So Now it's Obama the Educator?

In his radio address this past Saturday, the President announced that he plans to overhaul the No Child Left Behind Act or NCLB. The act was originally proposed by the Bush administration and ushered through the legislature by Senator Ted Kennedy. Signed into law on January 8, 2002, NCLB was intended to raise student performance by establishing higher standards and establishing incremental goals to meet those standards.

The Department of Education claims success with the program in reports prepared using a series of statistics gathered by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). The reports show statistical gains in every measured area and an improvement in the parity of test scores between different demographic groups. These encouraging numbers may simply be arranged to justify the more than 40% increase in NCLB funding since its inception.

Critics state that the statistics quoted by the NAEP are intentionally misleading as they were comparisons between 2005 and 2000 test scores. Even though NCLB had not been implemented until 2003, the rate of improvement measured from 2000 to 2003 was the same as the rate of improvement between 2003 and 2005 proving that NCLB had little if anything to do with the improvement. The incentive and penalty structure under NCLB fostered conditions that encouraged schools to manipulate test data to “create” the appearance of progress by lowering local test standards to continually show improved scores. With the same rate of improvement shown in the years after the implementation of NCLB as there was in the years preceding it, critics claim that schools that relaxed standards to show an improvement were in fact, concealing a very real decline in their students proficiency to avoid NCLB penalties.

The only argument to keep NCLB alive is that the Teacher’s unions (NEA and AFT) despised it and most of what the teacher's unions fight against is usually bad for the union and good for the students. Imagine the nerve of setting education standards! Actually, the original proposal for NCLB went even further and called for proficiency tests for instructors to determine their effectiveness. Of course, the unions howled at the idea of teachers proving they could actually teach and Congress relented, gutted this requirement which I believe was the single most important part of NCLB; the part they may have actually made it work.

So now the President wants to reform the No Child Left Behind Act. In his radio address he said he would disclose his plans on Monday. I’m a little confused here. Obama said after the election of Scott Brown that his administration would now focus on the state of the economy but he’s still wrapped up in the healthcare debate, has hinted at renewing the push for his energy bill (cap and trade) and now this? Since the President heavily favors unions, I am sure his reforms will eliminate some of the provisions that the NEA still hates about NCLB such as school choice or funding for advanced tutoring. After all, money spent on students so it is no longer available to feather the nests of unionized teachers. I am sure Obama will offer platitudes to parents about increased accountability and higher standards but those provisions were already in NCLB and didn’t work the first time.

The school choice provision currently forces schools to provide access to other schools that post higher achievements, provide extra tutoring or special after school programs for any student that has failed to improve for two consecutive years. To a Progressive bent on the redistribution of wealth, otherwise known as stealing from those that earn to give it to those that don’t, reformation of the NCLB is a golden opportunity to make the case to funnel large sums of money into inner city schools to make them “better” rather than forcing that school to use resources to transfer failing students to schools that have a measurable record of success.

Of course, a large number of failing schools are loaded with unionized teachers and reside in areas represented by the friends of BHO. Anything that can be done to keep money in those schools would be a big plus for a former community organizer and would help cement his support in those critical areas. It’s a legal mean way to buy volunteers and votes as local groups and teachers rally to support the man that is supporting them. This was the reason that the founding fathers placed their trust in the communities and not the Federal government where education was concerned. The Constitution provides no authority for the Federal government to interfere with State education standards but to Progressives, that is just a minor difficulty. After all, since the days of Theodore Roosevelt, the Federal government has found some very interesting ways to elude the enumerated powers act that severely limited the scope and power of the Federal government.

Like lobsters in a pot, we watched as the Federal government created one agency after another by manipulation of the commerce clause and through a liberal interpretation of providing for the “general welfare” of the United States. Even a rudimentary examination of the Federalist Papers proves that the general welfare of the United States referred only to the welfare of the Union of States and not some hidden authority for the Federal government to provide directly for the people; the authority to act in the interest of the citizens, including education, was clearly supposed to remain forever with the individual sovereign States and directly in the hands of the electorate of those States.

Instead, the Federal government increased the tax burden on the American people, drawing money from the economy that could then be redirected to the States as grants. Of course those grants had quite a few strings attached to them. Since the Federal government could not pass laws that mandated the States to do much of anything within their own borders, the standards that the Federal government wished to impose were written into grant applications as a provision of the grant. If you wanted Federal highway money then you had to agree to Federal speed limits; if you want health and hospital funds you had to agree to a partial funding of Medicaid and if you want education funds, you had to agree to Federal education standards. In short, if they couldn’t control these things through direct legislation, they would control them by buying support through the grant process.

The current Progressive tax system is the most insidious device ever created by the Progressive underground. The burden on the American people is now so great that the individual States can no longer increase taxes to fund the programs that are important to their own citizens. In order to provide those programs, the States are forced to accept one Federal mandate after another to receive the maximum amount of government largess or be forced to pare back essential services within their own communities.

Here we are again, being forced into yet another corner as the President prepares to unveil his “reform” of Federal education edicts. So far, every incursion this President has taken into the education system has been met with horror. The speech he had scheduled for the opening of the new school year in 2009 created a fire storm of controversy as we discovered the materials the Department of Education had distributed to the school districts to accompany his speech. The materials were basically study guides to the speech that encouraged students to identify ways they could help the President move his agenda forward. Such blatant attempts at politicizing our schools have always been forbidden and they knew that. That is why they chose to keep the speech a secret until the weekend before it was schedule to be delivered. Truthfully, I think that since parents found out about the “study guides” the speech had to be re-written at the last moment and that is what caused the delay in its release.

