the Governor."If Jim Abeler isn't 'flippable', then talk of an override is just that: talk.
The DFL will pull out all the stops the rest of this session. In fact, they'll maintain that pressure if the regular session doesn't provide a solution. That's why MOBsters should be reminding our GOP legislators that we've got their backs if they do the right thing.
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:22 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-May-09 09:46 AM
You know I have a stupid question. If I can't get a payraise to balance my budget I have to cut my spending. Even stuff that I consider essential to me.
So why can't Keller and the rest of the DFL understand this simple concept. If you want more money for schools and health care than cut other things like Welfare! It's that simple. Furthermore if welfare is cut than maybe we will get less people moving here from Illnois and Indiana with the crime it brings or the illegal aliens that want welfare.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Pelosi Tortures Truth
Speaker Pelosi has turned telling tall tales into an art form, albeit very ugly art. This article tells how big of liberties Ms. Pelosi takes with the truth. Here's a prime example:
Pelosi has disputed a CIA document, released last week, that shows she was briefed in September 2002 on the "particular" interrogation techniques the United States had used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi has said she was told then only that the Bush administration was considering using certain techniques in the future and that it had the legal authority to do so.there must be something in the kool-aid that the D's are drinking because Ms. Pelosi isn't the only one who didn't get briefed on the CIA's waterboarding Zbu Zubaydah:
An aide to former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) took issue Monday with the entry for a Feb. 4, 2003, briefing in which a Rockefeller staffer was reportedly told "how the water board was used."I don't buy Sen. Graham's or Sen. Rockefeller's stories. I think they're political cover for Speaker Pelosi. Let's remember that Sen. Rockefeller leaked sensitive intelligence information . Let's also remember that Sen. Graham is politely referred to as eccentric. I wouldn't trust either man as far as I could throw them if I had 2 broken arms and a bad back. Let's put it a different way: If I'm left with a choice of trusting two Democrats, one who's a hyperpartisan, the other as flaky as pie crust, or Leon Panetta and Dennis Blair, I'll pick Leon Panetta and Dennis Blair every time, especially if the CIA interrogation memos verify Blair's and Panetta's statements.
"We are not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of the document," a Rockefeller spokeswoman said. He "has repeatedly stated he was not told critical information that would have cast significant doubt on the program's legality and effectiveness."
Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time Pelosi was briefed, told The Washington Post's PlumLine blog that he wasn't told of waterboarding then, either, despite a Sept. 27, 2002, briefing entry indicating he was given details of Zubaydah's interrogation.
"I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them," said Graham, adding: "Something as unexpected and dramatic as that would be the kind of thing that you would normally expect to recall even years later."
Call me odd that way but I'll trust my lying eyes over the lame explanations of Sens. Graham and Rockefeller and Speaker Pelosi.
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:05 AM
No comments.
The Death Of Cap & Trade?
ABC's Jake Tapper might've just finished Cap and Trade's chances of passage by reporting on this memo :
Advice in an Obama administration interagency review memo to the Environmental Protection Agency warns that government regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA) will hurt the economy, and questions whether such a "precautionary" move would too expansively open up the door for government regulation.If that isn't bad enough, this information will hurt Cap and Trade worse:
"Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," says one comment in the memo, which was officially sent by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. "Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs such as New Source Review."
The Supreme Court, ruling in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. E.P.A., ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases endangers public health and welfare.
That nine-page memo voices "a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) 'harm' from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and (3) applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle."In other words, President Obama is pushing a bill that will hurt the US economy while it's at its weakest point since the 1970s while limiting the creation of "substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects."
TRANSLATION: This is a tax increase that pushes us towards a green economy, an economy which financially benefits GE and Al Gore. Not coincidentally, GE's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is a major supporter of President Obama and serves on President Obama's Economic Advisory Board . GE is heavily invested in clean energy schemes, too.
Al Gore also stands to benefit financially from Obama's Cap and Trade programs. Here's how :
Last May, we also noted that on March 1, Gore, while speaking at a conference in Monterey, Calif., admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green investments that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "subprime carbon assets" such as tar sands and shale oil.In other words, Cap and Trade is an elaborate way of paying off pro-Obama ideologues. It's also a huge tax increase that the Obama administration admits will hurt the economy. Other than the patronage to Obama's cronies, what benefit will come of this legislation? President Obama's bill benefits his wealthy friends while hurting every family across America.
He also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It's a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood.
Explain what's so good about that. Explain why this isn't cronyism of the vilest sort. Marginal benefits at a major price sounds like a worthless investment to me.
