Spartanburg doesn't want unfunded bus mandate

To contact us Click HERE
Editors of the Herald-Journal last week detailed their skepticism of Governor Nikki Haley's scheme to privatize the state's school bus system, declaring that they don't want another unfunded mandate sent down from Columbia.

I doubt that Haley will suddenly reverse course upon reading the editors' commentary; after all, they endorsed Vincent Sheheen against Haley in 2010, cautioning their readers against Haley's "platitudes."

Still, the editors in this instance -- as in that instance -- make perfect sense.

If state lawmakers decide to divest themselves of the state’s school bus system, they must do so in a manner that doesn’t place an unfunded mandate on school districts.

South Carolina is unlike other states in that the state owns and operates the school bus fleet. Gov. Nikki Haley and some lawmakers have been pushing to change that. They want to create a system that allows school districts to operate the buses on their own or hire private companies to operate their buses.

The state House was too divided on the issue to pass the proposal. Instead, lawmakers voted to form a study committee to look into the issue.

There is much room for improvement here.

The General Assembly rarely approves money to buy new school buses, so the average age of a bus in the fleet is about 14 years. The state often maximizes the money it does have by buying used buses from school operations in other states.

It is likely that there are efficiencies and improvements that privatization could bring to the school transportation system. Allowing districts control over their transportation systems might also allow them to better provide for their students’ needs.

But there is danger in changing the system as well. Many school district officials are afraid of an unfunded mandate — something state government requires them to do but fails to pay for. That is a legitimate fear.

School officials know it is likely that lawmakers will turn over the bus system to them and initially turn over the money that ran that system. But will that state allotment keep up with inflation?

As the buses age and need to be replaced, where will the money come from to buy new buses? That money isn’t in the annual budget. The General Assembly makes a special appropriation every so often. Will it give up this money when the buses are no longer a state concern?

As fuel prices continue to rise, will lawmakers increase the budget given to school districts to run the bus system? Or once lawmakers have washed their hands of the bus system, will they leave school districts to solve that problem on their own?

If bus service becomes a local issue, wealthier school districts will put more money into their systems than poorer districts. How long will it be before lawmakers are denouncing disparity in district bus systems and calling again for change?

Transportation is a critical element of our education system. South Carolina’s children need safe and reliable buses to take them to school and back home. They don’t need another political football tossed between Columbia and school districts.

As the study committee examines this issue, it should focus on enabling improvements, empowering school districts and avoiding saddling districts with a new financial burden they are ill-equipped to bear.

Lt. Dean Hallmark -- Member of Doolittle's Raiders

To contact us Click HERE

Meder Crew No. 6 (Plane #40-2298, target Tokyo): 95th Bombardment Squadron, Lt. Dean E. Hallmark, pilot; Lt. Robert J., copilot; Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, navigator; Sgt. William J. Dieter, bombardier; Sgt. Donald E. Fitzmaurice, flight engineer/gunner. (U.S. Air Force photo)

by Tech. Sgt. Mike Hammond  Air Education and Training Command Public Affairs  4/18/2007 - RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, Texas (AETCNS) --  "I don't need a light to tell me what I already know!" said 1st Lt. Dean Edward Hallmark, ripping the flashing red light bulbs from the display in the cockpit of his B-25. It was April 18, 1942, and Lieutenant Hallmark and his crew were running out of gas over the coast of China following the famous Doolittle Raid. When the fuel lights illuminated, it wasn't news to the pilot or his crew.  About 63 years later, while watching the film, "30 Seconds Over Tokyo," a different kind of light came on for a relative of Lieutenant Hallmark... a cousin he never knew, but who unknowingly followed in his footsteps in serving the country. "All of a sudden, someone said 'There goes Hallmark!' And I began to wonder if he could have been related to me," said Army Capt. Adam Hallmark, a squadron signal officer based at Fort Hood, Texas. "I'm sort of into genealogy, so I started doing some research. I eventually found out we were distant cousins -- which turned out to be a complete surprise for everyone in my family!"  Captain Hallmark said his research led him to pencil in the details of what followed his cousin's last mission. "He was captured shortly after his plane went down (April 18, 1942), and eventually taken from China to Japan for what they (enemy forces) called a 'war crimes trial,'" Capt. Hallmark said. "Then he was taken back to China, where on Oct. 15, 1942, he was executed."  Capt. Hallmark attended last year's Doolittle Raider reunion, where he met some of the surviving crew members who knew his cousin. Lt. Col. (Ret.) Chase Nielsen, who passed away this year on March 23, was at that reunion. A fellow POW from Lt. Hallmark's plane, Colonel Nielsen told Captain Hallmark his cousin was "real cool," and a team player. "Colonel Nielsen remembered that Lieutenant Hallmark let the guys on the plane decide whether to try crash landing in China or to ditch in the ocean," Captain Hallmark said. "They elected to ditch in the ocean, and he did -- but not before ripping the 'low on fuel lights' out of the display panel and tossing them on the floor!"  Hearing the details of his distant cousin's military service has instilled pride in Captain Hallmark. "Reading about his sacrifice has really motivated me," the captain said. "He took the job, not even knowing what it was, and he did it well. Then, after what he endured as a POW, and eventually giving his life... I'm not going to let the family down."  Captain Hallmark said he has served a year in Iraq already and is scheduled to go back for a longer period of time in September. As this year's reunion ceremony took place in a hangar full of reporters and Airmen, many noticed the Army captain in full service dress uniform standing silently near the surviving Raiders. "I'm here to honor Lieutenant Hallmark and those who served with him," the captain explained.  "Since no one in my family even knew about him, I've taken it upon myself to make sure we remember him. The Raiders always remembered him, and now my family will."

WAR DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY AIR FORCES
WASHINGTON July 9, 1942.GENERAL DOOLITTLE's REPORT ON JAPANESE RAIDApril 18, 1942This report has been reproduced by the Intelligence Service, Army Air Forces, under the direction of the Commanding General, Army Air Forces and distributed as shown.Further dissemination in the Air Forces, except among the higher staff officers, is prohibited. Certain parts of this considered suitable for wider dissemination are being extracted at this Headquarters and will receive wide distribution shortly in the form in Intelligence Summaries. The start and finish of the raid are believed still unknown to the Japanese, and it is this information which it is desired to safeguard.

Airplane No. AC 40-2298 -- Took off at 8:40 a.m. ship time
Pilot	Lt.	Dean E. Hallmark	0-421081
Co-pilot	Lt.	Robert J. Meder	0-421280
Navigator-Gunner	Lt.	Chase J. Neilson	0-419938
Bombardier	Sgt.	Wm. J. Dieter	6565763
Engineer-Gunner	Cpl.	Donald E. Fitzmaurice	17360
This airplane landed in the Nangchang Area near Poyang Lake. From the best reports available (which are not to be relied upon) two crew members, presumably Sgt. Dieter and Cpl. Fitzmaurice are missing and three crew members, presumably Lts. Hallmark, Meder and Neilson were captured by the Japanese. It was reported that one of these was bayoneted resisting capture but was not killed.

