Pages

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Our Nation’s Debt: The Warnings Are Too Loud To Ignore

Press Releases

May 04 2011


Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the necessity to reduce the nation’s ruinous federal debt:
“Though lawmakers returned to Washington this week amidst news of a signal achievement in the war on terror, we also return to many critical debates about the situation here at home.
“Gas prices are straining budgets and threatening to stall the economic rebound we’ve all been waiting for. Millions of men and women across the country still can’t find a job.
“And the two major parties have now presented competing visions of our economic future.
“Republicans have shown that we are committed to creating an environment in which the private-sector can flourish and create the jobs Americans need. As part of that effort, we outlined a comprehensive jobs agenda yesterday.
“And today we’ll oppose prematurely ending debate on the Small Business bill. The other side has refused to allow votes on some of the best ideas Republicans have offered for creating jobs as a part of this legislation, including an important amendment by the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, Senator Snowe. And we intend to oppose their efforts to short circuit this debate until they do.
“Republicans are also committed to stopping the administration’s inexcusable war on American energy at a time of near-record gas prices. And we’re committed to repealing the Democrat health care bill that is already raising costs and destroying jobs.
“But hovering above all of this is a growing fear about our nation’s debt.
“The administration knows this. That’s the reason for tomorrow’s debt meeting at the White House.
“So this morning I’d like to start there — because anyone who’s felt even the slightest twinge of pain from the recession has a vested interest in this debate.
“Here’s why: if we don’t act to reduce our debt, this country could very well experience a crisis that makes the economic meltdown of 2008 look like a slow day on Wall Street.
“That’s not my conclusion.
“That’s the conclusion of the Democrat co-chair of President Obama’s own debt commission, a man who has spent the last year looking at this issue from every conceivable angle and who’s now telling anybody who’ll listen that America faces, in his words, `the most predictable economic crisis in history.’
“Few of us saw the last crisis materialize. This one we can see. And a growing number of people now recognize that the upcoming vote on the debt limit provides us with the single best opportunity we have to avoid this crisis before it strikes.
“This is the moment to get serious about preventing this approaching crisis, and to show the world that we can come together and not for the sake of party, but for all Americans. 
“The world is waiting for America to get its fiscal house in order. The fact that members of both major parties are now showing a willingness to do it is an encouraging sign.
“But if we’re actually going to do this, more Democrats in Washington have to acknowledge the problem — and the urgency of addressing it now, in a serious way.
“Now, I realize that for some people that’s a difficult thing to do.  We are all grateful to the President’s decisiveness over the weekend in going after Osama bin Laden. He’s to be congratulated for it. Yet over the past two years, we’ve had many crises. And all too often, it seemed the hardest decision for the President wasn’t whether to solve these crises, but whether or not to give a speech about them.
“Last year, we waited for weeks to hear the President’s position on one of the biggest ecological disasters in history. And throughout this past winter and spring, we waited to hear what he thought about a debt that had spiraled so out of control that America’s economic outlook has been downgraded to `negative’ for the first time ever.
“We can’t wait for the President on this one.
“The consequences of sweeping our problems under the rug again are just too great.
“So let me clear: As even some Democrats have conceded, a failure to do anything meaningful about the debt would be far more harmful to our economic future than a failure to raise the debt limit.
“The warnings are simply too loud to ignore.
“In early 2008 most of us had no idea we were headed for a financial crisis. Only a few prophetic voices were saying anything about the dangers in the housing market.
“Over the past few years, we’ve seen the painful consequences of that crisis: unemployment lines; lost savings; millions of homes foreclosed.
“And despite this largely unforeseen economic catastrophe, the American people have dug in. They’ve worked harder. They’ve tried to drag the country back to fiscal health.
“It hasn’t been easy, but they’ve struggled every day to get us back on our feet.
“What I’m saying this morning is that the danger posed by the debt is not uncertain.