UPDATE: Ed has posted video of Sen. John Barrasso questioning EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson:
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:53 PM
No comments.
Rubio vs. Crist Equals Conservatism vs. RINO
After reading this article , it didn't take long to decide which candidate I'd side with.
The expected announcement Tuesday by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist that he's running for the Senate would seem to be a rare bit of good news for beleaguered Republicans. But while Crist is a brand-name recruit with sky-high approval ratings and bipartisan appeal, his path to keeping the seat of retiring Sen. Mel Martinez in GOP hands has at least one significant roadblock: Sunshine State conservatives.Why would we support another Chuck Hagel? Look at what Ed posted about Gov. Crist :
Despite Crist's widespread popularity, he faces a primary in which he will have to make his case to a restless GOP base dissatisfied with his high-profile advocacy for President Barack Obama's stimulus and his handling of the state's budget woes.
And he will be facing a vigorous fight from former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, a young, outspoken Hispanic conservative who is capturing the attention of activists in Florida and across the country.
Rubio began telegraphing his attacks against Crist even before the governor's formal announcement. In an interview with POLITICO, he singled out Crist for abandoning conservative principles and compared the governor to moderate Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
The Stimulus. Crist was in favor was in favor of Obama's economic stimulus package, and in fact campaiged with the President for its passage.If Crist were elected, how would we differentiat between Crist and Dianne Feinstein? A vote for Crist is a vote for a filibuster-proof Senate. It's replacing a squishie with a RINO. What's troubling is that the NRSC endorsed Crist today:
Cap-and-Trade. Crist supports cap-and-trade and signed a bill to create a statewide cap-and-trade system in Florida. This isn't necessarily that radical a stance for a Florida politician, a state which has relatively few jobs in carbon-intensive industries and conversely might suffer disproportionately from rising sea levels and stronger Atlantic hurricanes (Mel Martinez, Florida's outgoing Senator, was one of seven Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on last year's climate change bill). Crist also somewhat notoriously reversed his former opposition to offshore drilling during John McCain's 2008 election campaign. Nevertheless, he is likely to be a reasonably reliable Democratic vote on environmental issues.
National Health Insurance. Unclear. Last May, Crist signed a bill to provide for low-cost, no-frills health insurance for the roughly 20 percent of Floridians who are uninsured. The bill does not contain an individual mandate, but does prohibit insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of age or pre-existing conditions. The smart money is that Crist would be a gettable vote on health care but would balk at a public option.
"I am pleased today to endorse Gov. Charlie Crist for the United States Senate. With his record of reform in Florida, I know that Gov. Crist will bring a fresh perspective to Washington in our efforts to fight for lower taxes, less government and new job creation for all Americans. Charlie Crist is a tireless advocate on behalf of all Floridians and one of only three Governors who earned an 'A' from the CATO Institute for his efforts to restrain spending and cut taxes last year," Cornyn said.In addition to his supporting the Porkulus bill and Cap and Trade, Crist willingly supported tax increases . In other words, Crist is to the left of Mel Martinez , the man he's running to replace.
Crist's other problem is Marco Rubio. Here's what Michael Barone wrote about Rubio:
First, Rubio is a smart guy, with good political instincts. He has been a policy innovator and has the capacity to make a case for conservative public policies.While Crist has instant name recognition, he's a liberal through and through. Meanwhile, Rubio is charismatic, articulate and conservative. In a post-Tea Party world, being conservative matters. Frankly, this is an easy pick in the GOP primary. With people getting fed up with Washington's out-of-control spending, voters are looking for people who opposed Porkulus. It's impossible to picture Rubio voting for Porkulus. Crist not only enthusiastically supported the bill, he campaigned throughout Florida with President Obama to waste $800,000,000,000 on a bill that guarantees tax increases, high inflation and interest rates that will choke the US economy.
Second, the primary is limited to registered Republicans, a pretty broad-based electorate but one that still leans to the right on policy issues. And there's reason to believe that registered Republicans really hate the stimulus package. In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, who beat Pat Toomey 51%-49% in the 2004 Senate primary, saw his numbers against Toomey drop to the 27% level after he publicly supported and cast a critical vote for the stimulus package. Not even his quick and nimble move to oppose the card check bill restored his standing among Republicans. Hence his party switch. Crist's enthusiastic embrace of the stimulus package could be a real liability for him in a Republican primary.
