Thursday, February 02, 2006
Definite drink alert
First, in that you will need to swallow before viewing this page.
Second, in that you’re gonna want to raise a glass to Mr. Right…
{h/t JimK}
Chief Proponent Of The “Bridge to Nowhere” Sees No Need For Earmark Reform
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens says there is no need for earmark reform.
Except, you know, that there is.
What is needed, the senator says, is a better public understanding of how the process works.
There is an old adage, “there are two things you never want the public to see being made, laws and sausages”, ostensibly because if the public ever saw them being made they would a) quit eating sausages; and b) they wouldn’t want anymore laws passed. I, for one, do not see this as an altogether bad thing.
However, shining a light on how the process works (i.e. transparency) is earmark reform, something Senator Stevens says is not needed.
Stevens made his statements yesterday in reaction to President Bush mentioning earmark reform in his State of the Union speech this week.
Politicians are increasingly demanding changes in the way lawmakers each year add projects to national spending bills to benefit their home states. Stevens has been particularly good at earmarking billions of dollars for Alaska (surely you jest—Ed.). In his speech, Bush called for a line-item veto to fix the problem. Stevens says it is Congress’ job to write the spending bills.
Yes, yes it is. And the reason why people are starting to ask for earmark reform is because you guys have done such a piss poor job at financial stewardship. The money you guys spend is our money afterall.
He says a line-item veto by the president would be unconstitutional.
I’m going to have to agree with Senator Stevens on this one point. Back in the mid-90’s Congress gave the president the line item veto and the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. In my opinion in order for the president to have the line item veto it would require amending the Constitution.
Since a line-item veto amendment would greatly encroach on the Congress’ ability to spend money, we won’t be hearing calls coming from the Congress for it’s passage. (Via Ace)
From The Public Education Files
Comes the story of one Dorian Cain. It seems Dorian graduated from one of our Nation’s public schools, yet he couldn’t read at a first grade level. John Stossel has the details:
His mom, Gena Cain, has been trying to get him help for years. If Dorian were in private school, or if South Carolina allowed parents to choose schools the way we choose other products and services in life, Dorian and Gena would be “customers” and able to go elsewhere — if any school were dumb enough to serve a customer as poorly as Dorian has been served. But since Gena is merely a taxpayer, forced to pay for the public schools whether they do her any good or not, she can’t even demand a better education for her son. “You have to beg,” she said. “Whatever you ask for, you’re begging. Because they have the power.” They do. What are you going to do — go elsewhere? Gena can’t afford that.
Gena’s begging eventually got results — just not results that helped her son. What the school bureaucrats did was hold meetings to talk about Dorian. (Bureaucrats are good at holding meetings.) At the meeting we watched, lots of important people attended: a director of programs for exceptional children, a resource teacher, a district special education coordinator, a counselor and even a gym teacher. The meeting went on for 45 minutes.
“I’m seeing great progress in him,” said the principal. “So I don’t have any concerns.”
So let me see if I understand this, this principal doesn’t have concerns, yet Dorian has been through 12 years of schooling and is still unable to read at a first grade level. Had this happened in the private sector this principal would find himself out of a job. Unaccountability is not a good thing.
Well, Gena still had a concern: Her son could barely read.
Strange how a parent notices the little things like that.
Was Dorian just incapable of learning? No. ABC News did see great progress in him — when we sent him to a private, for-profit tutoring center. In just 72 hours of tutoring, Sylvan Learning Center brought Dorian’s reading up more than two grade levels.
In 72 hours, a private company did what South Carolina’s government schools could not do in over 12 years.
So, a private sector company succeeded where a public school failed? Imagine my surprise. Of course this just proves the old adage, when you ask people to provide good money for a service you pretty much have to provide the service in the private sector.
Of course since transactions with the government are not consensual the government doesn’t have to listen to your concerns. Whereas when you engage in a consensual transaction with a private sector company, who provides the same service, they DO have to listen to your concerns, since you can (and if you’re smart you should) take your business elsewhere. And who says the free market won’t work for education? Oh, the Democrats that’s right.
Insofar as looking for answers from public “educators” is concerned, don’t bother, because they really do not have any, as Stossel found out when he talked to SC’s Superintendent of Education, who talked about SC’s “massive improvement” when it came to SAT scores:
That’s great. But when you’re ranked at the bottom, improvement doesn’t mean much, and South Carolina, even after its “No. 1 improvement” is still last among states. SATs don’t make for perfect comparisons because states have different participation rates, but South Carolina’s participation rate is about average, and yet its students perform well below the average.
That’s not good. Yet the superintendent said, “We are making tremendous progress in South Carolina, and we’re very proud.”
In government monopolies, that’s how bureaucrats think.
Not to mention how they act, arrogance personified, as evidenced by the majority of teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District enrolling their children in private schools. To bad the parents of the children they teach do not have the same option.
Yet, bring up the issue of vouchers and who are the people that scream the loudest? Teachers unions and their bought and paid for shills in the Democratic Party. (Via QandO)