“It’s coming right at us.
 “It is, as the co-chair of the President’s Debt Commission put it, the most predictable crisis in history. And anyone who is more concerned about raising the debt ceiling than in using this debate as an opportunity to prevent this most predictable crisis will answer for it. The American people will make sure of it.
 "Some may continue to deny that we need to do something about the debt — that the only thing we need to do is raise the debt limit and leave it at that. They want people to think this is all just some political exercise, and that we all just vote according to the President’s political affiliation anyway.
“Those days are over.
“Anyone who continues to pretend otherwise isn’t just deluding themselves.
“They’re deluding the American people.
“There isn’t a single one of us who hasn’t vowed to do everything in our power to prevent the next crisis from happening. Now we know for certain that it’s on the way — unless we act to prevent it. Raising the debt limit alone won’t prevent this crisis. It avoids it.
“And that’s why the only way we can claim we’ve actually done something meaningful in this debate is to insist on meaningful reforms as the price of our vote.
“Yes, we’ve had clean debt limit votes before.
“That was before S&P gave us a negative outlook for the first time ever and told us we risked a downgrade unless we get our fiscal house in order. That was before the world’s largest private holder of U.S. treasuries dumped its share of U.S. debt.
“That was before a commission that has spent a year studying this issue told us we’re headed for ruin, unless we act to prevent it. That was before this administration added trillions to the debt and submitted a budget plan this year that called for another $13 trillion in debt over the next 10 years alone. The crisis is here. The time to act is now.
“Mr. President, we hear a lot from Administration officials about what a catastrophe it would be if we didn’t raise the debt limit. And there may very well be some merit to that argument. But what good would it do to just raise the limit and wait for disaster to strike? We might as well tell people to move to the second floor in case of a fire on the first.
“My constituents don’t have the jobs to lose, Mr. President. Kentucky doesn’t have the wealth to give away. We’ve seen the consequences of a recession we didn’t predict. There is no excuse not to do everything in our power to prevent one we know is coming.
“So let me suggest a way forward in this debate. 
“Number one: Pitting one group of Americans against another isn’t going to solve the problem. In fact, it’s part of the problem. We all know it’s going to take all of us working together to get out of this crisis. Let’s act like it.
“Number two: There aren’t enough taxes that Americans, rich or poor, can pay to sustain the kind of spending Democrats in Washington want. The President may say he wants to tax the rich. But sooner or later he’s going to have to tax everybody else to pay for his plans. What’s more, we all know that raising taxes would stall the rebound we all claim to want. So let’s just admit we don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
“Three: We all know entitlements need to be a part of this discussion. It’s about time everyone starts acknowledging it. I’ve seen the ads about lawmakers voting to end Medicare. Let’s be honest and admit that nobody’s talking about taking anybody’s Medicare. Frankly, it’s pathetic to claim otherwise. It only makes the problems harder to solve.
“Four: Let’s discuss the art of the possible. We all know tax increases won’t pass the House because of the damage they’d do to family budgets and businesses — and a bipartisan majority here in the Senate opposes raising taxes on families, energy production and small businesses across America. So let’s set that aside and find common ground.
“Everyone has a stake in this debate. If we face up to it like adults, we’ll not only prevent a crisis, we’ll preserve our common way of life. And we’ll show the world the United States can solve its problems head on.
“Millions of Americans are looking for work and struggling everyday to rebuild their lives. Families and small businesses are being squeezed by gas prices, and an administration that refuses do anything about it.
“We’ll have debates about this in the days ahead — and Republicans will continue to make the case for tapping our own energy resources. We’ll make the case against new taxes and regulations and a health care law that’s stifling jobs and creating new burdens.
“But all these efforts rise and fall on whether we do something about our debt.
“It’s time to show we can tackle the big stuff. The stakes are too high to let this debate come and go without acting. Denying the problem won’t solve it. Avoiding the problem until the next election won’t solve it. Giving speeches about the problem won’t solve it. The time has come to act.” 

