Feds, state should stick to own jobs

While President Barack Obama is determined to federalize local school boards, the Georgia General Assembly wades into the affairs of the U.S. State Department to prohibit the state from doing business with firms that do business with Sudan. OK. Respective corners, please.

My desire to have the federal government more deeply involved in the affairs of the neighborhood school are on par with my desire to have my city and state dabbling in foreign policy.

I want the locals to fix potholes and manage the contract for garbage pickup.

I want the state to manage the budget and to fix traffic congestion.

I want the federal government to maintain a strong national defense and to avoid projecting weakness that invites aggression.

I want them to be both honest and transparent. President Obama, continuing the campaign that never ends, took to an Internet forum Thursday to answer questions that started with this beach ball: “Our educational system … is woefully inadequate. How do you plan to restore education as a right and core cultural value in America?”

“Well, it’s a great question,” he replied. He then proceeded in the vein of a thousand candidates for state and local offices offering yet another blueprint for fixing the neighborhood schools.

The greater question would be: “What in the world is the president of the United States doing, with the world’s economy collapsing around us, pretending to be a governor or local school board member?”

The federal role in k-12 education is virtually nil. It does have a track record in designing and funding layer upon layer of job training programs. They’re serial failures. “To be charitable, there’s not any good evidence that these programs work,” said Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank in Washington. “When social science researchers have done studies comparing controlled populations with people going through these programs, they have not found that those who go through the programs are getting jobs at a better rate or higher levels.” The federal government has no more expertise in fixing schools than states have in fighting wars. It’s sloshing around in the swamp searching for a dollar trail out. Admittedly, George W. Bush opened this door with No Child Left Behind, just as he did with the $700 billion intervention to arrest panic in the financial sector.

It can charitably be said that Bush’s unwise expansion had a redemptive feature. NCLB gave choice to poor children stuck in failed schools, though its implementation was too contained by those who opposed it to warrant the intrusion.

Over the years, the public school establishment has perfected the art of resistance to would-be reformers. It’s masterful in slow-walking, top-down change. “Reforms” of the Obama variety have been attempted repeatedly by smarter people closer to the problem than the president of the United States.

“Let’s pay our teachers more money,” Obama said Thursday. “Let’s give them more support. Let’s give them more training. Let’s make sure that schools of education that are training our teachers are up to date with the best methods to teach our kids. And let’s work with teachers so that we are providing them measures of whether they’re effective or not and let’s hold them accountable …”

A thousand politicians could have uttered those lines — and not one has found the way to translate rhetoric into lasting results. The problems are far more complex — starting with the fact that substantial numbers of children no longer have a married mother and father at home.

The feds have a tiny role in public education that started with the effort to compensate local systems for the impact of federal installations that required them to build more schools. It was expanded then to special populations, poor kids for example. But always it’s been limited, though it’s now up to 8.5 percent of the funding that goes to local schools.

The feds have no expertise. They can’t perform any better with local schools than they have with job training.

The Georgia General Assembly ventured into foreign policy on Sudan, as 27 other states have, because Congress “invited” them to under President Bush. It’s work for bureaucrats and the casual expansion of regulation for political statement.

Georgia should let the president tend to his business — and he should let governors, legislators and local school boards tend to theirs.

62 comments Add your comment

Chris Broe

March 29th, 2009
12:17 pm


Chris Broe

March 29th, 2009
12:58 pm

Anyone else notice how the Mexican Drug war is giving Cheney an excuse to bring Blackwater Mercenaries here: To protect us from the illegal alien cartel?

That’s how easy the Antichrist can appear. The Antichrist is whoever can find the excuse to go full Vatican.

We’re sitting ducks. Party.

Chris Broe

March 29th, 2009
2:09 pm

The problem with debate here is that the pundit’s comments are partisan. The arguments the Right presents to justify their partisanship usually derive from a premise that could only support the Left’s position.

Carl Sagan said “we are star stuff”. He meant that in the furnace of any star, the building blocks of life are being created by fusion. He kept saying “Billions and Billions of Stars”. (He sold out). Because he sold out, he stopped being effective. He was ultimately a clown act and a distraction. He never effectively communicated the point that we evolved in the Sun’s atmosphere, not the Earth’s atmosphere. The earth’s atmosphere is a consequence of the sun, and every planet in the sun’s atmosphere evolves depending on how it interacts with the sun’s atmosphere.

Earth orbits inside the atmosphere of the sun. We are plasma. what are we really doing when we get a sun tan? What is really happening with photosynthesis? We simply do not know how to teach our students. We’d be better off not teaching than teaching the current curriculum.

Fact, jack.

Chris Matthews' Tingling Leg

March 29th, 2009
2:46 pm

PoFo the lib posts on this blog how many times, and then some libs have the gall to talk about how often I post. Liberals. You so funny.

Anywho, the Gods have parted the waters. No, I’m not talking about Lake Lanier. When the liberals at Newsweak reference a Paul Krugman comment that is negative towards HIM CHOSEN ONE, then you know something is up:

Obama’s Nobel Headache

Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama’s toughest liberal critic. He’s deeply skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. Why the establishment worries he may be right.


“Deeply skeptical” about Obama and Nannypants’ policies under liberal Democrat Washington rule.


Chris Matthews' Tingling Leg

March 29th, 2009
3:18 pm

Is it okay to post again like this? Are we sure the libtards aren’t going to try and have me arrested or sumpin’? You know how those libtards are ALL for free speech and all that.