Here is a website on the Poyang Lake area of China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poyang_Lake  and I’ll add a Google map that should show the map between Toyko and the landing/crash site.http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&sugexp=pfwc&tok=v_fszAP-TXV67DC04EoXSw&pq=nangchang+area,+china&cp=12&gs_id=h&xhr=t&q=poyang+lake+china&rlz=1G1ACAWCENUS306&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1273&bih=601&bs=1&wrapid=tljp133426898663604&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

We Didn't Send You to Congress to be a Blue Dog, Annie

To contact us Click HERE


On Friday, Howie Klein had this at Down With Tyranny:

Last week 5 or 6 progressive freshmen called me to warned me that lifelong Republican Patrick Murphy (D-FL) was working all the freshmen for some idiotic statement of "bipartisanship" he had concotted. I mentioned it Thursdayand it was made public this morning, much to the delight, no doubt, of Beltway Media Broderists.

Almost no Democrats signed his pathetic, badly crafted letter-- but lots of Republicans did. So disappointing to see Ann Kuster (D-NH) lending her good name to this foolhardy initiative. Most of the rest of the Democrats who signed are typical untrustworthy hacks-- or worse. The only Blue Dog freshman, Pete Gallego (TX) couldn't wait to jump on board. And the only "Democrat" who has a ZERO ProgressivePunch score on crucial votes this session, corporate shill Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), was right on top of it. (Kirkpatrick, unlike over 100 Republicans voted with Boehner on every single crucial roll call this year, a breathtaking record of achievement.)

 Digby also picked up the story, and included highlights of the  Blue Dog letter, and this:

I can't tell you how it hurts me to see Ann Kuster join that group of right wing weirdos. In fact, it's a pretty big betrayal of the progressive movement that supported who through very tough races. But I'm going to guess that the Villagers will be thrilled to frequently feature all these people as the only grown-ups in the room and laud them for "standing up" to the so-called extremists. Of course, the only "extremists" they are standing up to are progressives who don't believe that we should "reform" Social Security and Medicare by cutting benefits or enact tax reform in order to lower rates. Or any of the rest of the drivel in that letter. 

Digby nails it. This is a huge betrayal of all of the supporters who worked so hard AND gave so much money to Kuster's campaign. No one expected they'd be sending a progressive to Washington only to have her jump into bed with Blue Dogs.

Sadly for us all, it gets worse. Today Annie had a piece in the Sunday Nashua Telegraph, warning us of the dangers of the sequester.

A recent study from George Mason University projected that almost half of all job losses stemming from sequestration would come from small businesses, the engine of growth and job creation in our economy. That same study put the potential job losses here in New Hampshire at more than 6,300. 

and

Cuts to defense spending also would compromise the strength of our military and threaten jobs at the Pease Air National Guard Base, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and defense suppliers throughout New Hampshire. 

Let’s be perfectly clear: We need to cut spending and get our fiscal house in order. But any approach to deficit reduction that fails to distinguish between wasteful spending we can’t afford to keep and critical investments we can’t afford to cut would undermine our economy and security. 

Fortunately, there’s a better way forward. Rather than blindly slicing across the board, both parties can work together on a balanced, long-term plan that would not only avoid the sequester, but also responsibly reduce the deficit, spur job creation and protect investments in the middle class.

George Mason University is heavily funded by the Koch Brothers. The university houses the Mercatus Center, which is where the bulk of those Koch dollars go. Mercatus is a libertarian economic think tank. Mercatus has ties to NH in the form of Affiliated Scholar Jason Sorens. Jason Sorens is the founder of the Free State Project, the group of libertarians moving to NH to take over and dismantle our state government. Any economic study coming out of GMU is making Atlas stop shrugging and do a happy dance.

We cannot cut our way to prosperity. The foundation of the US economy is consumer spending. The only way to turn it around is to get the millions of people who are still unemployed and those who are underemployed back to work. Then we should talk about controlling deficits.

That  Ann Kuster has chosen to ally herself with those whose idea of "balanced, long term plans" includes cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is deeply disturbing.

The middle class is an endangered species. I don't see anything in Kuster's commentary that will do a single thing to turn that around, or get anyone back to work. It's just more of the same. Cutting the safety net will do nothing to create jobs - it's just a recipe for creating a lot more human misery down here on the ground.

Kuster would do well to remember why Paul Hodes lost his last election. When voters are faced with a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who sounds like one, they always pick the real thing.

We didn't send you to Congress to be a Blue Dog, Annie.

New Hampshire's Energy Needs

To contact us Click HERE



The current attempt at turning NH into a so-called Right to Work state has officially been defeated. If you are thinking to yourself, “haven’t we been hearing about this for years?” the answer is yes. Arnie Alpert of the NH American Friends Service Committee told me that their organizational records show that someone from NH AFSC has testified against RTW every time it’s come up since 1979. Some folks can’t take no for an answer it seems, even when no has been the answer for over 30 years. It's a remarkable waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
The Merrimack Patch had a story about the annual death of RTW. In their story, our own Rep. Gene Chandler was quoted as saying: (in part)

“In fact, the 2010 U.S. Census reported that almost 16% of New Hampshire’s young adults have left the state over the past 10 years. We have an obligation to our children and grandchildren graduating college to make New Hampshire a competitive place to work again.”

No business has ever refused to locate in NH because 10% of the workforce is unionized. No business has ever left NH because 10% of the workforce is unionized. NH’s young adults are leaving the state because they can’t afford to go to college here. NH ranks 50^th in the nation on state spending on the university system – and the last legislature’s budget (a budget Gene relentlessly shilled for in newspapers around the state) cut the 50^th in the nation funding level in half. NH will never be a competitive place to work until we do something about our crumbling infrastructure, inadequate telecommunications, and outrageous health insurance costs. New Hampshire’s revenue adverse tax structure ensures none of these things will be dealt with. Pretending that it has something to do with unions is pure, unadulterated baloney – and it’s baloney that police, firefighters, and teachers should be paying attention to at election time. The message is clear:  he has no respect for you or the work you do. These days Rep. Chandler seems intent on morphing into a slightly more likable version of O’Brien in a desperate attempt to get the speakership back. 
This week brought the public hearing on HB 580, a bill calling for a moratorium on wind turbine plants and electric transmission line projects. This bill had 7 representatives and 1 senator sponsoring. There were 2 reps from Grafton, one from Coos, and two from Carroll County. One of the Carroll County sponsors is Rep. Chandler. 
At the risk of exploding heads, (including his) in this instance, I agree with Rep. Chandler. NH’s energy policy was last updated in 2002. Last week I attended a hearing on HB 465, a bill that is aimed at repealing part of NH’s “Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy” law, a law that was passed in 1955, when we thought we’d have atomic powered toasters. It’s a bill that reeks of cheerleading for what is now the nuclear industry, a law that the nuclear industry cited as a reason to extend the license at Seabrook Station, despite the fact that the concrete is falling apart, and the plant is leaking tritium. It’s clear that the time has come to do a big, serious, rewrite of NH’s energy policy. 
This proposed moratorium is partly a result of the ongoing fight about the Northern Pass Project. I was not surprised to hear a man representing the Nashua and Manchester Chambers of Commerce speaking against the bill. Northern Pass won’t be going through either city. Those of us who live in the North Country are all too familiar with the reality that the southern part of the state regards us as a dumping ground for projects that they don’t want in their back yards. It’s an interesting philosophy, given that tourism is NH’s second largest industry. Whenever anyone is asked what their favorite spot in NH is, it’s always the seacoast, the lakes region, or the mountains. I never seem to hear tourists say, “Boy, I can’t wait to see Nashua!” 
There was a great deal of good testimony in support of the bill. Rep. Rebecca Brown from Sugar Hill said that NH should take time to update the energy policy and not be rushed, a sentiment that was echoed by others who spoke. NH does have a tendency to act in haste and repent at leisure. We fly by the seat of our pants and pay the pound of cure over the ounce of prevention at every opportunity. We don’t plan the future; we let outside forces do it to us. At this hearing I learned that there are five hydro dams on the Connecticut River. NH doesn’t own any of them. TransCanada owns three of the five. There’s something wrong with that picture. 
Dave Dobbins of Gilford testified that he was concerned about the impact of large energy projects on our small state. He said there is a danger to our state and our quality of life if we allow energy corporations to make our decisions for us. The lack of a comprehensive energy plan leaves us at constant risk. 