We Must Preserve White House Staffers’ Precious Facebook Posts

  May 4, 2011 12:32 PM



These days, approximately 87% of the government's job consists of updating various social networking profiles and emailing people. How can we make sure that the Facebook status updates of all Obama administration employees are preserved, forever?
This is the question posed by Rep. Darrell Issa, Chief Republican super-eager corruption investigator and head of the House Oversight committee. He's become very concerned that Obama administration members' personal Facebook, Twitter and email accounts aren't being properly archived for the future historians who will use them to reveal the Obama administration's corruption. Now, Issa is leading a campaign to make sure that any official business conducted via these channels is archived, as required by the Presidential Records Act.
"I'm not after the president. I'm after the changes in technology and whether or not we're equipped to deal with them," Issa said. Thank God he's on top of the issue. Who knows what shady deals the Obama administration members are organizing with the Chinese politburo through Twitter direct messages and invite-only Facebook Events.

'Parent trigger' limbo

EDITORIAL


The pilot program enabling parents to petition for changes at low-performing schools was a worthy idea but poorly designed. It's worth getting right.




Right now California's so-called parent trigger law, which allows parents at low-performing schools to force a change in their school's institutional structure via petition, is stuck in a sort of limbo. The one petition that has been delivered, at McKinley Elementary School in Compton, is delayed by legal wrangling. Meanwhile, the state Board of Education is going back and forth on how to implement the law and a legislator has introduced a bill that could render the trigger toothless.

Blame the legislation that created the trigger. A rush job, it was tossed together in the hopes of winning a federal grant rather than being carefully crafted to improve California education. The innovative idea deserves better; it's up to the state Board of Education and new legislation to address the troubling weaknesses that seem likely to foster educational turmoil and pit parents against teachers and one another.

Under the existing law, if a majority of parents at a low-performing school sign a petition, they can force the school district to make one of several changes at the school, including replacing much of the faculty or bringing in an outside charter operator. The parents also get to choose which option goes forward, including which charter organization should take over.

Parents should be able to demand serious reform at bad schools, but they are not experts on educational solutions. Most of the options are relatively new, and there's little definitive evidence about which of them work best, if any. It can be especially confusing for parents to analyze the record of a specific charter organization, or to weigh it against others. Studies show that significant numbers of charters talk a good game but don't deliver.

It makes more sense for the parent petition to have the power to force major transformation, but for the local school board to make the actual decision on which option should prevail, taking into account the parents' preferences. Or at least, that would make sense if we could count on school boards to put students first rather than to defend the status quo. The Compton Unified School District, which has absurdly claimed it cannot verify any of the signatures on the McKinley petition, shows just how far some school officials are willing to go to avoid change.

But that's easily overcome with an appeals process. If the school district ignores the parents' preference, they should be able to appeal to another agency that doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome, such as the county Department of Education. A similar system already exists for traditional charter applicants that are turned down by hostile school boards. An appeals process offers the additional advantage of avoiding lawsuits. We hope that the state board considers these options as it draws up a complicated slate of parent trigger regulations. Also needed are rules that require a transparent petition-signing process so that parents know about all of their options; the McKinley petition was carried out in secret.

Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) has introduced legislation to "clean up" what she sees as flaws in the parent trigger law, but at least one of her solutions is far more troubling than the trigger itself. AB 203, which will be considered Wednesday by the Assembly Education Committee, would require school boards, when considering a petition, to give weight to the objections of parents who oppose the petition, even when a majority of parents have signed it. On the surface, this is a reasonable concession, but it could easily be used as a back door for school boards to reject valid petitions. There will seldom if ever be unanimous agreement among parents; allowing the complaints of a few to rule the day could mean that no schools would ever change.

Not all of the fixes to the parent trigger law can be made through regulation. Under the original legislation, schools can become targets of a petition if their Academic Performance Index score is lower than 800 and if they have been considered "program improvement" schools for at least three years, for having failed to raise test scores enough under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The bill mixes state goals — the API — and federal ones, and as a result covers many schools that are making good improvements but not enough to meet the definitions under the parent trigger law.

For now, parent trigger is only a pilot program; it is limited to 75 schools. Its supporters call for leaving it as it is and seeing how it works out over the years. But 75 is not a trivial number of schools; they need a process that's as well thought out as possible. And parent trigger is an idea with real merit that deserves to go beyond a pilot program; parents do need some clout in dismal public schools, where they are too often ignored. A parent trigger law that is fairer and more transparent will also be more effective — and have a better chance of becoming a permanent part of school reform.




GordonSantamonica at 4:56 PM May 03, 2011

 Parent “TRIGGER” limbo
Interesting ... yesterday you had an Editorial regarding donations to the district and the influence the contributors…Broad, Wasserman, and the Gates Foundation … have over programs expanding or contracting or created.
Today you write about the difficulties the common Stake holder electorate has to make change to schools that we know have programs that are not working for one reason or another.
This is absolutely outrageous that the Stake holders have such difficulties to bring about change.
There could be many reasons for the shortcomings at the school ... some may include but are not limited to ...
   1.  What is going on in the school environment that is restricting the learning of the student ..
   2.  What is going on outside of the classroom and outside of the school that is     restricting the learning of the student ....
   3.  What are the subjects and tasks that a student must learn in the classroom .....
   4.  What are the tasks that a student is learning outside the classroom ....
   5.  What is the students attendance record ....
   6.  How is the student acting in the overall school environment and the classroom environment .... 
   7.  Has any neutral person or trained person talked to the student to find out if there are any personal issues that are influencing the learning of the student .....
GordonSantamonica at 4:55 PM May 03, 2011
Other negative influences that effect positive educational results ....
1.      Divorce involving 50% or more of our student population.
2.      Homelessness.
3.      Poverty.
4.      Peer pressures involving sex, drugs, alcohol.
5.      Job uncertainty.
6.      Mandated programs.
7.      Immigration.
8.      Drive by shootings along with other gang related influences.
9.      The student’s home attitude about the school.
10.  The requirements to fulfill the ever changing needs of the community.
11.  The security of the student outside of the school’s environment..