Then there was the call for school aged “volunteers” to act as organizers in our high schools and community colleges. These organizers would create groups in the schools that would also garner the support of the students for the President’s agenda. The application process was administrated through the President’s own website and was only made public after the application process had expired and the applications themselves were removed from the site.

There is ample cause for concern anytime this man wants to be involved in education and I am highly suspect of his sudden interest in reforming NCLB. Let’s face it; totalitarian leaders like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Mao, to name just a few, have always turned to the schools first as they attempted to “transform” their nations and their societies. That is where the impressionable and unprejudiced minds reside. The minds that with some simple and cost effective “nudging” had become the brutal guardians of the new regime just as the fearless leader had expected.

Paul

Legislation Without a Vote - A New Low in Congressional History

It looks like we can add Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) to the list of people that are showing signs of mental duress in Washington. First there was her odd story during the Healthcare summit of call she received from some phantom constituent. According to Ms. Slaughter, this person had to resort to wearing her dead sister’s dentures because she had no health insurance and could not afford her own. About the only thing missing from that exchange was the image of her grasping at the air trying to catch the imaginary butterflies circling her head. Apparently Louise’s condition has worsened and she has slipped beyond eccentricity and is now living in her own little world; a world where the Congress has a whole new set of imaginary rules they can use to pass healthcare reform so her friend can stop wearing someone else’s teeth.

The Senate Parliamentarian has already ruled that a Bill that has not been signed into law cannot be subject to reconciliation and that places a difficult burden on House Democrats. They must accept the Senate Bill as written and pass it without modification so that the President can sign it before any reconciliation measure is possible to work out the differences between the House and the Senate versions. Of course the Senate crafted their own bill because there was no possible way the House bill could have passed the Senate. There is in fact, no reason to believe that the Senate will yield on anything the House wants once this thing has actually been signed into law. Herein lays the quandary. Certain House Democrats will not vote for the bill unless they have concrete assurances that their issues will be acted on in reconciliation and the Senate says they can offer no such assurances on a bill that has not been made law yet. Catch 22.

Now in another leap into the bizarre, Slaughter has suggested her own idea to move the Healthcare Bill forward; an idea that seems to appeal to her fellow dementia sufferer, Nancy Pelosi. Her thoughts are that since the House passed a bill and the Senate passed a bill, we’ve both passed a bill already. Let’s skip the vote and send this to the President since we both passed a bill! Well, the only problem with that idea is that they both passed different bills. Even the President’s odd-ball compromise presented just prior to the Healthcare summit was only a list of un-scored ideas that would modify the Senate bill and if any of those changes were incorporated into the Senate bill then, in fact, the Senate bill really hasn’t passed either….has it?

All jokes aside, this is a critically serious issue. To use the “Slaughter” plan, Congress would have to abandon every known rule of the legislative process and not only ignore the public rejection of this bill but circumvent the justifiable opposition posed by other members of Congress as well. The reason this bill has not passed on its own merit is that there is a bi-partisan rejection of it on a number of critical issues. To use Slaughter’s idea to move it out of the house would not only damage the efficacy of the Democratic Party as they face a difficult election year but would also raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the Federal government as legislation ceases to be legislation and wants becomes laws through the dictates of a minority group of radical ideologues.

The loss of legitimacy is a serious charge, but have any of the processes used in conjunction with this Congress and this President resembled anything we have ever seen in the past? Agency heads threatening Congress to pass legislation “or else”; threats of using reconciliation to pass bills that have not even been signed into law; the use of Presidential executive orders to seize an additional thirteen million acres of land to deny access to oil, gas and coal reserves and now, the Progressive wing of a single Party bypassing all of Congress to achieve a bullet point on their agenda?

True Democracies are never overthrown by violent means; they are consumed by malevolent forces from within. The apathy of an appeased electorate opens the door for the systematic encroachment on personal liberty under the guise of “providing for the good of the people”. The government can only provide a benefit if we agree to surrender certain rights in that area. What is the Healthcare bill really about? Well, Nancy Pelosi unwittingly admitted that the other day. In a speech she was giving about the “wondrous” gift they are about to give the American people she said that for the first time we will be able to address the health of the nation. Pelosi continued: this is more about “diet than diabetes”. Really? And how does the bill accomplish that lofty goal unless there will eventually be mandates controlling your diet?

Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar, would love nothing better that to see people “nudged” into a meat free diet. He’s even said in papers written earlier in his career that animals should be represented by attorneys. Well, with health mandates we can just “regulate” you away from those barbarous acts of eating poor defenseless animals and dispense with the need for animal lawyers altogether. Don’t forget the nuts and bolts of this plan are not described in the bill itself. They will be crafted later by the massive new agency and controlling board it will create; a controlling board appointed by Barack Obama and guided by the wisdom of Cass Sunstein.

Some may yell out “That is absurd! The United States government doesn’t have the right to tell me what I can eat!” Well, that’s true (for now) but they didn’t have the right to tell people they can’t smoke either. What they have seized the right to do, now that the Constitution is nothing but an obstacle to skirt, is tax something out of existence. One of the first acts of the Obama administration was to increase the sin tax on cigarettes more than 250%. Of course anti-smoking activists applauded the move with little consideration of how heavily the application of “sin” taxes depends on who is identifying the “sin”. Now that the likely targets for the new healthcare sin taxes will be hamburgers, fries and a cold soda, how do the supporters of cigarette taxes feel about delegating that amount of control to the government now? A little cheated maybe?