John McCormack's endorsement of Rubio is worth reading, too. Here's the part that jumped out at me:
Florida politicos say Crist is "unbeatable" in a Republican primary, and a Quinnipiac poll from early April suggests as much: In a primary match-up between Crist and other potential GOP candidates, the governor trounced Rubio 54 percent to 8 percent. The same poll, however, found that 78 percent of Florida Republicans didn't know enough about Rubio to have an opinion about him.Crist currently has a fundraising advantage but that might change soon. RedState already has a post outlining why Crist shouldn't run and why Rubio should be the candidate. Here's their best shot at Crist:
That will change between now and the August 2010 primary, as the media flock to cover the most prominent conservative-versus-moderate Republican primary campaign in the country. When Republicans in Florida get to know Rubio, they will discover a dynamic speaker with an appealing biography and a deeply held conservative philosophy.
Rubio is everything older Republicans like Crist should be encouarging: he's young but already experienced as a leader, he's telegenic and a good speaker, he's conservative, and yes, he's Latino, a demographic that a more inclusive Republican party would be reaching out to, not spurning.Crist has some important things that candidates need to win elections, mostly name recognition and a fundraising operation. What's holding him back, though, is his being wrong on the most important issues of the day and the charisma gap between himself and Rubio.
We saw in 2008 that it's foolish to underestimate the candidate with the advantage in charisma.
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:40 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 12-May-09 04:30 PM
The NRSC has absolutely no business getting involved at this point, and even less in supporting somebody that the base is going to be unhappy with. Do we need to resurrect the "not one dime" campaign of two years ago, when the NRSC jumped in to save Specter's skin? How's that workin' out for us?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-May-09 06:53 PM
Two years ago, it wasn't Specter. It was Linc Chaffee.
And, yes, we need to send a strong clear message on what the base wants.
Comment 3 by Obviator at 12-May-09 08:43 PM
Rubio is the tea-party conservative in this race. Crist is McCain-lite. No more RINOs for me, thank you.
Comment 4 by eric z at 13-May-09 05:41 AM
Is Ron Paul a RINO because he is really a libertarian?
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 14-May-09 12:02 PM
4.Is Ron Paul a RINO because he is really a libertarian?Not in the least bit.
Voters Notice DFL Incompetence
Based on Sen. Senjem's press release, it isn't a stretch to think that voters are noticing that the DFL is the party of reflexive tax increases and ineptitude. Here's the text of Sen. Senjem's statement:
STATEMENT FROM MINNESOTA SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER ON LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL RATING FROM KSTP/SURVEY USAThe DFL has 133 of the 201 seats in the House and Senate. With the DFL's job approval rating sitting at 36% and with the DFL's supermajorities in place, that means that each swing HD race theoretically tilts away from the DFL. Factor in that the DFL has alot more seats to defend this time around and the anti-establishment mood sweeping the nation and it there's reason to think that 2010 might be a good year for the GOP.
(St. Paul) -- The recent release of a KSTP/SurveyUSA Poll showing the Minnesota Legislature to have 64 percent disapproval rating shows that the DFL leadership in the Legislature is leading Minnesota down the wrong path, said the top Republican in the Minnesota Senate Tuesday evening.
"With the DFL firmly in control of the House at a 2 to 1 margin, and having a better than 2 to 1 veto-proof majority in the Senate, this undoubtedly reflects on the DFL leadership of the Minnesota House and Senate," said Sen. David Senjem (R-Rochester).
"Lawmakers have been at the Capitol for four and a half months, and have done everything but something. We have wasted a lot of Minnesotans' time and tax dollars getting no closer to a solution than when we began. This blame falls squarely on the shoulders of these legislative leaders."
Senjem made the comments after a third tax bill was crafted by five members of a tax conference committee and forced through both legislative bodies during night sessions this week.
The House and Senate GOP have done a good job of offering thoughtful alternatives to the DFL's out of touch proposals, meaning that they'll have an appealing set of alternatives to campaign on in 2010. They'll be able to contrast the DFL's tax early, tax often, status quo positions with the GOP's thoughtful reforms on everything from free market-based health care reform to trimming the pork from the House and Senate operating budgets to setting intelligent priorities on public safety and transportation budgets and other budgets.
In the interest of candor, I wasn't initially impressed with the Senate in 2007-2008. That's changed this year. Sen. Senjem and the rest of his leadership staff deserve praise for pushing a solid reform agenda. Meanwhile, the DFL hasn't ventured from their status quo agenda.
The DFL has refused to entertain serious reforms. They've even refused to cut their stamps budget. Currently, the limit is 5,500 stamps per legislator per year. Nobody uses that many in a year. For example, Sen. Senjem, the Senate Minority Leader, told bloggers that he uses approximately 2,000 per year. If we figure 2,000 stamps per legislator, that figures out to be a cost of approximately $60,000 a year for the entire Senate. When the DFL shot down Amy Koch's proposed reduction, the stamps budget stayed at approximately $150,000.