Why can’t there be funding established to circumvent these problems and enable successful educational results?

TimBowman at 12:35 PM May 03, 2011
The entire "parent trigger" was but smoke and mirrors.  The teacher unions, school district administrators, the state and federal Departments of Education, and their allies in the Assembly and Congress are never going to allow parents to take control away from them. 

Avatarplaceholder
kp3511 at 12:16 PM May 3, 2011
The parent trigger sounds like a great idea: Give parents more say in their children's education, force changes in low performing schools, ect. However, it is not a good idea to have the majority of parents making decisions about school policy. Some parents may be uneducated themselves or have littlt to no experience educating anyone. It is bad enough that Eli Broad and Bill Gates get to throw their billions of dollars around on educational "fixes" that don't work, let's not give another say to another unqualified group of people.

  •  
Avatarplaceholder
g7caligirl at 7:34 AM May 3, 2011
The Board of Education is in the unions pocket.  The Governor is in the unions pocket.  The Legislature is in the unions pocket.  Parents are stuck at the end of the line and the state's education, once the model of excellence, is drowning in garbage - run by incompetent union backed administrators.
If you want an excellent education for your children - private school is the only answer.  Don't like it, then quite electing the idiots that have made this mess.

  •  
RukaDemaris at 7:36 AM May 3, 2011
If you want an excellent education for your children - parental involvement is the only answer. Don't like how your kids are doing? Spend the time to make sure they are doing their homework, model good behavior, and teach your children work ethic.
Children that do so well in private school tend to do so because they are:
1) in a higher income bracket (poverty is a strong indication of performance)
2) have parents who care about their education.

  •  
Avatarplaceholder
educator at 6:35 AM May 3, 2011
Education research has clearly pointed to the major cause of school failure, and that is dire poverty. Those pushing privatization are thrilled that the public has bought into the false accusations that teachers and their unions are at fault.   In ALL other industrialized countries, you will find that only the best go into teaching and that is because they are respected, well supported and compensated fairly thanks to strong union backing.   Oh, none of them rely on bubble tests to measure student learning and teacher effectiveness.   And there is no such thing as merit pay.   
Charter schools have historically filtered out students with behavior problems, special ed and English Language Learners.   Then, with those students who are left, the schools concentrate on skill and drill or just cheat to bring up test scores.   So far, high test scores have not proven to prevent students from needing remedial help when they get to college.  Also, the elimination of science, history, PE and the arts is turning out a generation of robots, not a generation of young people ready,willing and able to enter and participate fully in our democratic way of life.  Just read today's article in the Times on the Beverly Hills funding crisis.  Ask yourself this..in such a high performing school system, why do they put so much value on subjects not considered academic? 

  •  
kp3511 at 12:11 PM May 3, 2011
Excellent points. When are you running for school board?

  •  
Avatarplaceholder
kshoe10 at 8:08 PM May 2, 2011
I wonder if Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica)would give weight to the employees who object to unionize during a union vote....hmmmm, I doubt it. Guess the liberals believe majority rules should only apply when it benefits them. 
Avatarplaceholder
Len Randel at 8:04 PM May 2, 2011
Teachers union 1, Parents  0.
Fire them all, then hire them back without unions. We cannot afford their incompetence any longer.

 

Speaker Boehner on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act




Washington, May 4 - 
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) spoke on the House floor today in support of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, Pledge to America legislation that codifies the Hyde Amendment and similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion across all federal programs.   Following are the video and full text of Boehner’s remarks:


 

“I rise to express my support for H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.  This common-sense, bipartisan legislation codifies the Hyde Amendment and similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion across all federal programs.  
“Last year, we listened to the American people through our America Speaking Out project, and they spoke out on this issue – loudly and clearly.  We included it in our Pledge to America, and today we are taking another step toward keeping that commitment and keeping our word. 

