January 26-27, 2014
Jan 26 01:35 Open letter to Sen. Schumer Jan 26 09:27 Strib reporter busts Dayton Jan 26 10:27 The West Virginia bellweather? Jan 26 11:00 Debt ceiling fight looming? Jan 27 04:50 Wisconsin vs. Minnesota Jan 27 05:47 Irish Democracy Jan 27 06:41 Who built the middle class? Jan 27 08:10 Jeb Bush's conflicting message Jan 27 17:22 DFL's Thissen getting defensive
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Open letter to Sen. Schumer
To: Sen. Chuck Schumer
From: Gary Gross, uppity peasant
Subject: TEA Party beliefs, Democrats' projectionism
Sen. Schumer, In your post for Huffington Post, you accuse TEA Party activists of making "'government' the boogeyman." You then say that the plutocrats running the TEA Party have convinced Americans "that government is the explanation for their ills." Let's address those accusations, starting with the last accusation first.
I expect US senators to use verifiable facts to support their accusations. That's what Tom Coburn, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson, your Senate colleagues, did in putting together their video series. As you know, Sen. Coburn's series is titled Sequester This , Sen. Lee's series is titled Cut This, Not That while Sen. Johnson's series is titled Victims of Government . Their videos provided documented proof of foolish spending and examples of the federal government being used as a weapon against the American people.
Sen. Schumer, it isn't that plutocrats have convinced TEA Party activists that government "is the explanation for their ills." It's that people like Sen. Coburn, Sen. Johnson and Sen. Lee have given people of all political stripes proof that government isn't working for the people.
Furthermore, government itself is giving people proof that government is creating more problems than it solves. Jim Geraghty wrote this post about how the Anything But Affordable Care Act is hurting young people. Included in Geraghty's post is this graphiic:
Sen. Schumer, how can say that insurance plans with giant-sized deductibles are affordable? Do you seriously think that 30-year-olds can afford $10,000 annual deductibles? In Vermont, it's worse by orders of magnitude.
Next, let's address your first accusation. You've accused the TEA Party of turning the government into a boogeyman. That's interesting considering the fact that Democrats have accused TEA Party activists of hating women and minorities while accusing them of being astroturf organizations. That's pretty rich coming from a politician making these accusations in front of an audience at the Center for American Progress. It's rich because CAP is essentially funded by George Soros, the plutocrat that makes his money by manipulating currencies.
You've accused the Koch brothers of funding ALEC for their nefarious purposes. Among other things, ALEC has advocated for cutting wasteful spending and pension reform. Considering Sen. Coburn's citing of the GAO report of tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending and Detroit's dilemma, I'd argue that those reforms are long overdue. Rather than vilifying ALEC, it's more appropriate to praise them for wanting government to live within its means.
Of course, that's if you're interested in being the taxpayers' watchdog. At this point, there isn't much proof of that in your lengthy record.
Sen. Schumer, it's time you started listening to the American people instead of listening to the DC echochamber. Government is the problem. Limiting its intrusion into our lives is the solution. I could easily triple the size of this letter if I wanted to cite more things that government does poorly. Perhaps I'll do that in a different post.
Until then, consider the possibility that government, especially under this administration, is a) exceptionally incompetent and b) is too intrusive for the people's liking.
Posted Sunday, January 26, 2014 4:36 AM
No comments.
Strib reporter busts Dayton
Rachel E. Stassen-Berger caught Gov. Dayton lying about the 'pro bono' work David Lillehaug did during the Dayton/DFL shutdown of 2011:
When Gov. Mark Dayton contracted with prominent attorney David Lillehaug in 2011 to handle the legal issues arising out of the state government shutdown, the governor's office said Lillehaug's work would be pro bono. The news release announcing the contract defined pro bono as "without cost to the state."
But after that July shutdown ended, the governor agreed to change the contract with Lillehaug.
"In August 2011, the Governor signed an amendment that changed the engagement from pro bono to billable services," a report from the state's Legislative Auditor said on Thursday. "The office paid the firm about $77,000 for those services."
Bob Hume explained the change this way:
Dayton's communications director Bob Hume on Thursday said the arrangement with Lillehaug went from pro bono to paid after Lillehaug's role dramatically changed as the shutdown wore on.
'At the time we had every expectation that our legal services would be provided by the Attorney General. When we learned that she was going to take a position on her own initiative, which she had a valid right to do, we had to make other arrangements for representation," Hume said.