But wait, there’s more! Red meat has been accused of causing heart problems and cancers, so kiss your delicious steaks goodbye. Sugar? I’m sorry…diabetes. Salt? Well, New York is already working to ban that from restaurants because of the link to high blood pressure so that’s probably out too. Butter; cream; candy and that dreaded of all criminals…pizza! Life is about to become very bland indeed.

If you’re willing to foot the added expense of the “chubby-foods” sin tax you can still eat like its 1999 but the part we don’t know is if the new healthcare guidelines will impose insurance premium surcharges for people that don’t fit the healthcare board’s idea of physically fit. What’s your BMI? How much do you exercise? Are you engaged in risky behavior like skiing or skydiving? You know anything that can harm you is bad and therefore in dire need of behavioral modification.

That is just a dream though. This is the United States of America; the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave! The Federal government just doesn’t have that kind of power under the Constitution. But then again, what does the Constitution mean anymore if laws can be passed by ideological zealots that can get away with only pretending there was a legitimate vote? Sounds like Election Day in the old Soviet Union doesn’t it? One candidate scoring a landslide victory… that’s a perfect example of Progressive Democracy for you!

God help us now!

Paul

Has Washington Gone Bonkers?

Last month I had written a couple of articles outlining the political similarities between the fall of the Roman Empire and the current course of politics in America. Needless to say, the major causes for the fall of Rome are frighteningly close to the discussions we see all over America today. One of the more recent theories being bandied about claim that lead poisoning had seriously affected the mental competence of the Roman elite which contributed to the fall. Lead was used in great quantities all over the Roman Empire, particularly for the comfort of the elite ruling class.

Lead pipes brought drinking water to the homes of the wealthy, the Senate and to the Imperial palaces. Lead was used to seal anything used in conjunction with water including baths; it was even used to sweeten wine for the most privileged members of the society. Lead was in such broad use that it could have posed a significant threat to the health and sanity of those upper classes and scientists say they have found tell-tale signs of lead poisoning in human bones recovered from Roman necropolises. The lead was concentrated in amounts well above the levels needed to impede rational thought and may be the smoking gun that explains the wild stories of eccentricity prevalent in the Roman elite during the final years of the Empire.

Watching the antics going on in Washington these days, one must wonder what has affected their behavior. We know that America has prohibited the use of lead for household plumbing and paint. We are well aware of the dangers associated with lead and have taken the proper precautions to protect ourselves from this insidious killer so it can’t be that.

It’s no mystery that our illustrious Congressmen drink too much because it was disclosed that the liquor bill on Pelosi’s private flights between Washington and San Francisco outspend the food consumed on those flights and probably runs a close second to the cost of the fuel used to power the aircraft. Recently disgraced Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) apparently drank heavily enough to get into “tickle” fights with other men in their 50’s and with members of his staff. This erratic and childish behavior continued to the point where some staffers had accused him of inappropriate physical contact. His retort to these charges were equally bizarre and consisted of a string of unsubstantiated claims that this was the manifestation of a concerted effort to force him out of Congress because of his opposition to the Senate Healthcare Bill; an opposition shared by dozens of other Democrats that obviously have not been subject to similar attacks.

Ted Kennedy was also famous for his imbibing ever since the days of Chappaquiddick. His bloated figure and large reddened nose had been the subject of many stories of three martini luncheons and hazy vacations in Martha’s Vineyard before his illness had taken their place in the tabloid headlines. Charlie Wilson (D-TX) may have been recorded in history for his involvement in the clandestine military operations against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan but he was equally famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for raucous womanizing fueled by drug and alcohol consumption.

Of course it could just be the stress of the job or some other deeply emotional issues that we are seeing. Even Nancy Pelosi has shown evidence of mild dementia; at least that’s what it looks like to me. How else could you claim that American’s want Congress to pass healthcare reform immediately in the face of overwhelming opposition? She seems to have no concept of how miserably people are rating the approval of Congress and has no concern for the future of her party despite poll after poll that says there will be a heavy price to pay for passing this; especially if there are more back room deals and legislative tricks. Harry Reid has been reduced to a babbling fool incapable of rendering a coherent thought without infuriating massive segments of the population; something politicians never do unless they are at the point of mental collapse. His last statement basically said that Congress must pass a jobs bill because unemployed men beat their wives and the abuse shelters in Nevada are overflowing. Yeah; poor fellow.

Speaking of someone that appears to be on the verge of mental collapse, we have the incredible display put on by Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) yesterday. While debating a bill proposed by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), that if passed, would have required the immediate withdrawal of U.S. Military forces from Afghanistan, Representative Kennedy threw what can only be described as a kindergarten tantrum about the lack of press coverage. His voice cracked as he screeched at the upper levels of his vocal range, shouting that the reason Americans are so upset with Congress is the lack of coverage the press gives to Congressmen actually doing their jobs. Pointing at the two news agencies that had reporters present, Kennedy called the media’s lack of interest “despicable” noting that this bill speaks of “war and peace” and affects the lives of the military personnel risking their lives in the call of duty and in the defense of their nation.

