Friday, March 29, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 1927

    Progress in Operation Iraqi Freedom

    0

    ”’The president’s remarks were made yesterday at the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems Headquarters Boeing F-18 Production Facility in St. Louis, Missouri.”’

    I decided to stop here in St. Louis, Missouri, to say thanks to some of the finest workers we have in America. And it’s a perfect time to do so. The successes of our military begin right here on the factory floors. The quality of the workmanship that goes into the aircrafts that you build here is one of the main reasons why we were successful in making the world a more peaceful place. Our nation thanks you for your efforts and your work.

    Seeing all the good workers here reminds me of one of the big tasks we have in America — and that is to make sure anybody who’s looking for a job can find one.

    Too many of our fellow Americans are looking for work, and that bothers me. So I sent some suggestions up to the United States Congress about how to stimulate job growth. And it starts with letting you keep more of your own money.

    I have sent to the Congress a jobs and growth package that will reduce the burden on our taxpayers, that will give you more of your money in your pockets so you get to decide how to save or invest and spend. In order for all Americans who are looking for work to find work, the Congress must pass this jobs package as soon as they come back from their recess.

    And the other big task for this nation is to overcome any threats to our country, wherever they gather. Each of you has had a part of preparing this nation to meet the dangers of our time. Today, half a world away, America is leading this great coalition of free nations to end a brutal regime and to remove a threat to our society. We’ve applied the new powers of technology — like the F-18s — to strike an enemy force with speed and incredible precision. Our work is not done; the difficulties have not passed; but the regime of Saddam Hussein has passed into history. Thanks to the courage and the might of our military, the American people are more secure. Thanks to the courage and might of our military, the Iraqi people are now free.

    I want to thank management and worker alike for inviting me here today. It’s truly an honor to be here. I want to thank Phil Condit and Jim Albaugh and Ric Smith for the invitation. It gives me a chance to come and say firsthand how much we all appreciate what you do on behalf of the security of this country.

    I appreciate Senator Bond and Senator Talent for their leadership. It’s good to work with these two men to make sure this nation remains strong. I appreciate Matt Blunt, representing the state government, for being here.

    Today I had the honor of meeting John Sant. He was so anxious to see me at the foot of the stairs of Air Force One, he was standing in the rain. And I’m grateful for that. But I’m grateful to share his story with you. Here’s a man who decided to take time out of his busy life to volunteer to help children become more literate, volunteers to help the AmeriCorps program to make sure the public education system of St. Louis, Missouri fulfills its promise that no child should be left behind in any community in America. It is appropriate that we talk about the compassion of our fellow Americans at the same time as we talk about the might of our great country.

    I asked John to come and to stand because one of my calls to our fellow Americans is to love your neighbor just like you’d like to be loved yourself. When you see somebody who hurts, put your arm around them and tell them you love them.

    And also standing out there at the stairs was Adrian Fakes Private First-class U.S. Marine Corps. A St. Louis native, wounded in An Nasiriyah, soon to recover, anxious to get back to his unit. He represents the finest of the fine — those of our country who wear the uniform. Thank you for coming, Adrian.

    You and I and all the world are witnessing historic days in the cause of freedom. One month ago — just one month ago — the forces of our coalition stood at the borders of Iraq, with orders to advance hundreds of miles through hostile territory, against a ruthless enemy. Today, organized military resistance is virtually ended; the major cities of Iraq have been liberated.

    Two weeks ago, the Iraqi regime operated a gulag for dissidents, and incredibly enough, a prison for young children. Now the gates to that prison have been thrown wide open, and we are putting the dictators, political prisons, and torture chambers out of business.

    One week ago, Baghdad was filled with statues and giant pictures of the dictator. They’re kind of hard to find today.

    The fall of that statue in Baghdad marked the end of a nightmare for the Iraqi people, and it marked the start of a new day of freedom.

    Four days ago, seven American soldiers, six men and one woman, were held captive by forces still loyal to the fallen regime. Today, those brave Americans are with their fellow comrades, and are headed home to their loved ones. American and coalition forces still face serious risks in Iraq. Scattered enemy is still capable of doing harm to our forces and to the innocent. But we’ll stay focused. We will finish what we’ve begun. We will press on until our mission is finished and victory is complete.

    On September the 11th, 2001, America found that we are not immune to the threats that gather for years across the ocean; threats that can arrive in sudden tragedy. Since September the 11th, we’ve been engaged in a global war against terror, a war being waged on many fronts. That war continues, and we are winning.

    In Afghanistan, we and our allies ended the rule of the Taliban and closed down camps where terrorists plotted and trained to attack us. In Iraq, our coalition has now removed an ally of terrorists and a producer of weapons of mass destruction. In other nations we’re hunting and capturing members of al Qaeda, disrupting their plans before they can strike. Across the world, terrorists and tyrants are learning this — that America and our friends and our allies will act in our own defense. Instead of drifting toward tragedy, we will protect our security, and we will promote the peace in the world.

    We are fighting terror with all the tools we have at our disposal: diplomacy and law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security. As a last resort, we have turned to our military. And the skill and the heroism of American Armed Forces are making this country proud. From Kabul to Baghdad, American forces and our fine allies have conducted some of the most successful military campaigns in history. By a combination of creative strategies and advanced technology, we are redefining war on our terms.

    Even before the fighting began in Iraq, Special Operations forces were inside the country, moving in to protect key infrastructure, protect the oil fields owned by the Iraqi people, secure vital bridges. Overwhelmingly, yet carefully targeted, air strikes left entire enemy divisions without armor and without organization. Precision-guided weapons fatally disrupted the regime’s system of command and control.

    Every armed conflict brings sacrifice and grief. That’s why the use of our military is our last option. Yet, more than ever before, the precision of our technology is protecting the lives of our soldiers, and the lives of innocent civilians.

    The overwhelming majority of the munitions dropped in the Iraqi campaign were precision-guided. In this new era of warfare, we can target a regime, not a nation. Our aim is to track and strike the guilty. Terrorists and tyrants have now been put on notice, they can no longer feel safe hiding behind innocent lives.

    Our military is strong and our military is ready, and we intend to keep it that way.

    Our Armed Forces must have every resource they need to carry out and complete the missions we give them. This morning at the White House, I signed a $79-billion wartime supplemental to cover the needs directly arising from Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reconstruction of Iraq. People who serve in the military are giving their best to America, and I want to thank the members of Congress for acting quickly to give our men and women in arms the support they need.

    For the sake of the security of this country and for the sake of peace in this world, the United States must maintain every advantage in weaponry and technology and intelligence. Our edge in warfare comes, in part, because of the American spirit of enterprise — great companies such as Boeing, great workers such as yourselves.

    In any conflict, however, this nation’s greatest single asset is the kind of men and women who put on the uniform of the United States. The methods of war have changed, but the need for courage has not. And we’ve seen, once again, the courage of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. These are young Americans who engaged in furious battles — then carried wounded enemy to medical treatment.

    These are young Americans willing to accept any danger to rescue one of their own. These are the kind of people who, when they are wounded themselves, ask to rejoin their comrades in battle. Some of our soldiers and Marines will never be returning to their families. And these are the men and women who our nation will honor forever.

    The character of our military reflects the character of our country. America uses its might in the service of principle. As we defend our security, we value the lives and the liberty of the Iraqi people. Having rid Iraq of an oppressive regime, we are committed to helping Iraq build a future of freedom and dignity and peace.

    By swift and effective military action, we avoided the massive flow of refugees that many had expected. By delivering food and water and medicine to the Iraqi people — even as coalition units engaged the enemy — we have helped to avert a humanitarian crisis. Emergency supplies are now moving freely to Iraq from many countries. Now that Iraq is liberated, the United Nations should life economic sanctions on that country.

    We’re also addressing Iraq’s urgent medical problems — problems left by a regime that built palaces in a country that needed hospitals.

    Right now, hundreds of Iraqis are being treated at U.S. and British military facilities. Governments from Europe and the Middle East are moving field hospitals to Iraq. Coalition members and the United Nations and other international organizations are sending much needed medical supplies.

    The Red Cross is working to keep water and electricity flowing to hospitals. And very soon our coalition will be making direct emergency payments to Iraqi doctors and nurses who will be providing desperately needed care to their fellow citizens.

    With all the hardships of this transition, the lives of the Iraqi people will be better than anything they have known for generations.

    The journey from a totalitarian, brutal dictatorship to a free society is not easy. It will take time to build the institutions of democracy and the habits of freedom.

    Today, civil order is being restored in communities throughout Iraq, and Iraqis themselves are helping in the effort. Iraqis are leading coalition forces to caches of weapons and volunteering for citizen patrols to provide security.

    In Basra, British forces and Iraqis have formed joint patrols to maintain order. Just days after the fall of the dictator, just days after the people of Iraq realized they were free from the clutches of his terror, the Iraqi people are reclaiming their own streets, their own country, and their own future.

    Yesterday, an historic gathering occurred in the city of An Nasiriyah, where Iraqis met openly and freely to discuss the future of the country. They even had some protesters outside the meeting — a sure sign of freedom.

    Many more of these meetings will take place in the weeks and months to come. In An Nasiriyah, the Iraqi people have made a good start. And out of that meeting came this declaration: Iraq must be democratic. And the nations of our coalition share that commitment. We also share this commitment: We will not impose any form of government on Iraq. We will help Iraq to build a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

    In Iraq, the world is witnessing something dramatic, and something important. We’re seeing the deep and universal desire of men and women to live in freedom. As Americans, this shouldn’t surprise us. We believe that no force, no threat, can make human beings love tyranny. We believe that the appeal of liberty will, in time, overcome any coercive power on Earth. We believe that people across the Middle East and across the world are weary of poverty, weary of oppression, and yearn to be free.

    And all who know that hope, all who will work and sacrifice for freedom, have a friend in the United States of America. Our country and our good allies are united by a great goal: We’re working to create the conditions for peace. We’re confronting the threats to peace from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And we’re aiding the advance of peace by seeking the advance of freedom.