The first question that isn't answered is why Gov. Dayton didn't talk with Lori Swanson to see what her position would be on the shutdown. Because Gov. Dayton didn't do his research, which seems to happen frequently, he issued a statement that was quietly changed.
The truth is that Gov. Dayton has repeatedly shown himself to be the picture of incompetence and incomplete information. Why didn't he inquire about Lori Swanson's position? It's shameful that he's that clueless about something that important.
Another question that I have is why Lillehaug's firm had to be brought in if it wasn't a substantial role. What additional responsibilities did Mr. Lillehaug take on as the shutdown continued? Has Gov. Dayton's administration given the legislature a copy of the bill submitted by Mr. Lillehaug? If not, why not?
People shouldn't just take Gov. Dayton's word that everything's on the up-and-up. Gov. Dayton didn't check to see whether it was legal to bring a campaign operative onto the plane he uses for his official travels.
Posted Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:27 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 26-Jan-14 12:35 PM
Gary:
How about one more question. Since the only legal work that could be done during the shutdown was what departments were allowed to be opened and closed and since that was Lori Swanson's job to begin with why was this lawyer and his $77,000 bill needed at all?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The West Virginia bellweather?
One of the highlights of my week is waiting for the information contained in Salena Zito's weekly article . This week's article doesn't disappoint because she paints a picture of America outside the DC Beltway:
Nothing better crystallizes the deep disconnect between Washington and Main Street America than the peculiar narrative surrounding Nick Rahall's re-election bid for a U.S. House seat.
West Virginia's 3rd District congressman faces the most important challenger of his 37-year career - himself.
On paper, Rahall has everything going for him: He lives in a state where Democrats hold a huge voter-registration advantage over Republicans; as an 18-time winner, he has the built-in protection of incumbency (statistics show incumbents are more than 80 percent more likely to retain their seats); he is running against a Democrat-turned-Republican state senator, and voters sometimes view a party switch as suspect.
But that is all on paper.
The reality is that Rahall has become a creature of Washington. And Washington, despite its geographical proximity to West Virginia, has a Versailles-like lifestyle and progressive mindset that is far removed from the values of most West Virginians. So, Rahall might as well govern from a palace.
Rahall suffers from what Midwesterners call Tom Daschle Disease. Sen. Daschle earned the reputation of sounding like President Bush's best friend when he visited South Dakota, then plotting liberal strategy with Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. Rep. Rahall's other, bigger, problem is that he isn't listening to his constituents anymore:
His voting record against his state's economic interests is astounding, beginning with his 2007 support for cap-and-trade and his repeated support of progressive climate policies during the first two years of President Obama's term, when Democrats still controlled the House.
And his 2010 vote for ObamaCare, followed by his vote against its repeal last year, only adds to his complex re-election bid.
Apparently, Rep. Rahall hasn't learned the first rule of holes:
What made his support for this budget so jarring is that it contained a carbon tax that would impose a $25-per-ton price on carbon dioxide (increasing 5.6 percent a year) and a rollback of more than $100 billion in fossil-fuel subsidies over 10 years - all while spending more money on renewable energy.
Not a particularly wise vote for a man who lives in a district where nearly 20,000 folks are employed by the very coal industry that would be devastated by this tax.
The question is whether Rahall's constituents will do to him what miners did to Jim Oberstar: throw him out for voting against mining. If they vote for someone who will fight for their interests, Rahall's toast. Simply put, he isn't paying attention anymore. It's like he's living in a bubble.
Finally, check out Salena's newest venture. Salena is now the co-host of a new talk radio show called Off Road Politics:
I have had the honor of interviewing three presidents, two vice presidents, four speakers of the House, two U.S. attorney generals, two secretaries of Defense and State, and hundreds of representatives. But the most incredible interviews have always been with generals or soldiers returning from war and regular folks in coffee shops, on streetcorners and farms, at factories.
Their question has always the same: Why can't Washington do a better job?
There is a natural bubble that forms around any governing body, from school boards to county councils and state legislative chambers. The branches of the federal government are no different. It is as frustrating to those outside of the bubble as it is for those on the inside, albeit for very different reasons. Our job at Off Road Politics will be to jab that bubble and tell the real story.
That sounds like a fascinating show, one I'm sure I'll try listening to on a regular basis.