“A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the American people and ought to be the law of the land.  But the law, particularly as it is currently enforced, does not reflect the will of the people.  This has created additional uncertainty given that Americans are concerned not just about how much we’re spending, but how we’re spending it.  


“Enacting this legislation would provide the American people with the assurance that their hard-earned tax dollars will not be used to fund abortions.  I commend the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.  And I urge my colleagues to support the measure.”

H.R. 3, Wide-Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill, Facing House Vote (UPDATED)


Boehner
First Posted: 05/ 4/11 11:43 AM ET Updated: 05/ 4/11 05:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A closer look at a House billmarketed to the public as a "common-sense" ban on taxpayer-funded abortions reveals an aggressive, multi-pronged effort to restrict insurance coverage for and reduce access to abortion.
H.R. 3, also known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act," would go beyond making the Hyde Amendment, which has already banned federally-funded abortions for the past 30 years, a permanent federal law. The legislation, sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), would also enact strict procedural requirements for private insurance companies that cover abortions and deny tax credits to small businesses that purchase health insurance plans offering abortion coverage. Eight-seven percent of private insurance plans currently include such coverage.
Further, H.R. 3 would eliminate privately funded insurance coverage for abortion in the state-based exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act. The policy team at NARAL Pro-Choice America estimates that 13.5 million women who receive health coverage through Medicaid and other government-sponsored programs would permanently lose access to abortion coverage if the measure, facing a floor vote Wednesday, passes.
Some of the more extreme ramifications of the bill, which have attracted a great deal of negative media attention since its introduction in January, include a provision that could subject victims of rape and incest to abortion audits by the IRS. Mother Jones reported in March that H.R. 3 could turn IRS agents into "abortion cops" tasked with determining whether a woman used any kind of tax benefit to pay for a procedure not precipitated by rape or incest.
Marcus Owens, a former longtime IRS official, told Mother Jones that if a woman received a tax credit for medical costs related to abortion, "on audit [she] would have to demonstrate or prove, ideally by contemporaneous written documentation, that it was incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger. It would be fairly intrusive for the woman."
H.R. 3 has achieved further notoriety through its attempt to narrow the definition of "rape" as it relates to abortion. Lawmakers pulled language from the original measure that allowed federal funding for abortions only in the case of "forcible rape" after drawing widespread public criticism, but Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that House Republicans are using a backdoor legislative maneuver to ensure the bill achieves the same effect.
The bill's sponsors, co-sponsors and supporters have remained mum on H.R. 3's more controversial aspects. When asked about the abortion audits and "forcible rape" exception, Boehner spokesperson Michael Steel said only, “The American people overwhelmingly oppose using their tax dollars to pay for abortions," and referred any questions about details to Chris Smith's office.
But Smith's office did not return any calls for comment about the bill in general or the audit issue, nor did co-sponsors Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), or Heath Shuler (D-N.C.). The socially conservative Family Research Council, which has launched radio ads in six Congressional districts pushing the legislation, also ignored multiple calls for comment, as did the National Right To Life committee.
"It's an easy line to throw out right? 'No taxpayer funding for abortion.' But clearly that isn't what this is about," said Vania Leveille, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's about preventing women from accessing abortion, a constitutionally protected right and a legal medical procedure."
Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the radio silence surrounding the bill is a smart political tactic, considering it already has enough support in the House to easily pass.
"I wouldn't talk about this bill either if I had written it," Crane said. "I think that they have the votes to pass this bill, and they know it, but it's not popular and it has a lot of liabilities, and they know that, too."
"That statement about 'no taxpayer funding' is a complete nonsequitur," she added. "Public funding sadly is not available for women today for abortion care, period. No piece of legislation could make it more banned than it already is."
The bill has 227 co-sponsors and is expected to pass easily in the House on Wednesday, but President Barack Obama would not likely sign it into law if it passed in the Senate.
“The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3 because it: intrudes on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care; increases the tax burden on many Americans; unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that consumers have today; and restricts the District of Columbia’s use of local funds, which undermines home rule,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.
"If the president is presented with H.R. 3, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.”
UPDATE (5:30 p.m. EST): H.R. 3 passed the House 251-175.
“Members of Congress who supported this egregious assault on women will hear from outraged Americans through phone calls, protests, petitions, and most importantly, at the ballot box in 2012,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “As this legislation moves to the Senate, we also will mobilize our members to urge their senators to stop this bill in its tracks.”
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers: