This page was last updated on February 21, 2011.
Quick hits; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 20, 2011.
Regarding “THE BIG LIE,” together with today’s “Beyond the classroom,” all we have are more Times editorials opposing K-12 education alternatives to the traditional one-size-fits-all, brick-and-mortar public school system. According to my records, the most recent previous editorial on this topic was less than a month ago in “Quick hits” of January 23, 2011. You can tell the Times is desperate when it asserts school choice really isn’t school choice because “private, parochial and charter schools don’t have to admit every child who applies.” No kidding, Sherlock. Using that “logic,” does this mean the Times believes there isn’t school choice in post-secondary education because post-secondary education institutions (college, trade schools, etc.) – both private and public - don’t have to admit everyone who applies? If so, it would be interesting to learn the Times proposal to remedy this grave injustice. <g>
Whether intentional or not, with this position the Times appears to support a least common denominator approach to K-12 education. That is, if every family can’t get its kids into the schools they want, then no one should have the opportunity. Though this position is completely consistent with an effect of leftist ideology (Drag the top down; don’t raise the bottom.), it appears to run counter to at least a couple of other lefty positions.
First, the left always rails about “the rich” having opportunities not available to the rest of us. Currently, school choice is an option only for affluent families unless a less financially affluent family can make major sacrifices in other areas. After all, how many families can afford to pay tuition twice, once via school taxes and once to the chosen private school? Vouchers would make school choice possible for everyone yet lefties oppose them. Why?
Second, in “Beyond the classroom” we’re told, “Schools are a direct reflection of the children, parents, communities and society they serve. They have to do their jobs, too, no matter what educational setting they are in.” OK, but aren’t the parents and children who “do their jobs” the very families deserving help to get their kids into schools best suited to achieve the family’s education goals? If these parents want a better education for their kids, why should the family be forced to move or pay tuition twice?
Regarding “NUMBERS GAME,” the Times omitted some relevant info. The editorial tried to equate Democrat and Republican efforts to cut spending by comparing President Obama’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 to Republican efforts to cut spending for the remaining portion of the current fiscal year (October 2010 through September 2011). The Times has no credibility when it comes to government spending.
For political reasons Mr. Obama and Democrat congressional leaders chose not to pass a budget for the current fiscal year (FY 2011). The Democrats knew they were already in trouble for the 2010 election and another budget with increased spending and a $1+ trillion deficit would simply destroy any chances they thought they had. They couldn’t even pass a budget with some cuts for show out of fear this would discourage the Democrat base and reduce Democrat voter turnout, again hurting their election results. Instead, Mr. Obama and Democrat congressional leaders opted for continuing resolutions to keep spending at current levels, hoping voters wouldn’t notice.
The $100 billion Republicans wanted to cut is for the remainder of FY 2011 of which there are only seven months left. That said, on 2/19/11 the House passed a bill with only $61 billion in cuts for the remainder of FY 2011. That’s not an encouraging sign.
The editorial failed to note House Republicans say they will present their FY 2012 budget proposal in early March and that it will include cuts in entitlement spending. That’s what should be compared to Mr. Obama’s proposed budget.
The editorial speaks of “shared sacrifice.” Regular readers will recognize “shared sacrifice” is Times lingo for increased taxes.
On a related topic, Democrat congressional leaders claim Republicans are talking about shutting down the federal government. To date, the only people talking about shutting down the government have been Democrats claiming Republicans have been talking shutdown. You may recall Democrats used this tactic before. Leading up to the 2004 election, Democrats in Congress and the media tried to convince us a vote for then-President George W. Bush was a vote for a military draft despite the administration’s opposition to a draft. The truth was only Democrats – including the Times – were talking about a draft. As a political stunt, Democrats sponsored two draft bills in Congress in 2003 then spread the rumor Mr. Bush intended to reinstate the draft if re-elected. When House Republicans called the Democrats’ bluff and brought the House version of the draft bill up for a vote, even the bill’s author and sponsor, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), voted against it.
I’ve noticed the press is letting Democrats off the hook for their government shutdown rhetoric. All Democrats had to do was pass a FY 2011 budget and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Finally, I still can’t get over how often the Times uses a comedy show as a reference. This is at least the 13th time since October 2004 editorials afforded credibility to “The Daily Show,” or its spin-off “The Colbert Report.”
Regarding “SAYING SOMETHING,” seriously? Who cares? In the interest of full disclosure, I haven’t watched one episode of either show.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.