    Free societies do not nurture bitterness, or the ideologies of terror and murder.

    Free societies are founded on the belief that every life has equal value.

    Free societies turn the creative gifts of men and women towards progress and the betterment of their own lives.

    American interests and American founding beliefs lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty.

    This past month has been a time of testing and uncertainty for our country. The American people have responded with resolve and with optimism.

    Whatever challenges may come, we can be confident. Our nation is strong, our purpose is firm, and our cause is just.

    God bless you all.

    President's Budget, Tax Plan is Fiscally Irresponsible

    The administration’s budget and tax plan is fiscally irresponsible will not revitalize the nation’s lagging economy.

    In 2001, Congress passed President Bush’s $700 billion tax cut. Since then, almost 3 million private jobs have been lost nationwide, the projected federal budget surplus has been erased, the budget deficit is heading toward $400 billion annually, core government functions like education, veterans affairs, healthcare and homeland security are being shortchanged, and the average American family is paying $4,000 of its federal taxes just toward interest on our national debt.

    Now the president wants another tax cut of another $700 billion, which he reduced to $550 billion when his own party members balked, and which would benefit primarily upper income earners. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, headed by a former administration member, doubts that that cut would be anywhere near replaced by revenues from increased economic activity.

    So, rather than honestly absorb the revenue loss through massive cuts in federal programs, the administration proposes to “pay” for these tax cuts by taking out a mortgage on our financial future, through the largest and fastest increase in overall debt in our country’s history, through an increase in annual deficits totaling over $1 trillion over 10 years, thereby wiping out any reasonable hope of federal budget surpluses and virtually guaranteeing a fiscal crisis when the Social Security balance moves from positive to negative.

    What the president is basically saying to our American family is this: I want to reduce our family’s income, and I don’t expect it to be made up anytime soon if ever, but I’m not willing to reduce our expenses, so we’ll just max out our debt and interest payments and hand the mess off to our children.

    That is just plain irresponsible. That’s why I twice voted against the federal budget resolution, which would make room for the administration’s tax cut by raising the total federal debt ceiling in one jump from $6 trillion to $7 trillion and, over time, substantially beyond to when annual interest-only paying for each American family would double to $8,000. That is also why this is a bipartisan concern: a number of Republicans have said, privately and publicly, that they oppose any further tax cuts of over $350 billion, and even at that figure we’ll be in long term budgetary distress.

    Responsible, affordable, targeted tax cuts can regenerate economies; that’s why I advocated specific tax reductions in the Hawaii Legislature during my tenure, which I believe did in fact contribute to improvements in our economy.

    Similarly, we can and should accomplish our goals of short- and mid-term economic revitalization and job creation and of long-term fiscal stability through a combination of lower and middle income and small business tax relief, responsible controls on federal spending to focus resources on core needs, and targeted aid to state and federal governments.

    I am hopeful that this message of immediate attention to pressing economic needs and long term fiscal responsibility is delivered to the administration loud and clear as they make their rounds of our country.

    ”’Congressman Ed Case, a Democrat representing the Second District in Hawaii in the U.S. House of Representatives, is a member of the small business committee. Case, a co-sponsor of a bill targeting increased SBA grants, is a past winner of the Small Business Hawaii Top Legislator Award, and formerly served in the Hawaii State Legislature as a Representative of the Manoa District.”’

    President’s Budget, Tax Plan is Fiscally Irresponsible

    The administration’s budget and tax plan is fiscally irresponsible will not revitalize the nation’s lagging economy.

    In 2001, Congress passed President Bush’s $700 billion tax cut. Since then, almost 3 million private jobs have been lost nationwide, the projected federal budget surplus has been erased, the budget deficit is heading toward $400 billion annually, core government functions like education, veterans affairs, healthcare and homeland security are being shortchanged, and the average American family is paying $4,000 of its federal taxes just toward interest on our national debt.

    Now the president wants another tax cut of another $700 billion, which he reduced to $550 billion when his own party members balked, and which would benefit primarily upper income earners. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, headed by a former administration member, doubts that that cut would be anywhere near replaced by revenues from increased economic activity.

    So, rather than honestly absorb the revenue loss through massive cuts in federal programs, the administration proposes to “pay” for these tax cuts by taking out a mortgage on our financial future, through the largest and fastest increase in overall debt in our country’s history, through an increase in annual deficits totaling over $1 trillion over 10 years, thereby wiping out any reasonable hope of federal budget surpluses and virtually guaranteeing a fiscal crisis when the Social Security balance moves from positive to negative.

    What the president is basically saying to our American family is this: I want to reduce our family’s income, and I don’t expect it to be made up anytime soon if ever, but I’m not willing to reduce our expenses, so we’ll just max out our debt and interest payments and hand the mess off to our children.

    That is just plain irresponsible. That’s why I twice voted against the federal budget resolution, which would make room for the administration’s tax cut by raising the total federal debt ceiling in one jump from $6 trillion to $7 trillion and, over time, substantially beyond to when annual interest-only paying for each American family would double to $8,000. That is also why this is a bipartisan concern: a number of Republicans have said, privately and publicly, that they oppose any further tax cuts of over $350 billion, and even at that figure we’ll be in long term budgetary distress.

    Responsible, affordable, targeted tax cuts can regenerate economies; that’s why I advocated specific tax reductions in the Hawaii Legislature during my tenure, which I believe did in fact contribute to improvements in our economy.

    Similarly, we can and should accomplish our goals of short- and mid-term economic revitalization and job creation and of long-term fiscal stability through a combination of lower and middle income and small business tax relief, responsible controls on federal spending to focus resources on core needs, and targeted aid to state and federal governments.

    I am hopeful that this message of immediate attention to pressing economic needs and long term fiscal responsibility is delivered to the administration loud and clear as they make their rounds of our country.

    ”’Congressman Ed Case, a Democrat representing the Second District in Hawaii in the U.S. House of Representatives, is a member of the small business committee. Case, a co-sponsor of a bill targeting increased SBA grants, is a past winner of the Small Business Hawaii Top Legislator Award, and formerly served in the Hawaii State Legislature as a Representative of the Manoa District.”’

    Governor Names 45 to Boards, Commissions

    0

    Gov. Linda Lingle released the names of 45 new appointees for various state boards and commissions to fill vacant positions or to replace current members whose terms are expiring.

    The Office of the Governor oversees more than 135 boards and commissions that are established by the state constitution, state statutes or executive orders.

    Since taking office in December, Governor Lingle has actively encouraged residents around the state to apply to serve on a board or commission.

    The applicants were screened and interviewed by the administration, including the Governor who personally interviewed some candidates for key positions.

    Here are some of the appointed yesterday:

    ”Hawaii Commission for National and Community Service:” Robert I. Crowell, Dennis M. Dunn, MaBel Ferreiro-Fujiuchi, Stacy S.K. Higa, Scott S. Morishige, Lee A. Rombaoa, Ralph Stueber

    ”Hawaii School-To-Work Executive Council:” Nobleza E. Magsanoc, Albert S. Nishimura, Kevin Yoshino

    ”Hawaii Teacher Standards Board:” Annette Masutani, Vicki L. Morrison, Vaughn Tokashiki

    ”State Foundation on Culture and the Arts:” Gae Bergquist-Trommald

    ”King Kamehameha Celebration Commission:” William D. Souza

    ”Island of Hawai`i Island Burial Council:” Gail U. Keli`ikoa-Sherlock

    ”State Council on Developmental Disabilities:” Donna P. Bishaw, Elvira Lee

    ”Disability and Communication Access Board:” Anthony S. Akamine, Roland Awa, Richard R. Chaves, Sharon Fountain, Francine M. Kenyon, Lucy Miller, PhD, Patricia Nielsen

    ”Statewide Independent Living Council:” Diana C. Tizard

    ”State Board of Chiropractic Examiners:” Craig R. Benzel

    ”Board of Dental Examiners:” Jeffrey K. Miyazawa

    ”Board of Massage Therapy:” Wilfred S. Pang

    ”State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology:” Kau`i Alapa, Cristobol J. Quintana

    ”Environmental Council:” Shad S. Kane

    ”Kaneohe Bay Regional Council:” David A. Krupp, PhD, Robin Gay Makapagal

    ”Molokai Irrigation System Water Users Advisory Board:” George W. Maioho

    ”Agribusiness Development Corporation Board of Directors:” Eric D. Weinert

    ”Small Business Regulatory Review Board:” Denise Walker

    ”Real Estate Commission:” Marshall D. Chinen

    ”Rental Housing Trust Fund Advisory Council:” Becky L. Hayashida

    ”Civil Defense Advisory Council:” Captain Gerald L. Coffee, U.S. Navy (ret.)

    ”Crime Victim Compensation Commission:” Garry Smith

    ”Board of Registration, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and Kaho’olawe:” Steve Pfister

    ”Board of Trustees of the Deferred Compensation Plan:” Ryan S. Ushijima

    ”Board of Directors of the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund:” Thomas Singlehurst

    ”State Boxing Commission of Hawaii:” Willes Lee

    ”’For a complete list of boards and commissions or to apply to serve, visit the governor’s Web site at:”’
    https://gov.state.hi.us/team/boardscommissions.html

    Victory in Waimea Valley

    After a 3-year saga, the City & County of Honolulu announced [yesterday] that the National Audubon Society was awarded the long-term management contract for Waimea Valley, Oahu.

    While the contract award must now be approved by the full City Council, it is expected to pass easily at the next City Council meeting on April 30, 2003.

    This is a momentous occasion and a real turning point for Waimea Valley, the North Shore Community, and the citizens of Oahu — if not for the entire state.

    Under Audubon’s capable management, the Valley can now begin to fulfill its great promise and become Oahu’s premier park; a valuable resource to educate Waimea’s visitors about authentic Hawaiian culture and history.

    Many, many people have contributed to the community realizing their vision and we wish to recognize their important role in seeing this happen.

    It just goes to show what great things can take place when people organize at the grass roots and persist.

    ”’Scott Foster is the Communications Director for the Stewards of Waimea Valley. He can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:fosters005@Hawaii.rr.com

    Long-term Care Plan is Like Quicksand

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    The lead editorial position in the Honolulu Advertiser on April 13, 2003, “Hawaii long-term care must start somewhere” concluded that the proposed horrible $20 per month per couple tax to provide a government-run long-term care “insurance” plan was something to build on.

    Wrong.

    First, it is not insurance any more than is Social Security. Both are Ponzi schemes, immoral and legal only by government fiat.

    Second, it is a denial of personal choice, by government force or threat of force.

    Third, it is a denial of humanness.

    If, as the editorial says, it is “our obligation to make old age more comfortable for those who cannot afford private health insurance” then it actually means that we are to handle human beings who decide not to protect themselves as we would animals in a zoo. We (society) will ration their care and feeding and make sure their keepers are inspected.

    It reminds me of the “proles” in Orwell’s “1984” who, not being members of the ruling party, were kept for menial work and tolerated like household pets (minus any love and affection).

    Finally, the economic shock of a $240 per year, per couple loss of income will further cripple an already struggling economy.

    Where to start? Treat humans as humans. Expect them to be responsible for themselves and most will do so. Those that do not will suffer consequences. Many of us will help those unfortunate ones out of human compassion.

    This start point can be expressed in three words: Individual self-government which is an ability open only to human beings as we “pursue happiness.”

    To expect less is to get less — much less. Thus, it is quicksand; never a prudent choice for a foundation which is to carry a heavy load.

    ”’Richard O. Rowland is president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com

    Ed-Biz: Boehner's Quiet Revolution

    CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 16 (UPI) — Even in its early stages, President George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act,” signed in January 2002 and just beginning to bear fruit, illustrates two important dynamics in education reform.

    First, one congressman and a few individual teachers can make a big difference. And second, you can improve the education that millions of students get, even if only a few thousand students actually change classrooms — provided you change the incentives and options available to parents.

    These two facts became clear at a conference last weekend at the Harvard University Law School, one of the first such academic gatherings to assess, albeit early in the game, the impact of Bush’s reform.

    The conference, organized by Brooke Richie and a small group of students, gave testimony to the value of individual and small-group initiative. With only a few weeks’ notice, the students threw together an impressive panel of officials and research papers from members of Congress, leading scholars and state officials, and the Department of Education.

    The most important discussion — because the topic was so vital — concerned the progress of a too-little-understood provision of the act, the “public school choice” policy for “schools that need to improve.”

    This provision essentially covers schools that don’t meet performance standards under a previous (1994) education reform act. Students at such schools may transfer to local public schools that perform better.

    The clause was inserted in the House-Senate conference over the bill by Ohio Rep. John Boehner, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and one of the brightest stars in the GOP galaxy. In this, he had some indirect help from a Teacher Choice group that met in the summer of 2001 to ponder the problem that No Child Left Behind, as it then stood, didn’t apply many of its testing and other incentives until as late as 2014.

    A Florida public school teacher, Ira Paul, mentioned to several of Boehner’s colleagues that these too-delayed incentives might be sped up by establishing a choice provision, for public schools only, right away. Public school choice is something even former President Bill Clinton had endorsed — strongly — in his 2000 State of the Union address.

    Some of the colleagues reportedly passed the idea along to Boehner, who made his opportune insertion in conference, and a handful of public school teachers had just improved schools for hundreds of thousands of students.

    How is it doing? According to an estimate by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, or AdTI — based on data from five states and three cities — at least 120,000 students have applied for transfers, and more than 50,000 have achieved them.

    The Department of Education, according to senior aide Mike Petrilli, is in the process of compiling information from the 50 states in order to provide hard numbers to the AdTI survey projection.

    “That’s not much,” one of the Harvard students noted. “What happens to the other couple of million students that are still ‘left behind’ by the act?”

    The short answer is, of course, even if something only improves the life of one student, it’s progress. The thing to do then is extend the program, so more students take part.

    According to a paper Boehner submitted to AdTI, to be published later as part of the conference record, the program has the potential to liberate students in an estimated 8,652 schools — approximately 4 million children overall.

    The longer answer is, even if 90 percent or more of those students are “left behind” in failing public schools — which will be the result of a choice by their parents — it doesn’t follow that their education isn’t improved. The program, by changing incentives and opportunities, has an impact on every school that’s under-performing, and thereby, on every student in those schools.

    In Milwaukee, less than 5 percent of the parents have taken advantage of a $5,000 education voucher to send their kids to a private school. But the public and charter schools, noting which way the students are moving, have been beside themselves to improve. And they have.

    Similarly, in Harlem, Seattle and Minnesota, which have pre-existing public school choice programs, only a small number of students have actually changed schools. Yet test performance has improved at all schools, and parents note that their public school administrators are a lot more customer-friendly.

    And the act is still in its early phases of implementation, and many parents around the country don’t even know they are now free to choose among local public schools. In New York City, parents had to file a lawsuit to get the city and state education departments to send out mandatory information letters, and start implementing the program faithfully.