He continued saying that the press was covering the resignation of Eric Massa “24-7” but failed to show up for this crucial debate. I’m not certain whether it was the media’s lack of attention to that bill that angered Patrick Kennedy or if it was the unnerving reality that for the first time since the Kennedy family entered American politics, the media was not riveted to their seats to hear a Kennedy speak. In fact, Patrick Kennedy’s career has been so unremarkable that even his announcement that he would not seek reelection populated news stories for a mere twenty-four hours. His tantrum only proves that you can kick a Kennedy, you can disgrace a Kennedy you can even despise a Kennedy but if you should dare to ignore one, they become unglued. Hopefully our poor little Patrick won’t suffer the same fate and lifelong feelings of inadequacy that have plagued the children of so many of America’s Hollywood stars. It is a terrible thing to live in the shadows of the public giants that preceded you only to be brushed aside as an inferior copy of the original.

The media did not attend the debate on this bill because the bill was meaningless. The Kucinich resolution was based on the 1973 War Powers Act that requires the President to obtain congressional approval when he sends troops to a conflict for more than 90 days. Since Congress has been regularly authorizing expenditures for the conflict since it’s inception, the requirement for approval has been adequately met to the satisfaction of all but a few of the more extreme Democratic Progressives in the Congress and the resolution failed with predictable margins. The Massa resignation had the potential for far reaching consequences because of the accusations Massa had launched against the White House and the Democratic Leadership. It wasn’t until Massa’s showed no interest in pursuing those charges that the media realized that there was no credible reason to believe they were true.

Since his resignation, the House investigation into the charges has been terminated because the House Ethics Committee has no authority to investigate private citizens. Unless the staffer that levied the charges is willing to pursue the matter with other authorities, we will never know the full extent of Massa’s behavior in connection with this. Well, that’s not entirely true. I fully expect another “tell-all” book will surface either written by the violated staffer or someone else close to the Congressman’s office. That is just the way these matters are handled in Washington these days.

I’m sorry Patrick. The American people are not angry because we have not seen Congress at work. In fact, we are angry precisely because we have seen, felt and fear the work that you have been doing. If Congress were to take a protracted vacation and leave the poor taxpayers alone, the approval rating of Congress would probably climb twenty points every month you folks were off playing golf and sailing schooners. I hate to tell you….we don’t even care if you “tickle” each other until you all need diapers; just stop the taxing and the spending and you’ll be fine in the end.

I guess all we can do now is watch for more of this strange behavior and try to connect the dots in an attempt to find the cause. Lead poisoning was likely responsible for Roman Emperor Nero torching a large part of urban Rome and legend has it that he played his fiddle as he watched the flames consume hundreds of buildings. I know Obama smokes….I just hope he doesn’t play any musical instruments; at least until we find out what is driving our elected officials crazy.

Paul

The Socialist Threat in America

While I feel that the Progressive movement is the real enemy of freedom, I am not blind to the efforts of radical Socialists and Communists that are sadly on the rise again. I supposed it is inevitable that these groups spring up whenever there are economic difficulties and it’s probably our own fault for tolerating their nonsensical diatribe. The First Amendment guarantees their right to speak out and I would not risk damaging the bill of rights simply because I think their message is ridiculous but I am perplexed that their message actually reaches more than the few unwashed screwballs in their own little group.

The Socialist movement claims to be the harbinger of true democracy; a workers utopia where everyone is equal and everyone shares the wealth. Uh yeah… Similar promises were made by the Bolsheviks prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917 but once the rule of Czar Nicholas II was brought to a bloody and violent end, the utopia never appeared. The oppressive government of the Czar was replaced by a violent mob that terrorized and murdered millions of Russia’s citizens. The Russian people were powerless in the face of this brutal regime because as soon as the loyal resistance had been broken, the Bolsheviks seized control of the press, weapons and industry. They moved swiftly against any opposition and millions were swept away in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again.

Russia is not an isolated incident. Anywhere that Socialists and Communists have assumed power, similar atrocities were committed. The left loves to equate Nazi Germany and Hitler with rigid Conservatism but anyone that has ever bothered to pick up a history book can quickly refute this claim. Nazis were “National Socialists”, not unrestrained Conservatives. Hitler openly admitted that the goals of the Nazi Party were in line with that of the Socialist movement but he did not want Germany to become part of some Bolshevik empire. He believed in a Socialism dominated by Germany, not Russia because he also believed in racial superiority and that the Russian people, among others, were genetically inferior.

While Hitler’s Nazis were directly responsible for the death of six million Jews through his mission of ethnic cleansing, it is dangerous to assume that non-Jews were safe. Although few hard facts have been found, it is estimated that Nazis killed five million gentiles of all faiths before the end of the war in 1945. Any opposition to Hitler’s power or programs was neatly eliminated in much the same way as the Bolsheviks disposed of their dissenters.

Italy’s Benito Mussolini was a little more civilized and simply shipped his problems into exile on small islands off the coast of Italy. Thousands of Italians died during their internment and while some were executed, the majority of the fatalities were from hunger and neglect. Once again, the left loves to equate Mussolini with the right wing because of his leadership within the National Fascist Party. Why Fascism is even mentioned in the same breath as Conservatism is beyond me and an examination of Fascism and Mussolini draws far more parallels with Socialism.