Obviously, that savings isn't enough to balance the budget. Still, the DFL's vote against reducing their own budget told people that their talk of shared sacrifice was BS. The DFL's definition of shared sacrifice means everyone but them shares in the sacrifice.
The closest that the DFL has come to proposing a reform has been Tarryl Clark's legislation proposing combining parts of Stearns, Benton and Sherburne counties that make up St. Cloud and renaming it Lake Wobegon County. Even in doing that, they said that they just wanted to "start the conversation" about this new structure.
In this post-Tea Party world, the DFL's tax increases have hurt them, too. Instead of the DFL relenting to the wishes of their constituents, they've repeatedly sided with their lobbyist allies. It's time that the DFL paid the price for their ignoring We The People.
Don't be surprised if that's what happens in eighteen months.
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:26 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-May-09 09:23 AM
I wouldn't be surprised, but I certainly wouldn't be taking it for granted, either. The DFL's one great talent is being able to talk their way out of almost anything. I wouldn't be surprised that, when the Strib and WCCO are done, this entire budget shortfall, budget impasse AND the government shutdown will be, somehow, all the minority party's fault.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-May-09 11:04 AM
O ye of little faith. The way to win arguments is to keep using the best arguments that persuade people. Winning won't happen until we're constantly telling people why our ideas are better.
The DFL wins, not because they've got great ideas, but because they're persistent. If we aren't willing to be persistent & persuasive, then we'll lose 100 times out of 100.
We've got the superior arguments. USE THEM...DAILY...PERSISTENCE PAYS OFF.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 13-May-09 01:20 PM
Good ideas, persistence and, somehow, a big megaphone. It's hard to reach the majority of people who aren't paying attention but 5 minutes a day, and who are watching WCCO news during that time. We need some new means of getting the argument out over the MSM, and in simple, 30-second (or less) bytes. I call it bumper-sticker politics. You have to get their attention first.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 13-May-09 03:33 PM
It starts with conversations, Jerry, whether it's with neighbors, co-workers, friends or family. Once you get their trust, then you can tell them why you get your information from a wide variety of sources.
This isn't something that's a short-term fix. It's something that needs to be done like the Bible verse: Line upon line, precept upon precept.
In other words, it's gonna take time.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 14-May-09 08:04 AM
Great, except we don't have time. With Democrats driving the bus in St. Paul and in DC, we're headed over the cliff. With no brakes, no muffler, over-inflated tires and a full tank of biodiesel.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 14-May-09 09:33 AM
Nonsense. What works with marathons works with sprints, too.
Updates From The Front Lines
I've been tracking the budget debate happening in the House all week and will continue to track it through the close of the session. Tonight, Rep. Steve Gottwalt responded to Speaker Kelliher's quote earlier today. First, here's Speaker Kelliher's quote:
"If we're going to protect and not close community hospitals all around the state, we need to override the veto," said Kelliher, who did not directly answer whether DFL House member had enough votes to succeed. "We need to work together now as a Legislature to come together and override the governor's veto," she said.I've said before what I'll say again: Speaker Kelliher isn't being realistic in talking about overriding Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the DFL's Tax Increase Bill. They can't even flip Rep. Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona. There's no way that Republicans are going to jump ship. Here's Rep. Gottwalt's statement in reaction to Speaker Kelliher's quote earlier in the day:
Speaker Kelliher and Leader Pogemiller have complained about Gov. Pawlenty's inflexibility on not raising taxes. They won't get away with that on this blog. The DFL leadership has fought the GOP's reform agenda. They've insisted that they won't do things differently.Speaker Kelliher's comments simply underscore the only game plan the DFL has brought all session: The false choice between massive tax increases, and deep cuts to essential programs and services. She and her cohorts are trying to scare Minnesotans into falling for huge tax increases! They have ignored and disregarded the third option of setting good priorities, making reasonable cuts, and using real reforms to do a better job while saving the state money, living within our means instead of raising taxes.
Republicans have offered numerous proposals that would save Minnesota more than $5 billion without raising taxes and without cutting hospitals, nursing homes and long term care providers.Speaker Kelliher is whistling in the graveyard and living in a dream when she urges a veto override: The GOP caucus is standing firmly with Minnesotans who are refusing to fall for the same old tax-and-spend!