Posted Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:27 AM
No comments.
Debt ceiling fight looming?
The Obama administration appears intent on causing another showdown because it's insisting on another my-way-or-the-highway bill :
White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told 'Fox News Sunday' that President Obama will 'not pay ransom' for getting Congress to fulfill its duty to increase the ceiling and that members should 'spare the country the drama.'
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said later on the show that Obama's demand for a no-strings-attached deal to raise the debt ceiling, now at about $17 trillion, in the coming weeks is 'irresponsible' and that demands from Congress have been the pattern for 50 years. 'I think the president is taking an unreasonable position,' the Kentucky Republican said.
It's astonishing that Pfeiffer would characterize negotiations as Congress holding the nation ransom. Where in the Constitution does it say that presidents always get their way right down to the tiniest detail?
If President Obama wants to fight for bailing out health insurance companies, then let's have him state that, along with vulnerable Senate Democrats, bailouts of health insurance companies isn't negotiable. I triple dog dare this administration and Harry Reid to fight over that.
Whatever happened to doing what's right for the nation? This administration hasn't shown proof that they care about that. There's tons of proof that they're only interested in winning ideological fights. If this administration wants to fight for bailing out the insurance companies, they'll all but guarantee Republicans taking control of the Senate.
That's a dangerous position for the White House to put itself in because it means Republicans can pass their agenda at will. With the majority in the House and Senate, President Obama won't be able to pretend that Republicans don't have a set of solutions. He won't be able to tell voters that Republicans are the 'party of no' or the do-nothing party. He won't be able to do that because he'll be busy vetoing bills landing on his desk.
Republicans in the House and Senate will be able to make a powerful argument that we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling while promising to give health insurance companies multi-billion dollar bailouts. That's a principle people would quickly understand.
Finally, I'd love hearing Democrats accuse Republicans of being for Wall Street fat cats while giving health insurance companies a massive bailout. Good luck selling that one.
Posted Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:00 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 26-Jan-14 12:29 PM
Gary:
I've come up with a simple way to illustrate how silly President Obama is on the debt ceiling.
Just say if you have a person Sam go to the bank and state, "My yearly income is $31,000, I spend $39,000 per year, I have debts total $170,000, and I want $10,000 to be borrowed to me with no problem" the banker will laugh. The trouble is those numbers I just stated is the federal budget and debt reduce to just thousands of dollars instead of billions and trillions.
The Republicans need to translate the debt ceiling debate to this simple concept because they won't lose it if they do it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 26-Jan-14 12:47 PM
I think that's a horrible position. (Sorry) When Obamacare fails or gets repealed, whichever comes first, we are going to NEED a healthy private health insurance market to pick up the pieces. Bankrupting them now (granted somewhat their own greed and stupidity got them in this mess) simply plays into the hands of the Democrats who wanted single-payer all along, while allowing them to blame the failure of Obamacare entirely on Republicans! We shouldn't be touching that awful trade with a ten-foot tongue depressor.
Better to simply demand that there be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a ten-year balanced budget passed into law. That is the obvious right thing to do-- direct and understandable. Make Democrats argue that government should NEVER live within its means.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-14 01:59 PM
Actually, it's the opposite, Jerry. Denying insurance companies a bailout gives them the incentive to turn on President Obama, which will change the dynamics of the debate.
Stripping away President Obama's biggest ally in this fight is exactly what's needed. After the ABACA fails, Republicans would fight for tax relief for those companies, which allows them to rebuild their capital base.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 26-Jan-14 07:41 PM
If I thought the insurance companies had a choice (at this point or even before the fact) in cooperating, I would agree, and certainly it is correct in principle-- no corporate handouts. But my argument that Democrats will use this Republican initiative to hang the entire failure of Obamacare on Republicans still sounds like the most likely outcome, despite the outrageous lie it would be.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-14 09:36 PM
Jerry, Democrats are already blaming Republicans for the ACA's failures. That shouldn't dictate our policy decisions.