Mussolini spent his early life studying the radical philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, socio-economist Vilfredo Pareto and French Marxist Charles Péguy. While living in Switzerland, Mussolini met some of the Russian political exiles living there, including the Marxists Angelica Balabanoff, and Vladimir Lenin. Although Mussolini joined the Marxist Socialist movement at that time, it was the merging of all these radical schools of thought that aided Mussolini in the creation of Fascism. While he publically opposed Socialism and Communism, so close were Mussolini’s ties to Socialist labor groups that it was the economic disaster brought on by massive strikes and demonstrations in Italy that forced King Victor Emmanuel III to appoint Mussolini as his Prime Minister, replacing Luigi Facta. That appointment would later be considered a political coup d’état as Mussolini and his Black Shirts accumulated more power, eventually replacing the Parliamentary Republic with National Fascism.

I find it particularly disturbing that so many Progressives have an obsessive admiration of China’s Mao Zedong. Zedong’s revolution killed over seventy-million Chinese in his sweep to seize total power making him one of histories most ruthless and deadly dictators. Of course the Progressives saw this as a necessary evil and the ends would justify the means as Zedong brought social justice to the masses of China. Social justice is one of those “catch-all” phrases used by the far left to rationalize nearly anything. It doesn’t matter that the lives of the Chinese people are no better now than they were then as long as there are none of those horrible rich people around to show the poor how poor they really are. In a Socialist economy there can be no expansion so there is no hope of elevating the poor out of poverty. The best you can hope to accomplish is to make everyone universally poor. Instead of the injustice of having some feast while others starve; now there is fair and balanced hunger for all. Of course now that the new ruling party had dominated the nation, the angry mobs that brought them into power on the promise of shared wealth are silenced with brutal retribution for any show of dissent.

Jed Brandt of the Brecht Forum is an angry Socialist that would prefer that the United States collapse so they can usher in their own “workers utopia”. I imagine that he believes the historical devastation wrought by forming Socialist governments against their own people couldn’t possibly happen here. Really? Listen to his speech and even that is filled with the same hate and venom as every one of his predecessors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDnF8xHhRgo

Then there is SEIU President Andy Stern; a little more refined but still as dangerous. Sort of like the difference between Hitler and Mussolini. Andy is not ashamed to quote directly from the Communist Manifesto during interviews were he says that “Workers of the world, unite” is no longer a phrase but how SEIU must do their work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzG0xpkjWrA

Stern has gone as far as saying that they will try to use the power of persuasion to achieve their agenda but if that fails they are willing to use “the persuasion of power”. That was evidenced last year during the town hall meetings and Tea Party events where SEIU and MoveOn.org members violently retaliated against people opposed to Obama’s healthcare plan. Of course neither group accepted the responsibility for that saying that these were isolated incidents and individual acts that were not encouraged by their respective organizations. Historically, there was no “official” encouragement in the violence perpetrated against Jews in pre-war Germany or in pre-revolutionary Russia, but looking the other way is not exactly a rebuke either. It would be years before the truth about those attacks was learned and the fact that they were the product of secret policies of both governments would eventually be revealed.

Curiously, as Jed Brandt and the Brecht Forum spew their hateful venom at the United States, they still have active support in the strangest places. New York State, a State that is more than fifty-billion dollars in debt, sees fit to provide support funding for the Brecht Forum through the New York State Arts Council. While NY did not supply a lot of money for this radical rat’s nest, it still flies in the face of reason. I support Mr. Brandt’s First Amendment right to speak even if I completely disagree with the message. However, the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to be heard and there is no mandate to provide any material assistance to insure opposing messages have a publically funded forum. The Brecht Forum has some interesting followers too. There are links to organizations and media outlets contained on the Brecht Forum’s web page and some of those links are all too predictable such as Van Jones’s “Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Andy Stern’s SEIU and even the AFL-CIO.

http://brechtforum.org/taxonomy/term/50?page=1

http://brechtforum.org/taxonomy/term/50?page=2

http://brechtforum.org/taxonomy/term/50?page=3

Don’t forget that Progressives love Socialist radicals. They can always be counted on to provide our sneaky left wing politicians with a crisis or two that will help propel the Progressive agenda forward. Remember that their ultimate destination is the same and the only difference between the two is whether or not you want to hop a flight or take a leisurely drive to get their.

Paul

Is Heathcare Reform a Bolshevik Plot?

I was watching video of the speech the President gave on the economy that sparked his argument with Las Vegas. He began by saying “When times are tough, you tighten your belt. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.” I’m not sure why Las Vegas was so upset with that. I’m sure even the Mayor of Las Vegas would agree you spend vacation money in Las Vegas and not your kid’s college savings; but my interest really isn’t on his fight with Vegas. My interest is in the idea behind that paragraph and how it was directed at the American people.

The United States now has a National Debt of over twelve trillion dollars and the White House’s own budget estimate shows a doubling of that debt over the next decade. When times are tough, you tighten your belt, you don’t jump into an ideological frenzy to pass sweeping reforms that will change the banking, healthcare and energy industries; especially when those changes will add trillions more in debt to the current estimates. Oh sure the CBO says the healthcare plan is budget neutral and the President claims it actually brings deficit reduction, but the CBO estimates are based on ten years of spending cuts and tax increases while only counting six years of expenditures. Great idea! I’m sure I could show some incredible savings if I could collect ten years worth of income and only pay six years worth of bills but I doubt I could sell that idea to the utilities, the supermarket or my mortgage company.