Mr. Dobbins is right. In NH we’re always reacting. We’re never initiating. That’s why I find myself in the novel position of being on the same side of a piece of legislation as Representative Chandler. The moratorium should not be forever, but it should last long enough to come up with a comprehensive energy plan that will take our state into the future – a future we choose, not one that is foisted on us by out of state corporations who plunder and run.  


“Failing to plan is planning to fail.” Alan Lakein


© sbruce 2013
This was published as an op-ed in the February 22, 2013 edition of the Conway Daily Sun newspaper

Speaker Boehner, why did the House GOP vote 'aye' for the sequester?

To contact us Click HERE

@speakerboehner Mr. Speaker, why did 174 House GOP, including yourself, vote for the sequester, if it's so bad for the U.S.? #p2 #uniteblue

— A 99er (@HelpThe99ers) February 21, 2013

The bill required a simple majority of votes (218) to pass. Here's the breakdown of the roll call vote: 174 Republicans voted 'aye' and 66 voted 'no'. 95 House Democrats voted 'aye', and the same number voted 'no'.

Education deform, straight from the horse's mouth

To contact us Click HERE
The fact that the Wall Street newspaper Investors Business Daily has given FreedomWorks president and CEO Matt Kibbe space in its publication to discuss education "reform" is informative.

It reflects that, from the corporate community's perspective, the privatization of public education represents a treasure trove of profits potentially reaching hundreds of billions of dollars.

Somebody, after all, has to educate the children. Without the hassle of a public school system blocking the path, the education bidness -- that's bidness, as in, contracts will be awarded to the highest bidder -- will be free to plunder.

Set aside any illusions you may have that common sense and democracy will save us from this ugly fate. We get back from Columbia what we send to Columbia, and we've sown a crop of anti-public education leadership.

So, study closely, readers: Our corporate masters are instructing us in how things will soon be.

Hush, now. The less you struggle, the easier it will go for you.

Nowhere is the Tea Party's sustained influence clearer than in efforts to promote education reform around the nation.

For the first time in the history of our country, we are seeing a broad-based educational reform effort that is not driven by the unions. Instead, parents and activists are working together on a local level, empowered by the national Tea Party movement, to apply the mechanics of the free market to struggling school systems.

While success has been widespread, efforts made in South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania provide some of the clearest examples of the Tea Party in action.

On March 28, the South Carolina House passed H. 4894, allowing tax credits and deductions for donations for privately funded scholarships. A similar bill failed in the House by just one vote in the previous session.

This time around, FreedomWorks joined local activists and Tea Party leaders in their efforts, providing the grass-roots campaign with extra air and ground support needed to pass the bill. After six months, the bill passed by 15 votes — a landslide turnaround — and is now headed for the South Carolina Senate.

In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal introduced the boldest education reform package ever seen in our nation's history. The legislation overhauls the system using the same model that was successful in post-Katrina New Orleans by providing low-income parents with vouchers that enable them to send their children to the school of their choice.

Jindal's plan also includes tying teacher tenure to good performance, and a system of tax credits that allows businesses to privately sponsor students' education.

On April 4, the Louisiana state Senate voted to pass the voucher expansion bill, HB 976, and the teacher tenure reform bill, HB 974, by margins of 24-15 and 23-16 respectively, sending the legislation to the governor's desk to be signed into law and marking the biggest education reform victory to date.

In Mississippi, Republicans control both state houses for the first time in 136 years. Gov. Phil Bryant, a bold executive leader like Gov. Jindal, has made charter school expansion the centerpiece of his campaign. Charter school legislation SB 2401 recently passed in the Mississippi Senate and failed by a single vote in the state House Education Committee.

But as South Carolina showed, turning a single vote into a bold majority is possible, and well within reach.

In fact, Gov. Bryant has already called for a special session of the legislature in an effort to save the bill, demonstrating a bold example to governors in other states that when education reform gets tough, the true leaders double down while the timid get going.

Heading north, we see the impact that conservative activists have on the 25-year fight for school choice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where efforts to bring student-centered reform to schools have faltered for years.

The Tea Party movement has reinvigorated the cause, working with activists and non-Tea Partyers alike to make more progress over the past two years than was made over the past two decades.

Senate Bill 1 passed the Pennsylvania Senate just before a narrow defeat in the House. This initial bicameral friction hasn't deterred local activists from fighting to free schools from the stranglehold of corrupt union leadership.

Americans are realizing that the lack of competition created by powerful teacher unions like the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association is robbing children of the education they deserve and disenfranchising good teachers. The only solution is increasing competition in the school system. Continuing to line the pockets of union bosses with more and more taxpayer money is a failed and irresponsible approach.

For the most part, conservative parents and activists have won the battles in the state capitol chambers. But we couldn't have done it without the bold commitment to leadership from governors like Bobby Jindal and Phil Bryant.

I can only hope the successes of education reform in Louisiana and Mississippi will start a national trend toward electing and supporting entrepreneurial governors who make education reform a No. 1 priority, not simply cheering from the sidelines.

The Wall Street Journal called 2011 "The Year of School Choice." FreedomWorks, Tea Party activists and our allies in state governments across the nation are not only committed to continuing this trend of success in 2012, but to making the next 100 years the Century of School Choice.

There you have it.

The leader of the corporate-funded education deform movement in America has drawn the lines himself, educators. On one side stands he and the corporate masters who write his checks.

On the other side stand organized educators, which he called out by their names -- the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.

Between the two stand educators who today work in public schools, but whose jobs may be converted tomorrow, next year, or within a decade, to corporate ownership.

Which side have you chosen?

Spartanburg doesn't want unfunded bus mandate

To contact us Click HERE
Editors of the Herald-Journal last week detailed their skepticism of Governor Nikki Haley's scheme to privatize the state's school bus system, declaring that they don't want another unfunded mandate sent down from Columbia.

I doubt that Haley will suddenly reverse course upon reading the editors' commentary; after all, they endorsed Vincent Sheheen against Haley in 2010, cautioning their readers against Haley's "platitudes."

Still, the editors in this instance -- as in that instance -- make perfect sense.

If state lawmakers decide to divest themselves of the state’s school bus system, they must do so in a manner that doesn’t place an unfunded mandate on school districts.

South Carolina is unlike other states in that the state owns and operates the school bus fleet. Gov. Nikki Haley and some lawmakers have been pushing to change that. They want to create a system that allows school districts to operate the buses on their own or hire private companies to operate their buses.