Anyway, more news to report while the pantywastes on the left whine. I did not parlay in that Algore inspired nonsense of shutting all power off for one hour. However, we can always take amusement popcorn entertainment to the show over libtards talking about it:

By Jeff Poor

March 26, 2009 – 11:36 ET

“You too can save the planet from the effects of carbon emissions by participating in the symbolic gesture of turning off one light switch at a time for Earth Hour on March 28.”

“That’s the message from actor Edward Norton, the official U.S. ambassador for Earth Hour 2009, who appeared on CNN’s “Larry King Live” on March 25. As Norton explained, this is a symbolic event for which everyone turns out their lights from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. local time on March 29. And this act will encourage world political leaders to cap or tax carbon emissions through the legislative process by demonstrating “global unity.”

“You’re right. The act of turning out the lights for an hour – is, it’s not an act of conservation,” Norton said. “It’s not, um, meant to say that, ‘By doing this, we’re going to solve the problem.’ I think it’s a symbolic act of global unity, of highlighting the number of people who do think this is one of the central issues of our time and motivating our leaders to take, um, purposeful and aggressive action on this issue.”

Sunday Bloody Sunday, huh?


Chris Matthews' Tingling Leg

March 29th, 2009
3:20 pm

Oh no, there’s more:

“Norton even compared the symbolic act to a famous civil rights march.”

“If you think about things in our national history, the march on Selma in the Civil Rights Movement, the march itself, unlike some of the boycotts they did was not a, was not an act in itself meant to change the problem. It was a symbolic act and I think this is for my generation, for many people around the world who care about this issue, I think we’re looking for those kind of symbolic acts that show how many people are, are concerned about this.”

Disgusting liberalism.

Chris Matthews' Tingling Leg

March 29th, 2009
3:27 pm

Disgusting for liberalism to compare a REAL movement to the junk science of Algore, which has morphed from “global warming” to “climate change” as the world turns and does what it does: heat and cool.

Chris Matthews' Tingling Leg

March 29th, 2009
3:49 pm

“Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama’s toughest liberal critic”

So, when are you mindless libtard zombies going to start waking up?

I know, I’m a racist. Paul is not.

Chris Matthews' Tingling Leg

March 29th, 2009
7:11 pm

Gee, why so quiet here? Was it something I said? Speaking of mindless idiots on the left, one has to wonder who ULTIMATELY paid for this study that determined that lobsters feel pain. If I wanted Bill Clinton’s advice on a glorified mud bug, I’d ask for it. (For you slow wit Obama voters, Google “Clinton+I+feel+your+pain”). PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals. PETA can FO.


Chris Matthews' Tingling Leg

March 29th, 2009
7:40 pm

Our Messiah kinda coerced the GM boss to step down, that evil CEO, him.

“DETROIT – General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner will step down immediately at the request of the White House, administration officials said Sunday. The news comes as President Obama prepares to unveil additional restructuring efforts designed to save the domestic auto industry.”

Here’s a thought: why not address issues such as unions forcing GM to pay for an employee who’s not even on the assembly line? Maybe then I’d be able to drive a Avis fleet rental worth a damn (the only market keeping GM and Ford alive) unlike that typical pos Buick Lucerne I had last week.

Yeah, I enjoy my BMW, thanks.


March 29th, 2009
11:20 pm

Holy Crud!!!!
And I thought all the loony toons were on Bookman’s blog


April 8th, 2009
11:08 am

Same circus, different clown. What the events of the last eight years have proven is that when business regulations are removed, that business is subject to the same corruption and evils that conservatives have attributed to government.

Any real Christian knows that “All men are sinners” not just those who are on the labor side of the business equation, and that market forces are not above being manipulated and controlled by men who would be described as “sinful’ by any religious person in any age of history.

The idea that the “market will correct itself” as if “the market” is somehow detached from the behavior of the men who rule over it, is perhaps the most sinful concept created by conservatives with a conservative economic slant.

You cannot separate out humanity from the market, and the one thing that is known about humanity, is that there are always a good number of humans who will try to play the system in their own interests, often even if the results to every other player in the system ends up completely catastrophic.

Always giving capital the edge not only feeds into this behavior, it is something the founding fathers beleived would destroy the Republic they founded. Look closely at the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Adams and other, even look at the writings of political figures up through Abraham Lincoln and you see an abhorance for two things.Extremes of wealth and poverty, and entrenched wealth. Up until a century ago, the position of most of our great leaders were that these two things were contraindicative and even destructive when it came to the existance of Democratic Republics. The founders came to the conclusion that extremes of wealth and poverty created tyrannies and entrenched wealth created aristocracies. All viewed the corporation as the thing that would create a new monied aristocracy to replace the landed aristocracy they had overthrown.

As Jefferson put it:

“I hope [that] we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already
to challenge our government to a trial by strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

and as Lincoln summed it up:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

– U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

We can see that what Jefferson and Lincoln feared was not an unreasonable fear.

And both beleived that the cure was progressive taxation of personal wealth extracted from businesses, and a lot of regulations.

There was twice as much taxation and regulation AFTER the American Revolution than before it. The rallying cry was not “No Taxation At All”
but “No Taxation Without Representation”

The founders neither minded government OR taxation. They simply minded having them applied without electing the officials who applied them in fair or any elections.