The primary reason why America is not buying the President’s healthcare plan is because we know it doesn’t make sense. We see past the shady accounting and know it’s not going to reduce the deficit. We know you cannot provide health insurance for thirty million more Americans, most of which would need subsidies, and still lower healthcare costs. We especially know that you can’t mandate new and expensive benefits that health insurers will have to provide, cap their rate increases and expect them to remain in business for very long. No, it doesn’t make sense unless that is the goal. It is no secret that Progressives have long wanted America to shift to a single payer, Universal healthcare system. Now it has even become an imperative for more moderate politicians as Medicare and Medicaid are about to bankrupt the Federal government. It is especially appetizing for States that have tried to enact public health insurance on their own like Massachusetts, Tennessee and Oregon.

No, healthcare reform isn’t about making health insurance more affordable for average Americans; it is about making healthcare more affordable for the Federal government and for the States that have tried to make it a local entitlement. While we are not currently discussing a Universal, single payer healthcare system or for that matter, a public option; this plan is crafted to bring us to that point in time. As health care insurers are driven out of business, the Federal government will “have to” step in and offer a public option to shore up the exchange. Of course, since the public option is the only one that will be federally funded, it will be the only one that survives the mandates and price controls leaving us with a single payer system by default. With all Americans forced to buy into the government plan every penny that America spends on healthcare will be funneled into the Federal entitlement machine for distribution. With all that money I’ll bet they can keep the new system afloat for twenty years before they have to start rationing care or denying services.

I am sick to death of hearing the President and his Progressive friends talk about how health care is now a right. Food is a far more basic need but somehow, we are not all being forced to buy into a government food plan. The same can be said for clothes, housing and utilities but somehow we have avoided all but meager assistance programs for the very poorest. If you live in a rural community without mass transit, couldn’t a car be considered a basic need and therefore, a right? I am dead set against the Federal government, or any government providing “rights” for me. The Constitution was not meant to provide my rights; it was meant to protect my rights from government interference. The founders understood that any rights created by law could be as easily taken away by the same legal process.

The President stood before the cameras at his January meeting with Congressional Republicans, criticizing them for portraying his health-care plan as “some Bolshevik plot” and telling the public that he is “doing all sorts of crazy stuff that is going to destroy America.” Obama also refutes the charges that he is a Socialist but the one thing I’ve learned about the man is that he is not so much a liar as he tells selective snippets of the truth. For instance; just before the election he declared that we were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States.” While some would think that this was simply campaign rhetoric, I knew that he not only meant what he was saying but since he never mentioned his views of “fundamental transformation”, people would not be getting what they thought they were voting for. Never having mentioned what the transformation would consist of, he neatly avoided a debate on the substance of change.

I believe Obama when he stands tall and says he’s not a Socialist and that his healthcare plan is not a Bolshevik plot. Obama is a Progressive but if you have read anything about Progressive goals, they are identical to that of Socialists. The major difference between Socialists and Progressives is that Socialists force change through revolution while Progressives use subterfuge and strategy to bring about an incremental, evolutionary change in the political structure. If the strategy is properly applied, the changes cannot be reversed without causing severe hardship to those who benefit from the programs; creating what is in essence, a sacred cow that no politician would dare challenge. Does that sound like Social Security or Medicare? You bet it does. The transformation of those programs into the leviathan they now are was gradual and intentional. Now that so many rely on them there can be no conversation on whether or not they should exist. The only conversation we are allowed to have is on how to sustain them.

Healthcare a Bolshevik plot? This was a clever method of defining and directing the argument by the President. He didn’t deny it was a plot; he intentionally said it wasn’t a Bolshevik plot knowing that Stalin had essentially declared that the Bolshevik Party no longer existed in 1952. It’s not even a Communist plot. It is a Progressive plot based on the strategies of Saul Alinsky. In Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” he cautioned that revolutionaries don’t stand out and scream about their plans…they wear suits and ties, speaking in a voice and in terms that would be accepted by the middle class. They don’t engage in a battle over agenda, they control the terms of the discussion so they can extract the answers they need to move forward. Most importantly, that the end goals are never disclosed, only the incremental steps that must be accepted by the public to achieve those goals. You have to admit; that sounds like a brief summary of the healthcare debate that has been raging for over a year.

Only the radical lefts like Van Jones, George Soros, Bill Ayers and Andy Stern have been shouting from the roof tops. They feel the time for extreme change is now; that the President should abandon Alinsky theory and force the agenda through while he has the votes and momentum to get it passed. They all know what the goal posts are and since the Democratic Party is already controlled by Progressives, they believe the President should forget about making short strides and just go for the touchdown before America has the chance to elect the road blocks to stop it.

Paul

Dollars, Debt and Dingbats - Should We Change Our Money?

On March 3, 2009, Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC) proposed legislation that if adopted, would replace the image of Ulysses S. Grant with Ronald Reagan on the fifty dollar bill. After all, both of these Presidents represented the strength and resolve of the United States and both presided over periods of great economic expansion after overcoming the devastating affects of particularly unprofitable wars. Admittedly, I have always admired Ronald Reagan as a President and as a man. I think he reflected the highest examples American ideals and brought the United States out of the despair and embarrassment of the Carter years. Reagan instilled a new sense of dignity for America and a feeling of pride in our accomplishments and what his economic policies did not do, this new pride in being American did.

While Conservatives immediately joined the chorus call to immortalize Reagan, the Progressive left burst out in a cry of frustration. Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) dismissed the idea and noted that the place of honor on American currency should be reserved for figures in American history that are well known for their contributions to the nation and unfortunately, many of Reagan’s policies are still considered far too controversial to consider this legislation seriously.