She and her caucus are hopelessly out-of-touch, demonstrating the DFL's bankruptcy on real reforms and sustainable solutions. No leadership, misplaced priorities, no reforms, continued growth of state government, and major tax increases. If there is a special session, the blame lies squarely on Kelliher's shoulders and those of Sen. Pogemiller. They have given every Minnesotan reason to return to a common sense conservative majority!
The highlight of the DFL's inflexibility was on full display during their Cherrypicked Testimony Tour. I recall watching Janelle Kendall outline a list of reforms for the legal system, then seeing the representative for Great River Regional Library tell the legislators assembled to have the courage to raise taxes so they wouldn't have to reduce their services. It didn't dawn on GRRL's representative that the public might be able to survive that cutback.
Another bit of proof of the DFL's inflexibility came from Tarryl Clark's teling Tom Hauser that the legislature couldn't find more than $500,000,000 of savings. HINT: You can't find what you refuse to look for.
The DFL legislature had tons of time last summer when they held scores of hearngs and collected tens of thousands of dollars of per diem for their out-of-session work. As I wrote in my editorial in this morning's Times , "Had these hearings produced cost savings, that per diem would've been money well spent. Had those hearings been used to come up with a solid list of priorities, that per diem would've been money well spent."
Based on the DFL's insistence on doing the same old, same old, it's obvious that the money was wasted. They could've skipped last summer's hearings and the first month of this session and wound up with the things that they're passing, and Gov. Pawlenty is vetoing, this week.
Rep. Gottwalt is spot on in saying that the DFL has voted down the GOP's reforms literally from Day One of the session. They've voted down these measures without thinking twice about the benefits Minnesota's taxpayers would reap from the GOP's reforms. Rep. Gottwalt is also spot on with his statement that the DFL has "given every Minnesotan reason to return to a common sense conservative majority!"
If you want 'more of the same' policies, the DFL is the right vote for you. If, however, you insist on thoughtful policies that fix our biggest problems and address our highest priority issues, then there's only one vote that's justifiable. That's a vote that returns the GOP to majority status in the House and Senate and keeps Gov. Pawlenty in the Governor's mansion.
UPDATE: Andy's post is worthwhile reading. If the DFL truly has tabled their plans to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto, then it's certain that enough of their members have told the leadership that they won't vote to raise taxes.
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:23 AM
No comments.
DC Vouchers: Ram It Down Obama's Throat
According to this USA Today article , Joe Lieberman will hold a hearing into the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The Democrats' education monolith is cracking. President Obama might have the NEA's support on this but more people are asking why he isn't supporting a real path to hope for DC's children.
Back when he was on the city council for the District of Columbia, attorney Kevin Chavous would occasionally run into fellow Democrats concerned about the state of the USA's urban schools. They were open to a lot of ideas, but most Democrats have historically rejected taxpayer-supported private-school vouchers, saying they drain precious cash from needy public schools. Chavous, who served from 1992 to 2005, openly supported vouchers. He would ask others why they didn't.Rep. John Kline has the right idea with regards to DC vouchers:
"Several of them would whisper to me, 'I'm with you, but I can't come out in front,'" Chavous says.
That was then.
While vouchers will likely never be the clarion call of Democrats, they're beginning to make inroads among a group of young black lawmakers, mayors and school officials who have split with party and teachers union orthodoxy on school reform. The group includes Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and former Washington, D.C., mayor Anthony Williams.
"Public schools are the foundation of our education system and I am committed to doing everything I can to make sure they get the support necessary to educate our children effectively. But sometimes schools fail their obligation to our children. When that happens, parents and children deserve an alternative. In several cities with failing schools, school choice programs have been successful at giving children fresh hope and opportunities ; for a relatively small investment.Thanks for fighting the good fight on vouchers, Rep. Kline. It's time people told Rep. Obey it isn't about the unions , that it's about giving children a world class education. President Obama recently said that he'd let all the children currently in DC's Opportunity Scholarship Program finish out their education in private schools.
Unfortunately, the majority party in Congress recently passed a law that will kill one such program in Washington, DC that has shown great promise for success. This is not only unfair to children who are being forced back into failing schools but also sets a dangerous precedent. I will continue to fight for reauthorizing this program and supporting others like it."
What a concession.
NOT!!!
Until DC's schools have been fixed, DC's Opportunity Scholarship Program must continue. Letting current students finish their education in quality schools is a nice start but it's just that: a start. Ending the program without fixing the public school system is unforgivable. It sells DC's children out for some campaign contributions from the NEA's leadership.
That's unforgiveable.
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:59 AM
No comments.