The state House was too divided on the issue to pass the proposal. Instead, lawmakers voted to form a study committee to look into the issue.

There is much room for improvement here.

The General Assembly rarely approves money to buy new school buses, so the average age of a bus in the fleet is about 14 years. The state often maximizes the money it does have by buying used buses from school operations in other states.

It is likely that there are efficiencies and improvements that privatization could bring to the school transportation system. Allowing districts control over their transportation systems might also allow them to better provide for their students’ needs.

But there is danger in changing the system as well. Many school district officials are afraid of an unfunded mandate — something state government requires them to do but fails to pay for. That is a legitimate fear.

School officials know it is likely that lawmakers will turn over the bus system to them and initially turn over the money that ran that system. But will that state allotment keep up with inflation?

As the buses age and need to be replaced, where will the money come from to buy new buses? That money isn’t in the annual budget. The General Assembly makes a special appropriation every so often. Will it give up this money when the buses are no longer a state concern?

As fuel prices continue to rise, will lawmakers increase the budget given to school districts to run the bus system? Or once lawmakers have washed their hands of the bus system, will they leave school districts to solve that problem on their own?

If bus service becomes a local issue, wealthier school districts will put more money into their systems than poorer districts. How long will it be before lawmakers are denouncing disparity in district bus systems and calling again for change?

Transportation is a critical element of our education system. South Carolina’s children need safe and reliable buses to take them to school and back home. They don’t need another political football tossed between Columbia and school districts.

As the study committee examines this issue, it should focus on enabling improvements, empowering school districts and avoiding saddling districts with a new financial burden they are ill-equipped to bear.

We Didn't Send You to Congress to be a Blue Dog, Annie

To contact us Click HERE


On Friday, Howie Klein had this at Down With Tyranny:

Last week 5 or 6 progressive freshmen called me to warned me that lifelong Republican Patrick Murphy (D-FL) was working all the freshmen for some idiotic statement of "bipartisanship" he had concotted. I mentioned it Thursdayand it was made public this morning, much to the delight, no doubt, of Beltway Media Broderists.

Almost no Democrats signed his pathetic, badly crafted letter-- but lots of Republicans did. So disappointing to see Ann Kuster (D-NH) lending her good name to this foolhardy initiative. Most of the rest of the Democrats who signed are typical untrustworthy hacks-- or worse. The only Blue Dog freshman, Pete Gallego (TX) couldn't wait to jump on board. And the only "Democrat" who has a ZERO ProgressivePunch score on crucial votes this session, corporate shill Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), was right on top of it. (Kirkpatrick, unlike over 100 Republicans voted with Boehner on every single crucial roll call this year, a breathtaking record of achievement.)

 Digby also picked up the story, and included highlights of the  Blue Dog letter, and this:

I can't tell you how it hurts me to see Ann Kuster join that group of right wing weirdos. In fact, it's a pretty big betrayal of the progressive movement that supported who through very tough races. But I'm going to guess that the Villagers will be thrilled to frequently feature all these people as the only grown-ups in the room and laud them for "standing up" to the so-called extremists. Of course, the only "extremists" they are standing up to are progressives who don't believe that we should "reform" Social Security and Medicare by cutting benefits or enact tax reform in order to lower rates. Or any of the rest of the drivel in that letter. 

Digby nails it. This is a huge betrayal of all of the supporters who worked so hard AND gave so much money to Kuster's campaign. No one expected they'd be sending a progressive to Washington only to have her jump into bed with Blue Dogs.

Sadly for us all, it gets worse. Today Annie had a piece in the Sunday Nashua Telegraph, warning us of the dangers of the sequester.

A recent study from George Mason University projected that almost half of all job losses stemming from sequestration would come from small businesses, the engine of growth and job creation in our economy. That same study put the potential job losses here in New Hampshire at more than 6,300. 

and

Cuts to defense spending also would compromise the strength of our military and threaten jobs at the Pease Air National Guard Base, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and defense suppliers throughout New Hampshire. 

Let’s be perfectly clear: We need to cut spending and get our fiscal house in order. But any approach to deficit reduction that fails to distinguish between wasteful spending we can’t afford to keep and critical investments we can’t afford to cut would undermine our economy and security. 

Fortunately, there’s a better way forward. Rather than blindly slicing across the board, both parties can work together on a balanced, long-term plan that would not only avoid the sequester, but also responsibly reduce the deficit, spur job creation and protect investments in the middle class.

George Mason University is heavily funded by the Koch Brothers. The university houses the Mercatus Center, which is where the bulk of those Koch dollars go. Mercatus is a libertarian economic think tank. Mercatus has ties to NH in the form of Affiliated Scholar Jason Sorens. Jason Sorens is the founder of the Free State Project, the group of libertarians moving to NH to take over and dismantle our state government. Any economic study coming out of GMU is making Atlas stop shrugging and do a happy dance.

We cannot cut our way to prosperity. The foundation of the US economy is consumer spending. The only way to turn it around is to get the millions of people who are still unemployed and those who are underemployed back to work. Then we should talk about controlling deficits.

That  Ann Kuster has chosen to ally herself with those whose idea of "balanced, long term plans" includes cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is deeply disturbing.

The middle class is an endangered species. I don't see anything in Kuster's commentary that will do a single thing to turn that around, or get anyone back to work. It's just more of the same. Cutting the safety net will do nothing to create jobs - it's just a recipe for creating a lot more human misery down here on the ground.

Kuster would do well to remember why Paul Hodes lost his last election. When voters are faced with a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who sounds like one, they always pick the real thing.

We didn't send you to Congress to be a Blue Dog, Annie.

New Hampshire's Energy Needs

To contact us Click HERE



The current attempt at turning NH into a so-called Right to Work state has officially been defeated. If you are thinking to yourself, “haven’t we been hearing about this for years?” the answer is yes. Arnie Alpert of the NH American Friends Service Committee told me that their organizational records show that someone from NH AFSC has testified against RTW every time it’s come up since 1979. Some folks can’t take no for an answer it seems, even when no has been the answer for over 30 years. It's a remarkable waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
The Merrimack Patch had a story about the annual death of RTW. In their story, our own Rep. Gene Chandler was quoted as saying: (in part)

“In fact, the 2010 U.S. Census reported that almost 16% of New Hampshire’s young adults have left the state over the past 10 years. We have an obligation to our children and grandchildren graduating college to make New Hampshire a competitive place to work again.”