    This process in itself has produced a useful pressure on school boards and teacher union officials around the country. In some wealthy districts in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and other cities, local high-performing schools have resisted allowing students in, claiming there isn’t room, they can’t handle the transfer paperwork, and so on.

    We will find out, in the coming years, who the real civil rights advocates are — those who watch such foot-dragging without making any protest, or those who hold the education bureaucracy’s feet to the fire.

    The program has attracted little attention so far, for various reasons.

    Some school voucher advocates dismiss the provision’s importance because it applies only to public school choice — rather than providing a private school option, or voucher. Casey Lartigue, a Cato Institute fellow who took part in the Harvard conference, noted this shortcoming, wondering whether the act, providing a tiny modicum of choice to a small number of parents, and no private-school option, isn’t perhaps unlikely to meet its ambitious goals.

    Voucher opponents, such as the National Education Association and the National School Boards Association, aren’t opposed to the Boehner provision, but they aren’t particularly excited about it.

    Their reform agenda essentially boils down to three items: One, more money; two, more money, and three, right away, and without any standards or performance requirements, please. Every business in America is having to produce more with less, by increasing productivity, but not education.

    Still, the Bush act, and especially Boehner’s choice insertion, is working a quiet revolution in America’s public schools. It hasn’t been noticed yet, because the “average student” hasn’t changed schools. Then again, on about 95 percent of the days of the year, it doesn’t snow in Buffalo.

    ”'”Ed-biz” focuses on the dynamic, cutting edge of change in education, as business generates alternatives to public education, and promotes change within public education. Gregory Fossedal is a contributing editor to Educationnews.org”’

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    Ed-Biz: Boehner’s Quiet Revolution

    CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 16 (UPI) — Even in its early stages, President George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act,” signed in January 2002 and just beginning to bear fruit, illustrates two important dynamics in education reform.

    First, one congressman and a few individual teachers can make a big difference. And second, you can improve the education that millions of students get, even if only a few thousand students actually change classrooms — provided you change the incentives and options available to parents.

    These two facts became clear at a conference last weekend at the Harvard University Law School, one of the first such academic gatherings to assess, albeit early in the game, the impact of Bush’s reform.

    The conference, organized by Brooke Richie and a small group of students, gave testimony to the value of individual and small-group initiative. With only a few weeks’ notice, the students threw together an impressive panel of officials and research papers from members of Congress, leading scholars and state officials, and the Department of Education.

    The most important discussion — because the topic was so vital — concerned the progress of a too-little-understood provision of the act, the “public school choice” policy for “schools that need to improve.”

    This provision essentially covers schools that don’t meet performance standards under a previous (1994) education reform act. Students at such schools may transfer to local public schools that perform better.

    The clause was inserted in the House-Senate conference over the bill by Ohio Rep. John Boehner, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and one of the brightest stars in the GOP galaxy. In this, he had some indirect help from a Teacher Choice group that met in the summer of 2001 to ponder the problem that No Child Left Behind, as it then stood, didn’t apply many of its testing and other incentives until as late as 2014.

    A Florida public school teacher, Ira Paul, mentioned to several of Boehner’s colleagues that these too-delayed incentives might be sped up by establishing a choice provision, for public schools only, right away. Public school choice is something even former President Bill Clinton had endorsed — strongly — in his 2000 State of the Union address.

    Some of the colleagues reportedly passed the idea along to Boehner, who made his opportune insertion in conference, and a handful of public school teachers had just improved schools for hundreds of thousands of students.

    How is it doing? According to an estimate by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, or AdTI — based on data from five states and three cities — at least 120,000 students have applied for transfers, and more than 50,000 have achieved them.

    The Department of Education, according to senior aide Mike Petrilli, is in the process of compiling information from the 50 states in order to provide hard numbers to the AdTI survey projection.

    “That’s not much,” one of the Harvard students noted. “What happens to the other couple of million students that are still ‘left behind’ by the act?”

    The short answer is, of course, even if something only improves the life of one student, it’s progress. The thing to do then is extend the program, so more students take part.

    According to a paper Boehner submitted to AdTI, to be published later as part of the conference record, the program has the potential to liberate students in an estimated 8,652 schools — approximately 4 million children overall.

    The longer answer is, even if 90 percent or more of those students are “left behind” in failing public schools — which will be the result of a choice by their parents — it doesn’t follow that their education isn’t improved. The program, by changing incentives and opportunities, has an impact on every school that’s under-performing, and thereby, on every student in those schools.

    In Milwaukee, less than 5 percent of the parents have taken advantage of a $5,000 education voucher to send their kids to a private school. But the public and charter schools, noting which way the students are moving, have been beside themselves to improve. And they have.

    Similarly, in Harlem, Seattle and Minnesota, which have pre-existing public school choice programs, only a small number of students have actually changed schools. Yet test performance has improved at all schools, and parents note that their public school administrators are a lot more customer-friendly.

