Monday Milestones

So much for the Pub establishment reports that Romney leads in Florida.  In the wake of the South Carolina primary, the latest Florida polls have Gingrich leading Romney by 8 points.

An InsiderAdvantage poll released late Sunday shows the former House speaker leading his main rival former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the Sunshine state with 34 percent support from likely GOP voters to Romney’s 26 percent.---Hot Air

Gingrich leads Romney in all areas except for those who are democrats or non-conservatives.

***

Today is the 999th day without a budget being passed.  All such attempts, since the Spring of 2009, have been halted by Harry Reid in the Senate.  The democrats call the 'Pub controlled house, "The Do-nothing Congress."  Truth be told, it is the "Do-Nothing democrats" that have been the obstructionists in Congress.

1,000 Days Without a Budget: Facts on the Senate’s Failure

Mike Brownfield

January 20, 2012 at 5:27 pm

Tuesday, January 24, will mark the 1,000th day since the U.S. Senate has passed a budget—an egregious dereliction of duty on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D–NV) watch. By enacting continuing resolution upon continuing resolution (short-term measures to keep the government running, spending money at the current rate), the Senate has taken a pass on leading, all to the detriment of the poor and middle class.

The budget process forces Congress to set priorities to protect the people’s money and put it to its appropriate use. Instead, the Democrat-controlled Senate has abdicated its responsibility. The result? The deficit is soaring, causing a looming tax burden and injecting uncertainty into the economy, leaving jobs and economic growth on the table. It’s no wonder the U.S. economy’s growth is so tepid.

As the 1,000th day nears, here are some facts about America’s budget and why the Senate must take action to be stewards of the people’s money as the Constitution requires:

• The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
• Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.
• As of January 20, the outstanding public debt stands at $15,240,174,635,409.
• Interest payments on the debt are now more than $200 billion per year.
• President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.)
• The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.
• In FY2011, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare that to the last time the budget was balanced in 2001, when Washington spent $1.8 trillion ($2.1 trillion when you adjust for inflation).
• Entitlement spending will more than double by 2050. That includes spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidy program, and Social Security. Total spending on federal health care programs will triple.
• By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
• Taxes paid per household have risen dramatically, hitting $18,400 in 2010 (compared with $11,295 in 1965). If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels.
• Federal spending per household is skyrocketing. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.

Despite all of these blatant red flags, the Senate has utterly failed to execute the most basic, fundamental function of governance at the worst possible time—when the country’s fiscal house is in disarray, the U.S. credit rating is in continual jeopardy, entitlement spending is ballooning, defense spending is on the chopping block, and the economy is in shambles.

***

There are many points to the Libertarian philosophical platform that I like.  I like small government. I like more power to the states. I want more control over the Fed and I would like an audit of the practices and policies of the Fed as well.

However, I do not agree, I vehemently disagree, with Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy.  Isolationism lead us to be attacked at Pearl Harbor. Isolationism weakened our Navy and allowed the German wolf-packs to roam our shores and sink ships within sight of the Jersey shore. Before WW2, there were less than 20,000 Marines in the USMC.  Isolationism weakened our military to the extent that when we entered WW1, we didn't have enough rifles to arm new recruits. We didn't have enough machine guns to support our troops and we had to buy arms from France and Britain. Isolationism gives the perception, true or not, of weakness and weakness, real or not, draws predators.

I surf the web and I see people spout Ron Paul's isolationism and when the faults and flaws of that philosophy are presented the Paul supporters attack their opponents instead of presenting countering facts.  Ron Paul, in a new isolationist ad says the US now starts wars. We didn't start this war. Evidently Ron Paul has forgotten the attack on the World Trade Towers, on the Pentagon, and the crater in a Pennsylvania field. He voted against the War on Terror.  That act alone reflects his isolationist view. "If we ignore them, they'll leave us alone."  He was wrong then and he's wrong now.

Ron Paul preaches that the Founders were Isolationist too.  Again, he's wrong.

The Myth of Isolationism, Part 1: American Leadership and the Cause of Liberty

By Marion Smith
December 6, 2010

...

To begin, it is helpful to define what is meant by “isolationist.” The term isolationism applies to a policy of abstaining from economic and political relations with other countries. By this definition, the best examples of isolationist foreign policies are offered by 17th century China, 18th century Japan, 19th century Korea, or 20th century North Korea. Considering America’s vibrant commercial engagement and interconnectedness to economic markets abroad, America’s diplomatic interaction with foreign powers, and America’s cultural affinity with Europe, it is clear that the United States of the 18th and 19th centuries cannot accurately be called “isolationist” if the word is to have any meaning at all. To be sure, there have always been isolationist and protectionist voices in American history, just as there have been advocates for imperialism; yet, those few moments, particularly in the twentieth century, when the United States exhibited isolationist tendencies stand out as aberrations in America’s engagement with the world. They are not reflective of a consistent foreign policy tradition that harkens back to the Founding.

Most people, however, mean something quite different from “isolationism” when they assert that the United States was or should remain uninvolved politically and militarily in foreign affairs. Their position can be characterized more accurately as “non-interventionist,” which is understood as a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in foreign relations or in other countries’ internal affairs. A number of people believe that the Founders prescribed a foreign policy that prohibits military action except for defense and restricts American diplomatic or political engagement with foreign countries as a matter of principle.

The argument for non-interventionism is often backed up with quotes from the Founders and supposed examples of non-interventionist policies from America’s early history. Two such examples that are often cited are Washington’s 1793 Proclamation of Neutrality in the war between France and Great Britain and the 1823 Monroe Doctrine. Properly understood, however, these early foreign policies were not dictated by isolationist or non-interventionist impulses, but rather were prudential policies guided by the Founders’ affection for republican self-government and their desire to preserve the country’s sovereign independence.

Throughout the 19th century, moreover, the United States provided invaluable support to other peoples around the world who were attempting experiments in self-government similar to its own. The U.S. supported the peoples of Latin America, Greece, and Hungary as they fought for independence. Far from contradicting American political principles, such actions were in fact wholly consistent with them. The United States was not founded to be a solitary fortress or to remain isolated from world affairs. When Washington noted America’s “detached and distant position,”[6] he was acknowledging a geographical reality, not defining a foreign policy principle.

There is much, much more at the website. Go there are read the entire essay for the real truth about our Founder's foreign policy. It wasn't isolationists. We weren't strong enough to defend ourselves.  The War of 1812 is proof of that weakness.

***

The Kansas City MO School District has been stripped of their accreditation by the state. There is a proposal to reform the school district that includes stripping tenure from the teachers---especially those who fail their students. 

School reform proposals are in limbo in Missouri General Assembly

Some lawmakers fear that controversial measures could stall efforts to help the Kansas City district.

By JASON HANCOCK
The Star’s Jefferson City correspondent

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/21/3384245/missouri-school-reforms-are-in.html#storylink=cpy

JEFFERSON CITY -- Missouri lawmakers are facing increasing pressure to deal with a potential flood of student transfers stemming from the loss of accreditation in urban school districts like Kansas City’s.

But looming over this year’s legislative session is a pledge by House Speaker Steve Tilley, a Perryville Republican, that any plan to deal with school transfers to suburban districts, or adjustments to the state’s school funding formula, be coupled with ideas that have doomed previous reform efforts.

Those include controversial measures such as expanding charter schools, eliminating teacher tenure (emphasis mine: Crucis), basing teacher pay on student achievement and offering tax credit vouchers to parents who want to send children to private schools.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/21/3384245/missouri-school-reforms-are-in.html#storylink=cpy

As expected, the teacher's union is outraged.

A question was raised in response to this union outrage.  Why should teachers have tenure in the first place?  No other profession has such a provision.  

I worked twenty years as an engineer for one of the country's largest telecommunications companies. I didn't have tenure. Farmers work all their lives tilling the fields and tending herds. They have no tenure.  The clerk at your neighborhood convenience store, arguably one of the most dangerous jobs in the metro, has no tenure.  Why should teachers?

They would say it protects their academic freedom.  From what?  You mean the marxist tenets being taught at UMKC and the latest farce being taught there in the Economics department?  That's at the university level, not the local Kansas City district. (I would argue that tenure should be stripped from all education levels in the state and make those institutions answerable to those who pay their salaries---the taxpayers.)

It's time to strip tenure, the protection of the ideologue and the incompetent, from the district.  Then, maybe then, the children of Kansas City will receive the education they need.