No business has ever refused to locate in NH because 10% of the workforce is unionized. No business has ever left NH because 10% of the workforce is unionized. NH’s young adults are leaving the state because they can’t afford to go to college here. NH ranks 50^th in the nation on state spending on the university system – and the last legislature’s budget (a budget Gene relentlessly shilled for in newspapers around the state) cut the 50^th in the nation funding level in half. NH will never be a competitive place to work until we do something about our crumbling infrastructure, inadequate telecommunications, and outrageous health insurance costs. New Hampshire’s revenue adverse tax structure ensures none of these things will be dealt with. Pretending that it has something to do with unions is pure, unadulterated baloney – and it’s baloney that police, firefighters, and teachers should be paying attention to at election time. The message is clear:  he has no respect for you or the work you do. These days Rep. Chandler seems intent on morphing into a slightly more likable version of O’Brien in a desperate attempt to get the speakership back. 
This week brought the public hearing on HB 580, a bill calling for a moratorium on wind turbine plants and electric transmission line projects. This bill had 7 representatives and 1 senator sponsoring. There were 2 reps from Grafton, one from Coos, and two from Carroll County. One of the Carroll County sponsors is Rep. Chandler. 
At the risk of exploding heads, (including his) in this instance, I agree with Rep. Chandler. NH’s energy policy was last updated in 2002. Last week I attended a hearing on HB 465, a bill that is aimed at repealing part of NH’s “Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy” law, a law that was passed in 1955, when we thought we’d have atomic powered toasters. It’s a bill that reeks of cheerleading for what is now the nuclear industry, a law that the nuclear industry cited as a reason to extend the license at Seabrook Station, despite the fact that the concrete is falling apart, and the plant is leaking tritium. It’s clear that the time has come to do a big, serious, rewrite of NH’s energy policy. 
This proposed moratorium is partly a result of the ongoing fight about the Northern Pass Project. I was not surprised to hear a man representing the Nashua and Manchester Chambers of Commerce speaking against the bill. Northern Pass won’t be going through either city. Those of us who live in the North Country are all too familiar with the reality that the southern part of the state regards us as a dumping ground for projects that they don’t want in their back yards. It’s an interesting philosophy, given that tourism is NH’s second largest industry. Whenever anyone is asked what their favorite spot in NH is, it’s always the seacoast, the lakes region, or the mountains. I never seem to hear tourists say, “Boy, I can’t wait to see Nashua!” 
There was a great deal of good testimony in support of the bill. Rep. Rebecca Brown from Sugar Hill said that NH should take time to update the energy policy and not be rushed, a sentiment that was echoed by others who spoke. NH does have a tendency to act in haste and repent at leisure. We fly by the seat of our pants and pay the pound of cure over the ounce of prevention at every opportunity. We don’t plan the future; we let outside forces do it to us. At this hearing I learned that there are five hydro dams on the Connecticut River. NH doesn’t own any of them. TransCanada owns three of the five. There’s something wrong with that picture. 
Dave Dobbins of Gilford testified that he was concerned about the impact of large energy projects on our small state. He said there is a danger to our state and our quality of life if we allow energy corporations to make our decisions for us. The lack of a comprehensive energy plan leaves us at constant risk. 

Mr. Dobbins is right. In NH we’re always reacting. We’re never initiating. That’s why I find myself in the novel position of being on the same side of a piece of legislation as Representative Chandler. The moratorium should not be forever, but it should last long enough to come up with a comprehensive energy plan that will take our state into the future – a future we choose, not one that is foisted on us by out of state corporations who plunder and run.  


“Failing to plan is planning to fail.” Alan Lakein


© sbruce 2013
This was published as an op-ed in the February 22, 2013 edition of the Conway Daily Sun newspaper

Gold! Guns! Spam! Molon Labe - The Business Model

To contact us Click HERE

February 23 has been designated as a National Day of Resistance to Protect the Second Amendment. Gun advocates and supporters around the nation are participating in rallies, including folks right here in NH.

This Facebook page gives the information about today's NH rallies. There was one in Nashua this morning, sponsored by the Liberty Alliance/Free State Project. The afternoon rally was in front of the State House in Concord, brought to you by Molon Labe, NH.  (For those unfamiliar with libertarianspeak, Molon Labe is an ancient Greek phrase, used by King Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae.)

The NH Facebook event page has a  link to this site: http://www.dayofresistance.com  where one can register for an event today. At the bottom of the page is this disclaimer:

Paid for by Stop This Insanity Inc., a 501 c4
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
www.TheTeaParty.net



Mother Jones Magazine had a story about this group yesterday:

On Saturday, gun rights advocates will be organizing at least 121 rallies across the country in a "day of resistance" to President Obama's gun violence prevention proposals. But some tea party activists are questioning the credentials of the group organizing the rallies, a Mesa, Arizona-based outfit called TheTeaParty.net that's been criticized as a data-harvesting operation designed to vacuum up contact information and credit card numbers from unsuspecting and largely clueless conservative activists. They've complained that the group raises tons of money under the tea party name but doesn't spend much to further the movement, and they're skeptical of its move into the gun debate.

and

TheTeaPary.net was founded by Todd Cefaratti, an Arizona man who is the CEO of a "lead generation" company for the reverse-mortgage industry and who has inserted himself into tea party politics in recent years. In 2011, TheTeaParty.net sponsored a truck at NASCAR'sCamping World Truck Series, and it made a big splash by sponsoring a tea party "unity rally"at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, last year. It's been a sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference in DC this year and last, raising its profile among conservative activists.

and more:

For years, tea party activists have complained that the group was ever so interested in collecting their personal information and their money, without spending much to support tea party political candidates. Activists griped that signing up with TheTeaParty.net would earn them nothing but spam from gold companies and other advertising. (In 2011, Roll Callreported that the group was indeed renting out its email list to gold companies and soliciting clients through NewsMax, the conservative news service, though a spokesperson says the group no longer works with NewsMax.)

It seems that TheTeaParty.net is a way to gather information and money from Tea Party/libertarian types, while making big bucks renting out their mailing list. They've made big bucks scamming the Tea Party crowd. Now that the Tea Party is on the wane, they're moving in to scam the gun nuts. Molon Labe isn't just a slogan, it's a business model.

Is Ware Shoals cutting educators' pay?

To contact us Click HERE
A note was published last week in the Greenwood Index-Journal about a proposal to cut educators' salaries to help balance the local district's budget, but I haven't heard whether the issue has been resolved, or how.

This was the original note, by reporter Erin Owens:

Ware Shoals School District Board of Trustees discussed possible ways in which the district can cut its budget for the 2012-13 school year during its meeting Monday.

Though the state's budget has not yet been set, school districts throughout the state could potentially see a decrease in funding should the current state budget pass. To make up for the losses, Ware Shoals discussed raising millage and reducing pay for retirees in the district, though no official decisions were made Monday.

"This is just an exercise in frustration right now, because we have such little information and it's my understanding that we won't get any more information until June," Superintendent Fay Sprouse said.

Sprouse said the district is eligible to make a 3.2 percent increase in millage in the county, which would affect mainly businesses and rental properties. Sprouse said a 3.2 percent millage increase would not generate a significant amount of money, but could help the district. Board members will consider the millage increase and discuss it further next month.

Cutting pay for retired district employees was another option discussed during the meeting. Sprouse said the district has six full-time retiree employees and two part-time, who are currently paid at the 11-year experience level on the pay scale. About three years ago, the retired employees' salary was decreased from the highest experience level to the mid-experience level. Decreasing retiree pay further to the zero experience level next year would save about $81,000 for the district, and would be a 20 to 25 percent salary cut for the employees.

"We value our retirees for their commitment to the district and for their expertise," Sprouse said. "But we also have to make sure we take care of those who are not retirees and that we are able to maintain our budget. We want them to continue working for us for a fair wage, but we have to weigh it in light of all the other things we've had to endure."

In other words, retirees who are collecting their meager retirement benefits while continuing to teach, in order to make ends meet, should learn to eat less to cut back on their grocery bills, turn up the thermostat to consume less electricity during the coming summer months, and make fewer trips to the doctor's office to save on gas.

Ravitch comments on ALEC's reach into education

To contact us Click HERE
If you think citizens are in control of our government, think again.

Since the 2010 elections, when Republicans took control of many states, there has been an explosion of legislation advancing privatization of public schools and stripping teachers of job protections and collective bargaining rights. Even some Democratic governors, seeing the strong rightward drift of our politics, have jumped on the right-wing bandwagon, seeking to remove any protection for academic freedom from public school teachers.

This outburst of anti-public school, anti-teacher legislation is no accident. It is the work of a shadowy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Founded in 1973, ALEC is an organization of nearly 2,000 conservative state legislators. Its hallmark is promotion of privatization and corporate interests in every sphere, not only education, but healthcare, the environment, the economy, voting laws, public safety, etc. It drafts model legislation that conservative legislators take back to their states and introduce as their own “reform” ideas. ALEC is the guiding force behind state-level efforts to privatize public education and to turn teachers into at-will employees who may be fired for any reason. The ALEC agenda is today the “reform” agenda for education.

ALEC operated largely in the dark for years, but gained notoriety because of the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. It turns out that ALEC crafted the “Stand Your Ground” legislation that empowered George Zimmerman to kill an unarmed teenager with the defense that he (the shooter) felt threatened. When the bright light of publicity was shone on ALEC, a number of corporate sponsors dropped out, including McDonald’s, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Mars, Wendy’s, Intuit, Kaplan, and PepsiCo. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation said that it would not halt its current grant to ALEC, but pledged not to provide new funding. ALEC has some 300 corporate sponsors, including Walmart, the Koch Brothers, and AT&T, so there’s still quite a lot of corporate support for its free-market policies. ALEC claimed that it is the victim of a campaign of intimidation.

Groups like Common Cause and colorofchange.org have been putting ALEC’s model legislation online and printing the names of its sponsors. They have also published sharp criticism of ALEC’s ideas. This is hardly intimidation. It’s the democratic process at work. A website called alecexposed.org has published ALEC’s policy agenda. Common Cause posted the agenda for the meeting of ALEC on May 11 in Charlotte, N.C. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has dropped out of ALEC and also withdrawn from the May 11 conference, where it was originally going to be a presenter.

A recent article in the Newark Star-Ledger showed how closely New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s “reform” legislation is modeled on ALEC’s work in education. Wherever you see states expanding vouchers, charters, and other forms of privatization, wherever you see states lowering standards for entry into the teaching profession, wherever you see states opening up new opportunities for profit-making entities, wherever you see the expansion of for-profit online charter schools, you are likely to find legislation that echoes the ALEC model.

ALEC has been leading the privatization movement for nearly 40 years, but the only thing new is the attention it is getting, and the fact that many of its ideas are now being enacted. Just last week, the Michigan House of Representatives expanded the number of cyber charters that may operate in the state, even though the academic results for such online schools are dismal.

Who is on the education task force of ALEC? The members of the task force as of July 2011 are here. Several members represent for-profit online companies, including the co-chair from Connections Academy; many members come from for-profit higher education corporations. There is someone from Jeb Bush’s foundation, as well as right-wing think tank people. There are charter school representatives, as well as Scantron. And the task force includes a long list of state legislators, from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Quite a lineup. Common Cause has asked why ALEC is considered a “charity” by the Internal Revenue Service and holds tax-exempt status, when it devotes so much time to lobbying for changes in state laws. Common Cause has filed a “whistleblower” complaint with the IRS about ALEC’s status.

The campaign to privatize the schools and to dismantle the teaching profession is in full swing. Where is the leadership to oppose it?

Zais's plan to discard public schools inches ahead

To contact us Click HERE
Let's see: It's a proposal that brings back segregation -- by gender, this time, but the die is cast -- and opens public school athletic programs to students who are not enrolled in those public schools.

In essence, it turns traditional public schools into a neighborhood Boys Club and Girls Club, with teachers and a cafeteria.

So we're one step closer to dismantling public education for good, which brings satisfaction to the state Superintendent of Education, Mick Zais.

The Post & Courier fills in the rest:

Palmetto State charter school supporters are celebrating the passage of a sweeping set of changes they say will benefit their public schools.

South Carolina lawmakers have adopted bill H. 3241 that proponents say would strengthen the state’s public charter schools. Some of the bill’s provisions include:

Allowing higher-education institutions to approve charter schools to open.

Permitting single-gender charter schools to exist.

Letting charter school students participate in extracurricular or athletic activities at their neighborhood school if those aren’t offered at their charter school.

“It’s going to result in students’ excelling academically and truly moving South Carolina forward,” said Mary Carmichael, executive director of the Public Charter School Alliance of South Carolina, which has been a driving force behind the legislation.

Charter schools are public schools, but they are not governed by county school boards. They instead have separate boards to make decisions about funding, policy and curriculum.

Yes, because local control is good only when lawmakers say it's good. When local control is bad, lawmakers disallow it.

About 18,000 students are enrolled in 47 charter schools statewide. Charleston has nine brick-and-mortar charter schools, eight of which are open only to county residents. Lowcountry students also can enroll in online charter schools.

The state passed its charter school law in 1996, and lawmakers made significant changes in 2006, such as creating an alternative authorizer, the state Public Charter School District, and allowing virtual charter schools.

The new legislation is the biggest overhaul of the state’s rules on charter schools since then, Carmichael said.

Proponents of the bill have been working for nearly three years on this with Rep. Phil Owens, R-Easley, chairman of the House Education and Public Works Committee. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

They looked at the national model for state charter school law and tried to change South Carolina’s to be higher quality. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools ranked the state’s law No. 25 nationally, saying it needed to be adjusted to ensure equitable funding and access to capital money and facilities.

This is tragicomic. Supporters of traditional public schools -- you know, the ones that enroll 700,000 public schoolchildren in South Carolina -- want their schools to be higher quality, too. National rankings credit us for the quality of curriculum and instruction, but they rank us pretty poorly for support of our schools. And there's a 14-year-old lawsuit called Abbeville v South Carolina that asks the courts to order equitable funding for our public schools. But none of these things seems to matter.

If only traditional public schools had an advocate like Rep. Phil Owens working on their behalf for three years, traditional public schools might find themselves the beneficiaries of increased funding and better facilities.

How do we get one of those?

The original bill included a provision that called for local funds to follow students, regardless of where they enrolled, but that was eliminated. Carmichael said that’s an issue that still needs to be addressed and will be worked on going forward.

“That’s something we know long term we need to have,” she said.

Scott Price is attorney for the South Carolina School Boards Association, which serves and represents the interest of traditional school boards that sometimes clash with charter schools.

The association had some concerns with the bill, particularly the issue of the funding following the child. Estimates showed that districts could have taken a $25 million hit were that to happen, he said.

The association also had a problem with allowing charter school students to participate in extracurricular and athletic activities elsewhere, because it could be to the detriment of other children enrolled in neighborhood schools, he said.

Sure. Jimmy, enrolled in the traditional public school, wants to participate on the football team; Jimmy's talented and qualified, and he's enrolled in the school that sponsors the team, for cryin' out loud.

But Bruiser attends the charter school across the highway, and he wants to play football at Jimmy's school because the charter school doesn't have a football team, and Bruiser wants to play for Clemson one day. Coach is feeling substantial pressure to let Bruiser on the team; Bruiser's dad's name is Deacon, and Deacon got Senator to give Coach a call. Now, Bruiser can't add, subtract or do long division, but who cares? Bruiser's big and can run. Result: Jimmy gets to play Fantasy Football on his X-Box at home, while Bruiser gets Locker Number One in the traditional public school's locker room.

If you think this won't happen, you must live outside South Carolina.

The association supported some of the bill’s provisions, such as allowing single-gender schools and ensuring an appropriate timeline for school districts to turn over state and federal funds to charter schools.

In the end, “it’s something we can work with,” he said.

State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais praised the passage of the new law and thanked lawmakers for it.

“The General Assembly has renewed its commitment to providing parents a choice in the school their children attend,” he said in a statement. “A one-size-fits-all model of education simply doesn’t work for many students. Public charter schools are laboratories of innovation where the interests of students come first.”

And South Carolina's Department of Education is now a laboratory for expensive experimentation where the interests of traditional public schools and their 700,000 enrolled schoolchildren come last.

Education deform, straight from the horse's mouth

To contact us Click HERE
The fact that the Wall Street newspaper Investors Business Daily has given FreedomWorks president and CEO Matt Kibbe space in its publication to discuss education "reform" is informative.

It reflects that, from the corporate community's perspective, the privatization of public education represents a treasure trove of profits potentially reaching hundreds of billions of dollars.

Somebody, after all, has to educate the children. Without the hassle of a public school system blocking the path, the education bidness -- that's bidness, as in, contracts will be awarded to the highest bidder -- will be free to plunder.

Set aside any illusions you may have that common sense and democracy will save us from this ugly fate. We get back from Columbia what we send to Columbia, and we've sown a crop of anti-public education leadership.

So, study closely, readers: Our corporate masters are instructing us in how things will soon be.

Hush, now. The less you struggle, the easier it will go for you.

Nowhere is the Tea Party's sustained influence clearer than in efforts to promote education reform around the nation.

For the first time in the history of our country, we are seeing a broad-based educational reform effort that is not driven by the unions. Instead, parents and activists are working together on a local level, empowered by the national Tea Party movement, to apply the mechanics of the free market to struggling school systems.

While success has been widespread, efforts made in South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania provide some of the clearest examples of the Tea Party in action.

On March 28, the South Carolina House passed H. 4894, allowing tax credits and deductions for donations for privately funded scholarships. A similar bill failed in the House by just one vote in the previous session.

This time around, FreedomWorks joined local activists and Tea Party leaders in their efforts, providing the grass-roots campaign with extra air and ground support needed to pass the bill. After six months, the bill passed by 15 votes — a landslide turnaround — and is now headed for the South Carolina Senate.

In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal introduced the boldest education reform package ever seen in our nation's history. The legislation overhauls the system using the same model that was successful in post-Katrina New Orleans by providing low-income parents with vouchers that enable them to send their children to the school of their choice.

Jindal's plan also includes tying teacher tenure to good performance, and a system of tax credits that allows businesses to privately sponsor students' education.

On April 4, the Louisiana state Senate voted to pass the voucher expansion bill, HB 976, and the teacher tenure reform bill, HB 974, by margins of 24-15 and 23-16 respectively, sending the legislation to the governor's desk to be signed into law and marking the biggest education reform victory to date.

In Mississippi, Republicans control both state houses for the first time in 136 years. Gov. Phil Bryant, a bold executive leader like Gov. Jindal, has made charter school expansion the centerpiece of his campaign. Charter school legislation SB 2401 recently passed in the Mississippi Senate and failed by a single vote in the state House Education Committee.

But as South Carolina showed, turning a single vote into a bold majority is possible, and well within reach.

In fact, Gov. Bryant has already called for a special session of the legislature in an effort to save the bill, demonstrating a bold example to governors in other states that when education reform gets tough, the true leaders double down while the timid get going.

Heading north, we see the impact that conservative activists have on the 25-year fight for school choice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where efforts to bring student-centered reform to schools have faltered for years.

The Tea Party movement has reinvigorated the cause, working with activists and non-Tea Partyers alike to make more progress over the past two years than was made over the past two decades.

Senate Bill 1 passed the Pennsylvania Senate just before a narrow defeat in the House. This initial bicameral friction hasn't deterred local activists from fighting to free schools from the stranglehold of corrupt union leadership.

Americans are realizing that the lack of competition created by powerful teacher unions like the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association is robbing children of the education they deserve and disenfranchising good teachers. The only solution is increasing competition in the school system. Continuing to line the pockets of union bosses with more and more taxpayer money is a failed and irresponsible approach.

For the most part, conservative parents and activists have won the battles in the state capitol chambers. But we couldn't have done it without the bold commitment to leadership from governors like Bobby Jindal and Phil Bryant.

I can only hope the successes of education reform in Louisiana and Mississippi will start a national trend toward electing and supporting entrepreneurial governors who make education reform a No. 1 priority, not simply cheering from the sidelines.

The Wall Street Journal called 2011 "The Year of School Choice." FreedomWorks, Tea Party activists and our allies in state governments across the nation are not only committed to continuing this trend of success in 2012, but to making the next 100 years the Century of School Choice.

There you have it.

The leader of the corporate-funded education deform movement in America has drawn the lines himself, educators. On one side stands he and the corporate masters who write his checks.

On the other side stand organized educators, which he called out by their names -- the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.

Between the two stand educators who today work in public schools, but whose jobs may be converted tomorrow, next year, or within a decade, to corporate ownership.

Which side have you chosen?

Spartanburg doesn't want unfunded bus mandate

To contact us Click HERE
Editors of the Herald-Journal last week detailed their skepticism of Governor Nikki Haley's scheme to privatize the state's school bus system, declaring that they don't want another unfunded mandate sent down from Columbia.

I doubt that Haley will suddenly reverse course upon reading the editors' commentary; after all, they endorsed Vincent Sheheen against Haley in 2010, cautioning their readers against Haley's "platitudes."

Still, the editors in this instance -- as in that instance -- make perfect sense.

If state lawmakers decide to divest themselves of the state’s school bus system, they must do so in a manner that doesn’t place an unfunded mandate on school districts.

South Carolina is unlike other states in that the state owns and operates the school bus fleet. Gov. Nikki Haley and some lawmakers have been pushing to change that. They want to create a system that allows school districts to operate the buses on their own or hire private companies to operate their buses.

The state House was too divided on the issue to pass the proposal. Instead, lawmakers voted to form a study committee to look into the issue.

There is much room for improvement here.

The General Assembly rarely approves money to buy new school buses, so the average age of a bus in the fleet is about 14 years. The state often maximizes the money it does have by buying used buses from school operations in other states.

It is likely that there are efficiencies and improvements that privatization could bring to the school transportation system. Allowing districts control over their transportation systems might also allow them to better provide for their students’ needs.

But there is danger in changing the system as well. Many school district officials are afraid of an unfunded mandate — something state government requires them to do but fails to pay for. That is a legitimate fear.

School officials know it is likely that lawmakers will turn over the bus system to them and initially turn over the money that ran that system. But will that state allotment keep up with inflation?

As the buses age and need to be replaced, where will the money come from to buy new buses? That money isn’t in the annual budget. The General Assembly makes a special appropriation every so often. Will it give up this money when the buses are no longer a state concern?

As fuel prices continue to rise, will lawmakers increase the budget given to school districts to run the bus system? Or once lawmakers have washed their hands of the bus system, will they leave school districts to solve that problem on their own?

If bus service becomes a local issue, wealthier school districts will put more money into their systems than poorer districts. How long will it be before lawmakers are denouncing disparity in district bus systems and calling again for change?

Transportation is a critical element of our education system. South Carolina’s children need safe and reliable buses to take them to school and back home. They don’t need another political football tossed between Columbia and school districts.

As the study committee examines this issue, it should focus on enabling improvements, empowering school districts and avoiding saddling districts with a new financial burden they are ill-equipped to bear.

Spartanburg doesn't want unfunded bus mandate

To contact us Click HERE
Editors of the Herald-Journal last week detailed their skepticism of Governor Nikki Haley's scheme to privatize the state's school bus system, declaring that they don't want another unfunded mandate sent down from Columbia.

I doubt that Haley will suddenly reverse course upon reading the editors' commentary; after all, they endorsed Vincent Sheheen against Haley in 2010, cautioning their readers against Haley's "platitudes."

Still, the editors in this instance -- as in that instance -- make perfect sense.

If state lawmakers decide to divest themselves of the state’s school bus system, they must do so in a manner that doesn’t place an unfunded mandate on school districts.

South Carolina is unlike other states in that the state owns and operates the school bus fleet. Gov. Nikki Haley and some lawmakers have been pushing to change that. They want to create a system that allows school districts to operate the buses on their own or hire private companies to operate their buses.

The state House was too divided on the issue to pass the proposal. Instead, lawmakers voted to form a study committee to look into the issue.

There is much room for improvement here.

The General Assembly rarely approves money to buy new school buses, so the average age of a bus in the fleet is about 14 years. The state often maximizes the money it does have by buying used buses from school operations in other states.

It is likely that there are efficiencies and improvements that privatization could bring to the school transportation system. Allowing districts control over their transportation systems might also allow them to better provide for their students’ needs.

But there is danger in changing the system as well. Many school district officials are afraid of an unfunded mandate — something state government requires them to do but fails to pay for. That is a legitimate fear.

School officials know it is likely that lawmakers will turn over the bus system to them and initially turn over the money that ran that system. But will that state allotment keep up with inflation?

As the buses age and need to be replaced, where will the money come from to buy new buses? That money isn’t in the annual budget. The General Assembly makes a special appropriation every so often. Will it give up this money when the buses are no longer a state concern?

As fuel prices continue to rise, will lawmakers increase the budget given to school districts to run the bus system? Or once lawmakers have washed their hands of the bus system, will they leave school districts to solve that problem on their own?

If bus service becomes a local issue, wealthier school districts will put more money into their systems than poorer districts. How long will it be before lawmakers are denouncing disparity in district bus systems and calling again for change?

Transportation is a critical element of our education system. South Carolina’s children need safe and reliable buses to take them to school and back home. They don’t need another political football tossed between Columbia and school districts.

As the study committee examines this issue, it should focus on enabling improvements, empowering school districts and avoiding saddling districts with a new financial burden they are ill-equipped to bear.

We Didn't Send You to Congress to be a Blue Dog, Annie

To contact us Click HERE


On Friday, Howie Klein had this at Down With Tyranny:

Last week 5 or 6 progressive freshmen called me to warned me that lifelong Republican Patrick Murphy (D-FL) was working all the freshmen for some idiotic statement of "bipartisanship" he had concotted. I mentioned it Thursdayand it was made public this morning, much to the delight, no doubt, of Beltway Media Broderists.

Almost no Democrats signed his pathetic, badly crafted letter-- but lots of Republicans did. So disappointing to see Ann Kuster (D-NH) lending her good name to this foolhardy initiative. Most of the rest of the Democrats who signed are typical untrustworthy hacks-- or worse. The only Blue Dog freshman, Pete Gallego (TX) couldn't wait to jump on board. And the only "Democrat" who has a ZERO ProgressivePunch score on crucial votes this session, corporate shill Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), was right on top of it. (Kirkpatrick, unlike over 100 Republicans voted with Boehner on every single crucial roll call this year, a breathtaking record of achievement.)

 Digby also picked up the story, and included highlights of the  Blue Dog letter, and this:

I can't tell you how it hurts me to see Ann Kuster join that group of right wing weirdos. In fact, it's a pretty big betrayal of the progressive movement that supported who through very tough races. But I'm going to guess that the Villagers will be thrilled to frequently feature all these people as the only grown-ups in the room and laud them for "standing up" to the so-called extremists. Of course, the only "extremists" they are standing up to are progressives who don't believe that we should "reform" Social Security and Medicare by cutting benefits or enact tax reform in order to lower rates. Or any of the rest of the drivel in that letter. 

Digby nails it. This is a huge betrayal of all of the supporters who worked so hard AND gave so much money to Kuster's campaign. No one expected they'd be sending a progressive to Washington only to have her jump into bed with Blue Dogs.

Sadly for us all, it gets worse. Today Annie had a piece in the Sunday Nashua Telegraph, warning us of the dangers of the sequester.

A recent study from George Mason University projected that almost half of all job losses stemming from sequestration would come from small businesses, the engine of growth and job creation in our economy. That same study put the potential job losses here in New Hampshire at more than 6,300. 

and

Cuts to defense spending also would compromise the strength of our military and threaten jobs at the Pease Air National Guard Base, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and defense suppliers throughout New Hampshire. 

Let’s be perfectly clear: We need to cut spending and get our fiscal house in order. But any approach to deficit reduction that fails to distinguish between wasteful spending we can’t afford to keep and critical investments we can’t afford to cut would undermine our economy and security. 

Fortunately, there’s a better way forward. Rather than blindly slicing across the board, both parties can work together on a balanced, long-term plan that would not only avoid the sequester, but also responsibly reduce the deficit, spur job creation and protect investments in the middle class.

George Mason University is heavily funded by the Koch Brothers. The university houses the Mercatus Center, which is where the bulk of those Koch dollars go. Mercatus is a libertarian economic think tank. Mercatus has ties to NH in the form of Affiliated Scholar Jason Sorens. Jason Sorens is the founder of the Free State Project, the group of libertarians moving to NH to take over and dismantle our state government. Any economic study coming out of GMU is making Atlas stop shrugging and do a happy dance.

We cannot cut our way to prosperity. The foundation of the US economy is consumer spending. The only way to turn it around is to get the millions of people who are still unemployed and those who are underemployed back to work. Then we should talk about controlling deficits.

That  Ann Kuster has chosen to ally herself with those whose idea of "balanced, long term plans" includes cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is deeply disturbing.

The middle class is an endangered species. I don't see anything in Kuster's commentary that will do a single thing to turn that around, or get anyone back to work. It's just more of the same. Cutting the safety net will do nothing to create jobs - it's just a recipe for creating a lot more human misery down here on the ground.

Kuster would do well to remember why Paul Hodes lost his last election. When voters are faced with a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who sounds like one, they always pick the real thing.

We didn't send you to Congress to be a Blue Dog, Annie.