    And the act is still in its early phases of implementation, and many parents around the country don’t even know they are now free to choose among local public schools. In New York City, parents had to file a lawsuit to get the city and state education departments to send out mandatory information letters, and start implementing the program faithfully.

    This process in itself has produced a useful pressure on school boards and teacher union officials around the country. In some wealthy districts in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and other cities, local high-performing schools have resisted allowing students in, claiming there isn’t room, they can’t handle the transfer paperwork, and so on.

    We will find out, in the coming years, who the real civil rights advocates are — those who watch such foot-dragging without making any protest, or those who hold the education bureaucracy’s feet to the fire.

    The program has attracted little attention so far, for various reasons.

    Some school voucher advocates dismiss the provision’s importance because it applies only to public school choice — rather than providing a private school option, or voucher. Casey Lartigue, a Cato Institute fellow who took part in the Harvard conference, noted this shortcoming, wondering whether the act, providing a tiny modicum of choice to a small number of parents, and no private-school option, isn’t perhaps unlikely to meet its ambitious goals.

    Voucher opponents, such as the National Education Association and the National School Boards Association, aren’t opposed to the Boehner provision, but they aren’t particularly excited about it.

    Their reform agenda essentially boils down to three items: One, more money; two, more money, and three, right away, and without any standards or performance requirements, please. Every business in America is having to produce more with less, by increasing productivity, but not education.

    Still, the Bush act, and especially Boehner’s choice insertion, is working a quiet revolution in America’s public schools. It hasn’t been noticed yet, because the “average student” hasn’t changed schools. Then again, on about 95 percent of the days of the year, it doesn’t snow in Buffalo.

    ”'”Ed-biz” focuses on the dynamic, cutting edge of change in education, as business generates alternatives to public education, and promotes change within public education. Gregory Fossedal is a contributing editor to Educationnews.org”’

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    The Peter Principles: Post War Planning

    WASHINGTON, April 14 (UPI) — Few expected the Saddamite regime in Iraq to fall as quickly as it did. The ominous pre-war predictions of anti-U.S. riots in Arab streets and coalition forces bogged down in a desert quagmire have been proven wrong. The toppling of Saddam’s statute in Baghdad has become a metaphor for the collapse of a 25-year reign of terror.

    Coalition forces have shifted focus and are securing cities, providing healthcare and food to Iraqis and setting the stage for an indigenous government to eventually take power through democratic elections.

    Whether the tasks ahead constitute nation building is of little importance save to partisan activists always looking for avenues to attack George W. Bush. The U.S.-led coalition that ousted Hussein now has the responsibility to help the democratic process take root. If that is nation building, so be it.

    The task is just shy of monumental, one in which the United States is going to play the central role. The United Nations, as well as significant sovereign states like Russia and France, lodged objections. They asked, insisted even, that they be included in the rebuilding process despite their opposition to the war.

    These are not settled issues. How they are resolved may set the course of U.S. foreign policy for decades to come.

    The principled objection to Russia, France and Germany’s participation in the rebuilding process arises out of their refusal to support Saddam’s ouster by force. No one who failed to contribute to his removal, the reasoning goes, should be allowed a share of the spoils.

    While understandable, this thinking is outdated.

    The purpose of the Iraq war was to free the Iraqi people from oppression and to guarantee the safety of the United States and its allies. Blood was shed to fend off the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction believed to have been in the regime

    Grassroot Perspective – April 17, 2003-Presidents Day: A Dissenting Opinion; The Future of Medicaid: Consumer-Directed Care; Bad Medicine

    0

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    ”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

    – Presidents Day: A Dissenting Opinion

    From the Independent Institute

    Every U.S. president gets some doses of criticism while in office —
    a few have even suffered mass unpopularity for several years after
    their term expired. But for the most part, the office of the
    presidency is hailed by the public and the punditry as one of the
    cornerstones of American political culture — the institution that
    gives the American experiment in self-government badly needed
    “direction,” thereby making it “work.”

    True, no American president is on par with the worst of history’s
    butchers and kleptocrats. But should this be the standard for
    measuring presidential character? Maintaining a proper perspective
    about American government should not mean overlooking the habitual
    lying, stealing from the public purse, circumvention of the
    constitutional division of powers, and other anti-social mischief
    characteristic of U.S. presidents — although this is the implication
    of the federal holiday called Presidents’ Day.

    Readers of THE LIGHTHOUSE have read much in the past year about moral
    failings of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the most lionized of American
    presidents. Honest Abe’s arrest or intimidation of “seditious”
    newspaper editors alone should be enough to earn him low marks, but
    America’s collective amnesia is severe.

    However, a major failure of another very popular president —
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s signing of Executive Order 9066 — which
    authorized the round-up of 120,000 innocent Japanese-Americans and
    their relocation to “protective” interment camps — has been
    receiving great attention of late. With a little luck, the result
    could mean that on February 19th of each year — the anniversary of
    FDR’s interment order — the nation will publicly recognize that all
    has not been right with the institution of the presidency. Surely,
    that would add a measure of balance in a country seemingly enamored
    with the celebrity of its popularly elected autocrats.

    Above article is quoted from Independent Institute, The Lighthouse,
    “Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy…” Volume 5, Issue 7, Feb.
    17, 2003 https://www.independent.org

    – The Future of Medicaid: Consumer-Directed Care

    By James Frogue

    Backgrounder No. 1618, The Heritage Foundation

    Arkansas,New Jersey, and Florida were the first states to be granted
    Section 1115 waivers to participate in a demonstration project designed
    to empower certain disabled Medicaid beneficiaries by giving them a cash
    allowance with which to purchase needed services. At the national level,
    this experiment is called the Cash and Counseling program. Its initial
    successes explode the myth that Medicaid beneficiaries are not capable
    of making their own decisions: Satisfaction rates approach 100 percent.
    States should adopt the Cash and Counseling approach for as many Section
    1915c beneficiaries and services as possible, and expand the consumer
    direction approach to other categories of Medicaid beneficiaries via the
    Section 1115 waiver process. The Bush Administration has shown itself to
    be very supportive of empowering Medicaid beneficiaries in this manner
    and very willing to approve waivers to this end. States should take full
    advantage of this opportunity.

    Above article is quoted from Heritage Foundation, The Insider 2/2003
    https://www.heritage.org

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    – Bad Medicine

    By Sheldon Richman, March 21, 2003

    Those who have been hungering for a real political debate in this
    country can’t help but be deliriously overcome with the news that CBS’s
    60 Minutes will feature 10 face-offs between former Democratic President
    Bill Clinton and former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole. The
    history of political thought will never be the same.

    Think of it: the maudlin advocate of the “third way” — that is, the
    middle ground between freedom and tyranny — will square off against the
    acerbic former senator who so richly earned the title “Tax Collector for
    the Welfare State.” Now that’s a debate the American people can get
    their teeth into.

    I was about to ask what the CBS suits could have been thinking, but then
    I realized that this pairing exquisitely reflects the state of political
    debate in America today. Once people in this country argued over whether
    government should be big and pushy or small and demure. But those days
    are gone. Now the argument is over how you like your coercive meddling:
    direct or indirect. Either way, there will be coercive meddling by the
    ham-handed state. So Clinton and Dole are perfect representatives of the
    political views that dominate accepted thinking.

    There are exceptions to this lineup, but roughly it goes like this: the
    Democrats’ program has government providing things to people directly,
    while the Republicans’ program has government subsidizing private
    companies to provide the same things. This is passes for black and white
    in the current scene. But as anyone with a moral sense should be able to
    see, these are colors barely distinguishable from each other.

    A few examples: The Democrats want government to dispense schooling to
    the nation’s children. They might like the federal government to do it,
    but they’ll settle for the state and local governments, as long as from
    their Washington perches they can dictate what goes on in the classroom.
    If parents don’t like it, they can lump it. The Republicans will have
    none of this. Under President Bush, state and local governments ladle
    out learning also under Washington’s supervision, but if that’s not
    satisfactory, he will let parents take their kids to other government
    schools. He might even consider letting them move their kids to
    nongovernment schools brought to heel by government-controlled funding.
    This is called vouchers.

    To us recalcitrants there is less difference here than meets the eye. In
    both cases, dispensers of the government money ultimately call the
    shots. The Republicans do it by an indirect route and call it “school
    choice.” But government is the death, not the fount, of choice. Real
    choice would let parents keep their money and buy education in the free
    market.

    Another example is prescription-drug coverage for the elderly. The
    Democrats want to add it to Medicare. (I’d sooner bunk with a pit bull
    than believe their cost estimates.) The Bush Republicans will have none
    of this “socialized medicine.” Their plan would also offer drug
    discounts — bigger ones if the elderly go into private managed-care
    arrangements. They promise to spend less than the Democrats.

    The distance between those two positions is an illusion. In both cases,
    the money would come from the taxpayers and be controlled by the
    bureaucrats. The Democrats would deal with the drug companies, the
    Republicans with the HMOs. Either way, strings will be attached and the
    medical marketplace will be further hampered from efficiently providing
    life-saving products and services.

    The Democrats are honest. They say they want a monster government
    bureaucracy controlling drug prices and giving orders to the
    pharmaceutical industry. The administration is dishonest, or maybe just
    dumb. It wants to subsidize private medical plans, while telling us that
    this “free-enterprise approach” will control costs. But it is not a
    free-enterprise approach at all.

    The Bush plan, like the Democrats’ alternative, still has government in
    the middle of the medical system. A bureaucracy will control the money.
    A bureaucracy will set the standards. A bureaucracy will enforce its
    expectations. When the plan doesn’t work — when costs skyrocket — there
    will be a clamor for more controls. This is far different from the free
    market, in which entrepreneurs prosper by satisfying consumers.

    Whichever plan gets the nod, it’ll be bad medicine.

    Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in
    Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare
    State, and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine.

    Above article is quoted from The Future of Freedom Foundation,
    Commentaries 3/21/03 https://www.fff.org

    ”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

    “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
    herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

    ”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at (808) 487-4959 or by email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’For more information, see its Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/