Well, that really doesn’t surprise me; especially in a day and age when White House advisors like Anita Dunn (former Obama communications director) and Ron Bloom (Obama’s current manufacturing Czar) don’t think it’s particularly controversial to quote the deadly Chinese dictator, Mao Zedong. In fact, I would suspect that Brad Sherman doesn’t have nearly as much of a problem with the policies of Zedong as he does with Reagan’s but then again, when was the last time California actually acted like part of the United States instead of a foreign irritant?

Truthfully, I oppose this legislation. Not because Ronald Reagan was controversial or undeserving, but because of the state of our economy. Considering the twelve trillion dollar National debt that President Obama says he will double in ten years, the face of United States currency isn’t the place of honor that it once was. In fact, I believe that if our former Presidents could communicate from beyond the grave, most would have already sued to have their names and images removed from the paper currency that may very well spell the end of America or at the very least, a free America.

Out of all the Presidents gracing the face of our money I found it funny that one is a perfect match while yet another is wholly inappropriate. The largest denomination ever printed for U.S. currency was the one-hundred thousand dollar bill. Issued in 1929, the $100,000 bill had borne the image of Woodrow Wilson who was not the first Progressive President but he is certainly the one that did the most damage to our nation. We can thank Wilson for the Progressive income tax that would become the foundation of power for future Progressives. That tax would allow Progressives to expand the scope and power of the Federal government beyond what is allowable in the Constitution; giving them limitless funds to create the political machines to do so. The $100,000 bill did not represent the vigor of Capitalism but rather, it was representative of the abstract views Progressives held on the economy as well as the amount of money they felt would be needed to fulfill their vision of government control. I can think of no better President to place on the $100,000 bill than Woodrow Wilson. Not as a place of honor but in recognition of how little that $100,000 is worth after a hundred years of Progressivism.

A bust of Franklin Delano Roosevelt appears on the face of the American dime, or ten cent coin. The ten cent denomination was first authorized by the coinage act of 1792 and would be minted in six previous styles before we would arrive at the familiar Roosevelt dime in 1946. At first I considered FDR appropriate for the face of the dime since the Tin Pan Alley song “Brother, can you spare a dime” written by Yip Harburg and Jay Gorney in 1931, was synonymous with the Great Depression; a Depression used by FDR as a lever to drive the nation further into the socialist morass of Progressive ideology.

For decades, Liberal college Professors have been teaching that FDR led us out of the Depression through a myriad of social programs and public works projects; making this the accepted theory of what ended the Great Depression. Now that their students have become teachers as well, this popular myth is currently being spread in elementary, intermediate and high schools across America to continue the indoctrination of our youth into the Progressive mindset. Unfortunately, the social programs FDR encouraged with the passage of Social Security are in the process of bankrupting America and his public works programs had as much effect on the Depression as Obama’s stimulus bill has been having on the current recession.

What actually ended the Depression was World War Two. America’s industries mobilized to provide war goods, the armies of the unemployed were now the armies of the American Republic and once the industrial centers of Europe and Asia were destroyed, it would be twenty years before you could buy anything from anywhere but America. Let us not forget the 406,000 brave Americans killed during the war and the more than 600,000 that were wounded. These men would not be returning to work and would never again, be counted among the unemployed. To praise FDR for ending the Depression ignores the bravery and sacrifice of those that shed their blood for democracy; negating their contribution to the end of one of America’s greatest financial crises. In short, Franklin Roosevelt’s contributions to America, to use another popular phrase from history, “weren’t worth a dime”.

In 1969, Richard Nixon signed an executive order that would cease the printing of high denomination bills leaving the one-hundred dollar bill as the most valuable United States paper currency still in print. The Federal Reserve began retiring the large bills and today, relatively few remain in circulation. Nixon ended the printing of high denomination bills to thwart organized crime’s efforts in counterfeiting and to complicate the use of cash in the illegal drug trade. Modern electronic money transfers and the abandonment of the gold standard eliminated the need for large denomination bills for banking and corporate transactions.

There are currently no plans to deviate from the seven denominations still in print making the face of these bills a rare place with which we can honor only the most notable people in American history. In that light, I understand Representative McHenry’s desire to replace Grant with Reagan as an example of an American legend that more people could remember and relate to. However, the value of American currency continues to decline in relation to the policies of the current administration. So where is the honor now that America’s currency is considered by the world market as a symbol of America’s folly? The things that Ronald Reagan held dearest cannot be found on the face of the injured currency of a demoralized nation. The hard work, perseverance and strength of convictions that he believed in have been diluted by the current course taken by an out of control government to seize power from a frightened people.

Washington, Lincoln, Franklin, etc.; we should probably removing the images of these revered men from all of our currency and replacing them with something a little more representative of reality. As long as the Federal Reserve is printing cash as if it were play money, perhaps the picture of that little old man and his top hat found on Monopoly money would be more appropriate. Better still, since the Obama administration plans on doubling our national debt over the next decade further crippling the dollar, maybe we should just use his picture on all of it. After all, Obama really loves the look of his own image and since his advisors already like to quote Mao, it wouldn’t hurt to have money that looks a little more Chinese.

Paul

What Is Reconciliation and Why Are We Using It?

I guess the President still hasn’t explained his healthcare plan adequately because there continues to be massive opposition where it counts most; the opinion of the American people. The healthcare summit was supposed to garner support for the Healthcare Reform Bill but curiously, the American people still reject it by a margin of 2 to 1 with most saying that the President should scrap the bill and start over in a truly non-partisan and transparent process. Most polls show that using reconciliation to pass the current bill would be disastrous for Democrats and should that occur, the 2010 mid-term election would be a referendum on the public’s disenchantment with the underhanded processes used by Democrats to force legislation through not just around the opposition of Republicans but moderate Democrats as well.

Main Street America may not have studied political science at Harvard but they do know when something smells bad. Senator John McCain raised a good point at the healthcare summit and rather than answer that point, the President chose to remind McCain that the campaign was over and the election results were in. The point McCain brought up was that if this bill is so good, then why did Congressional leadership have to buy the votes of so many Democrats? With the Democrats holding a majority in the house and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for all of 2009, any good bill would have passed easily without a single Republican vote. Truthfully, if it were a good bill, there are an awful lot of moderate Republicans that would have voted for it too. It didn’t pass because it is a lousy bill and everyone knows it.

Now that public rejection of the healthcare bill swept Republican Scott Brown into the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Progressive Democrats are once again planning to use reconciliation to pass the bill with a simple majority; thwarting the appropriate process that requires a sixty vote majority. On Tuesday, the President sent a perfunctory letter to Republican Congressional leaders stating that he planned to incorporate four Republican ideas into the healthcare bill to gain their support. Of course the President knew his offer would be rejected because the four ideas he said he would include would not change the offensive nature of the bill. Honestly, it was never his intention to gain Republican support; it was merely his intention to be able to say that he tried to at his next photo op.

Republicans remain opposed to the bill because it is an issue of fundamental values. How could a Republican support a bill that would in fact, endanger the Republic? Adding forty pages of low priority Republican ideas to a twenty-seven hundred page tax and spend debacle does not make it less of a debacle. Let’s face it, you can’t add forty pounds of sugar to a ton and a half of salt and call it candy. Truthfully, the talk of reconciliation is being blamed on Republican opposition to the legislation but is that really the issue? I’m sure with some arm twisting, threats of base closures and other funding tricks they could have convinced at least one Republican to vote for this mess. The truth is that if Scott Brown had not won the election they would probably have had to use reconciliation anyway. Even now, there are questions as to whether or not they will have the votes they need because of defections within their own party. Despite the rants of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, moderate Democrats still have to answer to their constituents and their constituents are telling them to vote no or else.

Harry Reid and Barrack Obama have both said that use of reconciliation to forward the Healthcare Bill was perfectly acceptable and that Republican had used this measure numerous times in the past. What Harry Reid didn’t tell you was that every time reconciliation was used by a Republican administration that there were vociferous cries of tyranny from the minority Party which happened to be the same Democrats that are now considering the measure appropriate and correct. What they also failed to mention was that reconciliation had only been used as intended by the act that formed it, The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which can be read in text form at - http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/02C17B.txt .

So what is reconciliation? During the 1972 election campaign, President Nixon asked Congress for authority to cut Federal spending at his own discretion to remain under the proposed $250 billion ceiling for fiscal year 1973. Congress refused to grant such an open-ended grant of authority. Congress and the White House ultimately clashed sharply over President Nixon's aggressive impoundment of (refusal to spend) funds appropriated by Congress. In 1972, as a result of the battle between the Congress and the President, Congress created a Joint Study Committee on Budget Control, composed of members from the House and Senate appropriations and tax committees as well as two members from each Chamber. Included in the committee’s recommendations was a means of improving “the opportunity for the Congress to examine the budget from an overall point of view, together with a congressional system of deciding priorities.'' The report went on to state that it was "important to recognize that the budget deficit be no larger (or the surplus no smaller) than the Congress considers appropriate for economic or other reasons.''

In response to both the frustration generated by the fractured congressional budget process and the perceived encroachment of the executive branch into the budgetary turf of Congress, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The major purposes of this Act were to reassert the congressional role in budgeting, to add some centralizing influence to the Federal budget process, and to constrain the use of impoundments.

One of the most important developments to emerge from the 1974 Act has been reconciliation, a process that allows Congress to change existing laws to conform with the tax and spending levels established in a proposed budget. This developed into an important procedure for implementing the policy decisions and assumptions as enunciated in a budget resolution; a policy that was not envisioned when the Budget Act was written. Under the original design of the 1974 Budget Act, reconciliation had a fairly narrow purpose. It was expected to be used in conjunction with a second resolution, was to apply to a single fiscal year and be directed primarily at spending and revenue legislation acted on between the adoption of the first and second budget resolutions.

Regardless of the rants of Harry Reid, reconciliation has never before used by either Party to pass legislation that hasn’t already been presented to the President. It was meant to move important legislation beyond the roadblock of a reluctant President and the subservient members of his Party in Congress. This is clearly a violation of ethical behavior on the part of Reid, Pelosi and Obama to mutate a clearly defined budgetary process to enact unpopular legislation.

Again, the use of this legislative “trick” to move the bill forward is not being used to bypass the Republican Party. It is being used to bypass moderate Democrats that realize what this bill means and are as reluctant to vote for it as the Republicans are. Unfortunately for those moderates, the openly tyrannical antics of the Democratic leadership and Progressive Democrats will damage their prospects for reelection as well. The damage this legislation will bring cannot remain hidden once it is past and that is when those that refused to believe the warnings will be aghast at what has been done. It is nothing less than the creation of a government agency that will have all the authority it needs to unilaterally control ever aspect of healthcare in this country.

Paul