Comment 6 by J. Ewing at 27-Jan-14 09:47 AM
No need to add substance to their scurrilous lies, certainly not in lieu of making real progress on the debt, and not at the expense (likely) of destroying the private health insurance market when you are just about to need it. I just think there is a far better course to be set, and a far better "price" to extract on the debt ceiling.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 27-Jan-14 11:45 AM
Gary:
The biggest problem we have with that is that we will need 41 Republican Senators to stand firm and say that we need that. McConnel, McCain, Graham, and a couple of others will betray us and we can't get the votes for that!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Wisconsin vs. Minnesota
Looking Good Compared to Wisconsin: Not!
by Silence Dogood
The University of Wisconsin System maintains an excellent set of enrollment reports that are available online to the public.
http://www.uwsa.edu/opar/ssb/2013-14pre/prelim.htm
The data lists 10-year histories for Headcount, New Freshman Headcount, Undergraduate Headcount, Graduate/Professional Headcount, and Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment. Shown in the Figure below is the data for the past seven fiscal years for the eight largest comprehensive universities in the University of Wisconsin system. UW-Green Bay, UW-Parkside, and UW-Superior were omitted because their FTE enrollments are below 5,000. Including them would compress the graph, making it harder to interpret. Readers are encouraged to go to the source data to verify the data presented.
A cursory inspection of the figure for the UW system shows that all of the universities have higher FY13 enrollments than their FY07 enrollments. From the data presented, it is clear that La Crosse, Oskosh, Stevens Point, Whitewater and Platteville are undergoing substantial, nearly continuous, year-to-year growth. Eau Claire, Stout and River Falls are showing total declines over the past two years of 2.16%, 1.92%, and 7.31%, respectively.
MnSCU maintains similar enrollment reports that are available to registered employees that can be accessed from university servers, which means that the data is only accessible when you are on campus. The figure below shows comparable data to that presented for UW schools for the seven MnSCU universities.
A cursory inspection of the data for the MnSCU system shows that five of the seven universities have higher enrollments in FY13 than in FY07, although Bemidji's growth amounts to a miniscule growth of 5 FYE. Southwest appears to have the most stable enrollment of any university in the system with a slightly upward trend. Clearly, the only university in MnSCU that is growing strongly is Metro. Moorhead and SCSU are the only universities that have a lower FY13 enrollment than FY07.
Looking a little more closely at the data, the enrollment at Winona and Mankato show a one-year drop from FY12 to FY13 of 1.0% and 1.7%, respectively. Moorhead and Bemidji show an enrollment drop for two years in a row dropping a total of 9.5% and 7.8%, respectively. In the same two-year period SCSU's enrollment is down 12.8%. However, SCSU is the only university in the MnSCU system to show a drop in enrollment for three years in a row. The total three-year drop amounts to a decline of 13.5%.
If the enrollment is only down 5% as predicted by President Potter, SCSU's FYE enrollment for FY14 will be 12,400. In FY10, it was 15,096 so in four years there has been a drop of 2,695 FYE corresponding to a decline of 17.8%!
Minnesota State University - Moorhead has experienced a two-year drop of 645 FYE, which corresponds to a drop of 9.5%. They are reducing their faculty by 10% through early separation incentives and retrenchments. Moorhead isn't losing $1,000,000 on a managed apartment complex. It's not hard to predict that the other shoe is going to drop at SCSU, the only question now is when. What seems clear is that the administration at Moorhead was trying to get out ahead of the decline while SCSU seems to be denying that there is an enrollment decline. And reversing a decline is hard but it's doubly hard to reverse a decline if you can't even admit that you're in one!
Some have argued "its demographics." However, can someone explain how the UW system is showing strong gains in enrollment at almost every university? Compared to the UW system, the enrollment at MnSCU's universities looks a bit anemic.
Mankato and SCSU are the two largest universities within the MnSCU system and both have similar histories. Some call it a rivalry. The data for Minnesota State University-Mankato shows growth in enrollment while SCSU is declining significantly. Data for FY14, the current fiscal year, is not final, but including the spring enrollments that are available on the MnSCU website, Mankato is projected to be down 0.5% for the year while SCSU is projected to be down 5.8%!
Unless SCSU has a lot of senior-to-sophomore students not yet registered, the enrollment is not likely to be down by President Potter's predicted 5%. But even with the optimistic presidential prediction, SCSU's decline will be double the largest decline of any of the other MnSCU universities. The three-year decline in enrollment at SCSU will likely top 18% and confirm SCSU as the leader by a wide margin in declining enrollment among both Minnesota and Wisconsin comprehensive universities.
Should the SCSU community start to worry? Or should they wait for greater decline before responding? How much does enrollment need to be down, 20%, 25%, or more before the community acknowledges it has a problem? Being an outlier by leading in a negative indicator is never a good thing. Leading in enrollment decline means less revenue and budget reductions, both things healthy organizations try to avoid.
It should be mentioned that the enrollment decline has been good for one thing - reducing the number of parking complaints as it has become easier to find parking on and around campus. This good news has a downside, less revenue from parking tickets.
Posted Monday, January 27, 2014 4:50 AM
No comments.
Irish Democracy
Glenn Reynolds' latest USA Today column highlights why the Anything But Affordable Care Act, aka the ABACA, is destined for failure:
In his excellent book, Two Cheers For Anarchism, Professor James Scott writes:
One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called 'Irish Democracy,' the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.
Simply put, people, making decisions based on their own self-interests, are saying no to the ABACA. They're saying no because it's a rip-off. It's a rip-off because it was designed by politicians, whose highest priority was passing a bill, not cutting families' health care costs.
While the political class worries about 'the art of the possible', families worry about doing what's right for their families. The fact is that politicians ignored their constituents when they wrote this bill in Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's offices. By making this federal legislation, President Obama eliminated the states' experimentation, which is the strength of the US's federalist system.
Top-down, government-centric systems don't work because they implement a system that isn't individualized. Does anyone think that a nation that loves its iPhones and individualized apps would accept a system where their health insurance and health care choices are made for them?
It's possible that something called the Affordable Care Act will still be in place a decade from now. If it still exists, which isn't guaranteed, it won't look anything like the system that's currently in place.
That's because Americans aren't satisfied with accepting conventional wisdom. When we see difficulties, our initial instinct is to fix them.
Now, as February draws near, things don't look much better. Far fewer than half the number needed by March 31 have signed up. And, as it turns out, most of the people signing up for Obamacare aren't the uninsured for whom it was supposedly enacted, but people who were previously insured (many of whom lost their previous insurance because of Obamacare's new requirements). "At most," writes Bloomberg's Megan McArdle , "they've signed up 15% of the uninsured that they were expecting to enroll. ... Where are the uninsured? Did hardly any of them want coverage beginning Jan. 1?" It looks that way.
Based on public sentiment, this would've been the right time to let a good crisis go to waste. It's pretty apparent that the people are speaking with a loud, passionate voice that they want this system scrapped. They aren't sending mixed signals on this. They aren't sounding an uncertain alarm. They're saying that a) they don't want to return to the previous system and b) they're rejecting President Obama's top-down system.
What they're saying with exceptional clarity is that they want to design a system that a) puts them first, b) puts doctors, not politicians and bureaucrats, in charge of the health care system, c) lowers health care costs and d) lets them create their own network of health care providers.
The Anything But Affordable Care Act is 0-for-4 on those merits. That's why it's destined for failure.
Posted Monday, January 27, 2014 5:47 AM
No comments.
Who built the middle class?
Ken Braun's article contains a history tutorial that questions whether unions built America's middle class. Here's the heart of Mr. Braun's argument:
Criticizing highly paid union officials for taking lavish trips on the backs of their dues-paying members is often met with a predictable counter-criticism about supposedly 'overpaid' CEOs. But there's an important difference: Unlike labor leaders, the jobs of workers don't exist without the CEOs.
Executives are necessary at any large corporation. They are either the actual owner (and sometimes founder) of the company, or they are the representative of the ownership (shareholders.) Whether an outsider agrees or not with CEO pay is immaterial. The pay is set by the ownership and based on the creation of profits which make jobs possible. No profits, no company, no jobs.
The UAW doesn't build cars, and it isn't necessary to build cars. As recently as 2007, the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency reported that non-union Americans working at U.S. assembly plants owned by foreign automakers built more than one-third of the planet's American-made cars.
UAW president Bob King recently proposed a hefty 25 percent dues hike on his members. Unlike the financial decisions made by the CEOs of the Detroit Three automakers, King's plan isn't going to improve profitability, build a single car, or create auto jobs.
This post isn't an attempt to vilify unions. It's putting things in the proper historical perspective. Certainly, there isn't a credible argument that people, acting in their own self-interest, can't determine their financial course through life. They're the people that think they're commodities, important assets that can market themselves as people who can change the financial trajectory of a business.
People who think like that attract higher wages. The key is whether they create products that add value to society. If they don't, the market will tell them. If they're creating things of value, the markets will reward them for their ingenuity.
Here's another important part of Braun's argument:
The War itself substantially blasted away the manufacturing spine of the rest of the globe, leaving American manufacturers and their workers in an historically absurd position of super-dominance. With or without a UAW, disproportionate prosperity was going to flow to American workers for decades afterward as the rest of the world recovered from the rubble.
As a result of WWII, the US, specifically Detroit, had the industrial infrastructure to build products that the world needed. Russia, Germany, Japan and other nations simply didn't have that infrastructure. Industrial infrastructure, skilled labor and a strong work ethic build things. Good intentions don't. Eventually, Japan rebuilt. After they rebuilt, they became competitive on the world stage again.
Unions didn't have anything to do with Japan rebuilding. Now that they've moved parts of their operations stateside, they're locating in right-to-work states. Predictably, right-to-work states' populations are growing. That's because people love a) the stability of never going on strike, b) lower state income tax rates and c) warmer climates.
This paragraph is a fitting finish to Mr. Braun's article:
From here forward, middle class jobs will come from smart decisions made by the leaders of American free enterprise - entrepreneurs and executives at companies large and small. Exploitation of workers is most likely to happen when Big Labor bosses cash in the dues money and go to Disney World.
In other words, free markets will reward great ideas.
Posted Monday, January 27, 2014 6:41 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Jan-14 11:39 AM
Gary:
I think your last line can be highlighted by pointing out that if the CEO of GM doesn't do their job people will go and buy a Ford or a BMW or a Toyata, but if the head of the UAW doesn't do their job right the members are stuck in the Union having to pay the higher dues rate with a contract that can cause GM workers not be able to make cars.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by nerdbert at 28-Jan-14 11:23 AM
To slightly disagree, I will point out that the new CEO of GM is going to be sitting with Michelle Obama tonight at the SotU address. My point being that exploitation of workers is more likely to happen with Big Government works with Big Company to fatten up their supporters.
Jeb Bush's conflicting message
Jeb Bush's education reform agenda, outlined in this article , starts with the declaration that "The best solution to our nation's failing educational system is empowering parents." I don't disagree with that. It's that I can't figure out what empowering parents has to do with implementing Common Core School Standards. Gov. Bush is a big proponent of CCSS.
Consumer choice created the most innovative and powerful economy in the world. Choice makes computers cheaper, images sharper, cars safer, and services faster.
Choice rewards success and weeds out stagnation, inefficiency, and failure.
This is why school choice is critical to the education-reform movement, and why National School Choice Week, which began this Sunday, January 26, is more than just a proclamation. It is a call to action for one of our most cherished principles.
How is it that parents have a say over every aspect of their children's lives, yet often must delegate the critical decision of where they go to school to political boards and government bureaucracies? This has created an education monopoly that spurns accountability, views innovation as a threat, and prioritizes the job security of employees over the learning of children.
School choice won't matter if CCSS is adopted because everything will be written at the national level. That means a one-size-fits-all curriculum from coast to coast and border to border.
Text books are already getting 'adapted' to fit CCSS. In Bill Gates' and Jeb Bush's worlds, adapting text books to that day's prevailing political correctness is more important than publishing text books that teach students the truth about American history. History books that fit into CCSS's accepted category preach victimization, not American exceptionalism.
I'm not advocating for only teaching students that America is exceptional. My first criteria is that the truth be told, warts and all, in as great of detail as is applicable to the students' grade level.
CCSS proponents repeat the mantra that it's been adopted by state governments. That's misleading at best. In most instances, it's been implemented without legislative approval. It was adopted when the executive branch applied for Race to the Top (RttP) funding, effectively bypassing the other political branch of government.
Without people providing checks and balances, systems get corrupted. If you doubt that, how's HealthCare.gov working out for you? This George Will column highlights why CCSS must be rejected:
At any time, it is more likely there will be half a dozen innovative governors than one creative federal education bureaucracy. And the mistakes made by top-down federal reforms are continental mistakes.
Universalism should be rejected ASAP. That's because one-size-fits-all approaches a) don't work and b) aren't what the people want.
I agree with Gov. Bush that school choice is imperative to improving this nation's educational system. Unfortunately, his advocacy for CCSS is as counterproductive to school choice as it is detrimental to students.
Posted Monday, January 27, 2014 8:10 AM
No comments.
DFL's Thissen getting defensive
Earlier today, I wrote this post about whether unions deserve most of the credit for building America's middle class. Apparently, the DFL is feeling more than a little defensive about what I wrote. It's apparent because Paul Thissen, the Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, responded with 3 defensive-sounding tweets to my post. Here's Speaker Thissen's first tweet :
Do innovative cos take advantage of govt basic rsch? Do business & employees benefit from a broadly educated populace?
Here's Speaker Thissen's second tweet :
do workers get to jobs and companies move product without public roads? Do middle class economies exist without clean water?
Here's Speaker Thissen's final tweet :
your black & white, either/or world view may serve you rhetorically but no one in real world operates by it.
First, let me address the subject of whether "workers get to jobs and companies move products without public roads." They do in Indiana. While government funds the building of highways through gas taxes in Minnesota, it's indisputable that that's an archaic way of funding highway maintenance. Indiana, not Minnesota, is the future of highway funding. PS- Privatization works in improving highways. Indiana's proof of that.
Next, Speaker Thissen apparently thinks, like many leftists, that Republicans oppose all forms of government. That's silliness. They've read too many of ABM's smear campaign messages for their own good. (Then again, the DFL are puppets. ABM is their puppeteer.) Minnesota's Constitution requires funding of public schools so there's no question about whether taxpayers will fund government schools.
Third, isn't it possible that Speaker Thissen is living in an either/or, black or white world? Based upon his past actions, there's no question that Speaker Thissen thinks that the nanny state isn't intrusive enough. He's voted for higher taxes on the richest of the rich. He's voted for middle class tax increases, too, as recently as last May. Those are indisputable facts. He's voted for legislation that would prohibit people from owning certain types of dogs in Minnesota.
It isn't that Republicans hate government. It's that we've seen government expand into areas that government shouldn't intrude into. We've seen the DFL elitists in the Twin Cities tell people in northern Minnesota that they don't have the right to make a living even if they live by Minnesota's environmental regulations. Yes, that's what Conservation Minnesota is pushing. Here in central Minnesota, another of the DFL's environmentalist allies, the Sierra Club, is pushing for shutting down of the Sherco power plants.
There's no question whether Speaker Thissen will defend these special interest organizations. There's no question because he's defended them in the past. Considering his ambitition to succeed Gov. Dayton as governor, and his need for substantial campaign contributions from environmentalists, there's no question Speaker Thissen will continue defending these black or white organizations.
Finally, let's cover Speaker Thissen's question about whether middle class economies exist without clean water. Not that we'd want this but yes, middle class economies have existed without clean water. Ohio's and Pennsylvania's middle class thrived with some of the nastiest water in the nation.
Like I said, however, that shouldn't be the goal we shoot towards. The linkage between clean water and robust job creation is questionable at best. There's no disputing whether those things can co-exist. They're co-existing right now. What's equally indisputable is that the DFL's special interest allies love moving the goalposts on industries, especially the mining industry, by increasing the regulatory restrictions on Minnesota's biggest industries.
Last year, Speaker Thissen didn't hesitate in pushing a bill that limits silica sand mining even though it would kill Minnesota jobs. Here's what Rep. Pat Garofalo said about the bill:
You're gonna actually tax an industry out of existence with a tax on silica mining. I actually had a liberal activist say to me they thought that by raising taxes on silica mining, they would somehow impact the fracking in North Dakota. (Laughter in background) Spoiler alert. They're gonna get the sand from other states. Doesn't matter. It's gonna have no impact whatsoever on other states' ability to do fracking of natural gas and oil but it will kill jobs here. And it's not business groups saying that. It's not small businesses saying it.
We've heard from the local 49ers. We've heard from the local unions. In fact, members, this is how totally delusional this tax increase is: Mark Dayton actually labeled the House DFL silica sand tax 'ridiculous.' So when a tax increase is so high that Gov. Dayton labels it ridiculous, you know you're checked out for lunch.
Speaker Thissen, the question isn't whether government will exist. The question is whether the DFL will continue to insist on limiting Minnesota's economic growth through their abuse of Minnesota's regulatory system. At this point, there's little disputing whether the DFL will tell the environmentalists no every once in awhile. They won't.
The only question is whether Minnesotans will reject the DFL's vision of ever more intrusive government. Let's hope they answer that question with an emphatic yes this November.
Posted Monday, January 27, 2014 5:22 PM
No comments.
